himself to sharp criticism . . . if he puts forward any conclusion which is not as near to demonstrable certainty as an empirical conclusion can be." (Burt, 1966a, p. 317) After a number of not unreasonable assumptions, David Burbridge (2006) concludes that there were enough separated monozygotic twin pairs (MZAs) in England between 1900 and 1950 to make it possible, in theory, for Cyril Burt to have located the 53 pairs reported in his famous 1966 paper. The demonstration that this many MZAs existed at the time is, of course, necessary but far from sufficient, in the face of other evidence, to suggest that Burt's sample was not fraudulent. Burbridge goes on to consider a number of "anomalies and inconsistencies" in Burt's description of his sample, some of which he finds suspicious but not so much as to tilt the scales toward guilt. Declaring that his own analysis "should be counted on both sides of the balance sheet," Burbridge does not think it possible to resolve the issue by examining Burt's published work, absent "fresh documentation," such as the archives of childcare agencies.
As I have previously written (Tucker, 1997), I believe that the case against Burt is "beyond a reasonable doubt," a conclusion that becomes particularly apparent when one looks at the context within which Burt's claims occurred. It is that context, entirely omitted from Burbridge's article, that I wish to discuss.
An ardent eugenicist who believed that class distinctions were rooted in "innate" differences in intelligence, Burt urged that higher education be reserved for that "small handful of individuals who are endowed by nature with outstanding gifts," the 2 or 3 percent of the population, whose "inborn capacity" was to be identified at an early age so that they could be selected for university preparation in separate schools (Burt, 1959, pp. 31, 32). Throughout his career, his research on the "inheritance of intelligence" then provided the scientific support for this policy by producing the evidence necessary to refute any suggestion that intelligence was not innate or that education in England should be made more egalitarian. Thus, his studies of genetic influence were informed primarily by polemical intent. Burt's first scientific paper, published in 1909 before the use of IQ tests, compared students from a "high class Preparatory School," most of whom were the "sons of men of eminence in the intellectual world," to the sons of "lower middle class . . . tradesmen" (Burt, 1909, p. 100) on a number of psycho-physical measures, few of which would be considered a measure of intelligence today. Nevertheless, for Burt the study provided conclusive results: finding that the "boys of superior parentage are themselves superior" (Burt, 1909, p. 173), he declared it definitive