Rethinking Psychology gone wrong

More than 50 years after his death, claims of fraud, malfeasance and eugenic ideology against former British Psychological Society president Sir Cyril Burt continue to divide the profession. 

In 1980, the BPS recognised Burt as guilty of scientific fraud (Beloff, 1980). However, in 1992 after a campaign to have the issue re-opened, the Society decided that it would no longer take a position on alleged misconduct by deceased members (BPS Council, 1992). There is still no official professional verdict or guidance on this, or which of his publications are 'safe'. His actual contributions towards applied psychology and education in Britain, difficult relationship with the BPS, and repute as a scientist are ambiguous. 

Though broadly based, Burt's work on the inheritance of intelligence proved especially controversial, and his advocacy of eugenics remains disquieting. His system of differential psychology was designed seemingly in support of eugenics, associated with issues of 'race' and 'class' (Scott & Leaton Gray, 2024; Chitty, 2007), and many lives were adversely affected. 

Confrontation with our collective amnesia regarding Burt is long overdue – his legacy has contemporary relevance for ethically responsible research and social justice. 

The legacy

Born in 1883, Burt was the scion of Victorian Imperialism and died in 1971, before our more 'enlightened' age and the birth of most contemporary practitioners. Perhaps, then, you doubt that contemporary relevance – it was all a long time ago! Even if still relevant, is there anything more to say given the extensive literature on the 'Burt Affair'? However, it is more complicated than this.

First, it would be a mistake to believe that discussion of the need for openness, transparency, and ethical research conduct (see, for example, the Open Science Collaboration, 2015; Ritchie, 2020; Hughes, 2018) is restricted to today. High profile cases this century include the Dutch psychologist Diederik Stapel's fraud confession and the retraction of over 55 of his publications (Callaway, 2011). But the exposure of questionable practice is chronologically much broader (see the BPS Challenging Histories Group Report, 2024). In Britain, examination of Hans Eysenck's research into the association between personality traits, cancer and heart disease concluded that 26 of his articles were 'unsafe' (King's College London, 2019). This prompted opportune calls for the establishment of a National Research Integrity Ombudsperson (Craig et al., 2021). The Burt Affair predates both of these. 

His failings are often not demonstrated easily. Lucid exposition of fraudulent intent is gruelling, especially when dealing with the deceased or where, unlike the case of Stapel, there is no confession of guilt. Arguments in Burt's defence require consideration. The extensive evidence of Burt's culpability was largely circumstantial – yet some of his defenders stipulated that unless the charges could be proved beyond all possible doubt, then there was no case to answer. Others might point out that he was not the only public figure to be a member of the Eugenics Society – see also the birth control campaigner Marie Stopes. Any ethical judgement, if one is to be made at all, should reflect the period. There is also the concern that discrediting psychology's 'Great Men' risks discrediting ourselves as a present day science. 

Personally, I reject such arguments for downplaying his culpability. Historical discussion reflects only the most probable interpretation of evidence, and this was not a criminal court. Social Justice demands recognition of the toxic consequences of Burt's research. This did not occur in a vacuum but caused avoidable damage and distress to many (see 'We are not Alone'). Despite the passing of the historical actors themselves, the legacy of eugenics and race remain relevant, as does the need for scrutiny and probity. The 'Burt Affair' narrative is dated, incomplete, and in urgent need of revision. 

Perhaps, you are thinking, psychologists do not have the access and resources for such revision. Then collaborate with groups such as the former Challenging Histories Group and research historians like myself. Our discomfort with such complex issues itself argues for the need for a coherent professional response, absent for over 50 years (Chamarette, 2024). The lack of official guidance on Burt's integrity ought to concern us. Focusing on so called 'Great Men' rather than the broader context misleads us. 

Initially, three questions seem pertinent. Firstly, irrespective of intentional fraud, how scientifically competent was Burt? Next, did he abuse his considerable professional and personal authority? Finally, what was the practical impact of Burt's eugenic ideology? 

