Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
November 4, 2016
Document Release Date: 
January 8, 2003
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
May 25, 1995
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP96-00791R000100080003-7.pdf463.52 KB
MAY 25 '95 03:58PM AIR Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000100080003-7 ,5132 SG1 I office of Research & Development PAX TRANSMITTAL American Institutes for Research 3333 K Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20007 Tel: (202) 342-5000 FAX: (202) 342-5033 DATE: 5/25/95 THIS DOCUMENT BEING SENT TO.' SG1 B SENT TO FAX NUMBER: SENT BY, NUMBER OF PAGES (Including cover sheet) 10 PROJECT NUMBER: If you do not receive the entire transmittal of this document, please contact: Millie Carter at (202) 3J2-5143 Thank you. REMARKS: Here is a DAFT of the remote viewing proposal for your inspection. I will call tomorrow to see if you want any changes. Look forward to talking with you. Mike Mumford Mike Mumford Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000100080003-7 MAY 25 '95 03:58PM AIR Approved For Release 2003/O4/fI RDP96-00791 R0001 00080003-7 A Proposal to Review the Remote Viewing, Research Program In their continuing quest to improve effectiveness, many organizations have sought techniques that might be used to enhance performance. For the most part, thecandidate techniques come from rather traditional lines of inquiry stressing interventions.; such as selection, training, and performance appraisal. A host of other performance enhancement techniques, however, have also been suggested. These techniques range from implicit learning and the development of team performance capacities to the enhancement of paranormal abilities. In the mid-1980s, at the request of the Army Research Institute, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences established a blue ribbon panel 'charged with evaluating the evidence bearing on the effectiveness of a wide variety of techniques for enhancing human performance, This review was conducted under the overall ;direction of David A. Goslin, then Executive Director of the Commission on Behavioral acid Social Sciences and Education (CBASSE), and now President of the American Institutes for Research (AIR). The review panel's report, Enhancing Human Perfonnance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques, was published by the National Academy Press in 1988 and summarized by Swets and Bjork (1990), They note that although the panel found some support for certain alternative performance enhancement techniques, for example, guided imagery, little or no support was found for the usefulness of many other techniques, such as learning during sleep and remote viewing. (r 1Q' q0 Although the findings of the National Research Council (NEC) were predominantly `bJ,S (a negative with regard to remote viewing, work on remote viewing has continued wader the GitIPrnn.fn7 rs rr.c a^A'r"If D'ring u' t-his eo 0 to 100 additional studies of remote viewing have been; conauctea. Ai (w least some of these studies represent significant attempts to address the methodological problems noted in the review conducted by the National Research Council panel. At the request of Congress, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is considering assuming responsibility for this program. As part of its decision-making process, the CIA wants to evaluate the research conducted since the report of the NRC. The evaluation would help determine a) whether this research has any long-term practical value for: the intelligence Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000100080003-7 MAY 25 '95 03:59PM AIR Approved For Release 2003/041$ ;-RDP96-00791 R0001 00080003-7 P.3 A Proposal to Review the Remote Viewing Program community, and b) if it does, what changes should be made in methods and approach to enhance the value of remote viewing research. Work Plan The American Institutes for Research (AIR) is pleased to be able to respond to the Central Intelligence Agency's request for assistance in its review of the remote viewing research program. In this section we outline our work plan which provides for a timely assessment of this research program, based upon review of the remote viewing research conducted since the NBC's review. Objectives and General Approach Panel Selection. In accordance with the NRC model, we propose to establish a blue ribbon panel of two distinguished experts. In order to ensure a fair and objective evaluation of the remote viewing research, the two panel members will have a background in paranormal phenomena with knowledge of the remote viewing literature. One panel member will be selected who has an open, but skeptical, perspective on paranormal phenomena. The second panel member will be selected to represent a more favorable, but nonetheless methodologically sophisticated, perspective. This panel will be supplemented. by statistical and methodological experts at AIR. The supplemental review team will be selected because of their strong credentials in research methodology, but without prior background in the study of paranormal phenomena. This particular configuration was chosen to help ensure a balanced, open, but methodologically rigorous, review. The entire effort will be under the overall supervision of Dr. Goslin. Initial Screening by AIR. The following procedures will be used in structuring the review process. Work will begin on the review project as soon as~y-eeeeroh / Jthe Central Intelligence Agency eve assembled all -0 Researdr research reports completed since the NRC's review and those reports have been delivered to staff at AIR. Staff members will then read each report and organize them for members of the review panel in terms of research methodology, laboratory, and