AN EVALUATION OF REMOTE VIEWING: RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00791R000200180006-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 206
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 22, 2002
• Sequence Number: 6
• Publication Date: September 29, 1995
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R00020013QWkan Institutes
for Research
AN EVALUATION OF REMOTE VIEWING:
RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS
MICHAEL D. MUMFORD, PHD
ANDREW M. ROSE, PHD DAVID A. GOSLIN, PHD
PREPARED BY
THE AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH
SEPTEMBER 29, 1995
3333 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20007
[phone]
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
AN EVALUATION OF REMOTE VIEWING:
RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS
MICHAEL D. MUMFORD, PHD
ANDREW M. ROSE, PHD DAVID A. GOSLIN, PHD
PREPARED BY
THE AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH
SEPTEMBER 29, 1995
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................. E-1
Chapter One: Background and History .............. 1-1
Chapter Two: Evaluation Plan ..................... 2-1
Chapter Three: Research Reviews .................. 3-1
Review 1 (Dr. Jessica Utts) ........................ 3-2
Review 2 (Ray Hyman) ............................ 3-43
The Reply (Dr. Jessica Utts) ..................... . . 3-79
Points of Agreement and Disagreement ........... . . . 3-83
Conclusions from the Expert Reviews .............. . . 3-86
Chapter Four: Evaluating the Utility of Remote Viewing
in Intelligence Operations ...................... 4-1
Chapter Five: Conclusions ........................ 5-1
Appendix A - Reviewer Vitae
Appendix B - Bibliography
Appendix C - Interviewer Material
Appendix D - Star Gate Operational Tasking Evaluation
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Executive Summary
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Executive Summary
Studies of paranormal phenomena have nearly always been associated with
controversy. Despite the controversy concerning their nature and existence, many individuals
and organizations continue to be avidly interested in these phenomena. The intelligence
community is no exception: beginning in the 1970s, it has conducted a program intended to
investigate the application of one paranormal phenomenon - remote viewing, or the ability
to describe locations one has not visited.
Conceptually, remote viewing would seem to have tremendous potential utility for the
intelligence community. Accordingly, a three-component program involving basic research,
operations, and foreign assessment has been in place for some time. Prior to transferring this
program to a new sponsoring organization within the intelligence community, a thorough
program review was initiated.
The part of the program review conducted by the American Institutes for Research
(AIR), a nonprofit, private research organization, consisted of two main components. The
first component was a review of the research program. The second component was a review
of the operational application of the remote viewing phenomenon in intelligence gathering.
Evaluation of the foreign assessment component of the program was not within the scope of
the present effort.
Research Evaluation
To evaluate the research program, a "blue-ribbon" panel was assembled. The panel
included two noted experts in the area of parapsychology: Dr . Jessica Utts, a Professor of
Statistics at the University of California/Davis, and Dr. Raymond Hyman, a Professor of
Psychology at the University of Oregon. In addition to their extensive credentials, they were
selected to represent both sides of the paranormal controversy: Dr. Utts has published articles
that view paranormal interpretations positively, while Dr. Hyman was selected to represent a
more skeptical position. Both, however, are viewed as fair and open-minded scientists. In
American Institutes for Research E-1
'"'" Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Executive Summary
addition to these experts, this panel included two Senior Scientists from AIR; both have
recognized methodological expertise, and both had no prior background in parapsychological
research. They were included in the review panel to provide an unbiased methodological
perspective. In addition, Dr. Lincoln Moses, an Emeritus Professor at Stanford University,
provided statistical advice, while Dr. David A. Goslin, President of AIR, served as coordinator
of the research effort.
Panel members were asked to review all laboratory experiments and meta-analytic
reviews conducted as part of the research program; this consisted of approximately 80
separate publications, many of which are summary reports of multiple experiments. In the
course of this review, special attention was given to those studies that (a) provided the
strongest evidence for the remote viewing phenomenon, and (b) represented new experiments
controlling for methodological artifacts identified in earlier reviews. Separate written reviews
were prepared by Dr. Utts and Dr. Hyman. They exchanged reviews with other panel
members who then tried to reach a consensus.
In the typical remote viewing experiment in the laboratory, a remote viewer is asked
to visualize a place, location, or object being viewed by a "beacon" or sender. A judge then
examines the viewer's report and determines if this report matches the target or, alternatively,
a set of decoys. In most recent laboratory experiments reviewed for the present. evaluation,
National Geographic photographs provided the target pool. If the viewer's reports match the
target, as opposed to the decoys, a hit is said to have occurred. Alternatively, accuracy of a
set of remote viewing reports is assessed by rank-ordering the similarity of each remote
viewing report to each photograph in the target set (usually five photographs). A better-than-
chance score is presumed to represent the occurrence of the paranormal phenomenon of
remote viewing, since the remote viewers had not seen the photographs they had described (or
did not know which photographs had been randomly selected for a particular remote viewing
trial).
In evaluating the various laboratory studies conducted to date, the reviewers reached
the following conclusions:
E-2 American nstitutes or Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Executive Summary
? A statistically significant laboratory effort has been demonstrated in the sense that
hits occur more often than chance.
? It is unclear whether the observed effects can unambiguously be attributed to the
paranormal ability of the remote viewers as opposed to characteristics of the judges
or of the target or some other characteristic of the methods used. Use of the same
remote viewers, the same judge, and the same target photographs makes it
impossible to identify their independent effects.
? Evidence has not been provided that clearly demonstrates that the causes of hits
are due to the operation of paranormal phenomena; the laboratory experiments
have not identified the origins or nature of the remote viewing phenomenon, if,
indeed, it exists at all.
Operational Evaluation
The second component of the program involved the use of remote viewing in
gathering intelligence information. Here, representatives of various intelligence groups -
"end users" of intelligence information - presented targets to remote viewers, who were
asked to describe the target. Typically, the remote viewers described the results of their
experiences in written reports, which were forwarded to the end users for evaluation and, if
warranted, action.
To assess the operational value of remote viewing in intelligence gathering, a
multifaceted evaluation strategy was employed. First, the relevant research literature was
reviewed to identify whether the conditions applying during intelligence gathering would
reasonably permit application of the remote viewing paradigm. Second, members of three
groups involved in the program were interviewed: (1) end users of the information; (2) the
remote viewers providing the reports, and (3) the program manager. Third, feedback
information obtained from end user judgments of the accuracy and value of the remote
viewing reports was assessed.
American Institutes for Research E-3
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
This multifaceted evaluation effort led to the following conclusions:
The conditions under which the remote viewing phenomenon is observed in
laboratory settings do not apply in intelligence gathering situations. For example,
viewers cannot be provided with feedback and targets may not display the
characteristics needed to produce hits.
? The end users indicated that, although some accuracy was observed with regard to
broad background characteristics, the remote viewing reports failed to produce the
concrete, specific information valued in intelligence gathering.
? The information provided was inconsistent, inaccurate with regard to specifics, and
required substantial subjective interpretation.
? In no case had the information provided ever been used to guide intelligence
operations. Thus, remote viewing failed to produce actionable intelligence.
Conclusions
The foregoing observations provide a compelling argument against continuation of the
program within the intelligence community. Even though a statistically significant effect has
been observed in the laboratory, it remains unclear whether the existence of a paranormal
phenomenon, remote viewing, has been demonstrated. The laboratory studies do not provide
evidence regarding the origins or nature of the phenomenon, assuming it exists, nor do they
address the important methodological issue of inter judge reliability.
Further, even if it could be demonstrated unequivocally that a paranormal phenomenon
occurs under the conditions present in the laboratory paradigm, these conditions have limited
applicability and utility for intelligence gathering operations. For example, the nature of the
remote viewing targets are vastly dissimilar, as are the specific tasks required of the remote
viewers. Most importantly, the information provided by remote viewing is vague and
ambiguous, making it difficult, if not impossible, for the technique to yield information of
E-4 American Institutes or Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Executive Summary
sufficient quality and accuracy for actionable intelligence. Thus, we conclude that continued
use of remote viewing in intelligence gathering operations is not warranted.
American Institutes for Research
"" Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Executive Summary
American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter One: Background and History
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Background and History
In their continuing quest to improve effectiveness, many organizations have sought
techniques that might be used to enhance performance. For the most part, the candidate
techniques come from rather traditional lines of inquiry stressing interventions such as
selection, training, and performance appraisal. However, some other, more controversial
performance enhancement techniques have also been suggested. These techniques range from
implicit learning and mental rehearsal 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 and Social
Sciences and Education (CBASSE), and now President of the American Institutes for
Research (AIR). The review panel's report, Enhancing Human Performance: Issues,
Theories, and Techniques, was published by the National Academy Press in 1988 and
summarized by Swets and Bjork (1990). They noted 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.
Although the findings of the National Research Council (NRC) were predominantly
negative with regard to a range of paranormal phenomena, work on remote viewing has
continued under the auspices of various government programs. Since 1986, perhaps 50 to
100 additional studies of remote viewing have been conducted. At least some of these studies
represent significant attempts to address the methodological problems noted in the review
conducted by the NRC panel.
At the request of Congress, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is considering
assuming responsibility for this the remote viewing program. As part of its decision-making
American Institutes for Research 1-1
P" Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter One: Background and History
process, the CIA was asked to evaluate the research conducted since the NRC report. This
evaluation was intended to determine: (a) whether this research has any long-term practical
value for the intelligence community, and (b) if it does, what changes should be made in
methods and approach to enhance the value of remote viewing research. To achieve these
goals, the CIA contracted with the American Institutes for Research to supervise and conduct:
the evaluation. This report contains the results of our evaluation.
Before presenting our results, we begin by presenting a brief overview of the remote
viewing phenomenon and a short history of the applied program that involves remote viewing.
Remote Viewing
Although parapsychological research has a long history, studies of "remote viewing"
- also referred to as a form of "anomalous cognition" -- as a unique manifestation of
psychic functioning began in the 1970s. In its simplest form, a typical remote viewing study
during this early period of investigation consisted of the following: A person, referred to as a
"beacon" or "sender," travels to a series of remote sites. The remote viewer, a person who
putatively has the parapsychological ability, is asked to describe the locations of the beacon.
Typically, these location descriptions include drawings and a verbal description of the
location. Subsequently, a judge evaluates this description by rank ordering the set of
locations against the descriptions. If the judge finds that the viewer's description most closely
matched the actual location of the sender, a hit is said to have occurred. If hits occur more
often than chance, or if the assigned ranks are more accurate than a random assignment, one
might argue that a psychic phenomenon has been observed: the viewer has described a
location not visited during the session. This phenomenon has been studied by various
investigators throughout the intervening period, using several variants of this basic paradigm.
If certain people (or all people to a greater or lesser extent, as has been proposed by
some investigators) possess the ability to see and describe target locations they have not
visited, this ability might prove of great value to the intelligence community. As an adjunct:
method to gathering intelligence, people who possess this ability could be asked to describe
various intelligence targets. This information, especially if considered credible and reliable,
American nstitutes or Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter One: Background and History
could supplement and enhance more time-consuming and perhaps dangerous methods for
collecting data. Although certain (perhaps unwarranted) assumptions, such as the availability
of a sender, are implicit in this argument, the possibility of gathering intelligence through this
mechanism has provided the major impetus for government interest in remote viewing.
Remote viewing was and continues to be a controversial phenomenon. Early research
on remote viewing was plagued by a number of statistical and methodological flaws.' One
statistical flaw found in early studies of remote viewing, for example, was due to failure to
control for the elimination of locations already judged. For example, if there were five
targets in the set, judges might lower their rankings for a viewing already judged as a "hit" or
ranked first. In other words, all targets did not have an equal probability of being assigned
all ranks. Another commonly noted methodological flaw was that cues in the remote viewing
paradigm, such as the time needed to drive to various locations, may have allowed viewers to
produce hits without using any parapsychological ability.
More recent research has attempted to control for many of these problems. New
paradigms have been developed where, for example, viewers - in double-blind conditions -
are asked to visualize pictures drawn from a target pool consisting of National Geographic
photographs. In addition to this experimental work, an applied program of intelligence
operations actually using remote viewers has been developed. In the following section, we
describe the history of the government's remote viewing program.
Program History
"Star Gate" is a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) program which involved the use
of paranormal phenomena, primarily "remote viewing," for intelligence collection. During
Star Gate's history, DIA pursued three basic program objectives: "Operations," using remote
viewing to collect intelligence against foreign targets; "Research and Development," using
laboratory studies to find new ways to improve remote viewing for use in the intelligence
1Many of these problems are described in the National Research Council Report.
American Institutes for Research 1-3
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter One: Background and History
world; and "Foreign Assessment," the analysis of foreign activities to develop or exploit the
paranormal for any uses which might affect our national security.
Prior to the advent of Star Gate in the early 1990s, the DIA, the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA), and other government organizations conducted various other programs
pursuing some or all of these objectives. CIA's program began in 1972, but was discontinued
in 1977. DIA's direct involvement began about 1985 and has continued up to the time of this
review. During the last twenty years, all government programs involving parapsychology
have been viewed as highly controversial and high-risk, and have been subjected to various
reviews.
In 1995, the CIA declassified its past parapsychology program efforts in order to
facilitate a new, external review. In addition, CIA worked with DIA to continue
declassification of Star Gate program documents, a process which had already begun at DIA.
All relevant CIA and DIA program documents were collected and inventoried. La June of
1995, CIA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) contracted with AIR for this
external review, based on our long-standing expertise in carrying out studies relating to
behavioral science issues and our neutrality with respect to the subject matter.
Evaluation Objectives
The CIA asked AIR to address a number of key objectives during the technical review of Star
Gate. These included:
? a comprehensive evaluation of the research and development in this area, with a
focus on the validity of the technical approach(es) according to acceptable
scientific standards
? an evaluation of the overall program utility or usefulness to the government
(The CIA believes that the controversial nature of past parapsychology programs
within the intelligence community, and the scientific controversy clouding general
1-4 American Instituaes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter One: Background and History
acceptance of the validity of paranormal phenomena, demand that these two issues of
utility and scientific validity be addressed separately.)
? consideration of whether any changes in the operational or research and
development activities of the program might bring about improved results if the
results were not already optimum
? development of recommendations for the CIA as to appropriate strategies for
program activity in the future
We were directed to base our findings on the data and information provided as a result of
DIA and CIA program efforts, since it was neither possible nor intended that we review the
entire field of parapsychological research and its applications. Also, we would not review or
evaluate the "Foreign Assessment" component of the program.
In the next chapter, we present our methodology for conducting the evaluation. A
major component of the evaluation was to commission two nationally-regarded experts to
review the program's relevant research studies; their findings are presented in Chapter 3,
along with our analysis of areas of agreement and disagreement. In Chapter 4, we present
our findings concerning the operational component of the program. Finally, in Chapter 5 we
present our conclusions and recommendations.
American Institutes or Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter One: Background and History
1-6 American Institu tes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Two: Evaluation Plan
Now Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Two: Evaluation Plan
Evaluation Plan
The broad goal of the present effort was to provide a thorough and objective
evaluation of the remote viewing program. Because of the multiple components of the
program, a multifaceted evaluation plan was devised. As mentioned previously, only the
research and intelligence gathering components of the program were considered here. In this
section, we describe the general approach used in evaluating these two components of the
program, beginning with the research program.
Remote Viewing Research
The Research Program. The government-sponsored research program had three
broad objectives. The first and primary objective was to provide scientifically compelling
evidence for the existence of the remote viewing phenomenon. It could be argued that if
unambiguous evidence for the existence of the phenomenon cannot be provided, then there is
little reason to be concerned with its potential applications.
