Re-reconsidering Burt: Beyond a reasonable doubt

Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 145-162

  Tucker, William H ^a  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; HISTORY; HUMAN; INTELLIGENCE; INTELLIGENCE TEST; PSYCHOLOGY; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; SOCIAL CLASS; TWINS; UNITED KINGDOM;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH;

GREAT BRITAIN; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HUMANS; INTELLIGENCE; INTELLIGENCE TESTS; PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; SOCIAL CLASS; TWIN STUDIES;

EID: 0031088437     PISSN: 00225061     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1520-6696(199721)33:2<145::aid-jhbs6>3.0.co;2-s     Document Type: Article

References (125)

1. Quoted in Leslie S. Hearnshaw, Cyril Burt, Psychologist (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1979), p. 227. Burt was a Fellow of the British Academy, the only non-American ever to receive the American Psychological Association's Edward Lee Thorndike Award, and author of a number of important books and over 350 articles. A bibliography of his writings can be found in Appendix One of Hearnshaw's biography. The Burt Collection, a 19-volume collection of his published work in chronological order is available at the library of the University of Georgia; see R. T. Osborne, "The Burt Collection," Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 30 (1994): 369-373.
2. Quoted in Leslie S. Hearnshaw, Cyril Burt, Psychologist (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1979), p. 227. Burt was a Fellow of the British Academy, the only non-American ever to receive the American Psychological Association's Edward Lee Thorndike Award, and author of a number of important books and over 350 articles. A bibliography of his writings can be found in Appendix One of Hearnshaw's biography. The Burt Collection, a 19-volume collection of his published work in chronological order is available at the library of the University of Georgia; see R. T. Osborne, "The Burt Collection," Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 30 (1994): 369-373.
3. On the weaknesses in Burt's data, see Leon J. Kamin, "Heredity, Intelligence, Politics, and Psychology," invited address presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association (Washington, DC, April 1973); also Leon J. Kamin, The Science and Politics of I.Q. (Potomac, MD: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1974). On the background of Kamin's inspection of Burt's work, see William H. Tucker, "Fact and Fiction in the Discovery of Sir Cyril Burt's Flaws," Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 30 (1994): 335-347. The MZA data were discussed in five papers by Burt, as new cases of separated twins were located and added to the data base. In order of increasing sample size: Cyril Burt, "Ability and Income," British Journal of Educational Psychology 13 (1943): 83-98; Cyril Burt, "The Evidence for the Concept of Intelligence," British Journal of Educational Psychology 25 (1955): 158-177; Cyril Burt, "The Inheritance of Mental Ability," American Psychologist 13 (1958): 1-15; J. Conway, "The Inheritance of Intelligence and its Social Implications," British Journal of Statistical Psychology 11 (1958): 171-189; Cyril Burt, "The Genetic Determination of Differences in Intelligence: A Study of Monozygotic Twins Reared Apart and Together."
4. On the weaknesses in Burt's data, see Leon J. Kamin, "Heredity, Intelligence, Politics, and Psychology," invited address presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association (Washington, DC, April 1973); also Leon J. Kamin, The Science and Politics of I.Q. (Potomac, MD: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1974). On the background of Kamin's inspection of Burt's work, see William H. Tucker, "Fact and Fiction in the Discovery of Sir Cyril Burt's Flaws," Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 30 (1994): 335-347. The MZA data were discussed in five papers by Burt, as new cases of separated twins were located and added to the data base. In order of increasing sample size: Cyril Burt, "Ability and Income," British Journal of Educational Psychology 13 (1943): 83-98; Cyril Burt, "The Evidence for the Concept of Intelligence," British Journal of Educational Psychology 25 (1955): 158-177; Cyril Burt, "The Inheritance of Mental Ability," American Psychologist 13 (1958): 1-15; J. Conway, "The Inheritance of Intelligence and its Social Implications," British Journal of Statistical Psychology 11 (1958): 171-189; Cyril Burt, "The Genetic Determination of Differences in Intelligence: A Study of Monozygotic Twins Reared Apart and Together."
5. On the weaknesses in Burt's data, see Leon J. Kamin, "Heredity, Intelligence, Politics, and Psychology," invited address presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association (Washington, DC, April 1973); also Leon J. Kamin, The Science and Politics of I.Q. (Potomac, MD: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1974). On the background of Kamin's inspection of Burt's work, see William H. Tucker, "Fact and Fiction in the Discovery of Sir Cyril Burt's Flaws," Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 30 (1994): 335-347. The MZA data were discussed in five papers by Burt, as new cases of separated twins were located and added to the data base. In order of increasing sample size: Cyril Burt, "Ability and Income," British Journal of Educational Psychology 13 (1943): 83-98; Cyril Burt, "The Evidence for the Concept of Intelligence," British Journal of Educational Psychology 25 (1955): 158-177; Cyril Burt, "The Inheritance of Mental Ability," American Psychologist 13 (1958): 1-15; J. Conway, "The Inheritance of Intelligence and its Social Implications," British Journal of Statistical Psychology 11 (1958): 171-189; Cyril Burt, "The Genetic Determination of Differences in Intelligence: A Study of Monozygotic Twins Reared Apart and Together."
6. On the weaknesses in Burt's data, see Leon J. Kamin, "Heredity, Intelligence, Politics, and Psychology," invited address presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association (Washington, DC, April 1973); also Leon J. Kamin, The Science and Politics of I.Q. (Potomac, MD: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1974). On the background of Kamin's inspection of Burt's work, see William H. Tucker, "Fact and Fiction in the Discovery of Sir Cyril Burt's Flaws," Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 30 (1994): 335-347. The MZA data were discussed in five papers by Burt, as new cases of separated twins were located and added to the data base. In order of increasing sample size: Cyril Burt, "Ability and Income," British Journal of Educational Psychology 13 (1943): 83-98; Cyril Burt, "The Evidence for the Concept of Intelligence," British Journal of Educational Psychology 25 (1955): 158-177; Cyril Burt, "The Inheritance of Mental Ability," American Psychologist 13 (1958): 1-15; J. Conway, "The Inheritance of Intelligence and its Social Implications," British Journal of Statistical Psychology 11 (1958): 171-189; Cyril Burt, "The Genetic Determination of Differences in Intelligence: A Study of Monozygotic Twins Reared Apart and Together."
7. On the weaknesses in Burt's data, see Leon J. Kamin, "Heredity, Intelligence, Politics, and Psychology," invited address presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association (Washington, DC, April 1973); also Leon J. Kamin, The Science and Politics of I.Q. (Potomac, MD: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1974). On the background of Kamin's inspection of Burt's work, see William H. Tucker, "Fact and Fiction in the Discovery of Sir Cyril Burt's Flaws," Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 30 (1994): 335-347. The MZA data were discussed in five papers by Burt, as new cases of separated twins were located and added to the data base. In order of increasing sample size: Cyril Burt, "Ability and Income," British Journal of Educational Psychology 13 (1943): 83-98; Cyril Burt, "The Evidence for the Concept of Intelligence," British Journal of Educational Psychology 25 (1955): 158-177; Cyril Burt, "The Inheritance of Mental Ability," American Psychologist 13 (1958): 1-15; J. Conway, "The Inheritance of Intelligence and its Social Implications," British Journal of Statistical Psychology 11 (1958): 171-189; Cyril Burt, "The Genetic Determination of Differences in Intelligence: A Study of Monozygotic Twins Reared Apart and Together."
8. On the weaknesses in Burt's data, see Leon J. Kamin, "Heredity, Intelligence, Politics, and Psychology," invited address presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association (Washington, DC, April 1973); also Leon J. Kamin, The Science and Politics of I.Q. (Potomac, MD: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1974). On the background of Kamin's inspection of Burt's work, see William H. Tucker, "Fact and Fiction in the Discovery of Sir Cyril Burt's Flaws," Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 30 (1994): 335-347. The MZA data were discussed in five papers by Burt, as new cases of separated twins were located and added to the data base. In order of increasing sample size: Cyril Burt, "Ability and Income," British Journal of Educational Psychology 13 (1943): 83-98; Cyril Burt, "The Evidence for the Concept of Intelligence," British Journal of Educational Psychology 25 (1955): 158-177; Cyril Burt, "The Inheritance of Mental Ability," American Psychologist 13 (1958): 1-15; J. Conway, "The Inheritance of Intelligence and its Social Implications," British Journal of Statistical Psychology 11 (1958): 171-189; Cyril Burt, "The Genetic Determination of Differences in Intelligence: A Study of Monozygotic Twins Reared Apart and Together."
