INVESTIGATING THE PARANORMAL

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090024-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 26
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 17, 1998
• Sequence Number: 24
• Publication Date: October 18, 1974
• Content Type: MAGAZINE

Approy,,
pare r.
We publish this week a paper by Drs R. Targ and H.
Puthofl' (page 602) which is bound to create something of
a stir in the scientific community. The claim is made that
information can be transferred by some channel whose
characteristics appear to fall "outside the ranee of known
perceptual modalities". Or, more bluntly, some people can
read thoughts or see things remotely.
Such a claim is, of course, hound to be greeted with a
preconditioned reaction amongst many scientists. To some
it simply confirms what they have always known or
believed. To others it is beyond the laws of science and
therefore necessarily unacceptable. But to a few--though
perhaps to more than is realised-the questions are still
unanswered, and any evidence of high quality is worth a
critical exarr,ination.
The issue, then, is whether the evidence is of sufficient
quality to he taken s,,:rie;usly. In trying to answer this, we
have been fortt:nate in having the help of three indepen-
dent referees who have done their utmost to see the paper
as a potentially important scientific communication and
not as a challenge to or confirmation of prejudices. We
thank theist for the considerable effort they have put in to
helping us, and we also thank Dr Christopher Evans of the
National Physical Laboratory whose continued advice on the
subject is reflected in the content of this leading article.
A general indication of the referees' comments may be
helpful to readers in reaching their own assessment of the
paper. Of the three, one believed we should not publish,
one did not feel strongly either way and the third was
guardedly in favour of publication. We first summarise the
arguments against the paper.
(1) There was agreement that the paper was weak in
design and presentation, to the extent that details given as
to the precise way in which the experiment was carried out
were disconcertingly vague. The referees felt that insuf-
ficient account had been taken of the established method-
ology of experimental psychology and that in the form
originally submitted the paper would be unlikely to he
accepted for publication in a psychological journal on these
grounds alone. Two referees also felt that the authors had
not taken into account the lessons learnt in the past b)
parapsychologists researching this tricky and complicated
area.
(2) The three referees were particularly critical of the
method of target selection used, pointing out that the
choice of a target by "opening a dictionary at random" is
a naive, vague and unnecessarily controversial approach to
iandomisation. Parapsychologiss have long rejected such
methods of target selection and, as one referee put it,
weaknesses of this kind reseal "a lack of skill in their
experiments, whicli might hate caused them to make some
(:ther mistake which is less evident from their writing?
(3) All the referees felt that the details given of various
safeguards and precautions introduced against the po.-
sihifity or `0 @f yr . pfC'Lot ` t.nof
e?r,:.: u:' ot'?`trot the sti I;FWRO 5Tf~l,rTl ! !r r~L
FRS" ,Rele 2QODlQ8 0 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090024-7
(to use one phrase). This in itself might he sufficien" to
raise doubt that the experiments have de nonstrated the
existence of a new channel of communication which does
not involve the use of the senses.
(4) Two of the referees felt that it was a pity that the
paper, instead of concentrating in detail and with meti-
culous care on one particular approach to extra-s;en:sory
phenomena, produced a mixture of different experirneuts,
using different subjects in unconnected circumstances and
with only a tenuous overall theme. At the best these were
more "a series of pilot studies . . . than a report of a
completed experiment".
On their own these highly critical comments could be
grounds for rejection of the paper, but it was felt that
other points needed to be taken into account before a final
decision could he made.
I) Despite its shortcomings, the paper is presented as a
scientific document by two qualified scientists, ~sthing
from a major research establishment a LC~LIiy'_ ~'?itlr" t'?c
unqualified backing of the research institut itself.
(2) The authors have cl a,ly attempte to insestieante:
under laboratory conditions pl-;.,t:,rirena which ch to
highly. implausible to many scientists, would netertheless
seem to be worthy of insestigation even if, in the final
analysis, negative findings are revc lecl. if scientists dispute
and debate the reality of extra-sensory l perccpuon, then
the subject is clearly a matter for scientific Ste.", and
reportage.
(3) Very considerable advance publicity it ? I it +o
sae not generated by the authors or their institute--has
preceded the presentation of this. report. As a result many
scientists and very large number, of non-scientists bcliesc,
as the result of anecdote and hearsay, that the Stanford
Research Institute (SRI) was engaged in a major research
programme into parapsyehologicil matters and had even
been the scene of tr remarkable breakthrough in this field.
The publication of this paper, with its muted claims, sug-
d
ata,
gestior?s of a limited research prograninc, and modest
is, we believe. likely to nut the whole matter in more reason-
able perspective. -
(4) The claims that have been made by. or on behalf of,
one of the subjects, NIT. Lri Cieiler, have been hailed pub-
licly as indicating total acceptance by the SRI of allegedly
sensational powers and nay also perhaps now he seen in
true perspective, it must be a matter of interest to scientists
to note that, contrary to very widespread rumour, the
paper does not present any evidence whatsoever for
Geller's alleged abilities to bend metal rods by stroNing
them, influence magnets at a distance, make watches stop
or start by some psychokinetic force and so on. The publi-
cation of the paper would he justified on the ,grounds of
allowing scientists the opportunity to discriminate bct'aeen
the cautious, limited and still highly debatable experi-
mental data, and e travagant rumour, fed in reccat da'.s
bs inaccurate attempts in s:;me newspapers at precopritfon
of the contents of the i-.aper.