The second objective of the research program was to identify causal mechanisms that
might account for or explain the observed (or inferred) phenomenon. This objective of the
program is of some importance; an understanding of the origins of a phenomenon provides a
basis for developing potential applications. Further, it provides more compelling evidence for
the existence of the phenomenon (Cook & Campbell, 1979; James, Muliak, & Brett, 1982).
Thus, in conducting a thorough review, an attempt must be made to assess the success of the
program in developing an adequate explanation of the phenomenon.
The third objective of the research program was to identify techniques or procedures
that might enhance the utility of the information provided by remote viewings. For example,
how might more specific information be obtained from viewers and what conditions set
American institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Two: Evaluation Plan - -
boundaries on the accuracy of viewings? Research along those lines is of interest primarily
because it provides the background necessary for operational applications of the phenomenon.
The NRC provided a thorough review of the unclassified remote viewing research
through 1986. In this review (summarized in Swets & I3jork, 1990), the nature of the
research methods led the reviewers to question whether there was indeed any effect that could
clearly be attributed to the operation of paranormal phenomena. Since then, the Principal
Investigator, Dr. Edwin May, under formerly classified government contracts, has conducted a
number of other studies not previously reviewed. These studies were expressly intended to
address many of the criticisms raised in the initial NRC report. Because these studies might
provide new evidence for the existence of the remote viewing phenomenon, its causal
mechanisms, and its boundary conditions, a new review seemed called for.
The Review Panel. With these issues in mind, a blue-ribbon review panel was
commissioned, with the intent of ensuring a balanced and objective appraisal of the research.
Two of the reviewers were scientists noted for their interest, expertise, and experience in
parapsychological research. The first of these two expert reviewers, Dr. Jessica. Utts, a
Professor of Statistics at the University of California-Davis, is a nationally recognized scholar
who has made major contributions to the development and application of new statistical
methods and techniques. Among many other positions and awards, Dr. Utts is an Associate
Editor of the Journal of the American Statistical Association (Theory and Methods) and the
Statistical Editor of the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research. She has
published several articles on the application of statistical methods to parapsychological
research and has direct experience with the remote viewing research program.
The second expert reviewer, Dr. Raymond Hyman, is a Professor of Psychology at the
University of Oregon. Dr. Hyman has published over 200 articles in professional journals on
perception, pattern recognition, creativity, problem solving, and critiques of the paranormal.
He served on the original NRC Committee on Techniques for the Enhancement of Human
Performance. Dr. Hyman serves as a resource to the media on topics related to the
paranormal, and has testified as an expert witness in court cases involving paranormal claims.
He is recognized as one of the most important and fair-minded skeptics working in this area.
Curriculum Vitae for Dr. Utts and Dr. Hyman are included in Appendix A.
2-2 American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Two: Evaluation Plan
In addition to these two experts, four other scientists were involved in the work of the
review panel. Two senior behavioral scientists and experts in research methods at the
American Institutes for Research, Dr. Michael Mumford and Dr. Andrew Rose, served both as
members of and staff to the panel. Dr. Mumford holds a Ph.D. in Industrial/Organizational
Psychology from the University of Georgia. He is a Fellow of the American Psychological
Association's Division 5, Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistics. Dr. Rose is a cognitive
psychologist with a Ph.D. from the University of Michigan. He has over 22 years of
experience in designing and conducting basic and applied behavioral science research. Dr.
Rose is Chief Scientist of the Washington Office of AIR. They were to bring to the panel a
methodological perspective unbiased by prior work in the area of parapsychology. The third
participant was Dr. Lincoln Moses, an Emeritus Professor of Statistics at Stanford University,
who participated in the review as a resource with regard to various statistical issues. Finally,
Dr. David A. Goslin, President of AIR, participated as both a reviewer and coordinator for the
review panel.
Research Content. Prior to convening the first meeting of the review panel, the CIA
transferred to AIR all reports and documents relevant to the review. We organized and
copied these documents. In addition, the Principal Investigator for the program, Dr. Edwin
May, was asked to provide two other pieces of information for the panel. First, he was asked
to list those studies which he believes provide the strongest evidence bearing on the nature
and significance of the remote viewing phenomenon. Second, he was asked to identify all
unique studies conducted since the initial NRC report that provide evidence bearing on the
nature and significance of the phenomenon. Additionally, he was asked to participate in an
interview with members of the review panel following its first meeting to clarify any
ambiguities about these studies. The complete list of documents, including notations of the
"strongest evidence" set and the "unique" set, is included in Appendix B.'
Review Procedures. Remote viewing, like virtually all other parapsychological
phenomena, represents one of the most controversial research areas in the social sciences
1One document pertaining to the program remained classified during the period of this review. One of the review panel
(Dr. Mumford) examined this document and provided an unclassified synopsis to the review panel.
American Institutes for Research 2-3
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Two: Evaluation Plan
(e.g., Bem & Honorton, 1994; Hyman, 1994). Therefore, any adequate review of the
research program must take this controversy into account in such a way that the review
procedures are likely to result in a fair and unbiased assessment of the research.
To ensure a fair and comprehensive review, Drs.. Utts and Hyman agreed to examine
all program documents. In the course of this review it was agreed that all members of the
review panel would carefully consider:
? those studies recommended by the Principal Investigator as providing compelling
evidence for the phenomenon, and
? those empirical studies conducted since the NRC review that might provide new
evidence about the existence and nature of the phenomenon.
The members of the review panel convened at the Palo Alto office of AIR to structure
exactly how the review process would be carried out. To ensure that different perspectives on
paranormal phenomena would be adequately represented, Drs. Utts and Hyman were asked to
prepare independent reports based on their review. In this review, they were to cover four
general topics:
? Was there a statistically significant effect?
? Could the observed effect, if any, be attributed to a paranormal phenomenon?
? What mechanisms, if any, might plausibly be used to account for any significant
effects and what boundary conditions influence these effects?
? What would the findings obtained in these studies indicate about the characteristics
and potential applications of information obtained through the remote viewing
process?
After they had each completed their reports, they presented the reports to other
members of the panel. After studying these reports, all members of the review panel (except
AmericanTnstitutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Two: Evaluation Plan
Dr. Moses) participated in a series of conference calls. The primary purpose of these
exchanges was to identify the conclusions on which the experts agreed and disagreed. Next,
in areas where they disagreed, Drs. Utts and Hyman were asked to discuss the nature of the
disagreements, determine why they disagreed, and if possible, attempt to resolve the
disagreements. Both the initial reports and the dialogue associated with discussion of any
disagreements were made a part of the written record. In fact, Dr. Hyman's opinions on areas
of agreement and disagreement are included in his report; in addition to her initial report, Dr.
Utts prepared a reply to Dr. Hyman's opinions of agreement and disagreement. This reply, in
addition to their original reports, are included in Chapter 3 below.
If disagreements could not be resolved through this dialogue, then the other members
of the review panel were to consider the remaining issues from a general methodological
perspective. Subsequently, they were to provide an addendum to the dialogue indicating
which of the two positions being presented seemed to be on firmer ground both substantively
and methodologically. This addendum concludes Chapter 3 below.
Intelligence Gathering: The Operational Program
The Program. In addition to the research component, the program included two
operational components. One of those components was "foreign assessment," or analysis of
the paranormal research being conducted by other countries. This issue, however, is beyond
the scope of the present review. The other component involved the use of remote viewing as
a technique for gathering intelligence information.
In the early 1970s, the CIA experimented with applications of remote viewing in
intelligence gathering. Later in the decade, they abandoned the program. However, other
government agencies, including the Department of Defense, used remote viewers to obtain
intelligence information. The viewers were tasked with providing answers to questions posed
by various intelligence agencies. These operations continued until the Spring of 1995, when
the program was suspended.
American Institutes for Research 2-5
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Two: Evaluation Plan
Although procedures varied somewhat during the history of the program, viewers
typically were presented with a request for information about a target of interest to a
particular agency. Multiple viewings were then obtained for the target. The results of the
viewings then were summarized in a three- or four-page report and sent to the agency that
had posed the original question. Starting in 1994, members of the agencies receiving the
viewing reports were formally. asked to evaluate their accuracy and value.
Any comprehensive evaluation of the remote viewing program must consider how
viewings were used by the intelligence community. One might demonstrate the existence of a
statistically significant paranormal phenomenon in experiments conducted in the laboratory;
however, the phenomenon could prove to be of limited operational value either because it
does not occur consistently outside the laboratory setting or because the kind of information
provided is of limited value to the intelligence community.
General Evaluation Procedures. No one piece of evidence provides unequivocal
support for the usefulness of a program. Instead, a more accurate and comprehensive picture
can be obtained by considering multiple sources of evidence (Messick, 1989). Three basic
sources of information were used in evaluation of the intelligence gathering component:
? prior research studies
? interviews with program participants
? analyses of user feedback
Prior Research Studies. As noted above, one aspect of the laboratory research
program was to identify those conditions that set bounds on the accuracy and success of the
remote viewing process. Thus, one way to analytically evaluate potential applications in
intelligence gathering is to enumerate the conditions under which viewers were assigned tasks
and then examine the characteristics of the remote viewing paradigm as studied through
experimentation in the laboratory. The conditions under which operational tasks occur - that
is, the requirements imposed by intelligence gathering -- could then provide an assessment of
the applicability of the remote viewing process.
American Institutes or Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Two: Evaluation Plan
Interviews. As part of the Star Gate program, the services of remote viewers were
used to support operational activities in the intelligence community. This operational history
provides an additional basis for evaluating the Star Gate program; ultimately, if the program
is to be of any real value, it must be capable of serving the needs of the intelligence
community. By examining how the remote viewing services have been used, it becomes
possible to draw some initial, tentative conclusions about the potential value of the Star Gate
program. Below, we describe how information bearing on intelligence applications of the
remote viewing phenomenon was gathered. Later, in Chapter 4, we describe the results of
this information-gathering activity and draw some conclusions from the information we
obtained.
Although a variety of techniques might be used to accrue retrospective information
(questionnaires, interviews, diaries, etc.), the project team decided that structured interviews
examining issues relevant to the various participants would provide the most appropriate
strategy. Accordingly, structured interviews were developed for three participant groups in
intelligence operations:
? end-users: representatives from agencies requesting information from remote
viewers
? the Program Manager
? the remote viewers
Another key issue to be considered in an interview procedure is the nature of the
people to be interviewed. Although end-users, program managers, and viewers represent the
major participants, many different individuals have been involved in intelligence applications
of remote viewing over the course of the last twenty years. Nevertheless, it was decided to
interview only those persons who were involved in the program at the time of its suspension
in the Spring of 1995. This decision was based on the need for accurate, current information
that had not been distorted by time and could be corroborated by existing documentation and
follow-up interviews.
American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Two: Evaluation Plan
Information about operational applications was gathered in a series of interviews
conducted during July and August of 1995. We interviewed seven representatives of end-user
groups, three remote viewers, and the incumbent Program Manager. With regard to the data
collection procedures that we employed, a number of points should be borne in mind. First,
members of the groups we interviewed could only speak to recent operations. Although it
would have been desirable to interview people involved in earlier operations, for example
during the 1970s, the problems associated with the passage of time, including forgetting and
the difficulties involved in verifying information, effectively precluded this approach.
Accordingly, the interviews focused on current operations.
Second, it should be noted that the end-user representatives represented a :range of
current concerns in the intelligence community. The relevant user groups were involved in
operations ranging from counterintelligence and drug interdiction to search and rescue
operations. This diversity permitted operational merits to be assessed for a number of
different contexts.
The interviews were conducted by one of the two panel members from AIR. A retired
intelligence officer took notes during the interviews. A representative of the CIA attended
interviews as necessary to describe the reasons the interviews were being conducted and to
address any security concerns.
Each interview was conducted using a standard protocol. Different protocols were
developed for members of the three groups because they had somewhat different perspectives
on current operations. Appendix C presents the instructions given to the interviewer. This
Appendix also lists the interview questions presented to users, viewers, and the program
manager. User interviews were conducted in the offices of the client organization; interviews
with the program manager and the viewers were conducted at the Washington Office of AIR.
The interviews were one to two hours long. A total of 12 to 16 questions were asked in the
interviews.
We developed the questions presented in each interview as follows: Initially, the
literature on remote viewing and available information bearing on operations within the
intelligence community were reviewed by AIR scientists. This review was used to formulate
2-8 American Institutes or Research I
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Two: Evaluation Plan
an initial set of interview questions. Subsequently, these candidate questions were presented
to a panel of three psychologists at AIR. In addition, review panel members were asked to
review these candidate questions to insure they were not leading and covered the issues that
were relevant to the particular group under consideration.
With regard to operational users, four types of questions were asked. These four types
of questions examined the background and nature of the tasks presented to the remote
viewers, the nature and accuracy of the information resulting from the viewings, operational
use of this information, and the utility of the resulting information.
The remote viewers were asked a somewhat different set of questions. The four types
of questions presented to them examined recruitment, selection, and development; the
procedures used to generate viewings; the conditions that influenced the nature and success of
viewings; and the organizational factors that influenced program operations.
The Program Manager was not asked about the viewing process. Instead, questions
presented to the program manager primarily focused on broader organizational issues. The
four types of managerial questions focused on the manager's background, client recruitment,
factors influencing successes and failures, and needs for effective program management.
The interview questions presented in each protocol were asked in order, as specified in
Appendix C. Typically these interviews began by asking for objective background
information. Questions examining broader evaluative issues were asked at the end of the
interview. The AIR scientist conducting the interviews produced reports for each individual
interview. They also are contained in Appendix C.
Analyses of User Feedback. In addition to the qualitative data provided by the
interviews, some quantitative information was available. For all of the operational tasks
conducted during 1994, representatives from the requesting agencies were asked to provide
two summary judgments: one with respect to the accuracy of the remote viewing, and the
second of the actual or potential value of the information provided. These data - the
accuracy and value evaluations obtained for viewings as program feedback from the users -
were analyzed and summarized in a report prepared prior to the current evaluation. A copy
American Institutes for Research 2-9
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Two: Evaluation Plan ,
of this report is provided in Appendix D. Although these judgments have been routinely
collected for only a relatively short period of time, they provided an important additional
source of evaluative information. This information was of some value as a supp'.lement to
interviews in part because it was collected prior to the start of the current review, and in part
because it reflects user assessments of the resulting information.
We present the findings flowing from this multifaceted evaluation of the operational
component of the program in Chapter 4 of this report. In that section, we first present the
findings emerging from prior research and the interviews and then consider the results
obtained from the more quantitative evaluations. Prior to turning to this evaluation of
operations, however, we first present the findings from review of the basic research,
examining evidence for the existence and nature of the remote viewing phenomenon.
American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
Review 1 (Dr. Jessica Utts)
Review 2 (Dr. Ray Hyman)
The Reply (Dr. Jessica Utts)
Points of Agreement and Disagreement
Conclusions from the Expert Reviews
American Institutes for Research
~'" Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Research Reviews
In this section, we present the conclusions drawn by the two experts after reviewing
the research studies bearing on remote viewing. We begin by presenting the review of Dr.
Jessica Utts. Subsequently, a rejoinder is provided by Dr. Raymond Hyman. Finally, Dr.
Utts presents a reply to Dr. Hyman. The major points of agreement and disagreement are
noted in the final section, along with our conclusions.
In conducting their reviews, both Dr. Hyman and Dr. Utts focused on the remote
viewing research. However, additional material is provided as indicated by the need to clarify
certain points being made. Furthermore, both reviewers provided unusually comprehensive
reviews considering not only classified program research, but also a number of earlier studies
having direct bearing on the nature and significance of the phenomenon.