9. On the weaknesses in Burt's data, see Leon J. Kamin, "Heredity, Intelligence, Politics, and Psychology," invited address presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association (Washington, DC, April 1973); also Leon J. Kamin, The Science and Politics of I.Q. (Potomac, MD: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1974). On the background of Kamin's inspection of Burt's work, see William H. Tucker, "Fact and Fiction in the Discovery of Sir Cyril Burt's Flaws," Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 30 (1994): 335-347. The MZA data were discussed in five papers by Burt, as new cases of separated twins were located and added to the data base. In order of increasing sample size: Cyril Burt, "Ability and Income," British Journal of Educational Psychology 13 (1943): 83-98; Cyril Burt, "The Evidence for the Concept of Intelligence," British Journal of Educational Psychology 25 (1955): 158-177; Cyril Burt, "The Inheritance of Mental Ability," American Psychologist 13 (1958): 1-15; J. Conway, "The Inheritance of Intelligence and its Social Implications," British Journal of Statistical Psychology 11 (1958): 171-189; Cyril Burt, "The Genetic Determination of Differences in Intelligence: A Study of Monozygotic Twins Reared Apart and Together."
10. On the weaknesses in Burt's data, see Leon J. Kamin, "Heredity, Intelligence, Politics, and Psychology," invited address presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association (Washington, DC, April 1973); also Leon J. Kamin, The Science and Politics of I.Q. (Potomac, MD: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1974). On the background of Kamin's inspection of Burt's work, see William H. Tucker, "Fact and Fiction in the Discovery of Sir Cyril Burt's Flaws," Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 30 (1994): 335-347. The MZA data were discussed in five papers by Burt, as new cases of separated twins were located and added to the data base. In order of increasing sample size: Cyril Burt, "Ability and Income," British Journal of Educational Psychology 13 (1943): 83-98; Cyril Burt, "The Evidence for the Concept of Intelligence," British Journal of Educational Psychology 25 (1955): 158-177; Cyril Burt, "The Inheritance of Mental Ability," American Psychologist 13 (1958): 1-15; J. Conway, "The Inheritance of Intelligence and its Social Implications," British Journal of Statistical Psychology 11 (1958): 171-189; Cyril Burt, "The Genetic Determination of Differences in Intelligence: A Study of Monozygotic Twins Reared Apart and Together."
11. Kamin describes his initial reaction to Burt in his review of Cyril Burt: Psychologist by Hearnshaw, in The New Republic (October 20, 1979): 30. His public characterization of Burt's work appears in Kamin, "Heredity, Intelligence, Politics, and Psychology," p. 11.
12. Kamin describes his initial reaction to Burt in his review of Cyril Burt: Psychologist by Hearnshaw, in The New Republic (October 20, 1979): 30. His public characterization of Burt's work appears in Kamin, "Heredity, Intelligence, Politics, and Psychology," p. 11.
13. Kamin describes his initial reaction to Burt in his review of Cyril Burt: Psychologist by Hearnshaw, in The New Republic (October 20, 1979): 30. His public characterization of Burt's work appears in Kamin, "Heredity, Intelligence, Politics, and Psychology," p. 11.
14. In addition to assisting Burt with his research, "Margaret Howard" and "J. Conway" had published more than a dozen papers and reviews between them, all in the British Journal of Statical Psychology, for which Burt was the sole editor. Gillie's search for the women is described in Oliver Gillie, "Burt: The Scandal and the Cover-Up." Supplement to the Bulletin of the British Psychological Society 33 (1980): 9-16; see also Oliver Gillie, letter to the editor, Science 204 (1979): 1035-1039; Oliver Gillie, "Cyril Burt and the Great IQ Fraud," New Statesman (24 November 1978): 692.
15. In addition to assisting Burt with his research, "Margaret Howard" and "J. Conway" had published more than a dozen papers and reviews between them, all in the British Journal of Statical Psychology, for which Burt was the sole editor. Gillie's search for the women is described in Oliver Gillie, "Burt: The Scandal and the Cover-Up." Supplement to the Bulletin of the British Psychological Society 33 (1980): 9-16; see also Oliver Gillie, letter to the editor, Science 204 (1979): 1035-1039; Oliver Gillie, "Cyril Burt and the Great IQ Fraud," New Statesman (24 November 1978): 692.
16. In addition to assisting Burt with his research, "Margaret Howard" and "J. Conway" had published more than a dozen papers and reviews between them, all in the British Journal of Statical Psychology, for which Burt was the sole editor. Gillie's search for the women is described in Oliver Gillie, "Burt: The Scandal and the Cover-Up." Supplement to the Bulletin of the British Psychological Society 33 (1980): 9-16; see also Oliver Gillie, letter to the editor, Science 204 (1979): 1035-1039; Oliver Gillie, "Cyril Burt and the Great IQ Fraud," New Statesman (24 November 1978): 692.
17. In addition to assisting Burt with his research, "Margaret Howard" and "J. Conway" had published more than a dozen papers and reviews between them, all in the British Journal of Statical Psychology, for which Burt was the sole editor. Gillie's search for the women is described in Oliver Gillie, "Burt: The Scandal and the Cover-Up." Supplement to the Bulletin of the British Psychological Society 33 (1980): 9-16; see also Oliver Gillie, letter to the editor, Science 204 (1979): 1035-1039; Oliver Gillie, "Cyril Burt and the Great IQ Fraud," New Statesman (24 November 1978): 692.
18. The accusation of fraud appears in Oliver Gillie, "Pioneer of IQ Faked his Research Findings," Sunday Times [London], October 24, 1976): 1.
19. Letter from Eysenck to Dr. Marion Burt (Sir Cyril's sister), quoted in Hearnshaw, Cyril Burt: Psychologist, p. 237; see also Hans J. Eysenck, "The Case of Sir Cyril Burt," Encounter (January, 1977): 24, 19.
20. Letter from Eysenck to Dr. Marion Burt (Sir Cyril's sister), quoted in Hearnshaw, Cyril Burt: Psychologist, p. 237; see also Hans J. Eysenck, "The Case of Sir Cyril Burt," Encounter (January, 1977): 24, 19.
21. The remarks at Burt's memorial service appear in Leslie S. Hearnshaw, "Emeritus Professor Sir Cyril Burt (1883-1971), Bulletin of the British Psychological Society 25 (1972): 31-33. Hearnshaw later contributed, at the invitation of the Secretary of the British Academy, the official memoir for the Academy's Proceedings, in which he termed Burt "one of the ablest men ever to work as an applied psychologist in this, or any other, country. . . . [who] set standards, scientific and professional, which have influenced profoundly all subsequent work." See Leslie S. Hearnshaw, "Cyril Lodowic Burt," Proceedings of the British Academy 58 (1972): 490.
22. The remarks at Burt's memorial service appear in Leslie S. Hearnshaw, "Emeritus Professor Sir Cyril Burt (1883-1971), Bulletin of the British Psychological Society 25 (1972): 31-33. Hearnshaw later contributed, at the invitation of the Secretary of the British Academy, the official memoir for the Academy's Proceedings, in which he termed Burt "one of the ablest men ever to work as an applied psychologist in this, or any other, country. . . . [who] set standards, scientific and professional, which have influenced profoundly all subsequent work." See Leslie S. Hearnshaw, "Cyril Lodowic Burt," Proceedings of the British Academy 58 (1972): 490.
23. Hearnshaw, Cyril Burt: Psychologist, p. 245.
24. Hans J. Eysenck, "Sir Cyril Burt: Polymath and Psychopath," Journal of the Association of Educational Psychologists 6 (1983): 57. Although Eysenck had responded to earlier criticisms of Burt by expressing the "wish that modern workers would follow [Burt's] example," after Hearnshaw's analysis he declared that Burt had always "entirely lacked the temperament and training of an experimental scientist" and suddenly recalled a host of specific examples, all drawn from his personal experience, of Burt's "deviousness and hostility," including an instance in which Burt rewrote an "eminent" scientist's "friendly review" of a book by Eysenck in order to make it "extremely hostile." See Hans J. Eysenck, letter to the editor, Change 6 (1974): 2; Eysenck, "Sir Cyril Burt: Polymath and Psychopath," p. 60; Hans J. Eysenck, "Psychologist of the Scientist: XLIV. Sir Cyril Burt: Prominence versus Personality," Psychological Reports, 46 (1980): 894; Hans J. Eysenck, "Sir Cyril Burt and the Inheritance of the I.Q.," New Zealand Psychologist 7 (1978): 10.
