LETTER TO (Sanitized) FROM NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL.

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00791R000200030006-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 12, 2003
• Sequence Number: 6
• Publication Date: May 5, 1995
• Content Type: LETTER

05/05/95 11:25 '$'202 9~4 2201 CBAS5E E%EC OFF
Approved For Release 2003/04/18: CIA-RDP96-007918000200030006-8
N'ATY~;f~1~,A,L RESEARCH C0~.7NCIL
COMMI55I(7N (7N H$HAVIQRALAND SOCIAL SCIENCES AND E17uCA'I'IQN
2101 ContlllutidnAvunur wsyhingtoa, D.C.20418
SG11
aff~,ce of Research and Development, CIA
fines Building, Room 846
.. ~ . ,~ Washington, ri . C . 20505
SG11
May S, 1995
~J 002
TB~PHONE: (202) 1.~1-Y~QA
~~: (202) a~-a~oi
We appreciate }raur thinking of the Natianal Research Council (NRG) in
terms of evaluating your remote viewing studies. As you know, w7e did a very
thorough look at a number o:E paranoz-rnaI phenomena in a study entitled
Enhanciz-l~ Human Pcrfol.-manes. Issues Theories and Tecl7niaues published by the
National Academy 1'ross i~n 1988.
One section of that report wus entitled "ScienLl.tic Assessment of Aemote
Viewing" beginnirlg on p. 17$. The report .reviewed the major studies and
concluded:
"In summary, after appraximareXy 15 years of claims and sometimes bitter
controversy, the literature on remote viewing has usaiiaged to produce
only one possibly successful experiment that is .not seriously flawed in
its methodology - and that' one experiment provides only marginal.
evidence for the existence or ESP. $y both scientific and
parapsychological standards, then, the case for remote viewing is not
,just very weak, but virtually nonexistent. It seems that the preeminent
position Lhat remote viewing occupies in the minds of marry proponents
results from the highly exaggexated claims made far the early
experiments, as well as the subjectively compelling, but illusory,
correspondenc?s that experimenters and par~icipants find between
components of the descriptions and the targeC sites."
The comparative aclva.ntagc~ of the NRC is in evaluating a f~.eld of
research. To put the machinery of the NRC committee process into place for
'the evaluation of a limited set of studies does not seem warranted so soon
after the lssz report. What I hope is that our recent report will be helpful
in guiding your own s~sessment of remote viewing studies.
Please let me know if I can be of help.
cc: Jahn Swets
Sandy Wigdor
Dan Druckmart
.~,~~ ~~t a~ our organ;mrio,n