American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Review 1
An Assessment of the Evidence for Psychic Functioning
Dr. Jessica Utts
Division of Statistics, University of California, Davis
September 1, 1995
ABSTRACT
Research on psychic functioning, conducted over a two decade period, is examined to
determine whether or not the phenomenon has been scientifically established. A secondary
question is whether or not it is useful for government purposes. The primary work examined
in this report was government sponsored research conducted at Stanford Research Institute,
later known as SRI International, and at Science Applications International Corporation,
known as SAIC.
Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic
functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far
beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to
methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to
those found in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a
number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by
claims of flaws or fraud.
The magnitude of psychic functioning exhibited appears to be in the range between what
social scientists call a small and medium effect. That means that it is reliable enough to be
replicated in properly conducted experiments, with sufficient trials to achieve the long-run
statistical results needed for replicability.
A number of other patterns have been found, suggestive of how to conduct more productive
experiments and applied psychic functioning. For instance, it doesn't appear that a sender is
3-2 American institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
needed. Precognition, in which the answer is known to no one until a future time, appears to
work quite well. Recent experiments suggest that if there is a psychic sense then it works
much like our other five senses, by detecting change. Given that physicists are currently
grappling with an understanding of time, it may be that a psychic sense exists that scans the
future for major change, much as our eyes scan the environment for visual change or our ears
allow us to respond to sudden changes in sound.
It is recommended that future experiments focus on understanding how this phenomenon
works, and on how to make it as useful as possible. There is little benefit to continuing
experiments designed to offer proof, since there is little more to be offered to anyone who
does not accept the current collection of data.
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to examine a body of evidence collected over the past few
decades in an attempt to determine whether or not psychic functioning is possible. Secondary
questions include whether or not such functioning can be used productively for government
purposes, and whether or not the research to date provides any explanation for how it works.
There is no reason to treat this area differently from any other area of science that relies on
statistical methods. Any discussion based on belief should be limited to questions that are not
data-driven, such as whether or not there are any methodological problems that could
substantially alter the results. It is too often the case that people on both sides of the question
debate the existence of psychic functioning on the basis of their personal belief systems rather
than on an examination of the scientific data.
One objective of this report is to provide a brief overview of recent data as well as the
scientific tools necessary for a careful reader to reach his or her own conclusions based on
that data. The tools consist of a rudimentary overview of how statistical evidence is typically
evaluated, and a listing of methodological concerns particular to experiments of this type.
American Institutes for Research
.40 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Government-sponsored research in psychic functioning dates back to the early 1970s when a
program was initiated at what was then the Stanford Research Institute, now called SRI
International. That program was in existence until 1989. The following year, government
sponsorship moved to a program at Science Applications International Corporation (SAIL)
under the direction of Dr. Edwin May, who had been employed in the SRI program since the
mid 1970s and had been Project Director from 1986 until the close of the program.
This report will focus most closely on the most recent work, done by SAIC. Section 2
describes the basic statistical and methodological issues required to understand this work;
Section 3 discusses the program at SRI; Section 4 covers the SAIC work (with some of the
details in an Appendix); Section 5 is concerned with external validation by exploring related
results from other laboratories; Section 6 includes a discussion of the usefulness of this
capability for government purposes and Section 7 provides conclusions and recommendations.
2. SCIENCE NOTES
2.1 DEFINITIONS AND RESEARCH PROCEDURES
There are two basic types of functioning that are generally considered under the broad
heading of psychic or paranormal abilities. These are classically known as extrasensory
perception (ESP), in which one acquires information through unexplainable means and
psychokinesis, in which one physically manipulates the environment through unknown
means. The SAIC laboratory uses more neutral terminology for these abilities; they refer to
ESP as anomalous cognition (AC) and to psychokinesis as anomalous perturbation (AP).
The vast majority of work at both SRI and SAIC investigated anomalous cognition rather than
anomalous perturbation, although there was some work done on the latter.
Anomalous cognition is further divided into categories based on the apparent source of the
information. If it appears to come from another person, the ability is called telepathy, if it
appears to come in real time but not from another person it is called clairvoyance and if the
information could have only been obtained by knowledge of the future, it is called
precognition.
3-4 American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
It is possible to identify apparent precognition by asking someone to describe something for
which the correct answer isn't known until later in time. It is more difficult to rule out
precognition in experiments attempting to test telepathy or clairvoyance, since it is almost
impossible to be sure that subjects in such experiments never see the correct answer at some
point in the future. These distinctions are important in the quest to identify an explanation
for anomalous cognition, but do not bear on the existence issue.
The vast majority of anomalous cognition experiments at both SRI and SAIC used a
technique known as remote viewing. In these experiments, a viewer attempts to draw or
describe (or both) a target location, photograph, object or short video segment. All known
channels for receiving the information are blocked. Sometimes the viewer is assisted by a
monitor who asks the viewer questions; of course in such cases the monitor is blind to the
answer as well. Sometimes a sender is looking at the target during the session, but
sometimes there is no sender. In most cases the viewer eventually receives feedback in
which he or she learns the correct answer, thus making it difficult to rule out precognition as
the explanation for positive results, whether or not there was a sender.
Most anomalous cognition experiments at SRI and SAIC were of the free-response type, in
which viewers were simply asked to describe the target. In contrast, a forced-choice
experiment is one in which there are a small number of known choices from which the
viewer must choose. The latter may be easier to evaluate statistically but they have been
traditionally less successful than free-response experiments. Some of the work done at SAIC
addresses potential explanations for why that might be the case.
2.2 STATISTICAL ISSUES AND DEFINITIONS
Few human capabilities are perfectly replicable on demand. For example, even the best
hitters in the major baseball leagues cannot hit on demand. Nor can we predict when
someone will hit or when they will score a home run. In fact, we cannot even predict
whether or not a home run will occur in a particular game. That does not mean that home
runs don't exist.
American-institutes for Research 3-5
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Review 1: Dr. Jessica Utts
Scientific evidence in the statistical realm is based on replication of the same average
performance or relationship over the long run. We would not expect a fair coin to result in
five heads and five tails over each set of ten tosses, but we can expect the proportion of
heads and tails to settle down to about one half over a very long series of tosses. Similarly, a
good baseball hitter will not hit the ball exactly the same proportion of times in each game
but should be relatively consistent over the long run.
The same should be true of psychic functioning. Even if there truly is an effect, it may never
be replicable on demand in the short run even if we understand how it works. However, over
the long run in well controlled laboratory experiments we should see a consistent level of
functioning, above that expected by chance. The anticipated level of.functioning may vary
based on the individual players and the conditions, just as it does in baseball, but given
players of similar ability tested under similar conditions the results should be replicable over
the long run. In this report we will show that replicability in that sense has been achieved.
2.2.1 P-VALUES AND COMPARISON WITH CHANCE. In any area of science,
evidence based on statistics comes from comparing what actually happened to what should
have happened by chance. For instance, without any special interventions about 51 percent of
births in the United States result in boys. Suppose someone claimed to have a method that
enabled one to increase the chances of having a baby of the desired sex. We could study
their method by comparing how often births resulted in a boy when that was the intended
outcome. If that percentage was higher than the chance percentage of 51 percent over the
long run, then the claim would have been supported by statistical evidence.
Statisticians have developed numerical methods for comparing results to what is expected by
chance. Upon observing the results of an experiment, the p-value is the answer to the
following question: If chance alone is responsible for the results, how likely would we be to
observe results this strong or stronger? If the answer to that question, i.e. the p-value is very
small, then most researchers are willing to rule out chance as an explanation. In fact it is
commonly accepted practice to say that if the p-value is 5 percent (0.05) or less, then we can
rule out chance as an explanation. In such cases, the results are said to be statistically
significant. Obviously the smaller the p-value, the more convincingly chance can be ruled
out.
American Institutes for Research
3-
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
Notice that when chance alone is at work, we erroneously find a statistically significant result
about 5 percent of the time. For this reason and others, most reasonable scientists require
replication of non-chance results before they are convinced that chance can be ruled out.
2.2.2 REPLICATION AND EFFECT SIZES: In the past few decades scientists have
realized that true replication of experimental results should focus on the magnitude of the
effect, or the effect size rather than on replication of the p-value. This is because the latter is
heavily dependent on the size of the study. In a very large study, it will take only a small
magnitude effect to convincingly rule out chance. In a very small study, it would take a huge
effect to convincingly rule out chance.
In our hypothetical sex-determination experiment, suppose 70 out of 100 births designed to be
boys actually resulted in boys, for a rate of 70 percent instead of the 51 percent expected by
chance. The experiment would have a p-value of 0.0001, quite convincingly ruling out
chance. Now suppose someone attempted to replicate the experiment with only ten births and
found 7 boys, i.e also 70 percent. The smaller experiment would have a p-value of 0.19, and
would not be statistically significant. If we were simply to focus on that issue, the result
would appear to be a failure to replicate the original result, even though it achieved exactly
the same 70 percent boys! In only ten births it would require 90 percent of them to be boys
before chance could be ruled out. Yet the 70 percent rate is a more exact replication of the
result than the 90 percent.
Therefore, while p-values should be used to assess the overall evidence for a phenomenon,
they should not be used to define whether or not a replication of an experimental result was
"successful." Instead, a successful replication should be one that achieves an effect that is
within expected statistical variability of the original result, or that achieves an even stronger
effect for explainable reasons.
A number of different effect size measures are in use in the social sciences, but in this report
we will focus on the one used most often in remote viewing at SRI and SAIC. Because the
definition is somewhat technical it is given in Appendix 1. An intuitive explanation will be
given in the next subsection. Here, we note that an effect size of 0 is consistent with chance,
and social scientists have, by convention, declared an effect size of 0.2 as small, 0.5 as
American Institutes or esearc
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
medium and 0.8 as large. A medium effect size is supposed to be visible to the naked e;,e of
a careful observer, while a large effect size is supposed to be evident to any observer.
2.2.3 RANDOMNESS AND RANK-ORDER JUDGING. At the heart of any statistical
method is a definition of what should happen "randomly" or "by chance." Without a random
mechanism, there can be no statistical evaluation.
There is nothing random about the responses generated in anomalous cognition experiments;
in other words, there is no way to define what they would look like "by chance." Therefore,
the random mechanism in these experiments must be in the choice of the target. In that way,
we can compare the response to the target and answer the question: "If chance alone is at
work, what is the probability that a target would be chosen that matches this response as well
as or better than does the actual target?"
In order to accomplish this purpose, a properly conducted experiment uses a set of targets
defined in advance. The target for each remote viewing is then selected randomly, in such a
way that the probability of getting each possible target is known.
The SAIC remote viewing experiments and all but the early ones at SRI used a statistical
evaluation method known as rank-order judging. After the completion of a remote
viewing, a judge who is blind to the true target (called a blind judge) is shown the
response and five potential targets, one of which is the correct answer and the other four of
which are "decoys." Before the experiment is conducted, each of those five choices must
have had an equal chance of being selected as the actual target. The judge is asked to assign
a rank to each of the possible targets, where a rank of one means it matches the response
most closely, and a rank of five means it matches the least.
The rank of the correct target is the numerical score for that remote viewing. By chance
alone the actual target would receive each of the five ranks with equal likelihood, since
despite what the response said, the target matching it best would have the same chance of
selection as the one matching it second best, and so on. The average rank by chance would
be three. Evidence for anomalous cognition occurs when the average rank over a series of
3-8 American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
trials is significantly lower than three. (Notice that a rank of one is the best possible score for
each viewing.)
This scoring method is conservative in the sense that it gives no extra credit for an excellent
match. A response that describes the target almost perfectly will achieve the same rank of
one as a response that contains only enough information to pick the target as the best choice
out of the five possible choices. One advantage of this method is that it is still valid even if
the viewer knows the set of possible targets. The probability of a first place match by chance
would still be only one in five. This is important because the later SRI and many of the
SAIC experiments used the same large set of National Geographic photographs as targets.
Therefore, the experienced viewers would eventually become familiar with the range of
possibilities since they were usually shown the answer at the end of each remote viewing
session.
For technical reasons explained in Appendix 1, the effect size for a series of remote viewings
using rank-order judging with five choices is (3.0 - average rank)/12. Therefore, small,
medium and large effect sizes (0.2, 0.5 and 0.8) correspond to average ranks of 2.72, 2.29,
and 1.87, respectively. Notice that the largest effect size possible using this method is 1.4,
which would result if every remote viewing achieved a first place ranking.
2.3 METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
One of the challenges in designing a good experiment in any area of science is to close the
loopholes that would allow explanations other than the intended one to account for the results.
There are a number of places in remote viewing experiment where information could be
conveyed by normal means if proper precautions are not taken. The early SRI experiments
suffered from some of those problems, but the later SRI experiments and the SAIC work were
done with reasonable methodological rigor, with some exceptions noted in the detailed
descriptions of the SAIC experiments in Appendix 2.
American Institutes or Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Review 1: Dr. Jessica Utts
The following list of methodological issues shows the variety of concerns that must be
addressed. It should be obvious that a well designed experiment requires careful thought
and planning:
? No one who has knowledge of the specific target should have any contact with the
viewer until after the response has been safely secured.
? No one who has knowledge of the specific target or even of whether or not the session
was successful should have any contact with the judge until after that task has been
completed.
No one who has knowledge of the specific target should have access to the. response
until after the judging has been completed.
? Targets and decoys used in judging should be selected using a well tested
randomization device.
? Duplicate sets of targets photographs should be used, one during the experiment and
one during the judging, so that no cues (like fingerprints) can be inserted onto the
target that would help the judge recognize it.
? The criterion for stopping an experiment should be defined in advance so that it is not
called to a halt when the results just happen to be favorable. Generally, that means
specifying the number of trials in advance, but some statistical procedures require or
allow other stopping rules. The important point is that the rule be defined in advance
in such a way that there is no ambiguity about when to stop.
Reasons, if any, for excluding data must be defined in advance and followed
consistently, and should not be dependent on the data. For example, a rule specifying
that a trial could be aborted if the viewer felt ill would be legitimate, but only if the
trial was aborted before anyone involved in that decision knew the correct target.
3-10 American nsiitutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
Statistical analyses to be used must be planned in advance of collecting the data so
that a method most favorable to the data isn't selected post hoc. If multiple methods
of analysis are used, the corresponding conclusions must recognize that fact.
2.4 PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE
According to Webster's Dictionary, in law, prima facie evidence is "evidence having such a
degree of probability that it must prevail unless the contrary be proved." There are a few
examples of applied, non-laboratory remote viewings provided to the review team that would
seem to meet that criterion for evidence. These are examples in which the sponsor or another
government client asked for a single remote viewing of a site, known to the requester in real
time or in the future, and the viewer provided details far beyond what could be taken as a
reasonable guess. Two such examples are given by May (1995) in which it appears that the
results were so striking that they far exceed the phenomenon as observed in the laboratory.
Using a post hoc analysis, Dr. May concluded that in one of the cases the remote viewer was
able to describe a microwave generator with 80 percent accuracy, and that of what he said
almost 70 percent of it was reliable. Laboratory remote viewings rarely show that level of
correspondence.
Notice that standard statistical methods cannot be used in these cases because there is no
standard for probabilistic comparison. But evidence gained from applied remote viewing
cannot be dismissed as inconsequential just because we cannot assign specific probabilities to
the results. It is most important to ascertain whether or not the information was achievable in
other standard ways. In Section 3 an example is given in which a remote viewer allegedly
gave codewords from a secret facility that he should not have even known existed. Suppose
the sponsors could be absolutely certain that the viewer could not have known about those
codewords through normal means. Then even if we can't assign an exact probability to the
fact that he guessed them correctly, we can agree that it would be very small. That would
seem to constitute prima facie evidence unless an alternative explanation could be found.
Similarly, the viewer who described the microwave generator allegedly knew only that the
target was a technical site in the United States. Yet, he drew and described the microwave
generator, including its function, its approximate size, how it was housed and that it had "a
beam divergence angle of 30 degrees" (May, 1995, p. 15).