findings. Initial Screening by Reviewers.. The resulting packet of materials will be delivered to members of the review panel. Panel members will then be asked to provide an initial review American Institutes for Research 2 DRAFT Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000100080003-7 MAY 25 '95 03:59PM AIR Approved For Release 2003/04/, a,8,..:.c -RDP96-00791 R0001 00080003-7 A Proposal to Review the Remote Viewing Program of these studies, identifying those studies evidencing major methodological flaws. This initial review will be completed within one month after the start of the project. First Review Panel Meeting. After panel members have had the opportunity to conduct their initial review, they will be asked to meet at the Palo Alto or Washington office of AIR. The choice of meeting site will be selected at a later date in consultation with the contract monitor. The major purposes of this first meeting are: To agree on criteria for report review ^ To identify those studies which should be eliminated from the review process because they evidence fatal flaws and to identify those studies which warrant the most serious attention ^ To determine whether interviews with the principal investigators will be necessary. The most critical aspect of the first meeting is to determine the corpus-of studies to be reviewed. In preparing their final individual reports, panel members will consider only those studies which survive this first-cut review, giving special attention to studies held to represent the best, highest quality research. AIR. will assist in this identification process by providing additional methodological and statistical expertise. Main Review. After the initial meeting, panel members will be given one month to review the remote viewing studies deemed worthy of serious consideration. After completing this review, each panel member will be asked to prepare a short, 10-to-20-page report in which they assess: ^ the major findings obtained ^ the validity of these findings ^ potential practical applications of these findings ^ issues to be addressed in future research, if any American Institutes for Research DRAFT Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000100080003-7 MAY' 25 '95 04:OOPM AIR Approved For Release 2003/OQJCM-RDP96-00791 R0001 00080003-7 A Proposal to Review the Remote Viewing Program If panel members feel it is necessary to interview the principal investigators, AIR staff, with the cooperation of the contract monitor, will arrange these interviews, The interviews will be conducted in the month following the initial panel meeting. Panel members will be asked to deliver their reports to staff at All. AIR staff will then write a brief summary report identifying the general themes and basic conclusions in the panel members' reports and the areas of remaining disagreements. This summary report will be mailed to panel members two weeks prior to the final panel meeting. During this period, staff from AIR will interview potential users of remote viewing data in the Department of Defense and the intelligence community. The interviewers will describe the remote viewing phenomenon, and briefly summarize what is known about the phenomenon. They will then ask the potential users to indicate whether or not they could use this type of information, the value they would place on it, and how it might be used in their work. The results of these interviews will be presented to panel members at the outset of the initial meeting to provide a context for the review effort. Final Review Panel Meeting. Panel members along with AIR staff will be assembled for a final meeting at the Washington office of AIR. The main purpose of this final meeting of the review panel will be to achieve consensus with respect to the basic conclusions presented in the report. We anticipate discussion of the areas of disagreement; again, AIR's methodological and statistical experts will facilitate these discussions. Any changes recommended by panel members will be discussed and a consensus will be reached on the final changes to be made in the summary report. Final Report' AIR senior staff will make the indicated changes in the two-week period following the second panel meeting. The revised summary report will then be submitted to responsible personnel at the Central Intelligence Agency and to members of the expert review panel as a draft final report. This report will address the major issue of whether the remote viewing research program achieves its stated objectives. We will consider: ^ the success of remote viewing studies ^ potential methodological problems in these studies American Institutes for Research DRAFT Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000100080003-7 MAY 25 '95 04:OOPM AIR Approved For Release 2003/04/RDP96-00791 R0001 00080003-7 P.6 A Proposal to Review the Remote Viewing Program ^ if warranted, procedural revisions to be considered in future research ^ the feasibility of applying this research in the intelligence community Comments concerning the draft final report will be solicited during the following two weeks. Any indicated changes in the draft report will be made during the following week. Timeline This work plan indicates that the review process should be completed in roughly three months following delivery of the research reports to AIR. The timeline describing major project tasks and the anticipated completion dates is presented in Figure 1. To summarize, during the first two weeks of this project, the research reports will be reviewed by staff at AIR and prepared for delivery to panel members. Panel members will be given two weeks to complete their initial review. The first meeting of the panel will occur one month after the start of the project. Members of the review panel will be