Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200450001-8 22 Thus, parapsychologists claim that the issue is not the validity of psi research, but the integrity of the scientific process as it deals with controversial findings. They believe that the scientific gate-keepers should be willing to trust the normal scientific process to arrive at scientific truth, and not rely on reviewers who are not scientifically qualified in the discipline being reviewed. They note that the idea of disqualifying an entire discipline from reviewing work in its field is unprecedented in modern science. CHOICES FOR THE FUTURE Regardless of the reasons, it is clear that parapsychology continues to face strong resistance from the scientific establishment. The question is, How can the field improve its chances of obtaining a fairer hearing across a broader spectrum of the scientific community, so that emotionality does not impede objective assessment of experimental results? Whether the final result of such an assessment is positive, negative, or something in between, the field appears to merit such consideration. From the standpoint of the experiments themselves, some of the answers to that question have already been outlined in Section IV (i.e., replicability, better controls, more process-oriented research, etc.). On a higher level, the need for an acceptable theory of psi (one accepted by a large number of parapsychologists) has been emphasized repeatedly. It would probably improve the outlook for the field if such a theory were more hospitable to current models of mechanisms in physics and psychology than the idea that the mind can operate outside the realm of known physical laws -- although, indeed, some aspects of psi suggest recent advances in quantum theory such as nonlocality. On an individual level, it was suggested that researchers in parapsychology must begin to make certain basic choices. Workshop participants referred several times to the fact that parapsychologists began in the 19th century by investigating something experiential and “real" -- instances of paranormal phenomena. Gradually, they adapted their experimental approaches to the methodologies of conventional science. But in doing so, and in attempting to demonstrate the phenomena scientifically and statistically, they have lost touch with the powerful experiential base that gave the field its impetus. By "looking under the lamppost" using a rigorous sclentific methodology, it was suggested, parapsychologists may be ignoring more promising avenues of investigation. Thus, each experimenter must decide whether to pursue research designed primarily to satisfy the critics of the field, or to follow his or her instincts as to where the most fruitful and powerful findings might be made. It was suggested that one way parapsychology might be released from the constrained situation in which it currently operates would be to demonstrate practical applications of psi. (Some studies in this direction have already been attempted. 35) This would required working toward a better understanding of the conditions and characteristics under which different kinds of psi operate, finding or cultivating individuals with unusually strong capabilities, and mounting controlled demonstrations of the uses of ESP and PK. If such a strategy were to be successful, public opinion and the interest of potential users -- rather than the strictures of the scientific establishment -- would begin driving progress in the field. 35 See, for example, the discussion of "Potential Applications" in Palmer, J.A., C. Honorton, & J. Utts, op. cit., p. 17. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200450001-8
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200450001-8 Another, less risky strategy or improving the status and acceptance of parapsychology is to encourage a constructive dialogue with the critics of the field. Indeed, this process has already begun with the published exchanges between leading proponents and critics, the joint communique of Hyman and Honorton, and the OTA workshop itself. A more concrete step was suggested in the joint communique and elaborated upon in the workshop, where it received enthusiastic support. 36 This was to appoint a committee of parapsychologists and critics who would jointly evaluate the ongoing work in parapsychology, establish guidelines for acceptable experimental protocols and, possibly, even design and conduct an independent experiment. Although there would be obvious difficulties to be overcome, they would pose small barriers compared to those the field now faces, This would certainly represent a large step toward evaluating parapsychology and possibly bringing the field further inside the edifice of established science. 36 Hyman, R. & C. Honorton, op. cit., p. 363. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200450001-8