Burt's scientific competence

Was Burt ever the competent scientist he claimed to be? I doubt it. During his lifetime there was little effective scrutiny. As an Oxford Classicist Burt was an autodidact lacking formal training in psychology, statistics and genetics. His doctorates were honorary, and Burt himself promoted often fanciful narratives of his qualifications and experience (Hearnshaw, 1979; McDougall, (1930). After about 1913 there was almost no professional supervision of Burt's work, and he was typically the sole author of his publications. 

His data, working methods and reporting were at best questionable, at worst discreditable. Did he or his alleged 'assistants' actually collect information about the IQ scores of 53 pairs of separated monozygotic twins, or between 1,000 to 2,000 fathers and their sons, or of successive generations of London school children between 1914 and 1965? (Burt, 1966; Burt, 1969, b; Kamin, 1974). Besides, how did they do so on such a large scale with no record of any independent funding and barely any independent supporting testimony? 

Leslie Hearnshaw, Burt's biographer, concluded that Burt produced spurious data on monozygotic twins, fabricated figures on declining educational achievement, and falsified the history of factor analysis (Hearnshaw, 1979). Much of Burt's claimed research exists in an historical vacuum. His working methods, raw data, and reporting were questionable throughout his working life, with Hearnshaw (1987, p.121) concluding '...(Burt) was never at heart a scientist. Much of the data he collected were hastily gathered and of doubtful quality.'

Between 1913 and 1933 Burt had open access to London County Council (LCC) schools and data collected there, and though he was reluctant to disclose his raw data for open scrutiny, or to say when and by whom it was gleaned, much of it was likely collated during this period (Jensen, 1992). Not only is research funding absent for research on this scale, but we largely only have Burt's unsupported word for it. For Hearnshaw this was 'Dirty Data' curated retrospectively from many different sources and people, and thus entirely unsuited to the subsequent research demands made upon it (Hearnshaw, 1979). 

In later life and especially in retirement Burt was physically in no position to gather fresh data and now needed permission to access schools. No record of any research approval by Burt or associates can be found in the LCC archives after about 1950 following his retirement. Charlotte Banks, his friend and associate, testified that the twin data were old data retrieved piecemeal after the war, in different boxes and at different times. Some of it had been misplaced and was turned up only much later (Joynson, 1989, p.179). Burt also stated in a letter to Eysenck shortly before his death that most of his twin data was accumulated 'bit by bit' between 1913 and 1939 (Hearnshaw 1979, p.239). 

In his discussion of intelligence and social mobility of 1961, Burt conceded that for children '...the bulk of the data was obtained from the surveys carried out from time to time in a London Borough selected as typical of the whole country' (Burt, 1961, 3-24, 11). As scientific research however these LCC interwar 'surveys' were questionable. In 1959 Conway, his alleged collaborator, disclosed that Burt's data in his claimed 1956 collaboration with Margaret Howard had actually been collected in London sometime between 1922 and 1927 (Conway, 1959, p.5-14).

If so, then the research refinements and cross-checking Burt later claimed to have undertaken would not necessarily have been done when the data was originally collated, and it's unclear if this was feasible later. Likely Burt published this data up to 30 years later as alleged 'fresh research' gathered by alleged 'collaborators' such as Jane Conway, Margaret Howard, Miss M.G. O'Connor, and Elizabeth Molteno. Their research roles, even their existence, was doubted, being dubbed Burt's 'Vanishing Ladies' (Hearnshaw, 1979, p.236, 239, 246, 314). Although Molteno did exist, she never collaborated with Burt. 

Despite Burt's commendation to psychologists to be 'practitioner–researchers', neither Burt nor his alleged assistants carried out any field work after 1955 (Hearnshaw, 1979, p.239). Yet in the 1960s Burt was appointed Patron of the Association of Educational Psychologists, and President of Mensa, and later some lauded Burt as the pioneering educational psychologist (MacKay, 2013).

