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 .4 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.° (Both individuals participated in the OTA workshop.) Another landmark publication appeared in 1987: a substantial portion of one issue of Behaviora 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 .8 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 3 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 Parapsychology, 1985, 49(1): 3-91. 5 Hyman, R. & C. Honorton. A joint communique: The psi ganzfeld controversy. e Journal of apsychology, 1986, 50(4): 351-364. 6 Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1987, 10(4). 7 National Research Council. an Pe ance; we eorie 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. 8 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
peprovea For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200450001-8 a 7 parapsychological research. This workshop and report are OTA's response to that interest, OTA's intention in holding the workshop was not to continue the debate described above, but to illuminate it by identifying the main points of contention and the reasons for them. For that reason, background materials were researched to provide a fuller elucidation of some issues not adequately aired in the course of the one-day meeting. Discussion was limited to the area of laboratory parapsychology. Participants represented three groups: researchers in parapsychology, constructive critics of the field, and knowledgeable individuals who follow the field from a position of more neutral interest or involvement. Although the meeting was to some extent an occasion for spirited debate, no attempt has been made to “score" that debate. This report will describe the controversies only to 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 experiments. METHODOLOGY One of the most persistent and perhaps most damaging charges leveled by the critics is that various flaws in the design and conduct of nearly ail parapsychology experiments render their results scientifically less meaningful than they are reported to be -- and, in fact, often account for the results. Parapsychologists dispute this charge, saying that most of the alleged flaws have little or no effect 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 over what distinguishes an experimental "flower" from an experimental "weed." Further, the parapsychologists claim, this criticism is a red herring intended to tarnish the image of parapsychology within the scientific community and the public and to impede broader awareness of findings and progress in the field. Those at the workshop asserted strenuously that they and their colleagues make every effort to conduct their experiments in the most rigorous manner possible. The real issue, they 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") o inadequate security provisions (e.g., to prevent tampering with equipment) o improper randomization techniques (such as hand shuffling of cards) o 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 statistical flaws, including: o multiple testing or analysis (i.e., to find the test or analysis that gives the most positive "effect size" for psi) o°0 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200450001-8