THE ENHANCED HUMAN PERFORMANCE PROJECT: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFORT TO DATE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00789R003300160001-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 21, 1998
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: April 14, 1987
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R00330O Do
CONTROL NO.
SECRET
SRI COPY NO. ROJECT 1,1, t i
SRI 1825 4/8I p !'r .
THE" ENHANCED HUMAN PERFORMANCE PROJECT: 3-hi Cm pq I. ()8q
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFORT TO DATE WY
PROJECT REVIEW GROUP
14 APRIL, 1987
At the request of MG Philip K. Russell, MC, Commander, United States Army Medical
Research and Development Command, the following individuals met at the Pentagon on 6
March 1987 to assess the work of the Enhanced Human Performance Project:
Ms. Amoretta Hoeber, TRW
Dr. Jack Vorona, DIA
Dr. Michael A. Wartell, Humboldt State University
Dr. Nick Yaru, Consultant (Chairman)
Dr. Chris Zarafonetis, Biomedical R&D, Inc.
Others in attendance at this meeting included:
BG Richard T. Travis, MC, Deputy Commander, USAMRDC
Col. Philip Sobocinski, MSC, Special Assistant for Biotechnology
Col. Peter J. McNelis, MSC, Project Manager/COR
Mrs. Jean Smith, Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting
Dr. Edwin C. May, SRI, Principal Investigator
In preparation for this meeting, copies of all Project reports for Fiscal Year 1986 along
with the Scientific Oversight Committee's comments regarding these reports and the contrac-
tor's responses to the comments were forwarded to each of the above-mentioned individuals
for their review.
The Project Review Group was asked, via correspondence (MG Russell, 12 January
1987; Col. McNelis, 12 February 1987) and by BG Travis in his welcoming remarks at the
meeting, to address the following questions concerning the Project:
1. Is the science underlying this research effort essentially sound?
2. Does the evidence to date support the existence of an anomaly?
3. What is the potential value of this effort to the DOD?
Classified by: CDR, USAMRDC
DECLASSIFY ON: OADR
WARNING NOT[
-1
E~TUICTED DISRN ' 'dT cTE~ lase 2000/08/08sig#.RDP96-00-MEQ03300160001-8
T 4 1>
ACLES',-;
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003300160001-8
SECRET
4. Is the research focus and level of effort appropriate?
The agenda for the meeting is attached as Enclosure 1. Following a presentation of the
Project's historical antecedents, the questions listed above provided the structure for a discus-
sion of: FY 1986 research tasks and results, the overall plan underlying the FY 1986, effort
and possible modifications of the plan for follow-on work.
The Review Group's responses to the preceding questions and their recommendations for
the Project will be presented in tarn. It should be noted that there was unanimity among the
members of the Review Group with regard to these responses.
{ 1, Is the science sound?
The individual experiments conducted during Fiscal Year 1986 appear to be
scientifically sound. The primary contractor's response to comments of the
Scientific Oversight Committee (SOC) leads this Review Group to conclude
that the scientific quality of the effort is under continual qualified scrutiny,
and immediate adjustments are made by the researchers to insure that that
quality continues. Additionally, appropriate community-wide symposia such
as the Theory and Proof of Principle conferences projected for FY 1987 will
enhance that quality.
2 Is there an anomaly?
The results of experiments conducted by this Project during FY 1986, as well
as other reports of previous operational related research, lead this Review
Group to conclude that a natural anomaly exists, which we will refer to as
Remote Viewing.
(__3. Is it worthwhile?
The Review Group believes that progress is being made in understanding this
anomaly and that continuation of the effort is not only warranted, but entirely
appropriate and strongly recommended.
Should Remote Viewing be predictably reproducible and its mechanisms,
parameters and physiological correlates understood, there would be a number
of significant applications for the DoD. Current user agencies have reported
utilizing the present technology with positive results.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08S: CIIA RDP96-00789R003300160001-8
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : IMOtRDP96-00789R003300160001-8
Is the direction and emphasis appropriate?
The Review Group believes that the probability of success in demonstrating
and explaining a phenomenon known as Remote Action is less than the
probability of success for the Remote Viewing phenomenon. Rather than
continuing to explore both phenomena at equal levels of effort, it is
recommended that the results of this year's (FY87) effort be critically
reviewed and those areas that demonstrate the most promise be exploited and
those that do not be terminated. The focus then would be less diffuse and
more vertical as the more productive pathways are emphasized.
This should not be considered an economy measure, however, since the
vertical effort should be assured of adequate resources to accomplish its more
definitive tasks.
The Review Group also recommends that the Project should clarify its use of
the terms: global/conceptual replication (i.e., other labs evidence the
phenomena without following the same protocol), exact/technical replication
(i.e., phenomena evidenced in other labs following the same protocol with
other subjects and other targets), and reproducibility (i.e., phenomena
evidenced by the same subjects over time utilizing the same randomly ordered
target set). With this in mind, it is recommended that an effort be made to
enhance the reproducibility of the phenomena by identifying and utilizing
especially talented individuals. It is believed that this pool of-talented
subjects would also aid in isolating neurophysiological correlates and
mechanisms.
It is also recommended that one or two other secure labs be identified to
carry out exact/technical replication of the most promising experiments
conducted by the primary contractor.
Overall, the current breadth of experiments selected to demonstrate and
explicate the phenomena is appropriate, as is the present level of effort
assigned to each of these experiments.
-3-
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 CIA-RDP96-00789R003300160001-8
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2000/08/~8EcIA-RDP96-00789R003300160001-8
In summary, the Project Review Group has determined to its satisfaction that the work
of the Enhanced Human Performance Project is scientifically sound, appropriately managed
and monitored, and is providing valuable insight into the nature of an anomaly which could
have a significant impact on the DoD.
9 IT
Ai{??c?t...
Dr. Nick Yaru, Chairman
Project Review Group
~~ u~A1!1a ?viz
, ~i111111:.t+ P u.'!t~
:::