American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Anecdotal reports of psychic functioning suffer from a similar problem in terms of their
usefulness as proof. They have the additional difficulty that the "response" isn't even well-
defined in advance, unlike in applied remote viewing where the viewer provides a fixed set of
information on request. For instance, if a few people each night happen to dream of plane
crashes, then some will obviously do so on the night before a major plane crash. Those
individuals may interpret the coincidental timing as meaningful. This is undoubtedly the
reason many people think the reality of psychic functioning is a matter of belief rather than
science, since they are more familiar with the provocative anecdotes than with the laboratory
evidence.
3. THE SRI ERA
3.1 EARLY OPERATIONAL SUCCESSES AND EVALUATION
According to Puthoff and Targ (1975) the scientific research endeavor at SRI may never have
been supported had it not been for three apparent operational successes in the early days of
the program. These are detailed by Puthoff and Targ (1975), although the level of the
matches is not clearly delineated.
One of the apparent successes concerned the "West Virginia Site" in which two remote
viewers purportedly identified an underground secret facility. One of them apparently named
codewords and personnel in this facility accurately enough that it set off a security
investigation to determine how that information could have been leaked. Based only on the
coordinates of the site, the viewer first described the above ground terrain, then proceeded to
describe details of the hidden underground site.
The same viewer then claimed that he could describe a similar Communist Bloc site and
proceeded to do so for a site in the Urals. According to Puthoff and Targ "the two reports
for the West Virginia Site, and the report for the Urals Site were verified by personnel in the
sponsor organization as being substantially correct (p. 8)."
American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
The third reported operational success concerned an accurate description of a large crane and
other information at a site in Semipalatinsk, USSR. Again the viewer was provided with only
the geographic coordinates of the site and was asked to describe what was there.
Although some of the information in these examples was verified to be highly accurate, the
evaluation of operational work remains difficult, in part because there is no chance baseline
for comparison (as there is in controlled experiments) and in part because of differing
expectations of different evaluators. For example, a government official who reviewed the
Semipalatinsk work concluded that there was no way the remote viewer could have drawn the
large gantry crane unless "he actually saw it through remote viewing, or he was informed of
what to draw by someone knowledgeable of [the site]." Yet that same analyst concluded that
"the remote viewing of [the site] by subject Si proved to be unsuccessful" because "the only
positive evidence of the rail-mounted gantry crane was far outweighed by the large amount of
negative evidence noted in the body of this analysis." In other words, the analyst had the
expectation that in order to be "successful" a remote viewing should contain accurate
information only.
Another problem with evaluating this operational work is that there is no way to know with
certainty that the subject did not speak with someone who had knowledge of the site, however
unlikely that possibility may appear. Finally, we do not know to what degree the results in
the reports were selectively chosen because they were correct. These problems can all be
avoided with well designed controlled experiments.
3.2 THE EARLY SCIENTIFIC EFFORT AT SRI
During 1974 and early 1975 a number of controlled experiments were conducted to see if
various types of target material could be successfully described with remote viewing. The
results reported by Puthoff and Targ (1975) indicated success with a wide range of material,
from "technical" targets like a Xerox machine to natural settings, like a swimming pool. But
these and some of the subsequent experiments were criticized on statistical and
methodological grounds; we briefly describe one of the experiments and criticisms of it to
show the kinds of problems that existed in the early scientific effort.
American Institutes for Research 3-13
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
The largest series during the 1973 to 1975 time period involved remote viewing of natural
sites. Sites were randomly selected for each trial from a set of 100 possibilities. They were
selected "without replacement," meaning that sites were not reused once they had been
selected. The series included eight viewers, including two supplied by the sponsor. Many of
the descriptions showed a high degree of subjective correspondence, and the overall statistical
results were quite striking for most of the viewers.
Critics attacked these experiments on a number of issues, including the selection. of sites
without replacement and the statistical scoring method used. The results were scored by
having a blind judge attempt to match the target material with the transcripts of the responses.
A large fraction of the matches were successful. But critics noted that some successful
matching could be attained just from cues contained in the transcripts of the material, like
when a subject mentioned in one session what the target had been in the previous session.
Because sites were selected without replacement, knowing what the answer was on one day
would exclude that target site from being the answer on any other day. There was no way to
determine the extent to which these problems influence the results. The criticisms of these
and subsequent experiments, while perhaps unwelcome at the time, have resulted in
substantially improved methodology in these experiments.
3.3 AN OVERALL ANALYSIS OF THE SRI EXPERIMENTS: 1973-1988
In 1988 an analysis was made of all of the experiments conducted at SRI from 1973 until that
time (May et al, 1988). The analysis was based on all 154 experiments conducted during that
era, consisting of over 26,000 individual trials. Of those, almost 20,000 were of the forced
choice type and just over a thousand were laboratory remote viewings. There were a total of
227 subjects in all experiments.
The statistical results were so overwhelming that results that extreme or more so would occur
only about once in every 1020 such instances if chance alone is the explanation (i.e., the p-
value was less than 10.20). Obviously some explanation other than chance must be found.
Psychic functioning may not be the only possibility, especially since some of the earlier work
contained methodological problems. However, the fact that the same level of functioning
continued to hold in the later experiments, which did not contain those flaws, ]ends support to
American Institutes or Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
the idea that the methodological problems cannot account for the results. In fact, there was a
talented group of subjects (labeled GI in that report) for whom the effects were stronger than
for the group at large. According to Dr. May, the majority of experiments with that group
were conducted later in the program, when the methodology had been substantially improved.
In addition to the statistical results, a number of other questions and patterns were examined.
A summary of the results revealed the following:
1. "Free response" remote viewing, in which subjects describe a target, was much more
successful than "forced choice" experiments, in which subjects were asked to choose
from a small set of possibilities.
2. There was a group of six selected individuals whose performance far exceeded that of
unselected subjects. The fact that these same selected individuals consistently
performed better than others under a variety of protocols provides a type of
replicability that helps substantiate the validity of the results. If methodological
problems were responsible for the results, they should not have affected this group
differently from others.
3. Mass-screening efforts found that about one percent of those who volunteered to be
tested were consistently successful at remote viewing. This indicates that remote
viewing is an ability that differs across individuals, much like athletic ability or
musical talent. (Results of mass screenings were not included in the formal analysis
because the conditions were not well controlled, but the subsequent data from subjects
found during mass-screening were included.)
4. Neither practice nor a variety of training techniques consistently worked to improve
remote viewing ability. It appears that it is easier to find than to train good remote
viewers.
5. It is not clear whether or not feedback (showing the subject the right answer) is
necessary, but it does appear to provide a psychological boost that may increase
performance.
American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Review 1: Dr. Jessica Utts
6. Distance between the target and the subject does not seem to impact the quality of the
remote viewing.
7. Electromagnetic shielding does not appear to inhibit performance.
8. There is compelling evidence that precognition, in which the target is selected after
the subject has given the description, is also successful.
9. There is no evidence to support anomalous perturbation (psychokinesis), i.e. physical
interaction with the environment by psychic means.
3.4 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER LABORATORIES IN THE SAME ERA
One of the hallmarks of a real phenomenon is that its magnitude is replicable by various
researchers working under similar conditions. The results of the overall SRI analysis are
consistent with results of similar experiments in other laboratories. For instance, an overview
of forced choice precognition experiments (Honorton and Ferrari, 1989) found an average
"effect size" per experimenter of 0.033, whereas all forced choice experiments at SRI resulted
in a similar effect size of .052. The comparison is not ideal since the SRI forced choice
experiments were not necessarily precognitive and they used different types of target material
than the standard card-guessing experiments.
Methodologically sound remote viewing has not been undertaken at other laboratories, but a
similar regime called the ganzfeld (described in more detail in Section 5) has shown to be
similarly successful. The largest collection of ganzfeld experiments was conducted from 1983
to 1989 at the Psychophysical Research Laboratories in Princeton, NJ. Those experiments
were also reported by separating r.ovices from experienced subjects. The overall effect size
for novice remote viewing at SRI was 0.164, while the effect size for novices in the ganzfeld
at PRL was a very similar 0.17. For experienced remote viewers at SRI the overall effect size
was 0.385; for experienced viewers in the ganzfeld experiments it was 0.35. These consistent
results across laboratories help refute the idea that the successful experiments at any one lab
are the result of fraud, sloppy protocols or some methodological problem and also provide an
indication of what can be expected in future experiments.
3-16 American institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
4. THE SAIL ERA
4.1 AN OVERVIEW
The review team decided to focus more intensively on the experiments conducted at Science
Applications International Corporation (SAIC), because they provide a manageable yet varied
set to examine in detail. They were guided by a Scientific Oversight Committee consisting of
experts in a variety of disciplines, including a winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics,
internationally known professors of statistics, psychology, neuroscience and astronomy and a
medical doctor who is a retired U.S. Army Major General. Further, we have access to the
details for the full set of SAIC experiments, unlike for the set conducted at SRI. Whatever
details may be missing from the written reports are obtainable from the principal investigator,
Dr. Edwin May, to whom we have been given unlimited access.
In a memorandum dated July 25, 1995, Dr. Edwin May listed the set of experiments
conducted by SAIC. There were ten experiments, all designed to answer questions about
psychic functioning raised by the work at SRI and other laboratories, rather than just to
provide additional proof of its existence. Some of the experiments were of a similar fonnat
to the remote viewing experiments conducted at SRI and we can examine those to see
whether or not they replicated the SRI results. We will also examine what new knowledge
can be gained from the results of the SAIC work.
4.2 THE TEN EXPERIMENTS
Of the ten experiments done at SAIC, six of them involved remote viewing and four did not.
Rather than list the details in the body of this report, Appendix 2 gives a brief description of
the experiments. What follows is a discussion of the methodology and results for the
experiments as a whole. Because of the fundamental differences between remote viewing and
the other types of experiments, we discuss them separately.
In the memorandum of 25 July 1995, Dr. May provided the review team with details of the
ten experiments, including a short title, number of trials, effect size and overall p-value for
American Institutes or esearc
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Review 1: Dr. Jessica Utts
each one. His list was in time sequence. It is reproduced in Table 1, using his numbering
system, with the experiments categorized by type, then sequentially within type. The effect
size estimates are based on a limited number of trials, so they are augmented with an interval
to show the probable range of the true effect (e.g., .124+.071 indicates a range from .053 to
.195). Remember that an effect size of 0 represents chance, while a positive effect size
indicates positive results.
TABLE 1: SAIC EXPERIMENTS LISTED BY DR. EDWIN MAY
Expr
Title
Trials
Effect Size
p-value
Remote Viewing Experiments
1
Target dependencies
200
.124?.071
0.040
4
AC with binary coding
40
-.067?.158
0.664
5
AC lucid dreams, base
24
.088?.204
0.333
6
AC lucid dreams, pilot
21
.368?.218
0.046
9
ERD AC Behavior
70
.303?.120
0.006
10
Entropy II
90
.550?.105
9.1X10'$
Other Experiments
2
AC of binary targets
300
.123?.058
0.017
3
MEG Replication
12,000s
MCE
MCE
7
Remote observation
48
.361?.144
0.006
8
ERD EEG investigation
7,000s
MCE
MCE
American Tn-Tt tutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
4.3 ASSESSING THE REMOTE VIEWING EXPERIMENTS BY HOMOGENEOUS
SETS OF SESSIONS
While Table I provides an overall assessment of the results of each experiment, it does so at
the expense of information about variability among viewers and types of targets. In terms of
understanding the phenomenon, it is important to break the results down into units that are as
homogeneous as possible in terms of procedure, individual viewer and type of target. This is
also important in order to assess the impact of any potential methodological problems. For
example, in one pilot experiment (E6, AC in Lucid Dreams) viewers were permitted to take
the targets home with them in sealed envelopes. Table 2 presents the effect size results at the
most homogeneous level possible based on the information provided. For descriptions of the
experiments, refer to Appendix 2. Overall effect sizes for each viewer and total effect sizes
for each experiment are weighted according to the number of trials, so each trial receives
equal weight.
American Institutes for Research 3-19
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Review 1: Dr. Jessica Utts
TABLE 2: INDIVIDUAL EFFECT SIZES
Experiment Experiment Remote Viewers Viewer
009 131 372 389 518 Unknown Total
/Other
Static Targets (National Geographic)
El: Static
.424
-.071
.424
.177
.283
n.a.
.247
E9
.432
n.a.
.354
177
n.a.
n.a.
.303
E10: Static
.566
n.a.
.801
-.071
.778
n.a.
.550
E5 (Note 1)
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
088
.088
E6 (Note 2)
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
.370
.370
E4 (Note 3)
-.112
n.a.
0
n.a.
.112
-.559
-.067
Dynamic Targets (Video Film Clips)
El: Dynamic
0
.354
-.283
0
-.071
n.a._
.000
E10: Dynamic
Overall
.919
352
n.a.
.141
.754
.340
0
]_.090
.424
.271
n.a.
n.a_
.550
~
Notes:
1. Experiment 5 did not include any expert viewers.
2. Experiment 6 included 4 expert viewers but separate results were not provided.
3. Experiment 4 used a specially designed target set and only 4 choices in judging.
4.4 CONSISTENCY AND REPLICABILITY OF THE REMOTE VIEWING RESULTS
One of the most important hallmarks of science is replicability. A phenomenon with
statistical variability, whether it is scoring home runs in baseball, curing a disease with
chemotherapy, or observing psychic functioning, should exhibit about the same level of
es ?o r Research
3-20 American Instrtcit-es-
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
success in the long run over repeated experiments of a similar nature. The remote viewing
experiments are no exception. Remember that such events should not replicate with any
degree of precision in the short run because of statistical variability, just as we would not
expect to always get five heads and five tails if we flip a coin ten times, or see the same
batting averages in every game.
The analysis of SRI experiments conducted in 1988 singled out the laboratory remote viewing
sessions performed by six "expert" remote viewers, numbers 002, 009, 131, 372, 414 and 504.
These six individuals contributed 196 sessions. The resulting effect size was 0.385 (May et
al, 1988, p. 13). The SRI analysis does not include information individually by viewer, nor
does it include information about how many of the 196 sessions used static versus dynamic
targets. One report provided to the review team (May, Lantz and Piantineda) included an
additional experiment conducted after the 1988 review was performed, in which Viewer 009
participated with 40 sessions. The effect size for Viewer 009 for those sessions was .363.
None of the other five SRI experts were participants.
The same subject identifying numbers were used at SAIC, so we can compare the
performance for these individuals at SRI and SAIC. Of the six, three were specifically
mentioned as participating in the SAIC remote viewing experiments. As can be seen in Table
2, viewers 009, 131 and 372 all participated in Experiment 1 and viewers 009 and 372
participated in Experiments 4, 9 and 10 as well.
The overall effect sizes for two of the three, viewers 009 and 372, were very close to the SRI
effect size of 0.385 for these subjects, at .35 and .34, respectively, and the .35 effect size for
Viewer 009 was very similar to his .363 effect size in the report by May, Lantz and
Piantineda (1994). Therefore, we see a repeated and, more importantly, hopefully a
repeatable level of functioning above chance for these individuals. An effect of this size
should be reliable enough to be sustained in any properly conducted experiment with enough
trials to obtain the long run statistical replicability required to rule out chance.