A forceful critic of poor-quality publications by others, Burt rarely practiced what he preached, and typically peer-review of most of his 375 publications was meagre, if existent at all, as evidenced by the often poor quality of his own publications (Kamin, 1974). Generously, whilst some anomalies might be attributed to errors in rounding down numbers or in transposition, many suggest at least poor practice. Typically, not only was his raw data not made available, but there were also inconsistencies between data allegedly collected at the same time. Burt himself 'adjusted' IQ scores, and claimed to have used 'camouflaged tests of intelligence' with parents of the children he tested (Dorfman, 1978; Kamin, 1974). 

Based on Burt's accounts, replication of much of his work was unfeasible at the time. Yet Burt's dogmatic conclusions rest typically upon such shaky foundations (Mackintosh, 1995). Surely, they must not remain unquestioned and unexamined?

Did Burt abuse his authority?

We need to understand not just how Burt abused his authority but how it was established. There is an important context to remember here. Prior to 1940 British psychology was tiny, and Burt's own chair at University College London from 1933 was one of a few small departments (Hearnshaw, 1966). Outside the academy, paid employment for psychologists such as his own part-time post with the LCC from 1913 to 1933 were rare, and many authors relied uncritically on Burt's own highly questionable accounts of this period and his other alleged achievements (Hearnshaw, 1979). At that time Burt alone straddled academia, applied psychology, public understanding of the discipline, and public policies in education – all mutually reinforcing his stature. Burt was the proverbial 'big fish in a small pond', and with few restraints.

Many existing accounts of Burt by both his supporters and detractors are inaccurate, especially regarding the LCC and his contributions towards English educational policies. Contrary to what some have implied (MacKay, 2013), Burt likely did not personally establish British educational psychology. Though he was the first psychologist known to have been paid in this role (Sutherland & Sharp, 1980), there may be no single 20th century historical origin for psychology applied to education in Britain or elsewhere (Rose, 1985), and Burt is an unconvincing candidate. The LCC department that Burt joined in 1913 was already the preeminent centre for British educational research: he was appointed to complement rather than establish it, and W.H. Winch was already the eminent psychologist researcher, though employed as a School Inspector. Early investigation into the Binet-Simon Scales was undertaken by Winch and School Medical Officers, and Burt only published his standardisation from 1920 (Wooldridge, 1994). 

Though a social conservative in agreement with much of the seminal Education Act 1944 and selective secondary education, Burt was not their architect. Rather this was largely Cyril Norwood, through the Committee that carried his name. Burt anticipated the perspectives of Margaret Thatcher or Dominic Cummings. He endorsed the 11 plus selective examination (Burt, 1959), was convinced that educational standards were falling and shortly before his death contributed to the socially conservative Educational Black Papers (Burt, 1969a). The major issue is why the divisive Education Act of 1944 was subsequently embedded by Attlee's Labour Government after 1945.

The rare distinction of Burt's knighthood in 1946 furthered his eminence, arguably allowing him to embellish additionally narratives of his own significance and legacy. What he regarded as 'his department' at UCL, dubbed the 'London School', trained generations of Burt's students who went on to become leaders of the profession, sustaining his powerful influence even after his death in 1971. However, following retirement in 1950 his attempts to continue to control his former department, resulted seemingly in the UCL Provost effectively banning him from the premises. 

Contrastingly, Burt's considerable institutional influence within the BPS was further enhanced. A former wartime President and adroit committee politician, between 1947 and 1963 Burt exercised almost complete editorial control over the Society's British Journal of Statistical Psychology. Without permission or acknowledgment, Burt allegedly re-wrote the contributions of others but still published this as their work (Eysenck, 1978). He considered this his personal Journal, where he could promote his own hereditarian perspectives and the work of his alleged 'collaborators' with little adequate peer-review. Likely their attributed work and that of many others were just pseudonyms for Burt as editor. Seemingly, the work of these 'collaborators' appeared solely here and under his tenure as editor.

