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
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…
In his 6/9/03 posting, Lott claims that Donohue has made a "large number of easily identifiable mistakes". Even if true, such mistakes pale into insignificance compared with the coding errors that Lott made but will not admit to, but let's examine Lott's claims and see how many…
Lott's 6/13/03 entry on his blog links to a letter from David Mayer printed in the Columbus Dispatch replying to a letter from Donohue. Mayer asserts:
The recent letter by Stanford law professor John Donohue (June 7) nicely illustrates the propensity of gun-control advocates to play…
The National Post has printed a letter from Gary Mauser commenting on the Lott/Lehrer oped I discussed earlier. Here is the whole thing:
It should not surprise many people that Canada's gun laws have not worked (More Gun Control Isn't The Answer, John R. Lott Jr., June 15). Anyone living in a…