25. Hans J. Eysenck, "Sir Cyril Burt: Polymath and Psychopath," Journal of the Association of Educational Psychologists 6 (1983): 57. Although Eysenck had responded to earlier criticisms of Burt by expressing the "wish that modern workers would follow [Burt's] example," after Hearnshaw's analysis he declared that Burt had always "entirely lacked the temperament and training of an experimental scientist" and suddenly recalled a host of specific examples, all drawn from his personal experience, of Burt's "deviousness and hostility," including an instance in which Burt rewrote an "eminent" scientist's "friendly review" of a book by Eysenck in order to make it "extremely hostile." See Hans J. Eysenck, letter to the editor, Change 6 (1974): 2; Eysenck, "Sir Cyril Burt: Polymath and Psychopath," p. 60; Hans J. Eysenck, "Psychologist of the Scientist: XLIV. Sir Cyril Burt: Prominence versus Personality," Psychological Reports, 46 (1980): 894; Hans J. Eysenck, "Sir Cyril Burt and the Inheritance of the I.Q.," New Zealand Psychologist 7 (1978): 10.
26. Hans J. Eysenck, "Sir Cyril Burt: Polymath and Psychopath," Journal of the Association of Educational Psychologists 6 (1983): 57. Although Eysenck had responded to earlier criticisms of Burt by expressing the "wish that modern workers would follow [Burt's] example," after Hearnshaw's analysis he declared that Burt had always "entirely lacked the temperament and training of an experimental scientist" and suddenly recalled a host of specific examples, all drawn from his personal experience, of Burt's "deviousness and hostility," including an instance in which Burt rewrote an "eminent" scientist's "friendly review" of a book by Eysenck in order to make it "extremely hostile." See Hans J. Eysenck, letter to the editor, Change 6 (1974): 2; Eysenck, "Sir Cyril Burt: Polymath and Psychopath," p. 60; Hans J. Eysenck, "Psychologist of the Scientist: XLIV. Sir Cyril Burt: Prominence versus Personality," Psychological Reports, 46 (1980): 894; Hans J. Eysenck, "Sir Cyril Burt and the Inheritance of the I.Q.," New Zealand Psychologist 7 (1978): 10.
27. Hans J. Eysenck, "Sir Cyril Burt: Polymath and Psychopath," Journal of the Association of Educational Psychologists 6 (1983): 57. Although Eysenck had responded to earlier criticisms of Burt by expressing the "wish that modern workers would follow [Burt's] example," after Hearnshaw's analysis he declared that Burt had always "entirely lacked the temperament and training of an experimental scientist" and suddenly recalled a host of specific examples, all drawn from his personal experience, of Burt's "deviousness and hostility," including an instance in which Burt rewrote an "eminent" scientist's "friendly review" of a book by Eysenck in order to make it "extremely hostile." See Hans J. Eysenck, letter to the editor, Change 6 (1974): 2; Eysenck, "Sir Cyril Burt: Polymath and Psychopath," p. 60; Hans J. Eysenck, "Psychologist of the Scientist: XLIV. Sir Cyril Burt: Prominence versus Personality," Psychological Reports, 46 (1980): 894; Hans J. Eysenck, "Sir Cyril Burt and the Inheritance of the I.Q.," New Zealand Psychologist 7 (1978): 10.
28. Hans J. Eysenck, "Sir Cyril Burt: Polymath and Psychopath," Journal of the Association of Educational Psychologists 6 (1983): 57. Although Eysenck had responded to earlier criticisms of Burt by expressing the "wish that modern workers would follow [Burt's] example," after Hearnshaw's analysis he declared that Burt had always "entirely lacked the temperament and training of an experimental scientist" and suddenly recalled a host of specific examples, all drawn from his personal experience, of Burt's "deviousness and hostility," including an instance in which Burt rewrote an "eminent" scientist's "friendly review" of a book by Eysenck in order to make it "extremely hostile." See Hans J. Eysenck, letter to the editor, Change 6 (1974): 2; Eysenck, "Sir Cyril Burt: Polymath and Psychopath," p. 60; Hans J. Eysenck, "Psychologist of the Scientist: XLIV. Sir Cyril Burt: Prominence versus Personality," Psychological Reports, 46 (1980): 894; Hans J. Eysenck, "Sir Cyril Burt and the Inheritance of the I.Q.," New Zealand Psychologist 7 (1978): 10.
29. Robert B. Joynson, The Burt Affair (London: Routledge, 1989); Ronald Fletcher, Science, Ideology, and the Media: The Cyril Burt Scandal (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1991). Even by the intemperate standards of the Burt controversy, Belcher's denunciation of Burt's critics is extreme, rarely mentioning them without appending a reminder of their "ideological zeal," "ideological roots," "ideologica aims," "headlong ideological gallop," or "simplistic and endlessly repeated ideological extremes." According to Fletcher, the "organized campaign" against Burt was "orchestrated by only a handful of contributors," a group of "vociferous hounds barking at Burt's heels, trying to drag down their quarry, baying for his blood," whose behavior was "far more disgraceful and more lacking in scientific veracity than anything of which Burt himself could even remotely be considered guilty" (pp. 21, 8, 136, 79). And Eysenck, who is referred to by Fletcher as a "commentator of the highest reputation" when he defended Burt, is even judged guilty of "scientific fraud" when his opinion of Burt changed (p. 304, 323).
30. Robert B. Joynson, The Burt Affair (London: Routledge, 1989); Ronald Fletcher, Science, Ideology, and the Media: The Cyril Burt Scandal (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1991). Even by the intemperate standards of the Burt controversy, Belcher's denunciation of Burt's critics is extreme, rarely mentioning them without appending a reminder of their "ideological zeal," "ideological roots," "ideologica aims," "headlong ideological gallop," or "simplistic and endlessly repeated ideological extremes." According to Fletcher, the "organized campaign" against Burt was "orchestrated by only a handful of contributors," a group of "vociferous hounds barking at Burt's heels, trying to drag down their quarry, baying for his blood," whose behavior was "far more disgraceful and more lacking in scientific veracity than anything of which Burt himself could even remotely be considered guilty" (pp. 21, 8, 136, 79). And Eysenck, who is referred to by Fletcher as a "commentator of the highest reputation" when he defended Burt, is even judged guilty of "scientific fraud" when his opinion of Burt changed (p. 304, 323).
31. Fletcher, Science, Ideology, and the Media: The Cyril Burt Scandal, p. 284. If Burt had indeed been collecting data earlier in his career, he seems to have mentioned it to no one. One London study of identical and fraternal twins reared together thanks Burt "for assistance in getting material," yet also refers to "the ideal but scarcely attainable study of an adequate group of identical twins reared apart"; see Raymond B. Cattell & E. Virginia Molteno, "Contributions concerning Mental Inheritance: II. Temperament," Journal of Genetic Psychology 57 (1940): 46, 32. Another London twin study also acknowledges Burt's assistance but notes that "no adequate sample of twins reared apart has yet been studied"; see Louis Herman & Lancelot Hogben, "The Intellectual Resemblance of Twins," Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 53 (1932-33): 106. Moreover, the London County Council, to which all investigators had to apply for any research involving school children, has no record of any study conducted by Burt between 1932 and 1940 (prior to 1932, as the official LCC psychologist he would not have needed to apply); see Gillian Sutherland and Stephen Sharp, "'The Fust Official Psychologist in the Wurrld': Aspects of the Professionalization of Psychology in Early Twentieth Century Britain," History of Science 18 (1980): 199-200.
32. Fletcher, Science, Ideology, and the Media: The Cyril Burt Scandal, p. 284. If Burt had indeed been collecting data earlier in his career, he seems to have mentioned it to no one. One London study of identical and fraternal twins reared together thanks Burt "for assistance in getting material," yet also refers to "the ideal but scarcely attainable study of an adequate group of identical twins reared apart"; see Raymond B. Cattell & E. Virginia Molteno, "Contributions concerning Mental Inheritance: II. Temperament," Journal of Genetic Psychology 57 (1940): 46, 32. Another London twin study also acknowledges Burt's assistance but notes that "no adequate sample of twins reared apart has yet been studied"; see Louis Herman & Lancelot Hogben, "The Intellectual Resemblance of Twins," Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 53 (1932-33): 106. Moreover, the London County Council, to which all investigators had to apply for any research involving school children, has no record of any study conducted by Burt between 1932 and 1940 (prior to 1932, as the official LCC psychologist he would not have needed to apply); see Gillian Sutherland and Stephen Sharp, "'The Fust Official Psychologist in the Wurrld': Aspects of the Professionalization of Psychology in Early Twentieth Century Britain," History of Science 18 (1980): 199-200.
