Mark Kleiman has written a must read post covering the recent developments and concluding:
- defenders of gun rights should stop citing Lott as an authority
- the University of Chicago Press should conduct a formal enquiry into the existence of the 1997 survey
- the AEI should conduct an enquiry into Lott's professional ethics
Mark both spoke to Lott and posted a long email. Yet again, Lott does not admit to making any coding errors. In fact he comes close to denying making such errors when he writes:
Ayres and Donohue's attacks on the quality of our data are not only misleading, but it should be noted that these authors have not been equally forthcoming in sharing their own data.
More like this
In his email to Mark Kleiman, Lott accused Ayres and Donohue of lying:
However, the Stanford Law Review allowed Ayres and Donohue to add an addition to their piece commenting on all this. They said that:
"It is important to note that what we now refer to as the PW response has already been widely…
David Glenn has an article (subscription required) in The Chronicle of Higher Education on the Ayres/Donohue/Lott dispute. Here are the responses from Lott and Whitley to the allegation of coding errors:
Mr. Lott replies that the alleged coding errors are irrelevant to the larger debate. "…
John Quiggin comments on the collateral damage the Lott affair has inflicted on Lott's allies and supporters. Chris Lawrence has an update to his earlier post. Tapped has a brief summary of the latest installment in the saga.
Julian Sanchez and Kevin Drum mention Lott's response,…
Science has printed a letter from Lott (subscription required) responding to Science's editorial suggesting that the AEI should deal with Lott the same way that Emory dealt with Bellesiles:
Donald Kennedy's editorial "Research fraud and public policy" (18 April, p. 393) alleges that I made up a…