Even with a clear definition of misconduct, grey areas can still arise. Cherry-picking statistical methods to obtain desired results or omitting outlier points on a graph can fall under the rubric of the honest difference in the interpretation of results. Evolutionary biologist Marc Hauser resigned from Harvard last year after he was found solely responsible for eight instances of scientific misconduct, most notably in a paper showing that cotton-top tamarin monkeys could learn simple rule-like patterns. The paper was retracted in 2010. A former trainee of Hauser’s, who prefers to remain anonymous, did not agree with the final findings of the investigation. “I can see data getting overlooked or favourably interpreted, but I would be surprised if data had been intentionally changed,” says the source. Several of the experiments in question have since been replicated by Hauser and colleagues and the results published, highlighting the fine line between a lack of data integrity and misconduct.