33. Fletcher, Science, Ideology, and the Media: The Cyril Burt Scandal, p. 284. If Burt had indeed been collecting data earlier in his career, he seems to have mentioned it to no one. One London study of identical and fraternal twins reared together thanks Burt "for assistance in getting material," yet also refers to "the ideal but scarcely attainable study of an adequate group of identical twins reared apart"; see Raymond B. Cattell & E. Virginia Molteno, "Contributions concerning Mental Inheritance: II. Temperament," Journal of Genetic Psychology 57 (1940): 46, 32. Another London twin study also acknowledges Burt's assistance but notes that "no adequate sample of twins reared apart has yet been studied"; see Louis Herman & Lancelot Hogben, "The Intellectual Resemblance of Twins," Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 53 (1932-33): 106. Moreover, the London County Council, to which all investigators had to apply for any research involving school children, has no record of any study conducted by Burt between 1932 and 1940 (prior to 1932, as the official LCC psychologist he would not have needed to apply); see Gillian Sutherland and Stephen Sharp, "'The Fust Official Psychologist in the Wurrld': Aspects of the Professionalization of Psychology in Early Twentieth Century Britain," History of Science 18 (1980): 199-200.
34. Fletcher, Science, Ideology, and the Media: The Cyril Burt Scandal, p. 284. If Burt had indeed been collecting data earlier in his career, he seems to have mentioned it to no one. One London study of identical and fraternal twins reared together thanks Burt "for assistance in getting material," yet also refers to "the ideal but scarcely attainable study of an adequate group of identical twins reared apart"; see Raymond B. Cattell & E. Virginia Molteno, "Contributions concerning Mental Inheritance: II. Temperament," Journal of Genetic Psychology 57 (1940): 46, 32. Another London twin study also acknowledges Burt's assistance but notes that "no adequate sample of twins reared apart has yet been studied"; see Louis Herman & Lancelot Hogben, "The Intellectual Resemblance of Twins," Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 53 (1932-33): 106. Moreover, the London County Council, to which all investigators had to apply for any research involving school children, has no record of any study conducted by Burt between 1932 and 1940 (prior to 1932, as the official LCC psychologist he would not have needed to apply); see Gillian Sutherland and Stephen Sharp, "'The Fust Official Psychologist in the Wurrld': Aspects of the Professionalization of Psychology in Early Twentieth Century Britain," History of Science 18 (1980): 199-200.
35. In 1991 Fletcher documented the existence of a by then deceased "Miss Conway," who had attended Burt's lectures while a student in the early 1930s and, from 1936 on, performed child care work as a member of the staff at the London County Council, where Burt had been employed as a psychologist from 1913 to 1932. Fletcher, however, found no evidence that Conway had conducted any work for Burt. See Ronald Fletcher, "The 'Miss Conway' Story," The Psychologist: Bulletin of the British Psychological Society 6 (1993): 214-215. The use of a real person, whom Burt likely knew, as a fictitious research assistant is consistent with his behavior in other, well-documented instances. For example, Burt named "Miss Molteno" as one of the assistants in his final paper of MZAs (Burt, "The Genetic Determination of Differences in Intelligence," p. 141), a woman who had begun but not finished an MA under his supervision and had gone on to work with Raymond B. Cattell. When interviewed by Gillie, however, Molteno stated "categorically that she never did any research work with Burt and never interviewed any twins for him." See Oliver Gillie, letter to the editor, Bulletin of the British Psychological Society 30 (1977): 258.
36. In 1991 Fletcher documented the existence of a by then deceased "Miss Conway," who had attended Burt's lectures while a student in the early 1930s and, from 1936 on, performed child care work as a member of the staff at the London County Council, where Burt had been employed as a psychologist from 1913 to 1932. Fletcher, however, found no evidence that Conway had conducted any work for Burt. See Ronald Fletcher, "The 'Miss Conway' Story," The Psychologist: Bulletin of the British Psychological Society 6 (1993): 214-215. The use of a real person, whom Burt likely knew, as a fictitious research assistant is consistent with his behavior in other, well-documented instances. For example, Burt named "Miss Molteno" as one of the assistants in his final paper of MZAs (Burt, "The Genetic Determination of Differences in Intelligence," p. 141), a woman who had begun but not finished an MA under his supervision and had gone on to work with Raymond B. Cattell. When interviewed by Gillie, however, Molteno stated "categorically that she never did any research work with Burt and never interviewed any twins for him." See Oliver Gillie, letter to the editor, Bulletin of the British Psychological Society 30 (1977): 258.
37. In 1991 Fletcher documented the existence of a by then deceased "Miss Conway," who had attended Burt's lectures while a student in the early 1930s and, from 1936 on, performed child care work as a member of the staff at the London County Council, where Burt had been employed as a psychologist from 1913 to 1932. Fletcher, however, found no evidence that Conway had conducted any work for Burt. See Ronald Fletcher, "The 'Miss Conway' Story," The Psychologist: Bulletin of the British Psychological Society 6 (1993): 214-215. The use of a real person, whom Burt likely knew, as a fictitious research assistant is consistent with his behavior in other, well-documented instances. For example, Burt named "Miss Molteno" as one of the assistants in his final paper of MZAs (Burt, "The Genetic Determination of Differences in Intelligence," p. 141), a woman who had begun but not finished an MA under his supervision and had gone on to work with Raymond B. Cattell. When interviewed by Gillie, however, Molteno stated "categorically that she never did any research work with Burt and never interviewed any twins for him." See Oliver Gillie, letter to the editor, Bulletin of the British Psychological Society 30 (1977): 258.
38. Fletcher finds Burt's imputation of authorship to Conway and Howard justified as a "deserved acknowledgement" of the assistants' efforts and compares Burt to Thomas Paine, who signed some of his articles "Aesop" or "Vox Populi" see Fletcher, Science, Ideology, and the Media: The Cyril Burt Scandal, p. 278, 283. Joynson quotes one of Burt's students, who suggested that he was so "'shy and modest, he felt most embarrassed . . . at publishing so much himself'" and offers Burt's own observation that "no one thinks the worse of Daniel, Job or Ecclesiastes because they were not written by their ostensible authors;" see Joynson, The Burt Affair, p. 185. Burt's actual use of alter egos was much more malevolent than is suggested by Fletcher or Joynson. When The Science of Behavior contained a number of criticisms of Burt's work, for example, as "M. Howard" he published a lengthy review of the book excoriating its author, John McLeish, for numerous "misunderstand[ings]" and "misrepresentations" and citing the importance of his own work, especially in factor analysis; the review appears in The British Journal of Statistical Psychology 16(1963): 129-134.
39. Fletcher finds Burt's imputation of authorship to Conway and Howard justified as a "deserved acknowledgement" of the assistants' efforts and compares Burt to Thomas Paine, who signed some of his articles "Aesop" or "Vox Populi" see Fletcher, Science, Ideology, and the Media: The Cyril Burt Scandal, p. 278, 283. Joynson quotes one of Burt's students, who suggested that he was so "'shy and modest, he felt most embarrassed . . . at publishing so much himself'" and offers Burt's own observation that "no one thinks the worse of Daniel, Job or Ecclesiastes because they were not written by their ostensible authors;" see Joynson, The Burt Affair, p. 185. Burt's actual use of alter egos was much more malevolent than is suggested by Fletcher or Joynson. When The Science of Behavior contained a number of criticisms of Burt's work, for example, as "M. Howard" he published a lengthy review of the book excoriating its author, John McLeish, for numerous "misunderstand[ings]" and "misrepresentations" and citing the importance of his own work, especially in factor analysis; the review appears in The British Journal of Statistical Psychology 16(1963): 129-134.
40. Fletcher finds Burt's imputation of authorship to Conway and Howard justified as a "deserved acknowledgement" of the assistants' efforts and compares Burt to Thomas Paine, who signed some of his articles "Aesop" or "Vox Populi" see Fletcher, Science, Ideology, and the Media: The Cyril Burt Scandal, p. 278, 283. Joynson quotes one of Burt's students, who suggested that he was so "'shy and modest, he felt most embarrassed . . . at publishing so much himself'" and offers Burt's own observation that "no one thinks the worse of Daniel, Job or Ecclesiastes because they were not written by their ostensible authors;" see Joynson, The Burt Affair, p. 185. Burt's actual use of alter egos was much more malevolent than is suggested by Fletcher or Joynson. When The Science of Behavior contained a number of criticisms of Burt's work, for example, as "M. Howard" he published a lengthy review of the book excoriating its author, John McLeish, for numerous "misunderstand[ings]" and "misrepresentations" and citing the importance of his own work, especially in factor analysis; the review appears in The British Journal of Statistical Psychology 16(1963): 129-134.
