Yale Child Expert Is Said to Have Faked Eugenics Evidence in 1913 Article

August 10, 2011, 12:51 pm

Upon his retirement as a professor from Yale University in 1948, the late psychologist Arnold L. Gesell was considered the nation’s leading authority on child development. Now Benjamin Harris, a professor of psychology and affiliate professor of history at the University of New Hampshire, says he has found that Dr. Gesell “manipulated the photographic record” to make the case for eugenics in an article published in 1913. That article came amid a national debate over legislation to prevent reproduction by people considered to be mentally defective, although Dr. Gesell himself did not advocate eugenic sterilization.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

E-mail

Guest

One more reason that it is time to stop romanticizing the Ivy League.
http://www.facebook.com/people/E-Elaine-Connelly/100000106663068 E Elaine Connelly

I work at a University. I used to perform the lovely task of going to Elsevier’s site and entering information for one of the professor(s) to request the reprint be either digitally available or get a few hard copies (100 or more) for anyone that wanted them. Elsevier is very expensive, and their publishing leaves a lot to be desired. Plus if you have ever gone to their site, and brought up their employee listing (huge). Each one of these people get paid way more than they are worth.
sternbern

I’d suggest similar arguments for medicine, much of the R&D has ALREADY been paid for by tax payers from government grants, so why should they/we be fleeced a second time by over 1000% price hikes from drug companies claiming to recoup their costs? SECOND: Please, while the content of most of our journals is high caliber, the actual published materials is PAINFULLY plain, no pictures, no fancy designs, just words and charts on white paper. WE do the reviewing, writing, and often much of the editing. How, then, is such a high price justified, especially with the move to electronic formats. I would think we academics could come up with a simple self-governed sollution and skip the pricing and corporate interests all together.
sternbern

Actually, that second idea keeps nagging at me. We already see wikipedia and the like taking off, I am curious how many would actually be interested in a self-governed academic free repository of information? Perhaps this is an idea whose time has come.
loralane

Good idea bposside.))
http://www.facebook.com/people/Elizabeth-Theiss-Smith/611251373 Elizabeth Theiss Smith

Database providers jack up the price of academic library subscriptions by unconscionable amounts yearly. I don’t see a reason that scholars need them as we develop the content and basically need simple mechanisms for sharing it broadly. No one except Elsevier stockholders and executives benefit from the current system. Given a choice between publishing in a free vs. a commercial journal, we all need to choose free.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ESV3XOBUZJ6D4GLGHEFTHJAUWQ Mark

Easy solution, boycotters: just publish your papers for free on the internet—but I don’t think that’s what you had in mind.