In a shift of rhetoric from the university, a top official now has said psychology Prof. Michael Bailey is being investigated by a committee in connection with allegations of research misconduct.
University Provost Lawrence Dumas told The Daily late last week that a committee is looking into whether or not Bailey “followed the procedures of this university” and whether those procedures applied to Bailey’s work.
Since the May publication of Bailey’s latest book, “The Man Who Would Be Queen,” several of the transsexual women featured in the book accused Bailey of misconduct — prompting the university to form a committee to look into the validity of the claims. Until now, however, the only evidence of the investigation was supplied by the transsexuals and not confirmed by NU.
“When an accusation is made from outside of Northwestern University … then we investigate it,” Dumas said. “We have a process for investigating, and that investigation is going on.”
Despite the accusations Bailey has continued teaching. “I have done nothing wrong,” he wrote in an e-mail to The Daily.
Sociologists, anthropologists and social psychologists are at the center of this research debate. Until recently these researchers could interview subjects without a statement of informed consent, said Jeff Sherman, an associate professor of psychology who sits on one of NU’s Institutional Review Board panels.
But some members of the scientific community have started to question this practice.
“Because of disasters that have occurred, there is heightened scrutiny of what everyone does,” said Lewis Smith, associate vice president for research.
University protocol requires all research projects be submitted for approved by an Institutional Review Board panel. Five panels oversee NU’s 3,000 active research projects.
Researchers studying humans are required to obtain a statement of informed consent before submitting their project. Some projects might not require this statement, but researchers must file a request for exemption. Sherman said varying interpretations of the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects — the law regulating human subject research — add to questions surrounding approval.
“There certainly could be clearer guidelines,” Sherman said. “The problem is, I don’t think there’s consensus within the research community.”
Bailey wrote in the e-mail that changing and unclear regulations leave researchers unsure about what rules apply to different projects.
The law defines research as “a systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.” Some question whether Bailey’s book fits this definition.
“One of the issues at question is: Is what he did research that needs to be approved?” said Sherman, adding that he has not seen these complaints. “If it is, did he have approval?”
A benefit of the Bailey investigation could be clearer conception of what constitutes research, Sherman said. But the result “could have a chilling effect on people’s willingness to talk about or do controversial research.”
Some also worry stricter rules would hinder research — making it more difficult to gather information from anonymous subjects, such as drug users. Sherman said this issue prompted him to join the Institutional Review Board panel that oversees sociology research.
“I thought they were taking an overly conservative approach on the board that did not take research into mind to the proper extent,” he said. “They shifted too far toward disapproval.”
But Mark Sheldon, assistant dean of Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences and a philosophy and medical ethics professor, said subject rights should be vital to the research process.
“Legislation is about protecting research subjects, not about protecting research,” he said.
The Daily’s Sheila Burt and Sarah Halasz contributed to this report.