41. See, for example, Franz Samelson, "Rescuing the Reputation of Sir Cyril (Burt)," Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 28 (1992): 221-233.
42. Steve Blinkhorn, "Was Burt Stitched Up?" Nature 340 (1989): 439.
43. Lee Loevinger, "Raking over the Coals," Nature 352 (1991): 120.
44. Sandra Scarr, "Sir Cyril Burt Reconsidered: The Science and Politics of British Psychology," Contemporary Psychology 36 (1991): 200.
45. Robert Plomin, review of The Burt Affair by Robert B. Joynson, Behavior Genetics 19 (1989): 739-740.
46. Lewis B. Birch, "Commentary on the Burt Affair," McGill Journal of Education 25 (1990): 119.
47. John Hattie, "The Burt Controversy: An Essay Review of Hearnshaw's and Joynson's Biographies of Sir Cyril Burt," Alberta Journal of Educational Research 37 (1991): 273.
48. Personal communication from Jeffrey P. Braden, symposium chair, March 22, 1994.
49. See Stephen Bates, "Psychologists Press for Inquiry into Burt's 'Faked' Child IQ Data," Guardian (May 23, 1992): 4; and Stephen Bates, "Trouble Brews on Exoneration of Psychologist," Guardian (February 26, 1992): 4.
50. See Stephen Bates, "Psychologists Press for Inquiry into Burt's 'Faked' Child IQ Data," Guardian (May 23, 1992): 4; and Stephen Bates, "Trouble Brews on Exoneration of Psychologist," Guardian (February 26, 1992): 4.
51. See Clare Burstall, "Boffin Passes New IQ Test," Guardian (August 15, 1989): 21; and Clare Burstall, "Arise Again, Sir Cyril," Guardian (July 9, 1991): 21.
52. See Clare Burstall, "Boffin Passes New IQ Test," Guardian (August 15, 1989): 21; and Clare Burstall, "Arise Again, Sir Cyril," Guardian (July 9, 1991): 21.
53. To appreciate fully the bizarre twists and turns of the Burt story, one has only to look at the conflicting comments made at different stages of the controversy by Arthur Jensen, one of the most knowledgeable scientists in the world on the heritability of intelligence in general and Burt's work in particular: • In 1971, when Burt died, Jensen eulogized him as "a born nobleman," whose pioneer research on the inheritance of mental ability . . . will most probably secure his place in the history of science" (Arthur R. Jensen, "Sir Cyril Burt," psychometrika 37 (1972): 118). • In 1974, with the (unacknowledged) benefit of Kamin's analysis of the weaknesses in Burt's data, Jensen concluded that his "correlations are useless for hypothesis testing" (Arthur R. Jensen, "Kinship Correlations Reported by Sir Cyril Burt," Behavior Genetics 4 (1974): 25). • In 1976, when Gillie made the first public charges of fraud, Jensen was sure that if Burt were alive, "he should easily win a libel suit" against the Times and the "few intensely ideological psychologists" who were quoted in it (Arthur R. Jensen, "Did Sir Cyril Burt Fake His Research on Heritability of Intelligence?" Phi Delta Kappan 58 (1977): 471). "It is a political attack," Jensen declared (quoted in "A Taint of Scholarly Fraud," Time (December 6, 1976): 66). • In 1978, with preliminary indications of Hearnshaw's conclusions, Jensen suddenly discovered "some mystery as to just where, when, and how Burt obtained the test data" on the 32 new pairs of MZAs (Arthur R. Jensen, "Sir Cyril Burt in Perspective," American Psychologist 33 (1978): 502). • In 1983, Jensen described his reactions upon first reading Hearnshaw's manuscript, which had been sent to him (probably in 1978) by the publisher for an opinion: ". . . he had done an unexceptionably thorough and scholarly investigation, and his treatment of the evidence was eminently judicious and fair." Jensen was now certain that Burt "will never be exonerated" (Arthur R. Jensen, "Sir Cyril Burt: A Personal Recollection," Journal of the Association of Educational Psychologists 6 (1983): 13-14, 20). • In 1992, Jensen concurred with Joynson and Fletcher that it was not Hearnshaw's research that had produced his conclusions but Burt's detractors, who "were obviously successful in impressing Hearnshaw of Burt's guilt" (Arthur R. Jensen, "Scientific Fraud or False Accusations? The Case of Cyril Burt," in Research Fraud in the Behavioral and Biomedical Sciences, eds. David J. Miller & Michael Hersen (NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1992), p. 113).
54. To appreciate fully the bizarre twists and turns of the Burt story, one has only to look at the conflicting comments made at different stages of the controversy by Arthur Jensen, one of the most knowledgeable scientists in the world on the heritability of intelligence in general and Burt's work in particular: • In 1971, when Burt died, Jensen eulogized him as "a born nobleman," whose pioneer research on the inheritance of mental ability . . . will most probably secure his place in the history of science" (Arthur R. Jensen, "Sir Cyril Burt," psychometrika 37 (1972): 118). • In 1974, with the (unacknowledged) benefit of Kamin's analysis of the weaknesses in Burt's data, Jensen concluded that his "correlations are useless for hypothesis testing" (Arthur R. Jensen, "Kinship Correlations Reported by Sir Cyril Burt," Behavior Genetics 4 (1974): 25). • In 1976, when Gillie made the first public charges of fraud, Jensen was sure that if Burt were alive, "he should easily win a libel suit" against the Times and the "few intensely ideological psychologists" who were quoted in it (Arthur R. Jensen, "Did Sir Cyril Burt Fake His Research on Heritability of Intelligence?" Phi Delta Kappan 58 (1977): 471). "It is a political attack," Jensen declared (quoted in "A Taint of Scholarly Fraud," Time (December 6, 1976): 66). • In 1978, with preliminary indications of Hearnshaw's conclusions, Jensen suddenly discovered "some mystery as to just where, when, and how Burt obtained the test data" on the 32 new pairs of MZAs (Arthur R. Jensen, "Sir Cyril Burt in Perspective," American Psychologist 33 (1978): 502). • In 1983, Jensen described his reactions upon first reading Hearnshaw's manuscript, which had been sent to him (probably in 1978) by the publisher for an opinion: ". . . he had done an unexceptionably thorough and scholarly investigation, and his treatment of the evidence was eminently judicious and fair." Jensen was now certain that Burt "will never be exonerated" (Arthur R. Jensen, "Sir Cyril Burt: A Personal Recollection," Journal of the Association of Educational Psychologists 6 (1983): 13-14, 20). • In 1992, Jensen concurred with Joynson and Fletcher that it was not Hearnshaw's research that had produced his conclusions but Burt's detractors, who "were obviously successful in impressing Hearnshaw of Burt's guilt" (Arthur R. Jensen, "Scientific Fraud or False Accusations? The Case of Cyril Burt," in Research Fraud in the Behavioral and Biomedical Sciences, eds. David J. Miller & Michael Hersen (NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1992), p. 113).
55. To appreciate fully the bizarre twists and turns of the Burt story, one has only to look at the conflicting comments made at different stages of the controversy by Arthur Jensen, one of the most knowledgeable scientists in the world on the heritability of intelligence in general and Burt's work in particular: • In 1971, when Burt died, Jensen eulogized him as "a born nobleman," whose pioneer research on the inheritance of mental ability . . . will most probably secure his place in the history of science" (Arthur R. Jensen, "Sir Cyril Burt," psychometrika 37 (1972): 118). • In 1974, with the (unacknowledged) benefit of Kamin's analysis of the weaknesses in Burt's data, Jensen concluded that his "correlations are useless for hypothesis testing" (Arthur R. Jensen, "Kinship Correlations Reported by Sir Cyril Burt," Behavior Genetics 4 (1974): 25). • In 1976, when Gillie made the first public charges of fraud, Jensen was sure that if Burt were alive, "he should easily win a libel suit" against the Times and the "few intensely ideological psychologists" who were quoted in it (Arthur R. Jensen, "Did Sir Cyril Burt Fake His Research on Heritability of Intelligence?" Phi Delta Kappan 58 (1977): 471). "It is a political attack," Jensen declared (quoted in "A Taint of Scholarly Fraud," Time (December 6, 1976): 66). • In 1978, with preliminary indications of Hearnshaw's conclusions, Jensen suddenly discovered "some mystery as to just where, when, and how Burt obtained the test data" on the 32 new pairs of MZAs (Arthur R. Jensen, "Sir Cyril Burt in Perspective," American Psychologist 33 (1978): 502). • In 1983, Jensen described his reactions upon first reading Hearnshaw's manuscript, which had been sent to him (probably in 1978) by the publisher for an opinion: ". . . he had done an unexceptionably thorough and scholarly investigation, and his treatment of the evidence was eminently judicious and fair." Jensen was now certain that Burt "will never be exonerated" (Arthur R. Jensen, "Sir Cyril Burt: A Personal Recollection," Journal of the Association of Educational Psychologists 6 (1983): 13-14, 20). • In 1992, Jensen concurred with Joynson and Fletcher that it was not Hearnshaw's research that had produced his conclusions but Burt's detractors, who "were obviously successful in impressing Hearnshaw of Burt's guilt" (Arthur R. Jensen, "Scientific Fraud or False Accusations? The Case of Cyril Burt," in Research Fraud in the Behavioral and Biomedical Sciences, eds. David J. Miller & Michael Hersen (NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1992), p. 113).