In publications following his retirement Burt alleged the support of many coworkers creating the impression that he was still actively conducting research. The crucial issues are their identities, whether or not they were actually psychologists, carried out the research attributed, or actually wrote the papers Burt published under their names. Professor Alan Clarke, a former president of the BPS, suggested that Conway and Howard were nom de plumes for Burt himself. Hearnshaw concurred, identifying over 40 contributors to the BJSP when Burt was in charge, and as many could not be traced suggested these as further examples of material that likely was both authored and reviewed by Burt (Hearnshaw, 1979). 

Aside from Burt's own claims about these alleged collaborators there is little independent support. Grete Archer, Burt's secretary and housekeeper, noted that Burt informed her that Conway and Howard worked with him during his time at the LCC, but they had both emigrated earlier than 1950, before most of their supposed collaboration with Burt and the papers published under their names in the BJSP (Hearnshaw, 1979; Archer, 1983, 53), placing any collaboration, if any, between 1913 and 1933. 

According to Hearnshaw there is no other publication by Howard and Conway reported in Cumulative Author Index to Psychological Abstracts of the time. Neither seemed registered as students at the University of London at that time, though Burt described Howard as one of his 'research students'. Others noted that, as Burt's closest associates in retirement, neither Charlotte Banks nor Gertrude Keir reportedly ever met them (Gillie, 1977, p.469–471, 470). 

Increasingly, Burt considered himself unaccountable (Vernon cited in Wade, 1976, p.918). Financially, his editorial tenure at the BJSP was calamitous for the Society with unaffordable, huge capital losses (BPS Council, 1957b). From 1956 a private fund of which Burt was Trustee was established by an anonymous benefactress and friend of Burt, that defrayed the production losses on each edition but only whilst he remained in charge (BPS Council, 1957 a). Following Burt's departure, the journal finally prospered and addressed subscribers needs. 

As the doyen of the profession, through publications and often unsolicited personal communications Burt admonished others and polemically promoted his own views. This often exceeded legitimate boundaries of academic dispute, and Burt became perceived as too powerful to challenge openly in his lifetime – to the detriment of all (Vernon, 1972; 1987).

The defining influence of eugenics

Eugenics was and remains noxious. Yet its disquieting influence upon the development of psychology is still ignored and even denied (Yakushko, 2019). 

As political or social biology, eugenics rank ordered individuals, social classes, nations or 'races' in terms of their perceived inherited moral value or worth and sought to enhance and control this through artificial selective breeding of the genetically 'fittest stock', defined usually as eugenicists themselves. As eugenics conjoined alleged 'scientific' claims with the value assumptions of a 'secular religion', any challenges needed to engage with both (MacKenzie, 1976). As a physical anthropologist, Francis Galton established both eugenics and the measurement of racial and individual differences as similar aspects of the same undertaking (Kevles, 1995). 

Whilst in the USA the deficiencies of Galton's claimed measures of differences in ability or worth were recognised from 1900, Charles Spearman and Burt continued to use them for a further decade. Tests of memory excepted, Galtonian practices were predominantly physical anthropological measures, such as sensory acuity, speed of response or strength. Crucially this was not what eugenics needed in order to remain viable. Viewed as 'science' it actually required supposed measures of inherited cognitive skills. Consequently, eugenic psychologists in the USA such as Goddard and later Terman were the first to co-opt and refashion the special educational assessment scales of Binet and Simon to fill the void, culminating by 1916 in the standardised Stanford-Binet, now rebranded as a test of 'intelligence' contrary to Binet's wishes. Burt adopted a similar stance with his own 1920 British standardisation. For the moment this crisis for eugenics was avoided (see Scott & Leaton Gray, 2024; Chamarette, 2024). Subsequently tests of intelligence legitimised categorisation and assessment procedures in special education and provided a framework for the expansion of educational psychology within Local Authorities (Quicke, 1982). The wider ethical consequences of psycho-eugenics remain pernicious (see again the 'We are not Alone' exhibition).