It is also important to notice that viewers 009 and 372 did well on the same experiments and
poorly on the same experiments. In fact the correlation between their effect sizes across
experiments is .901, which is very close to a perfect correlation of 1.0. This kind of
American Institutes for Research 3-21
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Review 1: Dr. Jessica Utts
consistency warrants investigation to determine whether it is the nature of the experiments, a
statistical fluke or some methodological problems that led these two individuals to perform so
closely to one another. If methodological problems are responsible, then they must be subtle
indeed because the methodology was similar for many of the experiments, yet the results
were not. For instance, procedures for the sessions with static and dynamic targets in
Experiment I were almost identical to each other, yet the dynamic targets did not produce
evidence of psychic functioning (p-value = .50) and the static targets did (p-value = .0073).
Therefore, a methodological problem would have had to differentially affect results for the
two types of targets, even though the assignment of target type was random across sessions.
4.5 METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN THE REMOTE VIEWING EXPERIMENTS AT
SAIC
As noted in Section 2.3, there are a number of methodological considerations needed to
perform a careful remote viewing experiment. Information necessary to determine how well
each of these was addressed is generally available in the reports, but in some instances I
consulted Dr. May for additional information. As an example of how the methodological
issues in Section 2.3 were addressed, an explanation will be provided for Experiment 1.
In this experiment the viewers all worked from their homes (in New York, Kansas,
California, and Virginia). Dr. Nevin Lantz, who resided in Pennsylvania, was the principal
investigator. After each session, viewers faxed their response to Dr. Lantz and mailed the
original to SAIC. Upon receipt of the fax, Dr. Lantz mailed the correct answer to the viewer.
The viewers were supposed to mail their original responses to SAIC immediately, after faxing
them to Dr. Lantz. According to Dr. May, the faxed versions were later compared with the
originals to make sure the originals were sent without any changes. Here are how the other
methodological issues in Section 2.3 were handled:
? No one who has knowledge of the specific target should have any contact with the
viewer until after the response has been safely secured.
No one involved with the experiment had any contact with the viewers, since they
were not in the vicinity of either SAIC or Dr. Lantz's home in Pennsylvania.
3-22 American nstitutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
No one who has knowledge of the specific target or even of whether or not the session
was successful should have any contact with the judge until after that task has been
completed.
Dr. Lantz and the individual viewers were the only ones who knew the correct
answers, but according to Dr. May, they did not have any contact with the judge during the
period of this experiment.
? No one who has knowledge of the specific target should have access to the response
until after the judging has been completed.
Again, since only the viewers and Dr. Lantz knew the correct target, and since the
responses were mailed to SAIC by the viewers before they received the answers, this
condition appears to have been met.
Targets and decoys used in judging should be selected using a well tested
randomization device.
This has been standard practice at both SRI and SAIC.
? Duplicate sets of targets photographs should be used, one during the experiment and
one during the judging, so that no cues (like fingerprints) can be inserted onto the
target that would help the judge recognize it.
This was done; Dr. Lantz maintained the set used during the experiment while the set
used for judging was kept at SAIC in California.
? The criterion for stopping an experiment should be defined in advance so that it is not
called to a halt when the results just happen to be favorable. Generally, that means
specifying the number of trials in advance, but some statistical procedures require
other stopping rules. The important point is that the rule be defined in advance in
such a way that there is no ambiguity about when to stop.
American Institutes fo-r-Researc
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
In advance it was decided that each viewer would contribute 40 trials, t(-,n under each
of four conditions (all combinations of sender/no sender and static/dynamic). All sessions
were completed.
Reasons, if any, for excluding data must be defined in advance and followed
consistently, and should not be dependent on the data. For example, a rule specifying
that a trial could be aborted if the viewer felt ill would be legitimate, but only if the
trial was aborted before anyone involved in that decision knew the correct target.
No such reasons were given, nor was there any mention of any sessions being aborted
or discarded.
? Statistical analyses to be used must be planned in advance of collecting the data so
that a method most favorable to the data isn't selected post hoc. If multiple methods
of analysis are used, the corresponding conclusions must recognize that fact.
The standard rank-order judging had been planned, with results reported separately for
each of the four conditions in the experiment for each viewer. Thus, 20 effect sizes were
reported, four for each of the five viewers.
4.6 WAS ANYTHING LEARNED AT SAIC?
4.6.1 TARGET SELECTION. In addition to the question of whether or not psychic
functioning is possible, the experiments at SAIC were designed to explore a number of
hypotheses. Experiments 1 and 10 were both designed to see if there is a relationship
between the "change in visual entropy" in the targets and the remote viewing performance.
Each of the five senses with which we. are familiar is a change detector. Our vision is most
readily drawn to something that is moving, and in fact if our eyes are kept completely still,
we cease to see at all. Similarly, we hear because of moving air, and our attention is drawn
to sudden changes in sound levels. Other senses behave similarly. Thus, it is reasonable that
if there really is a "psychic sense" then it would follow that same pattern.
3-24 American institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
Experiments 1 and 10 were designed to test whether or not remote viewing performance
would be related to a particular type of change in the target material, namely the "change in
visual entropy." A target with a high degree of change would be one in which the colors
changed considerably throughout the target. A detailed explanation can be found in the SAIC
reports of this experiment, or in the article "Shannon Entropy: A Possible Intrinsic Target
Property" by May, Spottiswoode and James, in the Journal of Parapsychology, December
1994. It was indeed found that there was a correlation between the change in entropy in the
target and the remote viewing quality. This result was initially shown in Experiment I and
replicated in Experiment 10. A simulation study matching randomly chosen targets to
responses showed that this was unlikely to be an artifact of target complexity or other
features.
It is worth speculating on what this might mean for determining how psychic functioning
works. Physicists are currently grappling with the concept of time, and cannot rule out
precognition as being consistent with current understanding. Perhaps it is the case that we do
have a psychic sense, much like our other senses, and that it works by scanning the future for
possibilities of major change much as our eyes scan the environment for visual change and
our ears are responsive to auditory change. That idea is consistent with anecdotal reports of
precognition, which are generally concerned with events involving major life change.
Laboratory remote viewing may in part work by someone directing the viewer to focus on a
particular point in the future, that in which he or she receives the feedback from the
experiment. It may also be the case that this same sense can scan the environment in actual
time and detect change as well.
Another hypothesis put forth at SAIC was that laboratory remote viewing experiments are
most likely to be successful if the pool of potential targets is neither too narrow nor too wide
in terms of the number of possible elements in the target. They called this feature the "target-
pool bandwidth" and described it as the number of "differentiable cognitive elements." They
reasoned that if the possible target set was too small, the viewer would see the entire set and
be unable to distinguish that information from the psychic information. If the set was too
broad, the viewer would not have any means for editing an extensive imagination.
American Institutes fo-r-Research 3-25
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Review 1: Dr. Jessica Utts
Combining these two results would indicate that a good target set would contain targets with
high change in visual entropy, but that the set would contain a moderately-sized set of
possibilities. The set of 100 National Geographic photographs used in the later days at SRI
and at SAIC may have inadvertently displayed just those properties.
4.6.2 REMOTE STARING. Experiment 7, described in Appendix 2, provided results very
different from the standard remote viewing work. That experiment was designed to test
claims made in the Former Soviet Union and by some researchers in the United. States, that
individuals could influence the physiology of another individual from a remote location. The
study was actually two separate replications of the same experiment, and both replications
were successful from a traditional statistical perspective. In other words, it appeared that the
physiology of one individual was activated when he or she was being watched by someone in
a distant room. If these results are indeed sound, then they may substantiate the folklore
indicating that people know when they are being observed from behind.
4.6.3 ENHANCED BINARY COMPUTER GUESSING. Experiment 2 was also very
different from the standard remote viewing experiments, although it was still designed to test
anomalous cognition. Three subjects attempted to use a statistical enhancement technique to
increase the ability to guess forced choice targets with two choices. This clever computer
experiment showed that for one subject, guessing was indeed enhanced from a. raw rate of just
above chance (51.6% instead of 50%) to an enhanced rate of 76 percent. The method was
extremely inefficient, and it is difficult to imagine practical uses for this ability, if indeed it
exists.
5. EXTERNAL VALIDATION: REPLICATIONS OF OTHER
EXPERIMENTS
5.1 CONCEPTUAL SIMILARITY: GANZFELD EXPERIMENTS
While remote viewing has been the primary activity at SRI and SAIC, other researchers have
used a similar technique to test for anomalous cognition, called the ganzfeld. As noted in the
SAIC Final Report of 29 Sept. 1994, the ganzfeld experiments differ from. remote viewing in
three fundamental ways. First, a "mild altered state is used," second, senders are [usually]
3-26 American Institutes or Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
used, so that telepathy is the primary mode, and third, the receivers (viewers) do their own
judging just after the session, rather than having an independent judge.
The ganzfeld experiments conducted at Psychophysical Research Laboratories (PRL) were
already mentioned in Section 3.4. Since the time those results were reported, other
laboratories have also been conducting ganzfeld experiments. At the 1995 Annual Meeting of
the Parapsychological Association, three replications were reported, all published in the peer-
reviewed Proceedings of the conference.
The ganzfeld experiments differ in the preferred method of analysis as well. Rather than
using the sum of the ranks across sessions, a simple count is made of how many first place
matches resulted from a series. Four rather than five choices are given, so by chance there
should be about 25% of the sessions resulting in first place matches.
5.2 GANZFELD RESULTS FROM FOUR LABORATORIES
In publishing the ganzfeld results from PRL, Bern and Honorton (1994) excluded one of the
studies from the general analysis for methodological reasons, and found that the remaining
studies showed 106 hits out of 329 sessions, for a hit rate of 32.2 percent when 25 percent
was expected by chance. The corresponding p-value was .002. As mentioned earlier, the
hallmark of science is replication. This result has now been replicated by three additional
laboratories.
Bierman (1995) reported four series of experiments conducted at the University of
Amsterdam. Overall, there were 124 sessions and 46 hits, for a hit rate of 37 percent. The
hit rates for the four individual experiments were 34.3 percent, 37.5 percent, 40 percent and
36.1 percent, so the results are consistent across his four experiments.
Morris, Dalton, Delanoy and Watt (1995) reported results of 97 sessions conducted at the
University of Edinburgh in which there were 32 successes, for a hit rate of 33 percent. They
conducted approximately equal numbers of sessions under each of three conditions. In one
condition there was a known sender, and in the other two conditions it was randomly
determined at the last minute (and unknown to the receiver) that there would either be a
American Institutes for Research 3-27
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Review 1: Dr. Jessica Utts
sender or not. Hit rates were 34 percent when there was a known sender and when there was
no sender, and 28 percent when there was a sender but the receiver did not know whether or
not there would be. They did discover post hoc that one experimenter was more successful
than the other two at achieving successful sessions, but the result was not beyond what would
be expected by chance as a post hoc observation.
Broughton and Alexander (1995) reported results from 100 sessions at the Institute for
Parapsychology in North Carolina. They, too, found a similar hit rate, with 33 hits out of 100
sessions, or 33 percent hits.
Results from the original ganzfeld work and these three replications are summarized in Table
3, along with the SRI and SAIC remote viewing results. The effect sizes for the ganzfeld
replications are based on Cohen's h, which is similar in type to the effect size used for the
remote viewing data. Both effect sizes measure the number of standard deviations the results
fall above chance, using the standard deviation for a single session.
TABLE 3: REMOTE VIEWING AND GANZFELD REPLICATIONS
Laboratory
Sessions
Hit Rate
Effect Size
All Remote Viewing at SRI
770
N/A
.209
All Remote Viewing at SAIC
455
N/A
.230
PRL, Princeton, NJ
329
32 percent
167
University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
124
37 percent
.261
University of Edinburgh, Scotland
97
33 percent
.177
Institute for Parapsychology, NC
100
33 percent
.177
3-28 American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
5.3 CONCLUSIONS ABOUT EXTERNAL REPLICATION
The results shown in Table 3 show that remote viewing has been conceptually replicated
across a number of laboratories, by various experimenters and in different cultures. This is a
robust effect that, were it not in such an unusual domain, would no longer be questioned by
science as a real phenomenon. It is unlikely that methodological problems could account for
the remarkable consistency of results shown in Table 3.
6. IS REMOTE VIEWING USEFUL?
Even if we were all to agree that anomalous cognition is possible, there remains the question
of whether or not it would have any practical use for government purposes. The answer to
that question is beyond the scope of this report, but some speculations can be made about
how to increase the usefulness.
First, it appears that anomalous cognition is to some extent possible in the general
population. None of the ganzfeld experiments used exclusively selected subjects. However,
it also appears that certain individuals possess more talent than others, and that it is easier to
find those individuals than to train people. It also appears to be the case that certain
individuals are better at some tasks than others. For instance, Viewer 372 at SAIC appears to
have a facility with describing technical sites.
Second, if remote viewing is to be useful, the end users must be trained in what it can do and
what it cannot. Given our current level of understanding, it is rarely 100 percent accurate,
and there is no reliable way to learn what is accurate and what is not. The same is probably
true of most sources of intelligence data.
Third, what is useful for one purpose may not be useful for another. For instance, suppose a
remote viewer could describe the setting in which a hostage is being held. That information
may not be any use at all to those unfamiliar with the territory, but could be useful to those
familiar with it.
American Institutes
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
It is clear to this author that anomalous cognition is possible and has been demonstrated.
This conclusion is not based on belief, but rather on commonly accepted scientific criteria.
The phenomenon has been replicated in a number of forms across laboratories and cultures.
The various experiments in which it has been observed have been different enough that if
some subtle methodological problems can explain the results, then there would have to be a
different explanation for each type of experiment, yet the impact would have to be similar
across experiments and laboratories. If fraud were responsible, similarly, it would require an
equivalent amount of fraud on the part of a large number of experimenters or an even larger
number of subjects.
What is not so clear is that we have progressed very far in understanding the mechanism for
anomalous cognition. Senders do not appear to be necessary at all; feedback of the correct
answer may or may not be necessary. Distance in time and space do not seem to be an
impediment. Beyond those conclusions, we know very little.
I believe that it would be wasteful of valuable resources to continue to look for proof. No
one who has examined all of the data across laboratories, taken as a collective whole, has
been able to suggest methodological or statistical problems to explain the ever-increasing and
consistent results to date. Resources should be directed to the pertinent questions about how
this ability works. I am confident that the questions are no more elusive than any other
questions in science dealing with small to medium sized effects, and that if appropriate
resources are targeted to appropriate questions, we can have answers within the next decade.
American institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
8. REFERENCES
Bern, Daryl J. and Charles Honorton (1994). "Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an
anomalous process of information transfer," Psychological Bulletin, 115, 4-18.
Bierman, Dick J. (1995). "The Amsterdam Ganzfeld Series III & IV: Target clip
emotionality, effect sizes and openness," Proceedings of the 38th Annual
Parapsychological Association Convention, 27-37.
Broughton, Richard and Cheryl Alexander (1995). "Autoganzfeld II: The first 100 sessions,"
Proceedings of the 38th Annual Parapsychological Association Convention, 53-61.
May, Edwin C. (1995). "AC Technical trials: Inspiration for the target entropy concept," May
26, 1995, SAIC Technical Report.
May, Edwin C., Nevin D. Lantz and Tom Piantineda (1994). "Feedback considerations in
anomalous cognition experiments," Technical Report, Nov. 29, 1994.
May, Edwin C., J.M. Utts, V.V. Trask, W.W. Luke, T.J. Frivold and B.S. Humphrey
(1988). "Review of the psychoenergetic research conducted at SRI International
(1973-1988)," SRI International Technical Report, March 1989.
Morris, Robert L., Kathy Dalton, Deborah Delanoy and Caroline Watt (1995). "Comparison
of the sender/no sender condition in the ganzfeld, " Proceedings of the 38th Annual
Parapsychological Association Convention, 244-259.
Puthoff, Harold E. and Russell Targ (1975). "Perceptual augmentation techniques: Part
two - research report," Stanford Research Institute Final Report, Dec. 1, 1975.
