Response by "sagkyndigt udvalg til bedømmelse af Helmuth Nyborgs
forskningsprojekt vedrørende kønsforskelle i intelligens" to the
comments of Helmuth Nyborg, sent to the committee by letter of May
11, 2006.
In the above mentioned letter the Dean emphasizes that
Vedrørende sag em, faktuelle oplysninger henholder fakultetet sig
fortsat til den sagsfremstilling, der ligger til grund for
udvalgsarbejdet
and that on this basis
Udvalget anmodes om at tage stilling til, om Helmuth Nyborgs
bemærkninger til rapporten giver udvalget anledning til at ændre
rapportens konklusioner
The short answer is: No, we have no changes in our conclusions.
For completeness, however, we go through Nyborg's comments below, adding our
observations where relevant.
- 1.1.1/1
-
It is unclear if Nyborg makes this comment because the report of
the committee has given him new insight, or if the comment
reflects a knowledge that Nyborg has had all the time. In the
latter case it is a serious neglect not giving this information to
the head of the department and to the dean of the faculty.
- 1.1.1/2
-
Nyborg mentions that drop out is a common problem in longitudinal
studies. Yes, but whether or not it is common, it is an important
source of bias and it is universally recognized that this cannot
be ignored in any serious scientific analysis and
interpretation. The information in appendix 1 of Nyborgs
comments is given in Section 4 af the report, and therefore
not new to the committee.
- 1.1.1/3
-
This calls for no comments.
- 1.1.2
-
The comments made by Nyborg here seem to have been given also to
the Committee for Good Scientific Practice and therefore
formed the background for their conclusion. What we did in the
report was to also refer to point 5 in Vejledende
Retningslinier for Forskningsetik i Samfundsvidenskaberne
from the Danish Social Science Research Council.
- 1.1.2/1
-
This is not a question of space, this is a question of whether or
not the reader shold be informed about the problems in the data.
- 1.1.2/2
-
Concerning the last comment and the use of references we refer to
the report of the Committee for Good Scientific Practice.
- 1.1.3/1
-
This calls for no comments.
- 1.1.3/2
-
This calls for no comments.
- 1.1.3/3
-
The only new information here is that apparently an orthogonal
transformation (varimax) is made before the oblique
rotation. There is no information on the oblique rotation used.
- 1.1.3/4
-
The identifiability problem cannot be qualified. One cannot tell
if an observed difference is due to the secondary factor or due to
the primary factors. That an algorithm is robust is not an answer
to this problem.
-
1.2.1/1
-
It suffices to refer to appendix 1 of Nyborgs comments to see that
the data collection stopped in 1995.
-
1.2.1/2
-
Repetition.
-
1.2.1/3
-
Repetition.
-
1.2.1/4
-
This calls for no comments.
-
1.2.1/5
-
This calls for no comments.
-
1.2.1/6
-
Repetition.
-
1.2.2/1
-
Repetition.
-
1.2.2/2
-
Repetition.
-
5
-
This calls for no comments.
-
6
-
This calls for no comments.
-
Appendix 1
-
See 1.1.1/2 above.
-
Appendix 2
-
See 1.1.3/4 above.
Aarhus May 19, 2006,
Jan-Eric Gustafsson Jens Ledet Jensen Niels Keiding