Burt's eugenic zeal is already well documented historically (Chitty, 2007), though rarely discussed by psychologists, if at all. From 1907 his role as a proselyting eugenicist was clear. He joined the Eugenics Education Society shortly after it was founded in that year, and assisted Sherrington in the formation of the Liverpool branch (Eugenics Education Society, 1914). In his first published paper in 1909 Burt stated the importance of improving the 'race', recognised 'innate' family characteristics such as intelligence, and deplored the impact of philanthropy in restricting the elimination of 'unfit' human stock (Burt, 1909). Burt's application for his post at the LCC was supported by references from several prominent eugenicists, likely in recognition of his eugenic standing (Lowe, 1979). By 1914, McDougal recognised publicly the substantial eugenic contributions of Burt and Spearman (McDougall, 1914). Burt's commitment was life-long and from 1937 and again in 1957 he served as a member of the Consultative Council of the Eugenics Society. He contributed 27 papers in Eugenics Review, Chaired the Eugenic Society's research committee, raised funds on its behalf, and implicitly promoted eugenics in his radio broadcasts (Chamarette, 2021). Burt's eugenic ideology was detrimental for all. 

So, where are we now? 

Reframing our approach, as part of a critical reappraisal of psychology both past and present, is crucial. Social Justice and probity demand it, and no one should be above criticism or unaccountable, even so called 'Great Men'. 

As the approach adopted here of Critical History indicates, psychologists work within a context of time and place, hold ideological beliefs, and impact upon the wider world. All of this tacit knowledge must be made clear and publicly available. Eugenics demanded that the worth of individuals and 'races' be ranked mentally as well as physically, with 'ability' used as a proxy. Cyril Burt was the foremost proselytising eugenic psychologist in Britain at the time. As a proto-behavioural geneticist and theorist of the inheritance of intelligence, Burt's work continued to provide 'scientific' props for eugenics. 

Burt undoubtedly abused his authority; his own accounts of his work often lack both accuracy and objectivity and cannot be relied upon. His research was deeply questionable, scientifically slipshod, and regardless of issues of fraud requires reassessment before it can be considered 'safe' to use, especially by students. After 1950, for the last 20 years of his life, Burt's scientific publications were at best suspect and at worst fictitious. Yet Herrnstein and Murray's racially controversial The Bell Curve of 1994accepted uncritically Burt's publications on the inheritance of individual and group differences in intelligence as valid. 

Whilst an Ombudsperson or the Challenging Histories Group's Framework might address professionally abusive practices, wider issues of social justice remain. Given the damaging professional and social influence of psycho-eugenics, vapid claims that 'it's different now', or of Burt's allegedly 'valuable work' on the inheritance of intelligence, fail to convince. If we don't examine where we've been, how do we really know where we are going?

• Dr R. M. Chamarette, Historian of Psychology and Science. Following a PhD in Historical Research at the Centre for the History of Science, Technology and Medicine at King's London, and Journal publications, he was a member and contributor to the recent BPS Challenging Histories Group Report and reported back to the Trustees of the History of Psychology Centre on his work. 
  [email protected]

References

Beloff H. (ed.) (1980) A balance sheet on Burt. Supplement to the Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 33: 1

British Psychological Society: Challenging Histories Group final report to the Ethics Committee. 

Burt, C. (1909). Experimental tests of general intelligence. British Journal of Psychology, 3, 94–177. 

Burt, C. (1959). The examination at 11+. British Journal of Educational Studies, 7, 99-117.

Burt, C. (1966). The genetic determination of differences in intelligence: a study of monozygotic twins reared together and apart. British Journal of Psychology, 57, 137–153.

