about those implications, can be risky. - IA de Investigación especializada en el MIT

about those implications, can be risky.
Giving expert testimony in the adversar-
ial setting of a court case–as I have done
–is not simply moving from the labora-
tory into the ½eld. It’s moving into a bat-
tle½eld.

As a result of publishing ½ndings that
have cast doubt on cases of supposed re-
pressed memory, I have become accus-
tomed to receiving harsh criticism, y
even personal threats. But nothing had
quite prepared me for the Orwellian
nightmare I currently confront.

This nightmare began with my reading

of a paper coauthored by a psychiatrist
named David Corwin. In an article pub-
lished in 1997 in the journal Child Mal-
treatment, Corwin purported to offer new
proof that repressed memory was a gen-
uine phenomenon, by recounting the
story of “Jane Doe.” Corwin had video-
taped Jane on several occasions. El
½rst was in 1984, as part of a custody dis-
pute between her divorcing parents; en
this video, the six-year-old Jane de-
scribed how her mother had sexually
abused her. On the basis of Jane’s testi-
mony, the mother lost custody of her
daughter, and also lost the right to visit
her.

Eleven years later, at Jane’s request,
Corwin videotaped another interview.
Now seventeen, Jane was bothered that
she could not now recall being sexually
abused by her mother. But under further
questioning by Corwin, Jane suddenly
did recall, recounting an instance when
her mother had sexually abused her in
the bathtub–thus, to Corwin’s satisfac-
ción, con½rming the phenomenon of
traumatic amnesia.

After publishing his paper about Jane
Doe in Child Maltreatment, Corwin trav-
eled around the country giving lectures
and showing videotapes of Jane. Thera-
pists began to use the case as proof of
repressed memory. Psychologists began

Elizabeth F. Loftus

on science under
legal assault

For more than three decades, I have
conducted research on memory. My re-
search shows that memory is malleable
–and that it is a flimsy curtain indeed
that separates memory from imagina-
ción.

I’ve seen how false memories can de-

stroy lives, especially when such mis-
takes in recollection work their way in-
to the legal system. As a result of eyewit-
ness accounts of imagined events, I’ve
seen more than a few innocent people
sent to prison.

Doing research that has practical im-
plications, and being willing to speak out

Elizabeth F. Loftus is Distinguished Professor in
the department of psychology and social behav-
ior at the University of California, Irvine. En
“Eyewitness Testimony” (1979), she described
her theory of how perceptions can modify hu-
man memory, and her research helped her to
become one of the nation’s leading legal consul-
tants in the area of eyewitness testimony in trials.
She has been a Fellow of the American Academy
desde 2003.

La caída de Dédalo 2003

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
a
mi
d
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
3
2
4
8
4
1
8
2
8
7
5
4
0
0
1
1
5
2
6
0
3
7
7
1
3
3
8
8
2
3
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Ciencia
under legal
assault

to teach the case in their classes. Lawyers
began to cite the case in court during the
prosecution of other individuals charged
with sexually abusing their children.
Despite its currency in courts and

classrooms, the story of Jane Doe sound-
ed ½shy to me. I became interested in
learning more. But studies like this are
shrouded in secrecy.

Still, using public records and newspa-
per clips, I eventually tracked down Jane
Doe’s mother. I teamed up with Mel
Guyer, a psychologist and lawyer from
the University of Michigan, and we
poured over every page of the divorce
½le. We immersed ourselves in the pub-
lic evidence, and we gathered new evi-
dence from new witnesses around the
country. We even tracked down Jane’s
stepmother, who was working in a gro-
cery store. She recounted the battle to
wrest custody of Jane from her biologi-
cal mother. Referring to Jane’s alleged
memories of sexual abuse, she boasted,
“That’s how we ½nally got her–the sex-
ual angle.”

To our bewilderment, aunque, ser-
fore we had even published a word on
the case, Jane Doe complained that her
privacy was being violated.

Responding to her complaint, of½-
cials from the University of Washington,
where I then taught, called to say that
they were seizing my ½les. Within ½fteen
minutos, my ½les had been impounded
–and an inquiry launched to investigate
potential scienti½c misconduct.