American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
APPENDIX 1
EFFECT SIZE MEASURE USED WITH RANK ORDER JUDGING
In general, effect sizes measure the number of standard deviation the true population value of
interest falls from the value that would be true if chance alone were at work. The standard
deviation used is for one subject, trial, etc., rather than being the standard error of the sample
statistic used in the hypothesis test.
In rank-order judging, let R be the rank for a single trial. If the number of possible choices is
N, then we find:
E(R)=(N+1)/2
Var(R) = Nx-1
Therefore, when N = 5, we find E(R) = 3 and Var(R) _= 2. The effect size is therefore:
Effect Size = (3.0 - Average Rank)
12
3-32 American Institutes or Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
APPENDIX 2
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SAIC EXPERIMENTS
EXPERIMENTS INVOLVING REMOTE VIEWING
There were six experiments involving remote viewing, done for a variety of purposes.
EXPERIMENT 1: TARGET AND SENDER DEPENDENCIES:
PURPOSE: This experiment was designed to test whether or not a sender is necessary for
successful remote viewing and whether or not dynamic targets, consisting of short video clips,
would result in more successful remote viewing than the standard National Geographic
photographs used in most of the SRI experiments.
METHOD: Five experienced remote viewers participated, three of whom (#s 009, 131 and
372) were included in the experienced group at SRI; their identification numbers were carried
over to the SAIC experiments. Each viewer worked from his or her home and faxed the
results of the sessions to the principal investigator, Nevin Lantz, located in Pennsylvania.
Whether the target was static or dynamic and whether or not there was a sender was
randomly determined and unknown to the viewer. Upon receiving the fax of the response,
Dr. Lantz mailed the correct answer to the viewer. The original response was sent to SAIC
in California, where the results were judged by an analyst blind to the correct target.
Standard rank-order judging was used.
Since it is not explicitly stated, I asked Dr. May what measures were taken to make sure the
viewer actually mailed the original response to SAIC before receiving the correct answer in
the mail. He said that the original faxed responses were compared with the responses
received by SAIC to make sure they were the same, and they all were.
RESULTS: Each viewer contributed ten trials under each of the four possible conditions
(sender/no sender and static/dynamic target), for a total of 40 trials per viewer. There was a
American Institutes for Research 3-33
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
moderate difference (effect size = .121, p = .08) between the static and dynamic targets, with
the traditional National Geographic photographs faring better than the dynamic video clips.
There was no noticeable difference based on whether or not a sender was involved,
supporting the same conclusion reached in the overall analysis of the SRI work. Combined
over all conditicas and all viewers, the effect size was 0. 124 (p = .04); for the static targets
alone it was .248 (exact p = .0073) while for the dynamic targets it was 0.00 (p = .50).
DISCUSSION: The SAIC staff speculated that the dynamic targets were not successful
because the possibilities were too broad. They chose a new set of dynamic targets to be more
similar to the static targets and performed another experiment the following year to compare
the static targets with the more similar set of dynamic ones. That experiment is described
below (Experiment 10.)
EXPERIMENT 4: ENHANCING DETECTION OF AC WITH BINARY CODING:
PURPOSE: This experiment was designed to see if remote viewing could be used to develop
a message-sending capability by focusing on the presence or absence of five specific features
of a target. The target set was constructed in packets of four, with possible combinations of
the absence (0) or presence (1) of each of the five features chosen to correspond to the
numbers 00000, 01110, 10101, and 11011. This is standard practice in information theory
when trying to send a two digit number (00, 01, 10 or 11); the remaining three bits are used
for "error corrections." Different sets of five features were used for each of ten target packs.
METHOD: Five viewers each contributed eight trials, but the same eight targets were used
for all five viewers. There was no sender used, and viewers were told that each target would
be in a fixed location for one week. They were to spend 15 minutes trying to draw the
target, then fax their responses to SAIC in California. The results were blind judged and the
binary features were coded by both the viewers and an independent analyst.
RESULTS: The results were unsuccessful in showing any evidence of psychic functioning.
Neither standard rank-order judging nor analysis based on the binary guesses showed any
promise that this method works to send messages.
3-34 American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
EXPERIMENT 5: AC IN LUCID DREAMS (BASELINE):
PURPOSE: Despite its name, this experiment did not involve lucid dreaming. Instead, it
was used to test three novice remote viewers who were to participate in an experiment
involving remote viewing while dreaming. This baseline experiment was designed to see if
these individuals would be successful at standard laboratory remote viewing.
METHOD: For this baseline experiment, each of the three viewers contributed eight trials
using a standard protocol common in the SRI era. For each trial, a target was randomly
chosen from the set of 100 National Geographic targets used at SRI and SAIC. The target
was placed on a table (so no sender was used) while the viewer, in another room, was asked
to provide a description. The response was later blind judged by comparing it to the target
and four decoys, and providing a rank-ordering of the five choices.
RESULTS: Of the three novice viewers, one obtained a promising effect size of .265,
although the result was not statistically significant due to the small number of trials (8).
Individual results were not provided for the other two viewers, but the overall effect size was
reported as 0.088 for the three viewers.
EXPERIMENT 6: AC IN LUCID DREAMS (PILOT):
PURPOSE: A lucid dream is a dream in which one becomes aware that he or she is
dreaming, and can control subsequent events in the dream. This ability has apparently been
successfully trained by Dr. Stephen LaBerge of the Lucidity Institute. He was the Principal
Investigator for this experiment. The experiment was designed to see if remote viewing could
be successfully employed while the viewer was having a lucid dream.
METHOD: Seven remote viewers were used; four were experienced SAIC remote viewers
and three were experienced lucid dreamers from the Lucidity Institute. The latter three were
the novice viewers used in Experiment 5. The experienced SAIC remote viewers were given
training in lucid dreaming. The number of trials contributed by each viewer could not be
fixed in advance because of the difficulty of attaining the lucid dream state. A total of 21
American Institutes for Research 3-35
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
trials were conducted, with the seven viewers contributing anywhere from one to seven trials
each. The report did not mention whether or not the stopping criterion was fixed in advance,
but according to Dr. May, the experiment was designed to proceed for a fixed time period
and to include all sessions attained during that time period.
Unlike with standard well controlled protocols, the viewers were allowed to take the target
material home with them. The targets, selected from the standard National Geographic pool,
were sealed in opaque envelopes with covert threads to detect possible tampering (there were
no indications of such tampering). Viewers were instructed to place the targets at bedside
and to attempt a lucid dream in which the envelope was opened and the target viewed.
Drawings and descriptions were then to be produced upon awakening.
RESULTS: Th.: results were blind judged using the standard sum of ranks. Since the
majority of viewers contributed only one or two trials, analysis by individual viewer would be
meaningless. For the 21 trials combined, the effect size was 0.368 (p = .046). Information
was not provided to differentiate the novice remote viewers from the experienced ones.
EXPERIMENT 9: ERD AC BEHAVIOR:
PURPOSE: The remote viewing in this experiment was conducted in conjunction with
measurement of brain waves using an EEG. The purpose of the experiment was to see
whether or not EEG activity would change when the target the person was attempting to
describe was briefly displayed on a computer monitor in a distant room. Details of the EEG
portion will be explained as Experiment 8. Here, we summarize the remote viewing part of
the study.
METHOD: Three experienced remote viewers (#s 009, 372, and 389) participated. Because
of the pilot nature of the experiment, the number of trials differed for each viewer based on
availability, with viewers 009, 372, and 389 contributing 18, 24, and 28 trials, respectively.
Although it is not good protocol to allow an unspecified number of trials, it does not appear
that this problem can explain the results of this experiment.
3-36 American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
RESULTS: Responses were blind judged using standard rank-order analysis. The effect
sizes for the viewers 009, 372 and 389 were 0.432 (p = .033), 0.354 (p = .042) and 0.177
(p = .175), respectively. The overall effect size was 0.303 (p = 0.006).
EXPERIMENT 10: ENTROPY II:
PURPOSE: This experiment was designed as an improved version of Experiment 1. After
the unsuccessful showing for the dynamic targets in Experiment 1, the SAIC team speculated
that the "target pool bandwidth" defined as the number of "cognitively differentiable
elements" in the target pool might be an important factor. If the possible target material was
extremely broad, viewers might have trouble filtering out extraneous noise. If the set of
possibilities was too small, as in forced choice experiments, the viewer would see all choices
at once and would have trouble filtering out that knowledge. An intermediate range of
possibilities, too large to be considered all at once, was predicted to be ideal. The standard
National Geographic pool seemed to fit that range. For this experiment, a pool of dynamic
targets was created with a similar "bandwidth." In both Experiments (1 and 10) the
researchers predicted that remote viewing success would correlate with the change in visual
entropy of the target, as explained in Section 4.6.1.
METHOD: Four of the five viewers from Experiment I were used (#s 009, 372, 389 and
518). They each contributed equal numbers of sessions with static and dynamic targets, with
the viewers blind to which trials had which type. Senders were not used, and all sessions
were conducted at SAIC in California, unlike Experiment I in which the viewers worked at
home. Viewer #372 contributed 15 of each type while the others each contributed 10 of each
type. Standard rank-order judging was used.
RESULTS: Table 4 shows the results for this experiment. Unlike in Experiment 1, the static
and dynamic targets produced identical effect sizes, with both types producing very successful
results. The combined effect size for all trials is .55, resulting in a z-score of 5.22.
American Institutes for Research 3-37
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
TABLE 4: RESULTS FOR EXPERIMENT 10
Static Targets
Dynamic Targets
Viewer
Rank
ES
p
Rank
ES
p
009
2.20
.565
.037
1.70
.919
1.8X10-3
372
1.87
.801
9.7X10
1.93
.754
1.8X10-3
389
3.10
-.071
.589
3.0
.000
.500
518
1.90
.778
7.2X103
2.4
.424
.091
Total
2.22
.550
1.1X10'5
2.22
.550
1.1X10'5
THE OTHER EXPERIMENTS AT SAIC
There were four additional experiments at SAIC, not involving remote viewing. Two of them
(experiments 3 and 8) involved trying to measure brain activity related to psychic functioning
and will be described briefly. Experiment 3 used a magnetoenchephalograph (MEG) to
attempt to detect anomalous signals in the brain when a remote stimulus was present. Due to
the background noise in the brain measurements and the expected strength of the signal, the
experimenters realized too late that they would not be able to detect a signal even if it
existed. Experiment 8 utilized an EEG to try to detect the interruption of alpha waves when a
remote viewing target was briefly displayed on a computer monitor in another room. The
area of the brain tested was that corresponding to visual stimuli. No significant change in
alpha was seen.
The remaining two experiments were replications of previous work measuring psychic
functioning in areas other than remote viewing. They will be described in detail.
3-38 American instit5tes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
EXPERIMENT 2: AC OF BINARY TARGETS:
PURPOSE: This experiment attempted to replicate and enhance random number generator
experiments conducted at SRI. In these types of experiments, a computer randomly selects
one of two choices to be the target, denoted as 0 or 1. The internal workings of the computer
then rapidly oscillate between 0 and 1 and the subject pushes a mouse button when he or she
thinks the internal choice matches the target choice. This process is repeated over many
trials. The computer tabulates the results and the experiment is a success if the subject
guesses the correct answer more often than would be expected by chance. The purpose is to
see if humans can correctly guess computer-selected binary targets, and, hopefully, by
extension, correctly solve binary choice problems in real situations. If that were to be the
case, then real problems could be posed as binary ones (e.g., is the lost child still in this city
or not) to narrow down possibilities.
METHOD: This SAIC experiment was designed to enhance the accuracy of binary guessing
by using a statistical technique called sequential analysis. Rather than just one guess for each
decision, the subject continues to guess until the computer ascertains that a decision has been
reached. The computer keeps track of the number of times zero and one have each been
guessed and announces a decision when one of the choices has clearly won out over the
other, or when it is clear that it is essentially an ongoing tie. In the latter case, no decision is
recorded. Three subjects participated (#s 007, 083 and 531) in this experiment. Subject #531
had been successful in similar experiments at SRI.
RESULTS: Using this method for enhancing the accuracy of the guesses, subject #531, who
had been successful in previous similar experiments, was able to achieve 76 correct answers
out of 100 tries. This remarkable level of scoring for this type of experiment resulted in an
effect size of .520 and a z-score of 5.20. The other two subjects did not differ from chance
results, with 44 and 49 correct decisions out of 100 or 101. (One subject accidentally
contributed an additional trial.)
Although the result for subject 531 is remarkably successful, it does not represent a very
efficient method of obtaining the decision. To reach the 100 decisions required a total of
21,337 guesses, i.e., over 200 guesses for each decision. Of the individual guesses, only 51.6
American Institutes for Research 3-39
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
percent were correct, for an effect size of .032, similar to other forced choice experiments.
Due to the large number of guesses, the corresponding z, score was 4.65. Combined over all
three subjects, 56 percent of the 301 decisions were correct and the effect size was 0.123.
The combined results were still statistically significant, with p = 0. 017, as sho'am in Table 1.
EXPERIMENT 7: REMOTE OBSERVATION:
PURPOSE: It is often reported anecdotally that people know when they are being watched.
Two experiments were conducted at SAIC to determine whether or not these anecdotes could
be supported by a change in physiology when someone is being observed from a distance.
The experimental design was essentially the same for the two experiments. This work was a
conceptual replication of results reported by researchers in the Former Soviet Union (FSU),
the United States, and Scotland. The experiments in the FSU were interpreted to mean that
the physiology of the recipient was being manipulated by the sender, an effect that, if rea,l
could have frightening consequences.
METHOD: The "observee" was seated in a room with a video camera focused on him or her,
and with galvanic skin response measurements being recorded. In a distant room the
"observer" attempted to influence the physiology of the observee at randomly spaced time
intervals. During those time intervals, an image of the observee appeared on a computer
monitor watched by the observer. During "control" periods, the video camera remained
focused on the observee but the computer monitor did not display his or her image to the
observer. There were 16 "influence" periods randomly interspersed with 16 "control" periods,
each of 30 seconds, with blank periods of 0 to 5 seconds inserted to rule out patterns in
physiology.
RESULTS: To determine whether or not the galvanic skin response of the observees was
activated while they were being watched, the response during the control periods was
compared with the response during the "influence" periods for each subject. The results were
then averaged across subjects. In both experiments, there was greater activity during the
periods of being watched than there was during the control periods. The results were
statistically significant in each case (p = .036 and .014) and the effect sizes were similar, at
0.39 and 0.49. As preplanned, the results were combined, yielding an effect size of .39 (p =
3-40 American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
.005). As an interesting post hoc observation, it was noted that the effect was substantially
stronger when the observer and observee were of opposite sexes than when they were of the
same sex.
DISCUSSION: This experiment differs from the others conducted at SAIC since it involves
interaction between two people rather than one person ascertaining information about the
environment or the future. It raises substantially more questions than it answers, since the
mechanism for the shift in physiology is unknown. Possibilities range from the idea that the
observee was able to know when the computer in the distant room was displaying his or her
image, not unlike remote viewing, to the possibility that the observer actually did influence
the physiology of the observee. Further experimentation as well as a review of similar past
experiments may be able to shed light on this important question.
American Institutes or esearc
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Review 1: Dr. Jessica Utts
3-42 American Institrltes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
Review 2
Evaluation of Program on "Anomalous Mental Phenomena"
Ray Hyman
University of Oregon
Department of Psychology
Eugene, Oregon
September 11, 1995
INTRODUCTION
Professor Jessica Utts and I were given the task of evaluating the program on "Anomalous
Mental Phenomena" carried out at SRI International (formerly the Stanford Research Institute)
from 1973 through 1989 and continued at SAIC (Science Applications International
Corporation) from 1992 through 1994. We were asked to evaluate this research in terms of
its scientific value. We were also asked to comment on its potential utility for intelligence
applications.