(5) I'so of the referees also felt that the paper should
he published because it would allow parapsychoi'agust?, and
all oilier scientists interested in researching this, arguable
t os n tRO0Dr2tfi}Q08t?~} 4LC~lolo }' and
 Nature Vol. 251 October 18 1974
760
'Approved For, Release 0W8 11,9,: CI . -t tRAPP?6QQ7t$7tR,QQ0e20009lOQ24@,7re amongst
most respected journals cannot afford to live on respect-
ability. We believe that our readers expect us to be a home
for the ocr,x:.ionat `high-risk' type of paper. This is hardly to
assert that we regularly fly in the face of referees' recom-
mendations (we always consider the possibility of publishing,
as in this case, a summary of their objections). It is to
say that the unusual must now and then be allowed a
toe-hold in the' literature, sometimes to flourish, more
often to be forgotten within a year or two.
The critical comments above were sent to the authors
who have modified their manuscript in response to them.
We have also corresponded informally with the authors on
one or two issues such as whether the targets could have
been forced by standard magical tricks, and are convinced
that this is not the case. As a result of these exchanges
and the above considerations we have decided to publish
in the belief' that, however flawed the experimental pro-
cedure and however difficult the process of distilling the
essence of a complex series of events into a scientific
manuscript, it was on balance preferable to publish and
maybe stimulate and advance the controversy rather than
keep it out of circulation for a further period.
Publishing in a scientific journal is not a process of
receiving a seal of approval from the establishment: rather
it is the serving of notice on the community that there is
something worthy of their attention and scrutiny. And this
To this end the New Scientist does a service by publishing
this week the results of Dr Joe Hanlon's own investiga-
tions into a wide range of phenomena surrounding Mr
Geller. If the subject is to be investigated further-and no
scientist is likely to accept more than that the SRI experi-
ments provide a prima facie case for more investigations-
the experimental technique will have to take account of
Dr Ifanlon's strictures, those of our own referees and those,
doubtless, of others who will be looking for alternative
explanations.
Perhaps the most important issue raised by the circum-
stances surrounding the publication of this paper is whether
science has yet developed the competence to confront
claims of the paranormal. Supposedly paranormal events
frequently cannot be investigated in the calm, controlled
and meticulous way that scientists are expected to work,
and so there is always a danger that the investigator, swept
up in the confusion that surrounds many experiments,
abandons his initial intentions in order to go along with his
subject's desires. It may be that all experiments of this sort
should he exactly prescribed beforehand by one group, done
by another unassociated group and evaluated in terms of
performance by the first group. Only by increasing austerity
of approach by scientists will there be any major progress
in this field.
or those peril nun the factory floor
In tli
the title hints, the object of Socialist
article Peter J. Smith argues Worker is nothing less than the com-
ater commitment (in deed plcte overthrow of the capitalist system;
that a g
as well c
science by t
word) to community and one of the ways of achieving this
to Scientific Establish- aim, it seems, is to give strident publi-
ment might help
regain some of fit
has lost.
ublic respect it trial system. Fortunately, one can easily
THE question of who speak or should
speak, on behalf of the scien ' c com-
munity has been debated on ma oc-
casions, most often without result. Nil
the face of it, such lack of resolutio
is hardly unexpected, for scientists and
avoid a sharp turn to the left and
still admit that what some British
workers have been subjected to in the
name of asbestos production is beyond
the limit of acceptability in a humani-
tarian society.
For what clearly emerges fro the
hetoric of the pamphlet in A estion is
icture of men and swgr en reacting
their ready ability to achieve con- in s2xne bewilderrnen
can put up a pretty collective front The chie~co
when they feel so moved. The one asbestosis
famous occasion on which a near con- by bre
.to the long-term
tnological activity.
quence is, of course,
killing disease acquired
tphlet is devoted to
scientific community saw itself put at se histories of
shock after a
posals. Then individuals and instil x'r decade or so in the in
stry. But more
Lions miraculously found a con -ion instructively, there is als
cause of self-preservation. ccount of the fight for sa
y put up
But when it comes to theidefence of by a small group of the 7/162
ferent story; the voi -c'of the British Transport and General Workers Union
h
b tr
ctio,, of the ashesu3s
--. - ?- --'-'-
e o
u
m be t
heard, wheihe,r,,~~1 tking a moral stance, companies, the indifference of politi-
exerting huggxdnitarian pressure, supply- cians, the weakness of the Factory
inn expo tfse or even simply providing Inspectorate, the silence of much of
And there is certainly somcttiing
to fight about. According t9,/I'atrick
Kinnersly (The Hazards of
to Fight Them, Nut
64 are known
107 in 1970
Press, 1973),
increasing toll:
have died in 1965,
number frnew cases diagnosed rose
from/ ..82 in 1965 to 153 in 1970.
,L ofeover, asbestosis is only one of
e asbestos-induced diseases. Lung
cancer appears to require a smaller
exposure to asbestos. There is also
another form of cancer known as
mesothclioma which involves growths
in the linings of the lungs and stomach.
Almost all mesotheliomas are caused
by asbestos: but no one knows how
many workers in Britain are killed by
them, partly because they take so long
to develop and partly because they are
not always identified. The TUC Cen-
tenary Institute of Occupational Health
has suggested that, 30 years after first
exposure, about one in 200 will be
found to have died of mesothclioma:
but Dr lasing J. Selikoff of Mount
Sinai Hospital in New York is ap-
parently more pessimistic. He fi.is
recently been quoted as saying that,
for every 100,000 workers entering the
dards obtaining in the United
inforiwttion. A good case in point is the press, the impotence of health Staid
damp! t~1 ---a- u t ~~ i~}~ t}~ t c 1, r s but not 7,000 of
that ~t ntroPz~As20L'aKt',"t`~Y 4o7~7~,oao~
as recently as 1971, he. v%ould
20,000 to die of lunet_ "sneer.
0024 7tt,~,,5.
 Nature Vol. 251 October