56. To appreciate fully the bizarre twists and turns of the Burt story, one has only to look at the conflicting comments made at different stages of the controversy by Arthur Jensen, one of the most knowledgeable scientists in the world on the heritability of intelligence in general and Burt's work in particular: • In 1971, when Burt died, Jensen eulogized him as "a born nobleman," whose pioneer research on the inheritance of mental ability . . . will most probably secure his place in the history of science" (Arthur R. Jensen, "Sir Cyril Burt," psychometrika 37 (1972): 118). • In 1974, with the (unacknowledged) benefit of Kamin's analysis of the weaknesses in Burt's data, Jensen concluded that his "correlations are useless for hypothesis testing" (Arthur R. Jensen, "Kinship Correlations Reported by Sir Cyril Burt," Behavior Genetics 4 (1974): 25). • In 1976, when Gillie made the first public charges of fraud, Jensen was sure that if Burt were alive, "he should easily win a libel suit" against the Times and the "few intensely ideological psychologists" who were quoted in it (Arthur R. Jensen, "Did Sir Cyril Burt Fake His Research on Heritability of Intelligence?" Phi Delta Kappan 58 (1977): 471). "It is a political attack," Jensen declared (quoted in "A Taint of Scholarly Fraud," Time (December 6, 1976): 66). • In 1978, with preliminary indications of Hearnshaw's conclusions, Jensen suddenly discovered "some mystery as to just where, when, and how Burt obtained the test data" on the 32 new pairs of MZAs (Arthur R. Jensen, "Sir Cyril Burt in Perspective," American Psychologist 33 (1978): 502). • In 1983, Jensen described his reactions upon first reading Hearnshaw's manuscript, which had been sent to him (probably in 1978) by the publisher for an opinion: ". . . he had done an unexceptionably thorough and scholarly investigation, and his treatment of the evidence was eminently judicious and fair." Jensen was now certain that Burt "will never be exonerated" (Arthur R. Jensen, "Sir Cyril Burt: A Personal Recollection," Journal of the Association of Educational Psychologists 6 (1983): 13-14, 20). • In 1992, Jensen concurred with Joynson and Fletcher that it was not Hearnshaw's research that had produced his conclusions but Burt's detractors, who "were obviously successful in impressing Hearnshaw of Burt's guilt" (Arthur R. Jensen, "Scientific Fraud or False Accusations? The Case of Cyril Burt," in Research Fraud in the Behavioral and Biomedical Sciences, eds. David J. Miller & Michael Hersen (NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1992), p. 113).
57. To appreciate fully the bizarre twists and turns of the Burt story, one has only to look at the conflicting comments made at different stages of the controversy by Arthur Jensen, one of the most knowledgeable scientists in the world on the heritability of intelligence in general and Burt's work in particular: • In 1971, when Burt died, Jensen eulogized him as "a born nobleman," whose pioneer research on the inheritance of mental ability . . . will most probably secure his place in the history of science" (Arthur R. Jensen, "Sir Cyril Burt," psychometrika 37 (1972): 118). • In 1974, with the (unacknowledged) benefit of Kamin's analysis of the weaknesses in Burt's data, Jensen concluded that his "correlations are useless for hypothesis testing" (Arthur R. Jensen, "Kinship Correlations Reported by Sir Cyril Burt," Behavior Genetics 4 (1974): 25). • In 1976, when Gillie made the first public charges of fraud, Jensen was sure that if Burt were alive, "he should easily win a libel suit" against the Times and the "few intensely ideological psychologists" who were quoted in it (Arthur R. Jensen, "Did Sir Cyril Burt Fake His Research on Heritability of Intelligence?" Phi Delta Kappan 58 (1977): 471). "It is a political attack," Jensen declared (quoted in "A Taint of Scholarly Fraud," Time (December 6, 1976): 66). • In 1978, with preliminary indications of Hearnshaw's conclusions, Jensen suddenly discovered "some mystery as to just where, when, and how Burt obtained the test data" on the 32 new pairs of MZAs (Arthur R. Jensen, "Sir Cyril Burt in Perspective," American Psychologist 33 (1978): 502). • In 1983, Jensen described his reactions upon first reading Hearnshaw's manuscript, which had been sent to him (probably in 1978) by the publisher for an opinion: ". . . he had done an unexceptionably thorough and scholarly investigation, and his treatment of the evidence was eminently judicious and fair." Jensen was now certain that Burt "will never be exonerated" (Arthur R. Jensen, "Sir Cyril Burt: A Personal Recollection," Journal of the Association of Educational Psychologists 6 (1983): 13-14, 20). • In 1992, Jensen concurred with Joynson and Fletcher that it was not Hearnshaw's research that had produced his conclusions but Burt's detractors, who "were obviously successful in impressing Hearnshaw of Burt's guilt" (Arthur R. Jensen, "Scientific Fraud or False Accusations? The Case of Cyril Burt," in Research Fraud in the Behavioral and Biomedical Sciences, eds. David J. Miller & Michael Hersen (NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1992), p. 113).
58. To appreciate fully the bizarre twists and turns of the Burt story, one has only to look at the conflicting comments made at different stages of the controversy by Arthur Jensen, one of the most knowledgeable scientists in the world on the heritability of intelligence in general and Burt's work in particular: • In 1971, when Burt died, Jensen eulogized him as "a born nobleman," whose pioneer research on the inheritance of mental ability . . . will most probably secure his place in the history of science" (Arthur R. Jensen, "Sir Cyril Burt," psychometrika 37 (1972): 118). • In 1974, with the (unacknowledged) benefit of Kamin's analysis of the weaknesses in Burt's data, Jensen concluded that his "correlations are useless for hypothesis testing" (Arthur R. Jensen, "Kinship Correlations Reported by Sir Cyril Burt," Behavior Genetics 4 (1974): 25). • In 1976, when Gillie made the first public charges of fraud, Jensen was sure that if Burt were alive, "he should easily win a libel suit" against the Times and the "few intensely ideological psychologists" who were quoted in it (Arthur R. Jensen, "Did Sir Cyril Burt Fake His Research on Heritability of Intelligence?" Phi Delta Kappan 58 (1977): 471). "It is a political attack," Jensen declared (quoted in "A Taint of Scholarly Fraud," Time (December 6, 1976): 66). • In 1978, with preliminary indications of Hearnshaw's conclusions, Jensen suddenly discovered "some mystery as to just where, when, and how Burt obtained the test data" on the 32 new pairs of MZAs (Arthur R. Jensen, "Sir Cyril Burt in Perspective," American Psychologist 33 (1978): 502). • In 1983, Jensen described his reactions upon first reading Hearnshaw's manuscript, which had been sent to him (probably in 1978) by the publisher for an opinion: ". . . he had done an unexceptionably thorough and scholarly investigation, and his treatment of the evidence was eminently judicious and fair." Jensen was now certain that Burt "will never be exonerated" (Arthur R. Jensen, "Sir Cyril Burt: A Personal Recollection," Journal of the Association of Educational Psychologists 6 (1983): 13-14, 20). • In 1992, Jensen concurred with Joynson and Fletcher that it was not Hearnshaw's research that had produced his conclusions but Burt's detractors, who "were obviously successful in impressing Hearnshaw of Burt's guilt" (Arthur R. Jensen, "Scientific Fraud or False Accusations? The Case of Cyril Burt," in Research Fraud in the Behavioral and Biomedical Sciences, eds. David J. Miller & Michael Hersen (NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1992), p. 113).