given a month to review the critical studies, interview principal investigators, and prepare their reports. During this period AIR staff will interview potential user groups. Senior staff at AIR will prepare the summary report during the next two-week period, and any indicated revisions in this summary report will be made in the two weeks following the second panel meeting. Thus, the draft final report should be available for review by staff at the Central Intelligence Agency three months after receipt of the reports. Assuming that the relevant reports are made available in early June 1995, the project should be completed by early September 1995. This timeline is ambitious. It is typically difficult to obtain a comprehensive panel review of a research area in a three-month period. However, by carefully structuring the review process and minimizing burdens on panel members, it should prove passible to complete the project in this time frame. American Institutes for Research DRAFT Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000100080003-7 MAY 25 '95 04:O1PM AIR Approved For Release 2003/04/{RDP96-00791 R0001 00080003-7 A Proposal to Review the Remote Viewing Program Staffing As previously mentioned, the entire review process will be supervised by Dr. David A Gosliri, former Director of the Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education of the NRC, and now President of AIR. This will ensure continuity of approach and method in the review process, Dr. Michael Mumford, a Senior Research Psychologist, and Dr. Andrew Rose, Chief Scientist of AIR's Washington Research Center will serve as co-project directors. Mr. George R Wheaton, Vice President of AIR and Director of the Washington Research Center, will serve as Senior Reviewer. To supplement the review team, AIR will have available Dr. Donald McLaughlin, Chief Scientist of AIR's Palo Alto office. In addition, AIR will have available on a consultative basis Dr. Lincoln Moses, one of the United States' most eminent statisticians. Selection of the two external members of the review panel will be made in collaboration with the contract monitor. However, to expedite the review process, AIR staff have already contacted two world-renowned experts in the area of paranormal' phenomena, Dr. Raymond Hyman, Professor of Psychology at the University of Oregon, and Dr. Jessica Utts, Director of the Statistical Laboratory at the University of California, Davis. Both have' agreed to participate in the project subject to approval by the CIA and their resumes will be submitted to the contract monitor for review immediately upon initiation of the contract. Budget The anticipated budget for this effort is presented in Figure 2. Support is requested for Or, Michael Mumford and Dr. Andrew Rose to conduct interviews, participate in the panel meetings, and prepare the final report. The only other personnel time requested is for a secretary for report preparation and a research assistant. The major other direct costs are the support requested for payment of the panel members and travel for AIR staff and panel members. Minor other direct costs are for communications, photocopying, and local travel. The total support requested isl SGFOIA2 American Institutes for Research 6 DRAFT Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000100080003-7 MAY 25 '95 04:01PM AIR Approved For Release 2003/04/{DP96-00791 R0001 00080003-7 A Proposal to Review the Remote Viewing Program References Druckman, D., & Swets, I.A. (1988). Enhantcing human performance: Issues, theorist, and techniques. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Swets, LA., & Bjork, R.A. (1990). Enhancing human performance: An evaluation of new age techniques considered by the Army. Psychological Science, J, 95-96. American Institutes for Research 7 DRAFT' Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000100080003-7 MAY 25 '95 04:91PM AIR Approved For Release 2003/04.1$: Nff P96-00791 R0001 00080003-7 AMERICAN INSflTUTES FOR RESEARCH Remote Viewing SGFOIA2 Key Personnel A, Rose (Chief Scientist) M. Mumford (Senior Research Scientist) J. Stern (Research Assistant) D. Hughes (Clerical) Subtotal Personnel Salary Increase Pool ( 6% Total Personnel Days Cost jrie1' J Fringe Benefits Total Salaries and Fringe Benefits Overhead Total Salaries, Fringe, and Overhead Other Direct Costs Panel Members Travel Photocopy Telephone/Fax Local Travel Total Other Direct Costs Subtotal General and Administrative Total Costs Fee TOTAL. COSTS AND FEE Figure 2. Budget ?/eQse qdd q 90/!pt? rrJe -r1 66r "qd !4dc eokrk/f ;o~ 4 4 ~/ SQhidr~PrSahnel ~'~~ 70 6riS' o'~isr/ r cl,-~ Cak~rc'.tI , SG1 SGFOIA2 9ovedFora//18 Al-dmv C~~ P~9~`- 9a$,000~fyO 03-~du~ ~,, Q !7-a o- II DRAFT Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000100080003-7 DRAFT' W eeks 1 2 3 4 5 6 'T 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Preparation ReDod uisition and ommmaon lnitisi repon screen' Review First el meeti Review of key repom User interviews Investi or interviews Panel re pons Summary report Second meeting Draft final report Review Deliv of revised final report I -T F F Figure 1. 'runeline for completing prq ec t lacks DRAFT Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000100080003-7 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000100080003-7 UN CLASSIFIED DATE: 3 9s FROM.- ORD/EPG TO: M, i mum 4--cl FAX NUMBED bW) 34Q-5-413 3 FROM: SQ!B9ECT /t a - PLEASE NO?I F THE ABOVE NAMED PEJUO71( OF THIS ARRIVAL AT #: Room #: NUMBER OF PAGES: 4- (Including Cover (Page) SG1 B R,EM,gR GS/CO9v(vfEN'S Z-)ew it a" 15- qo( V'~'-1 ~Sa s? e C~ w1/ rld!'" 75 /~! / c"t~7 ~eK ~i i cPe' JE' ed;1 r/~f ( CAfk'. ", S --- ~ih q a U.e 846. fE,5 BUILDING t rf 1 / r2-etre gxe,a,,~ SG1I SG1I Approved For Release 200;j A igC 6-00791 R000100086663-7