Hans Eysenck: controversialist or worse?

Abstract

An independent and authoritative inquiry is needed into “unbelievable” work

Research misconduct complaints and institutional logics: The case of Hans Eysenck and the British Psychological Society

“…We support the call for all of Eysenck’s publications on the links between personality and fatal diseases to be thoroughly investigated ( Marks and Buchanan, 2020 ). Furthermore, we support calls for other parts of Eysenck’s research output to be audited by appropriate authorities ( Colman et al, 2019 ; Smith, 2019 ). As a part of this re-investigation and auditing, we call on the BPS to reconsider the substance of Pelosi’s complaint – and to do so transparently, and in accord with best ethical practice.…”

“…We do not share this confidence. It strains logic to believe that Eysenck would reserve defective research habits for only one specific domain of inquiry ( Smith, 2019 ). He had strong views about many controversial topics and often drew incendiary conclusions that differed from those of others working in these areas ( Eysenck, 1997 ).…”

“…This has been a long running saga. In the early 1990’s, numerous psychologists, statisticians, epidemiologists and doctors raised serious concerns about the research of Eysenck and Grossarth-Maticek ( Fox, 1991 ; Pelosi and Appleby, 1992 , 1993 ), but with little impact ( Smith, 2019 ). In 1995, Anthony Pelosi, a Scottish doctor, submitted a written complaint detailing his concerns to the British Psychological Society (henceforth, BPS) ( Pelosi, 2019 ).…”

Good research requires self belief tempered with self doubt

“…The cautionary tale about Hans Eysenck is as much about hubris as hypothesis 1. Hypothesis based research is widely thought to be superior to the “fishing expeditions” of hypothesis-free research.…”