59. To appreciate fully the bizarre twists and turns of the Burt story, one has only to look at the conflicting comments made at different stages of the controversy by Arthur Jensen, one of the most knowledgeable scientists in the world on the heritability of intelligence in general and Burt's work in particular: • In 1971, when Burt died, Jensen eulogized him as "a born nobleman," whose pioneer research on the inheritance of mental ability . . . will most probably secure his place in the history of science" (Arthur R. Jensen, "Sir Cyril Burt," psychometrika 37 (1972): 118). • In 1974, with the (unacknowledged) benefit of Kamin's analysis of the weaknesses in Burt's data, Jensen concluded that his "correlations are useless for hypothesis testing" (Arthur R. Jensen, "Kinship Correlations Reported by Sir Cyril Burt," Behavior Genetics 4 (1974): 25). • In 1976, when Gillie made the first public charges of fraud, Jensen was sure that if Burt were alive, "he should easily win a libel suit" against the Times and the "few intensely ideological psychologists" who were quoted in it (Arthur R. Jensen, "Did Sir Cyril Burt Fake His Research on Heritability of Intelligence?" Phi Delta Kappan 58 (1977): 471). "It is a political attack," Jensen declared (quoted in "A Taint of Scholarly Fraud," Time (December 6, 1976): 66). • In 1978, with preliminary indications of Hearnshaw's conclusions, Jensen suddenly discovered "some mystery as to just where, when, and how Burt obtained the test data" on the 32 new pairs of MZAs (Arthur R. Jensen, "Sir Cyril Burt in Perspective," American Psychologist 33 (1978): 502). • In 1983, Jensen described his reactions upon first reading Hearnshaw's manuscript, which had been sent to him (probably in 1978) by the publisher for an opinion: ". . . he had done an unexceptionably thorough and scholarly investigation, and his treatment of the evidence was eminently judicious and fair." Jensen was now certain that Burt "will never be exonerated" (Arthur R. Jensen, "Sir Cyril
60. Vernon is quoted in Nicholas Wade, "IQ and Heredity: Suspicion of Fraud Beclouds Classic Experiment," Science 194 (1976): 918; Raymond B. Cattell, letter to the editor, Bulletin of the British Psychological Society 31 (1978): 19, 18.
61. Vernon is quoted in Nicholas Wade, "IQ and Heredity: Suspicion of Fraud Beclouds Classic Experiment," Science 194 (1976): 918; Raymond B. Cattell, letter to the editor, Bulletin of the British Psychological Society 31 (1978): 19, 18.
62. Whether and to what degree Burt exaggerated his own role in the development of factor analysis at Spearman's expense is still a matter of debate. In addition to Joynson's book, see S. F. Blinkhorn, "Burt and the Early History of Factor Analysis," in Cyril Burt: Fraud or Framed? ed. N. J. Mackintosh (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 13-44: A. D. Lovie and P. Lovie, "Charles Spearman, Cyril Burt, and the Origins of Factor Analysis," Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 29 (1993): 308-21; and Samelson, "Rescuing the Reputation of Sir Cyril (Burt)."
63. Whether and to what degree Burt exaggerated his own role in the development of factor analysis at Spearman's expense is still a matter of debate. In addition to Joynson's book, see S. F. Blinkhorn, "Burt and the Early History of Factor Analysis," in Cyril Burt: Fraud or Framed? ed. N. J. Mackintosh (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 13-44: A. D. Lovie and P. Lovie, "Charles Spearman, Cyril Burt, and the Origins of Factor Analysis," Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 29 (1993): 308-21; and Samelson, "Rescuing the Reputation of Sir Cyril (Burt)."
64. Whether and to what degree Burt exaggerated his own role in the development of factor analysis at Spearman's expense is still a matter of debate. In addition to Joynson's book, see S. F. Blinkhorn, "Burt and the Early History of Factor Analysis," in Cyril Burt: Fraud or Framed? ed. N. J. Mackintosh (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 13-44: A. D. Lovie and P. Lovie, "Charles Spearman, Cyril Burt, and the Origins of Factor Analysis," Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 29 (1993): 308-21; and Samelson, "Rescuing the Reputation of Sir Cyril (Burt)."
65. See N. J. Mackintosh, "Declining Educational Standards," in Cyril Burt: Fraud or Framed? ed. Mackintosh, pp. 95-110. Both Joynson and Fletcher are particularly exercised at Hearnshaw's inability to produce a copy of a Guardian interview of Burt, which Hearnshaw quotes in support of this allegation, and suggest doubts about its existence, but it has been located in the November 7, 1969 issue (p. 8) by Franz Samelson. See Joynson, The Burt Affair, pp. 210-211; Fletcher, Science, Ideology and the Media: The Cyril Burt Scandal, p. 307; Franz Samelson, "Updating the Burt Affair," paper presented at the annual meeting of Cheiron (Bowdoin, Maine, 1995): 2.
66. See N. J. Mackintosh, "Declining Educational Standards," in Cyril Burt: Fraud or Framed? ed. Mackintosh, pp. 95-110. Both Joynson and Fletcher are particularly exercised at Hearnshaw's inability to produce a copy of a Guardian interview of Burt, which Hearnshaw quotes in support of this allegation, and suggest doubts about its existence, but it has been located in the November 7, 1969 issue (p. 8) by Franz Samelson. See Joynson, The Burt Affair, pp. 210-211; Fletcher, Science, Ideology and the Media: The Cyril Burt Scandal, p. 307; Franz Samelson, "Updating the Burt Affair," paper presented at the annual meeting of Cheiron (Bowdoin, Maine, 1995): 2.
67. See N. J. Mackintosh, "Declining Educational Standards," in Cyril Burt: Fraud or Framed? ed. Mackintosh, pp. 95-110. Both Joynson and Fletcher are particularly exercised at Hearnshaw's inability to produce a copy of a Guardian interview of Burt, which Hearnshaw quotes in support of this allegation, and suggest doubts about its existence, but it has been located in the November 7, 1969 issue (p. 8) by Franz Samelson. See Joynson, The Burt Affair, pp. 210-211; Fletcher, Science, Ideology and the Media: The Cyril Burt Scandal, p. 307; Franz Samelson, "Updating the Burt Affair," paper presented at the annual meeting of Cheiron (Bowdoin, Maine, 1995): 2.
68. See N. J. Mackintosh, "Declining Educational Standards," in Cyril Burt: Fraud or Framed? ed. Mackintosh, pp. 95-110. Both Joynson and Fletcher are particularly exercised at Hearnshaw's inability to produce a copy of a Guardian interview of Burt, which Hearnshaw quotes in support of this allegation, and suggest doubts about its existence, but it has been located in the November 7, 1969 issue (p. 8) by Franz Samelson. See Joynson, The Burt Affair, pp. 210-211; Fletcher, Science, Ideology and the Media: The Cyril Burt Scandal, p. 307; Franz Samelson, "Updating the Burt Affair," paper presented at the annual meeting of Cheiron (Bowdoin, Maine, 1995): 2.
69. Arthur R. Jensen, Genetics and Education (NY: Harper & Row, 1972), p. 212; Hans J. Eysenck, The Inequality of Man (London: Temple Smith Ltd., 1973), p. 93. In the omitted portion of the quote from Eysenck, he refers, incorrectly, to "the 46 pairs of twins" tested by Burt; the sample size was 53.
70. Arthur R. Jensen, Genetics and Education (NY: Harper & Row, 1972), p. 212; Hans J. Eysenck, The Inequality of Man (London: Temple Smith Ltd., 1973), p. 93. In the omitted portion of the quote from Eysenck, he refers, incorrectly, to "the 46 pairs of twins" tested by Burt; the sample size was 53.
71. Richard J. Herrnstein, I.Q. in the Meritocracy (Boston: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1973), p. 53.
72. Cyril Burt, "Cyril Burt," in History of Psychology in Autobiography, Vol. IV, ed. E. G. Boring, H. S. Langfeld, & R. M. Yerkes (NY: Russell & Russell, 1952), p. 62.
73. Cyril Burt, "Experimental Tests of General Intelligence," British Journal of Psychology 3 (1909): 100, 173, 120.
74. Cyril Burt, "Individual Psychology and Social Worth," Charity Organization Review 43 (1918): 11; Cyril Burt, "The Inheritance of Mental Characteristics," Eugenics Review 4 (1912): 183.
75. Cyril Burt, "Individual Psychology and Social Worth," Charity Organization Review 43 (1918): 11; Cyril Burt, "The Inheritance of Mental Characteristics," Eugenics Review 4 (1912): 183.
76. Cyril Burt, "Inheritance of General Intelligence," American Psychologist 27 (1972): 188.
77. Cyril Burt, "The Inheritance of Mental Characteristics," p. 184.
78. Cyril Burt, "Class Differences in General Intelligence: III," British Journal of Statistical Psychology 12 (1959): 31, 32.