In spite of the university’s own stat-
ute of limitations–one hundred twenty
days–its investigation lasted more than
twenty-one months. As long as the in-
vestigation was ongoing, I could not
publicly discuss the case of Jane Doe,
or publish anything about what Guyer
and I had discovered.

In June of 2001, while still under inves-

tigation, I received the William James

Award at the annual convention of the
American Psychological Society. Most of
my colleagues at the convention had no
idea what was going on. Those who had
heard about the case history were free to
discuss it. But I could not discuss either
the case history or the subsequent in-
quiry.

En cambio, in my speech accepting the

William James Award, I raised some
preguntas: “Who bene½ts from my si-
lence? . . . Who bene½ts from keeping
such investigations in the dark? . . .
Those of us who value the First Amend-
ment and open scienti½c inquiry must
bring these efforts to suppress freedom
of speech into the light.”

Shortly afterward, I was exonerated
by the university’s investigation. Finalmente,
Guyer and I were able to publish our ex-
posé of the case study. And I could take
some satisfaction out of thinking that
we had disproved Corwin’s claims.
But the cost was tremendous. El
university’s actions left me feeling be-
trayed. Instead of offering a real apology,
university of½cials would say only that
they were sorry that the investigation
had taken so long.

And so a year later I left my friends,
my lovely old house, and the place where
I had worked for twenty-nine years, en
order to move to the University of Cali-
fornia, Irvine.

And that was the end of the matter, él
seemed–until early this year when Jane
Doe ½led a lawsuit.

She sued Guyer, a mí, and our colleague
Carol Tavris for defamation and invasion
of privacy, even though we had never re-
vealed her name. (It was Jane Doe her-
self who revealed her name–in her law-
suit.)

The three of us have thus become part
of a new and disturbing trend: a través de-
out America, scientists are being sued
simply for exercising their constitutional

La caída de Dédalo 2003

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
a
mi
d
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
3
2
4
8
4
1
8
2
8
7
5
4
0
0
1
1
5
2
6
0
3
7
7
1
3
3
8
8
2
3
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

a free, independiente, and virtuous peo-
ple.” Now, more than ever, that goal is at
riesgo, unless we step up our efforts to
defend the right of scientists in a free
society to speak out–even when their
½ndings are controversial.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
a
mi
d
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
3
2
4
8
4
1
8
2
8
7
5
4
0
0
1
1
5
2
6
0
3
7
7
1
3
3
8
8
2
3
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Note by
Elizabeth F.
Loftus

right to speak out on matters of grave
public concern.

This is not simply a problem for psy-

chologists. En 1997, in an article pub-
lished in The New England Journal of
Medicamento, R. A. Deyo, B. METRO. Psaty, GRAMO. Y-
mon, mi. h. Wagner, y G. S. Omenn
recounted a number of instances in
which efforts had been made to intimi-
date medical researchers. An expert on
spinal-fusion surgery who raised doubts
about its bene½ts was faced with efforts
to block publication of his work, y
forced to spend endless hours respond-
ing to subpoenas from companies with a
vested interest in the procedure. Anoth-
er scholar who had raised doubts, en esto
case about the value of certain tests used
to support disability claims for chemical
sensitivity, had to fend off charges of sci-
enti½c misconduct and ½ght to keep his
medical license. The conclusion of Deyo
et al: “investigators should be aware that
applied research is not for the naive or
faint of heart.”

The possibility of being sued into si-
lence delivers an ominous message for
all scientists. Baseless litigation not only
affects the defendants–it also discour-
ages scientists from speaking out on
controversial topics, for fear that they
will be next.

We need better ways to investigate al-

legations of scienti½c misconduct. Nosotros
need stronger judicial sanctions, como
awarding attorneys fees and court costs,
to deter people from ½ling baseless law-
suits. And as my own case demonstrates,
we need our universities to offer stron-
ger support to researchers who come
under attack. The members of the Amer-
ican Academy of Arts and Sciences have
a special role to play in these circum-
posturas. This organization was founded
in order “to cultivate every art and sci-
ence which may tend to advance the in-
terest, honour, dignidad, and happiness of

La caída de Dédalo 2003
Descargar PDF