The early SRI experiments, which were published in the open media, were subject to much, sometimes unfair, scutinity by scientists, including the professional skeptics at CSICOP and elsewhere.
In 1972, Ray Hyman was sent to SRI to evaluate Uri Geller on behalf of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA, now ARPA). Reportedly, director Hal Puthoff would not let Hyman observe actual experiments, so Hyman conducted his own, and then concluded that the controls were too weak. If this is the case, then Hyman only evaluated his own protocals, not those of SRI. This did not keep DARPA from dropping their funding.
According to Ed May, there have been several classified, in-house evaluation conducted by the military. All but one were positive, acording to May, and the only negative one wanted to end research but continue operations.
(May, Edwin, "The American Institutes of Research Review of the Department of Defense's Star Gate Program: A Commentary", Journal of Parapsychology, Vol 60, 3/96, pg 11)
There are at least two official evaluations of the overall remote viewing program that have been made open to the public. The first (that I know of) was done in 1984 by the National Academy of Sciences on behalf of the Army Research Institute. This evaluation, done by the National Research Council, covered many areas, including Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) and parapsychology. The committee investigating the latter was led by Ray Hyman. The results were unfavorable, and published in 1987 under the title Enhancing Human
Performance, by the National Press Academy. John Alexander published a response, claiming that the NRC distorted the data and had a bias against psychic phenomena. Furthermore, Ed May notes that the panel had no access to classified data at SRI.
("A Challenge to the Report", New Realities, March/April 1989).
Reportedly, Jack Vorona and Dale Graff of the DIA shut Ray Hyman out during the EHP evaluation, refusing to give him any access and only referred him to John Alexander. Their motivation seems to be less from security precautions than to limit the seemingly inevitable negative conclusion of Hyman. To counter the negative effect of this evaluation, Vorona, Graff and others would use this same classified data to try and sway members of congress and other funding sources.
(Schnabel, Jim, Remote Viewers: The Secret History of America's Psychic Spies, Dell, 1997, pg 367-8)
After the CIA was given responsibilty for the remote viewing program, they contracted the American Institutes for Research (AIR) to evaluate the entire program. Their evaluation began in June of 1995, the final report finished on September 29th, and released on November 29th.
AIR formed a panel, led by Ray Hyman and statistician Jessica Utts. The panel also included AIR employees Michael Mumford and Andrew Rose to evaluate the methodology, and AIR president David Goslin coordinated the effort.
The report concluded that, while the data represented a statistically significant effect, no causal mechanism had been identified, and that it had no value for intelligence operations.
Edwin May, the director of the research aspect of the program at the time, objects that data used was incomplete and biased, and that individuals involved were not contacted. Also, the evaluation depended heavily on the NRC report, which May feels is flawed. May believes that the CIA wanted to dismantle the remote viewing program, and used the AIR report as an excuse. For more details, see May's article below. Cognitive Sciences Laboratory. (May, 1996)
As a result of a Congressionally Directed Activity, the Central Intelligence Agency conducted an evaluation of a 24-year, government-sponsored program to investigate ESP and its potential use within the Intelligence Community. The American Institutes for Research was contracted to conduct the review of both research and operations.
Here are the full texts for the AIR evaluations:
This article contains copyrighted material that has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. MCF is offering this article available to our readers for the general purpose of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching and/or research. We believe that our use of this material falls under the "fair use" provision of Title 17, Section 107 of the United States Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes other than that provided by law, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
| Back to MFC Index | Back to Hambones Index |