79. Cyril Burt, "Psychological Tests for Scholarship and Promotion," School 13 (1925): 736.
80. "Frequency Curves and the Ability of Nations: II," British Journal of Statistical Psychology 15 (1962): 91; though unsigned, the language of this article makes clear that it was "Miss Howard's" (i.e., Burt's) response to a comment submitted to the journal.
81. Cyril Burt, "Ability and Income," British Journal of Educational Psychology 13 (1943): 92.
82. Quoted in Hearnshaw, Cyril Burt: Psychologist, p. 111.
83. Stephen Jay Gould, The Mismeasure of Man (NY: W. W. Norton, 1981), p. 294.
84. Burt, "Ability and Income," p. 83.
85. Ibid., p. 91.
86. A. H. Halsey and L. Gardner, "Selection for Secondary Education in Four Grammar Schools," British Journal of Sociology 4 (1953): 60-75.
87. Brian Simon, Intelligence Testing and the Comprehensive School (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1953).
88. Burt, "The Evidence for the Concept of Intelligence."
89. J. E. Floud, A. H. Halsey, and F. M. Martin, Social Class and Educational Opportunity (London: William Heineman, 1956), p. 65.
90. A. H. Halsey, "Genetics, Social Structure, and Intelligence," British Journal of Sociology 9 (1958): 15-28.
91. Conway, "The Inheritance of Intelligence and its Social Implications," p. 186.
92. This mistake is made in James Shields, "MZA Twins: Their Use and Abuse," in Twin Research, Part A: Psychology and Methodology, ed. W. E. Nance (NY: Alan R. Liss, 1978), p. 80.
93. Halsey's account of Burt's ploy appears in A. H. Halsey, Heredity and Environment (NY: Free Press, 1977), p. 26.
94. A. H. Halsey, "Class Differences in Intelligence: I. A Reply to Miss Conway," British Journal of Statistical Psychology 12 (1959): 2.
95. See Halsey, Heredity and Environment, p. 26.
96. J. Conway, "Class Differences in Intelligence: II. A Reply to Dr. Halsey," British Journal of Statistical Psychology 12 (1959): 8. These correlations also appear in Burt's final MZA paper ("The Genetic Determination of Differences in Intelligence," p. 149), again virtually unchanged - one out of six values shows a minor perturbation - as the sample size increased.
97. J. Conway, "Class Differences in Intelligence: II. A Reply to Dr. Halsey," British Journal of Statistical Psychology 12 (1959): 8. These correlations also appear in Burt's final MZA paper ("The Genetic Determination of Differences in Intelligence," p. 149), again virtually unchanged - one out of six values shows a minor perturbation - as the sample size increased.
98. Conway's description appears in ibid., pp. 8-9; the list sent to Shockley is reprinted in Fletcher, Science, Ideology and the Media: The Cyril Burt Scandal, p. 379: Burt's published table of occupational categories appears in "The Genetic Determination of Differences in Intelligence," p. 143. By comparing Conway's descriptions with the data in the Shockley list, N. J. Mackintosh has been able to identify specifically eight of the eleven cases that were added in the interim and has calculated the correlations on all possible combinations of 42 pairs among the remaining cases, producing results from 0.901 to 0.918 in contrast to Conway's reported correlation of 0.881; see N. J. Mackintosh. "Twins and Other Kinship Studies," in Cyril Burt: Fraud or Framed? ed. Mackintosh, pp. 64-65.
99. Conway's description appears in ibid., pp. 8-9; the list sent to Shockley is reprinted in Fletcher, Science, Ideology and the Media: The Cyril Burt Scandal, p. 379: Burt's published table of occupational categories appears in "The Genetic Determination of Differences in Intelligence," p. 143. By comparing Conway's descriptions with the data in the Shockley list, N. J. Mackintosh has been able to identify specifically eight of the eleven cases that were added in the interim and has calculated the correlations on all possible combinations of 42 pairs among the remaining cases, producing results from 0.901 to 0.918 in contrast to Conway's reported correlation of 0.881; see N. J. Mackintosh. "Twins and Other Kinship Studies," in Cyril Burt: Fraud or Framed? ed. Mackintosh, pp. 64-65.
100. Conway's description appears in ibid., pp. 8-9; the list sent to Shockley is reprinted in Fletcher, Science, Ideology and the Media: The Cyril Burt Scandal, p. 379: Burt's published table of occupational categories appears in "The Genetic Determination of Differences in Intelligence," p. 143. By comparing Conway's descriptions with the data in the Shockley list, N. J. Mackintosh has been able to identify specifically eight of the eleven cases that were added in the interim and has calculated the correlations on all possible combinations of 42 pairs among the remaining cases, producing results from 0.901 to 0.918 in contrast to Conway's reported correlation of 0.881; see N. J. Mackintosh. "Twins and Other Kinship Studies," in Cyril Burt: Fraud or Framed? ed. Mackintosh, pp. 64-65.
101. Conway's description appears in ibid., pp. 8-9; the list sent to Shockley is reprinted in Fletcher, Science, Ideology and the Media: The Cyril Burt Scandal, p. 379: Burt's published table of occupational categories appears in "The Genetic Determination of Differences in Intelligence," p. 143. By comparing Conway's descriptions with the data in the Shockley list, N. J. Mackintosh has been able to identify specifically eight of the eleven cases that were added in the interim and has calculated the correlations on all possible combinations of 42 pairs among the remaining cases, producing results from 0.901 to 0.918 in contrast to Conway's reported correlation of 0.881; see N. J. Mackintosh. "Twins and Other Kinship Studies," in Cyril Burt: Fraud or Framed? ed. Mackintosh, pp. 64-65.
102. Burt, "The Genetic Determination of Differences in Intelligence," p. 139, 143.
103. Burt, "The Evidence for the Concept of Intelligence," p. 67.
104. Burt, "The Genetic Determination of Differences in Intelligence," p. 141.
105. Conway, "The Inheritance of Intelligence and its Social Implications," p. 186.
106. Burt, "The Genetic Determination of Differences in Intelligence," p. 144.
107. Burt's letter to Shockley is reprinted in Fletcher, Science, Ideology, and the Media: The Cyril Burt Scandal, p. 381.
108. Ibid.
109. Burt, "The Genetic Determination of Differences in Intelligence," p. 144.
110. Ibid., p. 144, 143.
111. Hans, J. Eysenck, The Inequality of Man (London: Temple Smith Ltd., 1973): 93.
112. These studies were identified by using those cited in Susan Farber's Identical Twins Reared Apart (NY: Basic Books, 1981) as a starting point and adding some studies missed by Farber and others conducted since publication of her book.
113. Langinvainion et al. report a mean age at separation for the 30 MZAs of 4.3 years; Pedersen et al. report that 50% of the pairs were separated by their first birthday, though MZs are not distinguished from DZs in their study; Bouchard et al. report a mean age at separation of 5.1 months with a standard deviation of 8.5. In private correspondence with Bouchard he has claimed that the Institutional Review Board at the University of Minnesota will not allow him to release the exact distribution of the ages of the MZAs at separation, though he has provided statistics on the latest sample size of 69 showing a mean age at separation of 159.6 days, with a median of 75.0, and a standard deviation of 264.6. Clearly all these studies have substantial numbers of MZAs who have been separated after six months of age. The "best" data in this regard come from the Minnesota study, but even in that case probably some 25% of subjects were separated later than six months old.
114. Joynson, The Burt Affair, p. 180.
115. Burt, "The Evidence for the Concept of Intelligence," p. 167.
116. Burt, "The Inheritance of Mental Ability," p. 7.
117. Conway, "The Inheritance of Intelligence and its Social Implications," p. 186.
118. Quoted in Fletcher, Science, Ideology, and the Media: The Cyril Burt Scandal, p. 76.
119. Burt, "The Genetic Determination of Differences in Intelligence," pp. 141, 143.
120. See case "S f 19" in James Shields, Monozygotic Twins Brought Up Apart and Brought Up Together (London: Oxford University Press, 1962).
121. Cyril Burt, "The Mental Differences between Children," in Black Paper II, eds. C. B. Cox, and A. E. Dyson, (London: The Critical Quarterly Society, 1969): p. 24.
122. Burt, "The Genetic Determination of Differences in Intelligence," p. 147.
123. Fletcher, Science, Ideology, and the Media: The Cyril Burt Scandal, pp. 41-43.
124. Arthur R. Jensen, "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement," Harvard Educational Review 39 (1969): 1-123; Richard J. Murray and Charles Murray, The Bell Curve (NY: Free Press, 1994), p. 520.
125. Arthur R. Jensen, "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement," Harvard Educational Review 39 (1969): 1-123; Richard J. Murray and Charles Murray, The Bell Curve (NY: Free Press, 1994), p. 520.