A “high and far reaching” number of papers and books by Hans Eysenck could be “unsafe,” according to an updated statement from King’s College London, where the psychologist was a professor emeritus when he died in 1997.
A 2019 investigation launched by the U.K. institution found 26 papers coauthored by Eysenck and Ronald Grossarth-Maticek, a social scientist in Germany, were based on questionable data and contained findings that were “incompatible with modern clinical science and the understanding of disease processes.”
For example, the two researchers’ data showed people with a “cancer-prone” personality were more than 120 times as likely to die from the disease as were those with a “healthy” personality, Anthony Pelosi, a longtime Eysenck critic, pointed out in an article preceding the university probe.
Based on its review, the investigation committee recommended King’s inform journal editors that it considered the results and conclusions of the 26 papers “unsafe.” Several retractions, and dozens of expressions of concern, quickly followed, as we reported at the time.
However, some observers, including Eysenck’s biographer Rod Buchanan, criticized the university for leaving out publications written solely by Eysenck, but based on the same suspect data Grossarth-Maticek had collected. Grossarth-Maticek died on November 16.
In November 2019, Buchanan and then-editor of the Journal of Health Psychology David Marks compileda list of more than 80 “suspect” papers and books they believed should be retracted.
“In this case we are up against the seductive allure of claims we’d like to believe are true but aren’t – that tobacco is really not that harmful, at least not by itself, or that we can prevent and cure cancer with some kind of ‘mind work,’ and so on,” Buchanan told us. “This dubious research needs to be flagged with sufficient prominence and transparency wherever it appears to prevent researchers taking it in good faith.”
A 1991 book by Eysenck, for instance, claimed psychosocial factors like stress and personality type were six times as predictive of cancer and heart disease as smoking, cholesterol levels or blood pressure. Pelosi told us the book summarized Eysenck’s work with Grossarth-Maticek and a draft had been sent to tobacco giant Philip Morris International, which helped fund the two researchers’ work.
“It is utterly irresponsible in its presentation of Eysenck and Grossarth-Maticek’s ridiculous claims and in its undermining of public health,” Pelosi said.
In October, six years later after its initial investigation, King’s stated that, “because the number of potentially relevant publications is high and far reaching, including journal articles and books, we cannot with certainty locate and review all relevant sources which are of potential concern. However, based on enquiries to date we can confirm that any publication which relies on the data from those co-authored publications which King’s has already deemed to be unsafe, should also be considered unsafe.”
The university continued:
Any journal or publisher which hosts any publications either sole authored by Professor Hans Eysenck or co-authored by Professor Hans Eysenck with Professor Ronald Grossarth Maticek which rely on data from any of the papers listed in the 2019 Enquiry, is advised to provide a link to this public statement to alert those accessing to these concerns.
“I think this is the minimum that could be done,” Buchanan said. “The introduction to the recommended link ought to specify the nature of these concerns where possible and be displayed prominently for maximum effect.”
Buchanan said he would also have liked to see a link in King’s statement to the list of “suspect” publications he compiled with Marks, which “would also provide guidance if and when publishers don’t take this appropriate action.”
Pelosi welcomed the update from the university and noted its earlier statement about the papers Eysenck and Ronald Grossarth-Maticek authored together “has led to over 20 retractions from the scientific literature. Almost all the journals that were contacted followed their recommendations.” A few did not, however, including Personality and Individual Differences, which Eysenck founded in 1980, as we reported at the time.
Springer Nature did not respond to a request for comment on the new statement and which action, if any, the publisher planned to take on Eysenck’s book.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, follow us on LinkedIn, add us to your RSS reader, 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 [email protected].