More than two dozen papers by a controversial psychologist who died in 1997 are “unsafe,” according to a recent report by his former employer and obtained by Retraction Watch.

The research has been subject to question for decades, because the findings — including some that “bibliotherapy” could dramatically reduce the risk of dying from cancer — seemed unbelievable.

The report by King’s College London into the work of Hans Eysenck and Ronald Grossarth-Maticek notes that:

Professor Eysenck left the employment of the Institute of Psychiatry (IoP) in 1983 and is now deceased. Professor Grossarth–Maticek is listed as associated with the University of Heidelberg. A letter written by Professor Stuart Checkley (Checkley 1993) informed the committee that although Prof Eysenck was employed at the IoP, Professor Grossarth-Maticek had never been employed as an academic at the IoP despite this appearing as his affiliation on many of the papers. We have therefore not investigated any papers where Grossarth-Maticek was an author if the paper was not jointly authored by an employee of the IoP.

It also notes:

Concerns about this body of research were raised as early as the late 1980s. An entire issue of Psychological Inquiry (1991, Vol 2, part 3) was devoted to critiques from leading authorities in psycho-oncology and medical statistics, and the issues have been cogently summarized by Pelosi and Appleby (1993) and Pelosi (in press). The concerns are based on two issues. First, the validity of the datasets, in terms of recruitment of participants, administration of measures, reliability of outcome ascertainment, biases in data collection, absence of relevant covariates, and selection of cases analysed in each article. Second, the implausibility of the results presented, many of which show effect sizes virtually unknown in medical science. For example, the relative risk of dying of cancer for individuals with ‘cancerprone’ personality compared with healthy personality was over 100, while the risk of cancer mortality was reduced 80% by bibliotherapy. These findings are incompatible with modern clinical science and the understanding of disease processes.

The report concludes:

We have come to the conclusion that we consider the published results of studies that included the results of the analyses of data collected as part of the intervention or observational studies to be unsafe and that the editors of the journals should be informed of our decision. We have highlighted 26 papers (Appendix 1) which Page 3 of 9 were published in 11 journals which are still in existence (see list of journals and editors Appendix 2). We recommend that the Principal [of King’s College London] write to the editors of these journals to inform them that, based on our enquiry, we consider the results and conclusions of these studies are unsafe

The report refers to a list of 26 papers, but the list only contains 25, from journals such as Behaviour Research and Therapy, and Psychological Reports. None of the articles appear to be retracted.

‘One of the worst scientific scandals of all time’

In an April editorial in The BMJ, Richard Smith says that Eysenck is

…usually called “controversial” in that he denied the link between smoking and cancer, had strong links with the tobacco industry, thought race was related to intelligence, opposed comprehensive schools, nursed an intense hostility towards psychoanalysis, supported astrology and parapsychology, and declared the entire discipline of economics as worthless.

(Smith, who was editor of The BMJ when a 1992 critique of Eysenck’s work was published there, is a member of the board of directors of The Center For Scientific Integrity, the parent non-profit of Retraction Watch.)

In February, Anthony Pelosi published a paper in the Journal of Health Psychology calling the Eysenck case “one of the worst scientific scandals of all time,” accompanied by an editorial from David Marks calling for an inquiry by King’s and the British Psychological Society. The report obtained by Retraction Watch is dated May 2019.

James Heathers, who has been involved in investigating a number of cases of scientific misconduct and mused on the case in May, told Retraction Watch that:

finding out that these have been investigated in a formal capacity is a very welcome surprise. It is greatly to the credit of the institution that they were willing to entertain this at all. Many would not. It is interesting that the papers are deemed ‘unsafe’ rather than any other determination. I am not sure what unsafe means in this context–unsafe to trust, or unsafe in the sense that they are a threat to public health?

Here are more thoughts from Heathers.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up for an email every time there’s a new post (look for the “follow” button at the lower right part of your screen), or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.

Share this: Email

Facebook

Twitter