The investigators use the term "Anomalous Mental Phenomena" to refer to what the
parapsychologists label as psi. Psi includes both extrasensory perception (called Anomalous
Cognition by the present investigators) and psychokinesis (called Anomalous Perturbation by
the present investigators). The experimenters claim that their results support the existence of
Anomalous Cognition - especially clairvoyance (information transmission from a target
without the intervention of a human sender) and precognition. They found no evidence for
the existence of Anomalous Perturbation.
Our evaluation will focus on the 10 experiments conducted at SAIC. These are the most
recent in the program as well as the only ones for which we have adequate documentation.
American Institutes for-R-es-e-a-rch
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Review 2: Dr. Ray Hyman
The earlier SRI research on remote viewing suffered from methodological inadequacies.
Another reason for concentrating upon this more recent set of experiments is the limited time
frame allotted for this evaluation.
I will not ignore entirely the earlier SRI research. I will also consider some of the
contemporary research in parapsychology at other laboratories. This is because a proper
scientific evaluation of any research program has to place it in the context of the broader
scientific community. In addition, some of this contemporary research was subcontracted by
the SAIC investigators.
Professor Utts has provided an historical overview of the SRI and SAIC programs as well as
descriptions of the experiments under consideration. I will not duplicate what she has written
on these topics. Instead, I will focus on her conclusions that:
Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic
functioning has been well established [Utts, Sept. 1995, p 1]
Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments
are soundly refuted effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-
sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number C~r laboratories
across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or
fraud [Utts, Sept. 1995, p 1.]
Because my report will emphasize points of disagreement between Professor Utts and me,
I want to state that we agree on many other points. We both agree that the SAIL experiments
were free of the methodological weaknesses that plagued the early SRI research. We also
agree that the SAIC experiments appear to be free of the more obvious and better known
flaws that can invalidate the results of parapsychological investigations. We agree that the
effect sizes reported in the SAIC experiments are too large and consistent to be dismissed as
statistical flukes.
I also believe that Jessica Utts and I agree on what the next steps should be.
3-44 American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
We disagree on key questions such as:
1. Do these apparently non-chance effects justify concluding that the existence of
anomalous cognition has been established?
2. Has the possibility of methodological flaws been completely eliminated?
3. Are the SAIC results consistent with the contemporary findings in other
parapsychological laboratories on remote viewing and the ganzfeld
phenomenon?
The remainder of this report will try to justify why I believe the answer to these three
questions is "no."
SCIENTIFIC STATUS OF THE PROGRAM
Science is basically a communal activity. For any developed field of inquiry, a community of
experts exist. This community provides the disciplinary matrix which determines what
questions are worth asking, which issues are relevant, what variables matter and which can be
safely ignored, and the criteria for judging the adequacy of observational data. The
community provides checks and balances through the referee system, open criticism, and
independent replications. Only those relationships that are reasonably lawful and replicable
across independent laboratories become part of the shared scientific store of "knowledge."
An individual investigator or laboratory can contribute to this store. However, by itself, the
output of a single investigator or laboratory does not constitute science. No matter how
careful and competent the research, the findings of a single laboratory count for nothing
unless they can be reliably replicated in other laboratories. This rule is true of ordinary
claims. It holds true especially for claims that add something new or novel to the existing
database. When an investigator, for example, announces the discovery of a new element, the
claim is not accepted until the finding has been successfully replicated by several independent
American Institutes for Research 3-45
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Review 2: Dr. Ray Hyman
laboratories. Of course, this rule is enforced even more when the claim has revolutionary
implications that challenge the fundamental principles underlying most sciences.
GENERAL SCIENTIFIC HANDICAPS OF THE SAIC PROGRAM
The brief characterization of scientific inquiry in the preceding section alerts us to serious
problems in trying to assess the scientific status of the SAIC research. The secrecy under
which the SRI and SAIC programs was conducted necessarily cut them off from the
communal aspects of scientific inquiry. The checks and balances that come from being an
open part of the disciplinary matrix were absent. With the exception of the past: year or so,
none of the reports went through the all-important peer-review system. Worse, promising
findings did not have the opportunity of being replicated in other laboratories.
The commendable improvements in protocols, methodology, and data-gathering have not
profited from the general shake-down and debugging that comes mainly from other
laboratories trying to use the same improvements. Although the research program that started
in 1973 continued for over twenty years, the secrecy and other constraints have produced only
ten adequate experiments for consideration. Unfortunately, ten experiments - especially
from one laboratory (considering the SAIC program as a continuation of the SRI program) --
is 'far too few to establish reliable relationships in almost any area of inquiry. In the
traditionally elusive quest for psi, ten experiments from one laboratory promise very little in.
the way of useful conclusions.
The ten SAIC experiments suffer another handicap in their quest for scientific status. The
principal investigator was not free to run the program to maximize scientific payoff. Instead,
he had to do experiments and add variables to suit the desires of his sponsors. The result was
an attempt to explore too many questions with too few resources. In other words, the
scientific inquiry was spread too thin. The 10 experiments were asked to provide too many
sorts of information.
For these reasons, even before we get to the details (and remember the devil is usually in the
details), the scientific contribution of this set of studies will necessarily be limited.
American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
PARAPSYCHOLOGY'S STATUS AS A SCIENCE
Parapsychology began its quest for scientific status in the mid-1800s. At that time it was
known as Psychical research. The Society for Psychical Research was founded in London in
1882. Since that time, many investigators - including at least four Nobel laureates - have
tried to establish parapsychology as a legitimate science. Beginning in the early 1930s, J.B.
Rhine initiated an impressive program to distance parapsychology from its tainted beginnings
in spiritualistic seances and turn it into an experimental science. He pulled together various
ideas of his predecessors in an attempt to make the study of ESP and PK a rigorous discipline
based on careful controls and statistical analysis.
His first major publication caught the attention of the scientific community. Many were
impressed with this display of a huge database, gathered under controlled conditions, and
analyzed with the most modem statistical tools. Critics quickly attacked the statistical basis
of the research. However, Burton Camp, the president of the Institute of Mathematical
Statistics, came to the parapsychologists' defense in 1937. He issued a statement that if the
critics were going to fault parapsychological research they could not do so on statistical
grounds. The critics then turned their attention to methodological weaknesses. Here they had
more success.
What really turned scientists against parapsychological claims, however, was the fact that
several scientists failed to replicate Rhine's results. This problem of replicability has plagued
parapsychology ever since. The few, but well-publicized, cheating scandals that were
uncovered also worked against parapsychology's acceptance into the general scientific
community.
Parapsychology shares with other sciences a number of features. The database comes from
experiments using controlled procedures, double-blind techniques where applicable, the latest
and most sophisticated apparatus, and sophisticated statistical analysis. In addition, the
findings are reported at annual meetings and in refereed journals.
American Institutes for Research 3-47
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Review 2: Dr. Ray Hyman - -
Unfortunately, as I have pointed out elsewhere, parapsychology has other characteristics that
make its status as a normal science problematic. Here I will list only a few. These are worth
mentioning because they impinge upon the assessment of the scientific status of the SAIC
program. Probably the most frequently discussed problem is the issue of replicability. Both
critics and parapsychologists have agreed that the lack of consistently replicable results has
been a major reason for parapsychology's failure to achieve acceptance by the scientific
establishment.
Some parapsychologists have urged their colleagues to refrain from demanding such
acceptance until they can put examples of replicable experiments before the scientific
community. The late parapsychologist, J.G. Pratt, went further and argued that
parapsychology would never develop a replicable experiment. He argued that psi. was real but
would forever elude deliberate control. More recently, the late Honorton claimed that the
ganzfeld experiments had, indeed, achieved the status of a replicable paradigm. The title of
the landmark paper in the January 1994 issue of the Psychological Bulletin by Bern and
Honorton is "Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information
transfer." In her position paper "Replication and meta-analysis in parapsychology" (Statistical
Science, 1991, 6, pp. 363-403), Jessica Utts reviews the evidence from meta-ana.lyses of
parapsychological research to argue that replication has been demonstrated and "that the
overall evidence indicates that there is an anomalous effect in need of explanation."
In evaluating the SAIC research, Utts points to the consistency of effect sizes produced by the
expert viewers across experiments as well as the apparent consistency of average! effect sizes
of the SRI and SAIC experiments with those from other parapsychological laboratories.
These consistencies in effect sizes across experiments and laboratories, in her opinion, justify
the claim that anomalous mental phenomena can be reliably replicated with appropriately
designed experiments. This is an important breakthrough for parapsychology, if it is true.
However, to anticipate some of my later commentary, I wish to emphasize that simply
replicating effect size is not the same thing as showing the repeated occurrence of anomalous
mental phenomena. Effect size is nothing more than a standardized difference between an
observed and an expected outcome hypothesized on the basis of an idealized probability
model. An indefinite number of factors can cause departures from the idealized probability
model. An investigator needs to go well beyond the mere demonstration that effect sizes are
3-48 American institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
the same before he/she can legitimately claim that they are caused by the same underlying
phenomenon.
In my opinion, a more serious challenge to parapsychology's quest for scientific status is the
lack of cumulativeness in its database. Only parapsychology, among the fields of inquiry
claiming scientific status, lacks a cumulative database. Physics has changed dramatically
since Newton conducted his famous experiment using prisms to show that white light
contained all the colors of the spectrum. Yet, Newton's experiment is still valid and still
yields the same results. Psychology has changed its ideas about the nature of memory since
Ebbinghaus conducted his famous experiments on the curve of forgetting in the 1880s. We
believe that memory is more dynamic and complicated than can be captured by Ebbinghaus'
ideas about a passive, rote memory system. Nevertheless, his findings still can be replicated
and they form an important part of our database on memory.
Parapsychology, unlike the other sciences, has a shifting database. Experimental data that one
generation puts forth as rock-solid evidence for psi is discarded by later generations in favor
of new data. When the Society for Psychical Research was founded in 1882, its first
president, Henry Sidgwick, pointed to the experiments with the Creery sisters as the evidence
that should convince even the most hardened skeptic of the reality of psi. Soon, he and the
other members of the Society argued that the data from Smith-Blackburn experiments
provided the fraud-proof case for the reality of telepathy. The next generation of Psychical
researchers, however, cast aside these cases as defective and we no longer hear about them.
Instead, they turned to new data to argue their case.
During the 1930s and 1940s, the results of Rhine's card guessing experiments were offered as
the solid evidence for the reality of psi. The next generation dropped Rhine's data as being
flawed and difficult to replicate and it hailed the Soal-Goldney experiments as the replicable
and rock-solid basis for the existence of telepathy. Next came the Sheep-Goats experiments.
Today, the Rhine data, the Sheep-Goats experiments, and the Soal-Goldney experiments no
longer are used to argue the case for psi. Contemporary parapsychologists, instead, point to
the ganzfeld experiments, the random-number generator experiments, and - with the
American Institutes for Research 3-49
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Review 2: Dr. Ray Hyman
declassifying of the SAIC experiments - the remote viewing experiments as their basis for
insisting that psi exists.
Professor Utts uses the ganzfeld data and the SAIC remote viewing results to assert that the
existence of anomalous cognition has been proven. She does not completely discard earlier
data. She cites meta-analyses of some of the earlier parapsychology experiments. Still, the
cumulative database for anomalous mental phenomena.does not exist. Most of the data
accumulated by previous investigators have been discarded. In most cases, the data have
been discarded for good reasons. They were subsequently discovered to be seriously flawed
in one or more ways that were not recognized by the original investigators. Yet, at the time
they were part of the database, the parapsychologists were certain that they offered
incontestable evidence for the reality of psi.
How does this discussion relate to our present concerns with the scientific status of the SAIC
program? This consideration of the shifting database of parapsychology offers a cautionary
note to the use of contemporary research on the ganzfeld and remote viewing as solid
evidence for anomalous mental phenomena. More than a century of parapsychological
research teaches us that each generation of investigators was sure that it had found the 'Holy
Grail' - the indisputable evidence for psychic functioning. Each subsequent generation has
abandoned their predecessors' evidence as defective in one way or another. Instead, the new
generation had its own version of the Holy Grail.
Today, the parapsychologists offer us the ganzfeld experiments and, along with Jessica Utts,
will presumably will include the SAIC remote viewing experiments as today's reasons for
concluding that anomalous cognition has been demonstrated. Maybe this generation is
correct. Maybe this time, the "indisputable" evidence will remain indisputable for subsequent
generations. However, it is too soon to tell. Only history will reveal the answer. As E.G.
Boring once wrote, when writing about the Soal-Goldney experiments, you cannot hurry
history.
Meanwhile, as I will point out later in this report, there are hints and suggestions that history
may repeat itself Where Utts sees consistency and incontestable proof, I see inconsistency and
hints that all is not as rock-solid as she implies.
3-50 American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
I can list other reasons to suggest that parapsychology's status as a science is shaky, at best.
Some of these reasons will emerge as I discuss specific aspects of the SAIC results and their
relation to other contemporary parapsychological research.
THE CLAIM THAT ANOMALOUS COGNITION EXISTS
Professor Utts concludes "that psychic functioning has been well established." She bases this
conclusion on three other claims: 1) the statistical results of the SAIC and other
parapsychological experiments "are far beyond what is expected by chance"; 2) "arguments
that these results could be due to methodological flaws are soundly refuted"; and 3) "Effects
of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have
been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world."
Later in this report, I will raise questions about her major conclusion and the three supporting
claims. In this section, I want to unpack just what these claims entail. I will start with the
statistical findings. Parapsychological is unique among the sciences in relying solely on
significant departures from a chance baseline to establish the presence of its alleged
phenomenon. In the other sciences, the defining phenomena can be reliably observed and do
not require indirect statistical measures to justify their existence. Indeed, each branch of
science began with phenomena that could be observed directly. Gilbert began the study of
magnetism by systematically studying a phenomenon that had been observed and was known
to the ancients as well as his contemporaries. Modern physics began by becoming more
systematic about moving objects and falling bodies. Psychology became a systematic science
by looking for lawful relationships among sensory discriminations. Another starting point
was the discovery of lawful relationships in the remembering and forgetting of verbal
materials. Note that in none of these cases was the existence of the defining phenomena in
question. No one required statistical tests and effect sizes to decide if magnetism was present
or if &body had fallen. Psychophysicists did not need to reject a null hypothesis to decide if
sens - ocesses were operating and memory researchers did not have to rely on reaching
accepted levels of significance to know if recall or forgetting had occurred.
American Institutes for Research 3-51
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Review 2: Dr. Ray Hyman
Each of the major sciences began with phenomena whose presence was not in question. The
existence of the primary phenomena was never in question. Each science began by finding
systematic relationships among variations in the magnitudes of attributes of the central
phenomena and the attributes of independent variables such as time, location, etc.. The
questions for the investigation of memory had to do with how best to describe the forgetting
curve and what factors affected its parameters. No statistical tests or determination of effect
sizes were required to decide if, in fact, forgetting was or was not present on any particular
occasion.
Only parapsychology claims to be a science on the basis of phenomena (or a phenomenon)
whose presence can be detected only by rejecting a null hypothesis. To be fair,
parapsychologists also talk about doing process research where the emphasis is on finding
systematic relationships between attributes of psi and variations in some independent variable.
One conclusion from the SRI/SAIC project, for example, is that there is no relationship
between the distance of the target from the viewer and the magnitude of the effect size for
anomalous cognition. However, it is still the case that the effect size, and even the question
of whether anomalous cognition was present in any experiment, is still a matter of deciding if
a departure from a chance base line is non-accidental.
