‘a4 4 4a ot = i Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : es I OBJECTIVE (UV) Co The objective of this subtask was to determine the veracity of the claims in the parapsychological literature regarding psychoenergetic interactions with biological systems. A conceptual replication of the most promising of these earlier claims was undertaken, as a means to examine whether biological systems register physical effects concomitantly with psychoenergetic “intent” by an observer. This initial experimental effort was an attempt to determine, to first order, whether biological systems can eventually be employed as psychoenergetic “intrusion detectors.” 4 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 |) C|A-RDP96-00789RQ03800280001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : c-RoP96-007s9Hods800280001-0 II INTRODUCTION (0) ; One of the ultimate applications goals of psychoenergetic phenomena is the determination of whether psychoenergetic intrusion can be detected, and whether counter- measures exist against such intrusion. From a phenomenological perspective, the term psychoenergetic intrusion can entail what appears to be either energetic or informational processes, or both, as indicated by the following set of operative definitions: ® The direct perturbation of physical systems that appear to be well shielded against, or otherwise inaccessible to, human influence (energetic). ® The psychoenergetic acquisition of information thought to be secure against access (informational). @ The perturbation of a physical system that occurs indirectly as a result of an individual’s attempts to acquire information through psychoenergetic means (energetic and informational). Only those intrusions that entail causal interactions with physical systems are likely to be detected. A physical system will not be considered a candidate intrusion detector, therefore, unless it registers energetic effects directly (as a result of intentional perturbation), or indirectly (as a result of concomitant acquisition of information). ° _!in the parapsychological literature, the energetic manifestations of psycho- energetic intrusion are variously referred to as remote action (RA), remote perturbation (RP), psychokinesis (PK), telekinesis (TK), and so forth; informational processes are most often referred to as remote viewing (RV), clairvoyance, precognition, and the like. The term countermeasures may be defined as the shielding or jamming of psychoenergetic intrusion by either physical or mental processes. i _, Before the higher-order problem of countermeasures can be addressed, experimental ‘verification of the existence of psychoenergetic intrusion must first be obtained. Detection of the putative energetic aspects of psychoenergetic intrusion can be accomplished most directly by designing experiments in which an individual's primary task is to actively attempt to cause perturbations in various types of physical systems. Numerous RA 5 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : bu-roreecoraér 03800280001-0
“tf “| Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : gia-ROPOS-007esH003800200001-9 ny experiments of this type, using a wide variety of physical systems, have been cited in the parapsychological literature. (U) One category of candidate target physical systems is biological systems; the precedent for using these in RA experiments has been well established. Of particular interest (because of its similarity to the experiment detailed in this document) is Carroll B. Nash’s experiment involving the psychokinetic control of bacterial mutation.* The published abstract of the Nash experiment is provided here: Three experimenters each tested 20 subjects not known to be psychically gifted. Because of procedural errors, results were obtained for only 52 subjects. Each subject was tested in a single run with a separate set of nine tubes of a mixed culture of lac-negative and lac—positive strains of Escherichia coli. Mutation of lac-negative to lac—positive was mentally promoted in three of the tubes, mentally inhibited in three, and three of the tubes served as controls. The mutant ratio of lac-positive to total bacteria was greater in the promoted than in the inhibited tubes, with two-tailed p < 0.005; less in the inhibited tubes than in the controls, with two-tailed p < 0.02; and greater in the promoted tubes than in the controls, although not significantly so. The results are interpreted to suggest that the rate of bacterial mutation was psychokinetically affected. ~The experiment described in this report also undertook to investigate psychokinetic influence on bacterial mutagenicity, but it differs significantly from the Nash experiment in certain of its experimental protocols and underlying theoretical assumptions. The overall objective was also different than that of the Nash experiment in that the SRI study is concerned with providing a “first order” examination of the existence of psycho- energetic intrusion detection with biological systems, *(U) Nash, C. B., “Psychokinetic Control of Bacterial Growth,” Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, Vol. 51, pp. 217-226 (1982). 6 Approved For Release Z000108:HO WF GA-ROPES-00789R00380028000%-9
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 0. : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800280001-0 é LS MORI BUNDLE # DATE # of Missing Pages PAGE MISSING Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800280001-0
Approved For Release ai : eR Pa forseRosseyens ‘I (U) with medium containing histidine), and selective minimal glucose plates (i.e., plates with medium lacking histidine) to allow for the growth and appearance of bacterial colonies. 2. (U) Procedural Terms \ , The following are the most common procedural terms: ® Subject--One of seven volunteers who undertook to psychoenergetically influence the mutagenicity of the bacterial samples. @ Monitor--The individual recording the events that transpired during an experimental session, and supervised the subject’s activities. ® Technician--The microbiologist who was responsible for all aspects of the pre- and post-session preparation of the biological samples. e Session--A single sitting in which the subject attempted to (1) increase the mutation rate of bacteria placed in three test tubes, (2) decrease the mutation rate of those placed in three different test tubes, and (3) leave yet a different group of three uninfluenced as “controls.” Each of the seven subjects contributed six such sessions. ® Trial--An attempt by a subject to psychoenergetically influence (or not influence, as in the case of control test tubes) the bacterial culture in a single test tube. There were nine such trials in each experimental session. ®  Controls--Two types of controls were employed in this experiment: intrasession and extrasession. Intrasession control test tubes consisted of three bacterial test tubes, which the subject was instructed not to attempt to actively influence, from among the set of nine session test tubes. Extra— session controls consisted of two tubes per session that were prepared by the technician in exactly the same manner as the session test tubes, but. were not used as part of the experimental session set of nine tubes. The extrasession controls remained at all times in the Microbial Genetics Laboratory, and provided the requisite data for establishing an independent measure of mutation rate. e Feedback--A drawing presented to the subject that indicated his/her performance on a given session. Feedback for a given session was typically administered prior to the start of the subject’s next session. B. (U) Biological Background . | In this section, we will give a general overview of the Ames Salmonella assay that is used routinely by SRI’s Microbial Genetics Department, and that was adapted for use in this experiment to study psychoenergetic effects on mutation frequency. 8 Approved For Release mon in : is in \ ¢