Approved For Release 2003/09/16 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200190072-8 Top-Down Decision About Applications . Given that a government-sponsored program in anomalous mental phenomena has existed for 20 years, the overriding consideration to continue to include such an activity within the intelligence community must rest primarily upon applications. That is, we must: At least show prima facie evidence for successful applications in the historical archive, or e Given that anomalous mental phenomena can be shown to exist, demonstrate that either technically and/or administratively, previous attempts to apply anomalous mental phenomena have been misguided. If we are unable to show that one or both of these conditions are true, then I would recommend that the intelligence community abandon any further research or applications. About Research The existence of anomalous mental phenomena cannot be statistically determined from the results of a single laboratory. The requirements for a replication of a statistical phenomenon and the methods for the analysis of cross-laboratory results are well developed. The established criteria set by meta-analysis, have been met by AC across laboratories and within the government sponsored program. From the Cognitive Sciences Laboratory’s perspective, minimal standards have not been met to claim that large-scale anomalous perturbation exists. Micro-AP (i.e., statistical effects on the output of physical devices such as random number generators) can be interpreted as a manifestation of AC—see the dashed line in Figure 1. Anomalous perturbation on biological targets is still in question. The research in the Former Soviet Union (FSU) strongly suggests that bio-AP has been successful both on large-scale systems (i.e., the aggression behavior of laboratory animals) and on statistical systems (i.e., brain wave patterns of humans). We have sponsored two studies in the US that support the FSU findings. Recommend Approach Current Tasking In my view, the current approach is unlikely able to answer the primary question: should the intelligence community continue supporting anomalous mental phenomena activity. The reason is, to my knowledge, applications are not being addressed. In addition, by just examining the contractor’s archive, we are unable to make a valid statistical assessment with regard to existence of the phenomena. The most that can be learned is an assessment of the quality of the scientific methodology. But since FY 1986, the government has established an on-going Scientific Oversight Committee whose charter. was, in part, to assure the sponsors that the best possible science was being used. Thus, by any measure, the high quality of the research has already been established. If the published literature beyond the government sponsored research is considered, then the " Regardless of existence issues, anomalous mental phenomena might be of intelligence interest if foreign powers are pursuing the area. Foreign assessment will not be discussed further in this memorandum. Approved For Release 2003/09/16 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200190072-8Page 3
EE ee in irp uae enennintnemnen, Approved For Release 2003/09/16 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200190072-8 case for the existence of some anomalous mental phenomena has already been establish according to generally accepted criteria. A Different Direction To satisfy the Congressional directive and to determine whether the intelligence community should support the activity, let us conduct a two-day meeting in late June for ‘the Blue Ribbon Panel. The first day should be devoted to the assessment of applications. Such a meeting would be classified at an appropriate level and include a number of customers—both satisfied and not, current and selected previous government officials who are/were responsible for the applications, the program’s research director (when appropriate), and selected current/past receivers. The objective of this meeting is assess the prima facie application evidence first with regard to its utility and second to determine in which domains it has or has not been effective. In addition, the Blue Ribbon Panel may want to assess the management and infrastructure of the application activity. The second day’s unclassified meeting should include selected members of the contractor’s Scientific Oversight Committee, other respected members of the scientific community, responsible representatives from the scientific skeptics, representatives from the open research community, and the program’s research director. The agenda for both days should include: ¢ Establishing acceptance criteria for applications and adopting the standard ones for research, e Reviewing previous program evaluations, assessing the published meta-analyses, and examining current research efforts. ¢ Determining if the acceptance criteria have been met in their respective domains. If the overall program cannot meet these standards, then the sponsor should recommend to Congress to close the activity. If, however, these criteria are met, then the sponsor should request sufficient funds to adequately continue the applications and research. The Blue Ribbon Panel’s findings and the minutes of the two-day conference should easily satisfy the Congressional directive. I am confident that with adequate preparation, this two-day meeting is capable of resolving the question of further participation by the intelligence community. Approved For Release 2003/09/16 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200190072-Page 4