1. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 27th June 2022 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

The Hans Eysenck affair: Time to correct the scientific record (2019) David F Marks

Discussion in 'Other psychosomatic news and research' started by JohnTheJack, Feb 27, 2019.

  1. JohnTheJack

    JohnTheJack Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,069
    This is a powerful editorial by David Marks, asking for the establishment of a National Research Integrity Ombudsperson to investigate allegations of misconduct.

    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1359105318820931

    It accompanies this paper:
    Personality and fatal diseases: Revisiting a scientific scandal (2019) Pelosi

    It refers to work by @Brian Hughes and James Coyne.

    Coyne has blogged about it with reference to Simon Wessely here:
    https://jcoynester.wordpress.com/20...-shoved-a-hans-eysenck-scandal-under-the-rug/

    There is a piece by 'Neuroskeptic' on the new paper and editorial here:
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2019/02/25/cancer-personality-1/#.XHO_MaDgqUk
     
    bobbler, MSEsperanza, Joh and 21 others like this.
  2. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,245
    MSEsperanza, JaneL, MEMarge and 4 others like this.
  3. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    11,343
    Location:
    London, UK
    there seems to be something of a problem with whistleblowing within psychology being linked with personal axe grinding that benefits from the whistling. There is no suggestion that David Marks is involved in this but Pelosi seems to maybe have other irons in fires, judging by his defence of PACE. Something similar seems to have been involved in all the stuff about Cochrane and mental health - with axes to grind about Big Pharma.

    David M and Brian Hughes stand out as people without axes to grind. Refreshing.
     
    bobbler, MSEsperanza, Joh and 19 others like this.
  4. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,234
    I think wherever big pharma is involved there will inevitably be some very big axes grinding away somewhere or other.
     
    DokaGirl, ScottTriGuy and Starlight like this.
  5. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    16,715
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    “Do we have the will to do anything about it?” James Heathers reflects on the Eysenck case

    We have a tension about resolving inaccuracies in scientific documents when they’re past a certain age.

    Specifically, what should we do with old papers that are shown to be not just wrong, which is a fate that will befall most of them, but seriously misleading, fatally flawed, or overwhelmingly likely to be fabricated, i.e. when they reach the (very high) threshold we set for retraction?

    To my way of thinking, there are three components of this:

    (1) the continuing use of the documents themselves as citable objects in contemporary research – some research stays current and relevant, other research is consigned to obscurity, or is so completely superseded that it has no bearing on contemporary research whatsoever.

    (2) the profile of the authors – some authors of such documents are alive, famous, and have theories with contemporary relevance. Others are dead, obscure, and have theories which have no continuation in any other papers. Like it or not, these authors are treated differently.
    and, of course,

    (3) the nature and extent of the errors – some are small but definite mistakes, some are blatant multi-paper fabrications.


    https://retractionwatch.com/2019/10...-james-heathers-reflects-on-the-eysenck-case/
     
    MSEsperanza, JohnTheJack, sea and 9 others like this.
  6. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,877
    Location:
    Canada
    Merged thread

    A glimpse into our inevitable future. Eysenk's research, the cancer personality stuff, has been discussed a few times here and there but there isn't really a proper thread for it.

    His research seems to be of similar quality and framing than the rest of the psychosocial stuff on ME and MUS in general. Irony alert: KCL. And the crisis of replicability lives on.
    Also in headlines for the future:
    https://retractionwatch.com/2019/10...ntroversial-psychologist-hans-eysenck-unsafe/
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 8, 2019
  7. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,412
    As may have been mentioned before, Pelosi is a psychiatrist in a similar camp to Michael Sharpe/Peter White/Simon Wessely in terms of ME/CFS.
     
    bobbler, MSEsperanza, Hutan and 10 others like this.
  8. chrisb

    chrisb Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,477
    Some may have noticed a certain irony in the comments:

    Peer review may have been less rigorous and systematic in those days than they are now (and even now peer review is far from perfect).
     
  9. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,877
    Location:
    Canada
  10. JohnTheJack

    JohnTheJack Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,069
  11. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    16,715
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    King’s College London Enquiry Into Hans J Eysenck Fails to Address All of His Bogus Publications

    HANS EYSENCK EXPOSURE
    Earlier this year we exposed the largest fraud ever perpetrated in the history of psychology (Marks, 2019; Pelosi, 2019). This audacious fraud was carried out by the UK’s most published and best known psychologist, the late Professor Hans J Eysenck (1916-1997), by all accounts, a maverick and controversial figure.

    We called for an enquiry (Marks, 2019). H J Eysenck’s ex-employer, the Institute of Psychiatry in Denmark Hill, is now a part of King’s College London (KCL).

    The enquiry at KCL concluded that 25 publications were unsafe. However, the enquiry report remains unpublished and incomplete.
    KCL reviewed publications written by Eysenck with his collaborator Ronald Grossarth-Maticek. The enquiry failed to investigate 36 other bogus items based on exactly the same data collected by Eysenck’s collaborator.

    The KCL enquiry must be properly completed to include the entire set of 61 bogus publications.
    The Eysenck affair makes a strong case for a National Research Integrity Ombudsperson.​

    https://davidfmarks.com/2019/10/10/...ils-to-address-all-of-his-bogus-publications/
     
    MSEsperanza, Hutan, Cheshire and 13 others like this.
  12. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,877
    Location:
    Canada
    That title will not last very long.
     
  13. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    16,715
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
  14. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    41,015
    Location:
    UK
    What stone has Sharpe been living under? Surely he already knew Eysenck was well known to be a charlatan.
     
    MSEsperanza, Barry, MEMarge and 5 others like this.
  15. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    7,558
    Location:
    UK
    another interesting read here:
    “Do we have the will to do anything about it?” James Heathers reflects on the Eysenck case

    no wonder Sharpe is worried

    https://retractionwatch.com/2019/10...-james-heathers-reflects-on-the-eysenck-case/
     
    MSEsperanza, Hutan, inox and 13 others like this.
  16. Skycloud

    Skycloud Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,183
    Location:
    UK
    My thought too
     
  17. Amw66

    Amw66 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,130
    That depends on your world view and how useful the paradigm is for your own advancement .....
     
  18. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    7,558
    Location:
    UK
    In case people are interested this is what happened about Diederik Stapel (as mentioned in article I posted above).

    December 2011
    https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2011/12/diederik-stapel

    but he (DS) then wrote a book about it which was translated into english by Nick Brown. Haven't read it but it can be found here:
    http://nick.brown.free.fr/stapel/FakingScience-20161115.pdf
     
  19. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    16,715
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
  20. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    9,785
    Location:
    UK West Midlands
    bobbler, Barry, Annamaria and 2 others like this.

Share This Page