Whole Lott Of Fakin' Goin' On?

In between dreaming about bloggers and imagining that bloggers wrote Lord of the Rings, Instapundit (who is not a conservative asshole) has weighed in in on the John Lott controversy. IP(naca) takes a limited damage control position, though he's clearly ready to burn Lott. He makes the following points in Lott's defense:

Point 1: The complaint doesn't run to his published scholarly work, but to public statements he's made about a survey whose results were never published.

Well, no and no. The complaints run to a statement made in a book published by the University of Chicago Press, purporting to be a scholarly work. And the results of that survey were published in that book. Lott and his publisher emphasize the scholarly nature of the book, stating on the back cover "Legal scholar John Lott directly challenges common perceptions about gun control and presents the most rigorous and comprehensive analysis ever done on crime statisics and right-to-carry laws." And the complaints run to more than "a survey whose results were never published," they seek answers as to whether he actually conducted the survey in the first instance.

Point 2: Lott's longtime critics want, rather too obviously, for this to be another Bellesiles affair, though to my mind it is something less than that....

Well, no and no. Instapundit points to no statement in which a Lott critic says he or she wants it to be another Bellesiles affair. Rather too obviously, Instapundit wants it not to be another Bellesiles affair. It is certainly to Instapundit's mind "less than" a Bellesiles affair, but to anyone with common sense, it is the same: both men have been accused of faking research. The only way it would not be the same is if Lott did not fake the research.

Point 3: ....to my mind it is something less than that, perhaps more akin to the Joseph Ellis scandal.

Well, no. Ellis admitted that he lied when he told students served in Vietnam and played football, not that he published false data in a book or faked a study. Ellis's defense has been that his scholarship is accurate.

Point 4: Clayton Cramer has a post on this, too. He reports that Lott has repeated the 1997 study now...

Well, that's the big question, isn't it? Lott could have only repeated the 1997 survey if he performed it in the first instance. And how could he accurately replicate the original survey if there's no record of that survey? Did he perfectly replicate the survey questions from memory, even though he couldn't even remember the name of a single student he used to perform the 1997 survey? Did he use the same CD-ROM list of potential respondents (which he didn't retain and couldn't remember the name of)? Did he allow anyone to observe the survey as it was being conducted to ensure its integrity (and its identicality)?

Should be interesting.

(Updated to add Instapundit link.)