Burt, C. (1969) [a]. 'The Mental Differences Between Children' in C. Cox and A. Dyson (eds.) The Crisis in Education, Black Paper Two (London: Critical Quarterly Society), 16-25 

Burt, C. (1969) [b]. Intelligence and heredity: some common misconceptions. Irish Journal of Education, 3(2), 75–94.

Chamarette, R. M. (2021). Cyril Burt at the BBC, History and Philosophy of Psychology, 22, (1), 11-20.

Chamarette, R.M. (2024). Psychologist, Eugenicist, or a bit of both? , History and Philosophy of Psychology, 24(1): 15-25.

Chitty, C. (2007). Eugenics, race, and intelligence in education. London: Continuum.

Craig R, Pelosi A, Tourish D. Research misconduct complaints and institutional logics: The case of Hans Eysenck and the British Psychological Society. Journal of Health Psychology. 2021; 26, 2, 296-311. 

Dorfman, D. (1978) 'The Cyril Burt question: New findings', Science, 201 (4362): 1177–86.

Eugenics Education Society, Sixth annual report, 1914. Eugenics Society Collection, Wellcome Institute, SA/EU/A.1.).

Eysenck, H.J. (1978). Sir Cyril Burt and the Inheritance of the IQ, New Zealand Psychologist, 7: 8-10.

Hearnshaw, L.S. (1966). A Short History of British Psychology 1840-1940. London: Methuen.

Hearnshaw L.S. (1979) Cyril Burt Psychologist. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Hearnshaw, L.S. (1986). The Shaping of Modern Psychology. London: Routledge.

Hughes M. (2018) Psychology in Crisis. London: Macmillan. 

Kamin, L. J. (1974) The Science and Politics of IQ, London: Routledge.

Kevles, D. (1995). In the name of eugenics: Genetics and the uses of human heredity. Oakland: Harvard University Press [1985]. 

Lowe, R. (1979). Eugenicists, doctors and the quest for national efficiency: An educational crusade, 1900–1939. History of Education, 8(4), 293–306.

MacKenzie, D. (1976). Eugenics in Britain. Social Studies of Science, 6, (3–4), 499–532.

Mackintosh, N. J. (1995). Cyril Burt: Fraud or framed? New York: Oxford University Press.

MacKay, T. (2013). The foundations of educational psychology: The legacy of Cyril Burt. Educational and Child Psychology. 30. 37-45.

McDougall, W. (1914). Psychology in the Service of Eugenics. Eugenics Review, 5(4), 295–308.

Open Science Collaboration (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349: 6251.

Quicke, J. (1982). The Cautious Expert. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Ritchie S. (2020). Science Fictions: Exposing Fraud, Bias, Negligence and Hype in Science. London: The Bodley Head.

Rose, N. (1985). The Psychological Complex: psychology, politics and society in England, 1869–1939. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul

Scott D. and Leaton Gray S. (2024). Intelligence, Sapience and Learning: Concepts, framing and practices. London: Routledge. 

Sutherland, G. and Sharp, S. (1980). "The Fust Official Psychologist in the Wurrld": Aspects of the Professionalization of Psychology in Early Twentieth Century Britain,' History of Science, 18, 3, 181–208.   

Wade, N. (1976). IQ and Heredity: Suspicion of fraud beclouds classic experiment. Science, Nov 26, 194, 916-919.

Wooldridge, A. (1994). Measuring the mind: Education and psychology in England, 1860–1990. Cambridge: CUP.

Yakushko, O. (2019). Eugenics and its evolution in the history of Western psychology: A critical archival review. Psychotherapy and Politics International, 17, 1–13.

King's College London (2019) King's College London enquiry into publications authored by Professor Hans Eysenck with Professor Ronald Grossarth-Maticek. (Accessed May 2023).

'We are not Alone': Legacies of Eugenics.