Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200450001-8
of Science
(AAAS)
in 1969,
signaling a tentative new status and recognition of
the
field.
In 1976 a group of philosophers,
magicians,
science writers,
scientists,
and others concerned about a widespread increase
in popular interest
in the occult formed a Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of
the Paranormal
(CSICOP). 3
CSICOP and a number of affiliated local groups have
since become
a primary source of criticism and skepticism directed primarily at
highly publicized claims of the paranormal,
but often extending more generally
to the field of parapsychology.
A highly charged and long-running debate has
emerged,
featuring charges and countercharges between members
of CSICOP and the
scientific community,
on the one hand,
and members of the parapsychological
community,
on the other.
One recent chapter of that debate appeared in the March 1985
issue of The
Journal. of Parapsychology,
in which a leading parapsychology researcher
(Charles
Honorton)
and a leading psychologist and critic
(Ray Hyman) presented their
views on the nature of one category of parapsychology experiments
In the
December 1986
issue of the same journal,
the two published a "joint communique"
in which they explored in a constructive manner areas of agreement and
disagreement regarding experiment design,
documentation,
and data analysis. 5
(Both individuals participated in the OTA workshop.)
Another landmark
publication appeared in 1987
:
a substantial portion of one
issue of Behavioral
and Brain Sciences was devoted to articles and letters on the subject
The most recent episode
in the continuing controversy over the field
appeared in the form of a December 1987 report by the National Research Council
(NRC)
, which evaluated parapsychology along with other possible mechanisms
for
enhancing the performance of U.S. Army personnel. ?
The NRC's evaluation of the
potential of parapsychology was generally negative,
prompting strenuous and
detailed claims of bias and unfairness from the parapsychological community.®
PURPOSE OF THE OTA WORKSHOP
It was
in this context that the OTA workshop took place.
OTA examined
parapsychology at
the request of its oversight body,
the Technology Assessment
Board, which expressed interest
in the human potential aspect of
It should be noted that few scientists were involved in the creation of
CSICOP.
Although today many of its Fellows are scientists,
the organization
has always been led and operated by non- scientists
.
4 Hyman,
R.
The ganzfeld psi experiment: A critical appraisal,
and Honorton,
C. Meta-analysis of psi ganzfeld research: A response
to Hyman.
The Journal
of Parap sychology
.
1985,
4£(1)
:
3-91.
5 Hyman,
R.
& C.
Honorton.
A joint communique:
The psi ganzfeld controversy.
The Journal of Parapsychology .
1986,
j>£(4)
:
351-364.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences
.
1987,
1£>(4)
.
7 National Research Council.
Enhancing Human Performance:
Issues.
Theories.
and Techniques
.
Report of the Committee on Techniques for the Enhancement of
Human Performance,
Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education.
Washington,
DC:
National Academy Press,
1988.
See,
for example:
Palmer,
J.A.,
C.
Honorton,
& J.
Utts.
"Reply to
the
National Research Council Study on Parapsychology."
Special report prepared
for the Board of Directors of the Parapsychological Association,
Inc.
,
Research Triangle Park,
N.C.,
1988.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200450001-8
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200450001-8
?nterS
h0l
of^
al/r
e?
Ch
*, ^
iS worksh°P and reP«t are OTA’s response
to that
debate desert d
^
in holdinS the workshop was not
to continue
the
^ i
4ab°Ve
’
but
£
to illuminate
it by identifying the main points of
contention and the reasons for them.
For that reason,
background materials were
esearched to provide a fuller elucidation of some issues not adequately aired
in the course of the one-day meeting.
.
47 airea
PnrM ?,
iSCU®Si0n ^
lim
i
ted
to the area of laboratory parapsychology.
Participants represented three groups:
researchers
in parapsychology
field^roi'l
of the
field,
and knowledgeable individuals who 'follow the
a position of more neutral interest or involvement.
Although the
meeting was
to some extent an occasion for spirited debate,
no attempt^as been
to
ad
:h
°
ThiS
reP°rt wil1 describe
the controversies only
the extent that they bear on OTA's inquiry into the status of the field.
II.
DESIGN AND CONDUCT OF EXPERIMENTS
„„
Controversy in the area of experiment design and conduct appears
to center
around the two issues of flaws
in methodology and replicability of experiment!
METHODOLOGY
..
. One
. of Phe most P®rsistent and perhaps most damaging charges leveled bv the
critics
is
that various flaws
in the design and conduct of nearly all
lZ?T
h°l0Sy experi“ents render their results scientifically less meaningful
than they are reported to be -
and,
in fact,
often account for the result!.
d^PUt6
thiS Charge
’
sayin6 that most of the alleged flaws
Ut
J
le
°r no
, e
f
fect on the experimental findings that indicate
"psi
, "
and
that much research in psychology
(the home discipline of many critics)
-- and
indeed in many other fields of science
--
exhibits similar flaws without
encountering comparable criticism and questioning of the results.
They say the
question of flaws
is highly subjective, with individual views differing widely
Furthl^
\h
lStingU:Lshas an experimental
"flower"
from an experimental
"weed."
to tarai sWhrr
PSyCh
?
l06iStS
C
^
a
im ’
thiS criticism
is a red herring intended
nnM ?
S
l
h
image of parapsychology within the scientific community and the
Tk
6 br°ader awareness of findings and progress
in the
field.
^°rksh°P asaarbed strenuously that they and their colleagues make
Tb^o!f
f
?
conduct their experiments
in the most rigorous manner possible.
w
k
1 ^
SUe,
i.
h
?y Say '
iS What constitutes a flaw.
The types of flaws that
have been brought into question include purported procedural
flaws such as:
°
inadequate precautions against "sensory leakage"
(for example,
allowing
subjects
in a telepathy experiment to examine
the same
"target",
such as
a
photograph,
that had been handled earlier by a person serving as
"sender")
inadequate security provisions
(e.g.,
to prevent tampering with equipment)
improper randomization techniques
(such as hand shuffling of cards)
feedback (such as failure
to randomize targets before presenting them to
the subject for judging)
incomplete documentation of experimental procedures
inconsistency of conditions and procedures used in an experiment.
Also at issue are various purported analytical and staff
flaws,
including-
o multiple testing or analysis
(i.e.
,
to find the
test or analysis
that gives
the most positive
"effect size" for psi)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200450001-8