Personality and fatal diseases: Revisiting a scientific scandal

Abstract

During the 1980s and 1990s, Hans J Eysenck conducted a programme of research into the causes, prevention and treatment of fatal diseases in collaboration with one of his protégés, Ronald Grossarth-Maticek. This led to what must be the most astonishing series of findings ever published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature with effect sizes that have never otherwise been encounterered in biomedical research. This article outlines just some of these reported findings and signposts readers to extremely serious scientific and ethical criticisms that were published almost three decades ago. Confidential internal documents that have become available as a result of litigation against tobacco companies provide additional insights into this work. It is suggested that this research programme has led to one of the worst scientific scandals of all time. A call is made for a long overdue formal inquiry.

Hans Eysenck: controversialist or worse?

“…The Journal of Health Psychology also published a paper by the psychiatrist Anthony J Pelosi describing how serious criticisms of Eysenck’s work date back three decades—and yet there has been no investigation 3. Pelosi’s paper was originally accepted for Personality and Individual Differences , a journal founded by Eysenck, for an issue to celebrate Eysenck’s centenary—but it was then “unaccepted.” It has taken him another three years to get the paper published.…”

“…In his latest paper Pelosi adds to the case against Eysenck and Grossarth-Maticek by finding reports from tobacco companies that doubt “the validity or even the integrity” of Grossarth-Maticek’s studies 3. Others have found “unequivocal evidence of manipulation of data sheets” and results that are “better than perfect.” He reaches the conclusion that Eysenck had “mercilessly manipulated … an untrained, isolated, and vulnerable collaborator.”3…”

“…Marks and Pelosi want an independent and authoritative inquiry into the studies of Eysenck and Grossarth-Maticek 23. Some might argue that the world clearly discounts these studies so why does it matter?…”

Depressive symptoms, neuroticism, and participation in breast and cervical cancer screening: Cross‐sectional and prospective evidence from UK Biobank

“…35 Type A personality traits (ie, sense of time urgency, high job involvement, and competitiveness), but not hostility, were predictive of mammography use amongst a sample of postmenopausal women participating in the GAZEL Cohort Study of employees of a French national gas and electricity company. 35 Type A personality traits (ie, sense of time urgency, high job involvement, and competitiveness), but not hostility, were predictive of mammography use amongst a sample of postmenopausal women participating in the GAZEL Cohort Study of employees of a French national gas and electricity company.…”

“…Very few studies have assessed the relationship between personality and cancer screening behaviour, despite numerous studies investigating how personality may influence risk of cancer [32][33][34] (a link that remains highly controversial). 35 Type A personality traits (ie, sense of time urgency, high job involvement, and competitiveness), but not hostility, were predictive of mammography use amongst a sample of postmenopausal women participating in the GAZEL Cohort Study of employees of a French national gas and electricity company. 17 Neuroticism was also inversely associated with past, present, and future attendance at prostate cancer screening in a small sample of men in Estonia, 36 but not with bowel cancer screening, in a study of individuals aged 60 to 75 years participating in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing.…”