At this point I think it is worth emphasizing that the use of statistical inference to draw
conclusions about the null hypothesis assumes that the underlying probability model
adequately represents the distributions and variations in the real world situation,. The
underlying probability model is an idealization of the empirical situation for which it is being
used. Whether or not the model is appropriate for any given application is an empirical
matter and the adequacy of the model has to be justified for each new application. Empirical
studies have shown that statistical models fit real world situations only approximately. The
tails of real-world distributions, for example, almost always contain more cases than the
standard statistics based on the normal curve assume. These departures from the idealized
model do not have much practical import in many typical statistical applications because the
statistical tests are robust. That is, the departures of the actual situation from the assume
probability model typically do not distort the outcome of the statistical test.
American /nsbtutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
However, when statistical tests are used in situations beyond their ordinary application, they
can result in rejections of the null hypothesis for reasons other than a presumed departure
from the expected chance value. Parapsychologists often complain that their results fail to
replicate because of inadequate power. However, because the underlying probability models
are only approximations, too much power can lead to rejections of the null hypothesis simply
because the real world and the idealized statistical model are not exact matches. This
discussion emphasizes that significant findings can arise for many reasons - including the
simple fact that statistical inference is based on idealized models that mirror the real world
only approximately.
I agree with Jessica Utts that the effect sizes reported in the SAIC experiments and in the
recent ganzfeld studies probably cannot be dismissed as due to chance. Nor do they appear to
be accounted for by multiple testing, file-drawer distortions, inappropriate statistical testing or
other misuse of statistical inference. I do not rule out the possibility that some of this
apparent departure from the null hypothesis might simply reflect the failure of the underlying
model to be a truly adequate model of the experimental situation. However, I am willing to
assume that the effect sizes represent true effects beyond inadequacies in the underlying
model. Statistical effects, by themselves, do not justify claiming that anomalous cognition
has been demonstrated - or, for that matter, that an anomaly of any kind has occurred.
So, I accept Professor Utts' assertion that the statistical results of the SAIC and other
parapsychological experiments "are far beyond what is expected by chance."
Parapsychologists, of course, realize that the truth of this claim does not constitute proof of
anomalous cognition. Numerous factors can produce significant statistical results.
Operationally, the presence of anomalous cognition is detected by the elimination of all other
possibilities. This reliance on a negative definition of its central phenomenon is another
liability that parapsychology brings with its attempt to become a recognized science.
Essentially, anomalous cognition is claimed to be present whenever statistically significant
departures from the null hypothesis are observed under conditions that preclude the operation
of all mundane causes of these departures. As Boring once observed, every success in
parapsychological research is a failure. By this he meant that when the investigator or the
critics succeed in finding a scientifically acceptable explanation for the significant effect the
claim for ESP or anomalous cognition has failed.
American Institutes for Re-search 3-53
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Review 2: Dr. Ray Hyman
Having accepted the existence of non-chance effects, the focus now is upon whether these
effects have normal causes. Since the beginning of psychical research, each claim that
psychic functioning had been demonstrated was countered by critics who suggested other
reasons for the observed effects, Typical alternatives that have been suggested to account for
the effects have been fraud, statistical errors, and methodological artifacts. In the present
discussion I am not considering fraud or statistical errors. This leaves only methodological
oversight as the source for a plausible alternative to psychic functioning. Utts has concluded
that "arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws are soundly refuted."
If she is correct, then I would have to agree with her bottom line that "psychic functioning
has been well established."
Obviously I do not agree that all possibilities for alternative explanations of the non-chance
results have been eliminated. The SAIC experiments are well-designed and the investigators
have taken pains to eliminate the known weaknesses in previous parapsychological research.
In addition, I cannot provide suitable candidates for what flaws, if any, might be present. Just
the same, it is impossible in principle to say that any particular experiment or experimental
series is completely free from possible flaws. An experimenter cannot control for every
possibility - especially for potential flaws that have not yet been discovered.
At this point, a parapsychologist might protest that such "in principle" arguments can always
be raised against any findings, no matter how well conceived was the study from. which they
emerged. Such a response is understandable, but I believe my caution is reasonable in this
particular case. Historically, many cases of evidence for psi were proffered on the grounds
that they came from experiments of impeccable methodological design. Only subsequently,
sometimes by fortunate accident, did the possibility of a serious flaw or alternative
explanation of the results become available. The founders of the Society for Psychical
Research believed that the Smith-Blackburn experiments afforded no alternative to the
conclusion that telepathy was involved. They could conceive of no mundane explanation.
Then Blackburn confessed and explained in detail just how he and Smith had tricked the
investigators.
The critics became suspicious of the Soal-Goldney findings not only because the results were
too good, but also because Soal lost the original records under suspicious circumstances.
3-54 American lnstrtutos for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
Hansel, Scott, and Price each generated elaborate scenarios to explain how Soal might have
cheated. Hansel and Scott reported finding peculiar patterns in the data. The scenarios for
accounting for these data, however, were extremely complicated and required the collusion of
several individuals - some of whom were prominent statesmen and academics. The
discovery of how Soal actually had cheated was made by the parapsychologist Betty
Markwick. The finding came about through fortuitous circumstances. The method of
cheating turned out to involve only one person and employed an ingenious, but simple,
method that none of the critics had anticipated.
During the first four years of the original ganzfeld-psi experiments, the investigators asserted
that their findings demonstrated psi because the experimental design precluded any normal
alternative. Only after I and a couple of parapsychologists independently pointed out how the
use of a single set of targets could provide a mundane alternative to psychic communication
did the ganzfeld experimenters realize the existence of this flaw. After careful and lengthy
scrutiny of the ganzfeld database, I was able to generate a lengthy list of potential flaws.
Honorton and his colleagues devised the autoganzfeld experiments. These experiments were
deliberately designed to preclude the flaws that I and others had eventually discovered in the
original ganzfeld database. When the statistically significant results emerged from these latter
experiments, they were proclaimed to be proof of anomalous communication because all
alternative mundane explanations had been eliminated. When I was first confronted with
these findings, I had to admit that the investigators had eliminated all but one of the flaws
that I had listed for the original database. For some reason, Honorton and his colleagues did
not seem to consider seriously the necessity of insuring that their randomization procedures
were optimal. However, putting this one oversight aside, I could find no obvious loopholes in
the experiments as reported.
When I was asked to comment on the paper that Daryl Bem and Charles Honorton wrote for
the January 1994 issue of the Psychological Bulletin, I was able to get much of the raw data
from Professor Bern. My analyses of that data revealed strong patterns that, to me, pointed to
an artifact of some sort. One pattern, for example, was the finding that all the significant
hitting above chance occurred only on the second or later occurrence of a target. All the first
occurrences of a target yielded results consistent with chance. Although this was a post hoc
American Institutes TO-r-Re-S-e-a-r-ch
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Review 2: Dr. Ray Hyman
finding, it was not the result of a fishing expedition. I deliberately looked for such a pattern
as an indirect way of checking for the adequacy of the randomization procedures. The pattern
was quite strong and persisted in every breakdown of the data that I tried - by separate
investigator, by target type, by individual experiment, etc. The existence of this pattern by
itself does not prove it is the result of an artifact. As expected, Professor Bem seized upon it
as another peculiarity of psi. Subsequent to finding this pattern, I have learned about many
other weaknesses in this experiment which could have compromised the results. Robert
Morris and his colleagues at the University of Edinburgh took these flaws as well as some
additional ones that they uncovered, into account when they designed the ganzfeld replication
experiments.
The point of this discussion is that it takes some time before we fully recognize the potential
flaws in a newly designed experimental protocol. In some cases, the discovery of a serious
flaw is the result of a fortuitous occurrence. In other cases, the uncovering of flaws came
about only after the new protocol had been used for a while. Every new experimental design,
as is the case for every new computer program, requires a shakedown period and debugging.
The problems with any new method or design are not always apparent at first. Obvious flaws
may be eliminated only to be replaced by more subtle ones.
How does this apply to the SAIC experiments? These experiments were designed to eliminate
the obvious flaws of the previous remote viewing experiments at SRI. Inspection of the
protocol indicates that they succeeded in this respect. The new design and methodology,
however, has not had a chance to be used in other laboratories or to be properly debugged.
Many of the features that could be considered an asset also have possible "down sides." I
will return to this later in the report when I discuss the use of the same viewers and the same
judge across the different experiments. For now, I just want to suggest some general grounds
for caution in accepting the claim that all possible methodological flaws have been
eliminated.
The third warrant for Jessica Utts' conclusion that psi has been proven is that "Effects of
similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have
been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world." I will discuss this matter below.
For now, I will point out that effects of similar magnitude can occur for several different
3-56 American Institums or Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
reasons. Worse, the average effect size from different parapsychological research programs is
typically a meaningless composite of arbitrary units. As such, these averages do not represent
meaningful parameters in the real world. For example, Honorton claimed that the
autoganzfeld experiments replicated the original ganzfeld experiments because the average
effect size for both databases was approximately identical. This apparent similarity in
average effect size is meaningless for many reasons. For one thing, the similarity in size
depends upon which of many possible averages one considers. In the case under
consideration the average effect size was obtained by adding up all the hits and trials for the
28 studies in the database. One experimenter contributed almost half to this total. Others
contributed in greatly unequal numbers. The average will differ - if each experimenter's
contribution is given equal weight.
In addition, the heterogeneity of effect sizes among separate investigators is huge. All the
effect sizes, for example, of one the investigators were negative. Another investigator
contributed mostly moderately large effect sizes. If the first investigator had contributed more
trials to the total, then the average would obviously have been lower. Similar problems exist
for the average from the autoganzfeld experiments. In these latter experiments, the static
targets - which most closely resembled the overwhelming majority of targets in the original
database - yielded an effect size of zero. The dynamic targets yielded a highly significant
and moderate effect size. Is the correct average effect size for these experiments based on a
composite of the results of the static and dynamic targets or should it be based only on the
dynamic targets?
THE SAIC PROGRAM
As I have indicated, the SAIC experiments are an improvement on both the preceding SRI
experiments as well as previous parapsychological investigations. The investigators seem to
have taken pains to insure that randomization of targets for presentation and for judging was
done properly. They have eliminated the major flaw in original SRI remote viewing
experiments of non-independence in trials for a given viewer. Some of the other features can
be considered as improvements but also as possible problems. In this category I would list
the use of the same experienced viewers in many experiments and the use of the same target
American Institutes for Researc
Am Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Review 2: Dr. Ray Hyman _.
set across experiments. The major limitations that I see in these studies derive from their
newness and their having been conducted in secrecy. The newness simply means that we
have not had sufficient time to debug and to grasp fully both the strengths and weaknesses of
this protocol. The secrecy aggravated this limitation by preventing other investigators from
reviewing and criticizing the experiments from the beginning, and by making it impossible for
independent laboratories to replicate the findings.
The fact that these experiments were conducted in the same laboratory, with the ;same basic
protocol, using the same viewers across experiments, the same targets across experiments, and
the same investigators aggravates, rather than alleviates, the problem of independent
replication. If subtle, as-yet-undetected biases and flaws exist in the protocol, the very
consistency of elements such as targets, viewers, investigators, and procedures across
experiments enhances the possibility that these flaws will be compounded.
Making matters even worse is the use of the same judge across all experiments. The judging
of viewer responses is a critical factor in free-response remote viewing experiments. Ed May,
the principle investigator, as I understand it, has been the sole judge in all the free response
experiments. May's rationale for this unusual procedure was that he is familiar with the
response styles of the individual viewers. If a viewer, for example, talks about bridges, May
- from his familiarity with this viewer - might realize that this viewer uses bridges to refer
to any object that is on water. He could then interpret the response accordingly to make the
appropriate match to a target. The SAIC experiments did benefit from the input of a
distinguished oversight committee. But this still falls far short of what could have taken
place in an open forum. Whatever merit this rationale has, it results in a methodological
feature that violates some key principles of scientific credibility. One might argue, for
example, that the judge should be blind not only about the correct target but also about who
the viewer is. More important, the scientific community at large will be reluctant to accept
evidence that depends upon the ability of one specific individual. In this regard., the reliance
on the same judge for all free-response experiments is like the experimenter effect. To the
extent that the results depend upon a particular investigator the question of scientific
objectivity arises. Scientific proof depends upon the ability to generate evidence that, in
principle, any serious and competent investigator - regardless of his or her personality -
can observe.
American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
The use of the same judge across experiments further compounds the problem of non-
independence of the experiments. Here, both Professor Utts and I agree. We believe it is
important that the remote viewing results be obtainable with different judges. Again, the
concern here is that the various factors that are similar across experiments count against their
separate findings as independent evidence for anomalous cognition.
HAS ANOMALOUS COGNITION BEEN PROVEN?
Obviously, I do not believe that the contemporary findings of parapsychology, including those
from the SRI/SAIC program, justify concluding that anomalous mental phenomena have been
proven. Professor Utts and some parapsychologists believe otherwise. I admit that the latest
findings should make them optimistic. The case for psychic functioning seems better than it
ever has been. The contemporary findings along with the output of the SRI/SAIC program do
seem to indicate that something beyond odd statistical hiccups is taking place. I also have to
admit that I do not have a ready explanation for these observed effects. Inexplicable
statistical departures from chance, however, are a far cry from compelling evidence for
anomalous cognition.
So what would be compelling evidence for the reality of anomalous cognition? Let's assume
that the experimental results from the SAIC remote viewing experiments continue to hold up.
Further assume that along with continued statistical significance no flaws or mundane
alternative possibilities come to light. We would then want to ensure that similar results will
occur with new viewers, new target pools, and several independent judges. Finally, to satisfy
the normal standards of science, we would need to have the findings successfully replicated in
independent laboratories by other parapsychologists as well as non-parapsychologists.
If the parapsychologists could achieve this state of affairs, we are faced with a possible
anomaly, but not necessarily anomalous cognition. As the parapsychologist John Palmer has
recognized, parapsychologists will have to go beyond demonstrating the presence of a
statistical anomaly before they can claim the presence of psychic functioning. This is
because, among other things, the existence of a statistical anomaly is defined negatively.
Something is occurring for which we have no obvious or ready explanation. This something
American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Review 2: Dr. Ray Hyman
may or may not turn out to be paranormal, According to Palmer, parapsychologists will have
to devise a positive theory of the paranormal before they will be in a position to claim that
the observed anomalies indicate paranormal functioning.
Without such a positive theory, we have no way of specifying the boundary conditions for
anomalous mental phenomena. Without such a theory we have no way of specifying when
psi is present and when it is absent. Because psi or anomalous cognition is currently detected
only by departures from a null hypothesis all kinds of problems beset the quest for the claim
and pursuit of psychic functioning. For example, the decline effect, which was investigated in
one of the SAIC experiments, was once used as an important sign for the presence of psi.
J.B. Rhine discovered this effect not only in some of his data but in his re-analyses of data
collected by earlier investigators. He attached great importance to this effect because it
existed in data whose investigators neither knew of its existence nor had they been seeking it.
In addition, the decline effect helped Rhine to explain how seemingly null results really
contained evidence for psi. This is because the decline effect often showed up as an excess
of hitting in the early half of the experiment and as a deficit of hitting in the second half of
the experiment. These two halves, when pooled together over the entire experiment, yielded
an overall hit rate consistent with chance.
Although Rhine and other parapsychologists attached great importance to the decline effect as
a reliable and often hidden sign of the presence of psychic functioning, the reliance on this
indicator unwittingly emphasizes serious problems in the parapsychologist's quest. As the
SAIC report on binary coding states, the decline effect is claimed for a bewildering variety of
possibilities. Some investigators have found a decline effect going from the first quarter to
the last quarter of each separate score sheet in their experiment. Other investigators have
reported a decline effect as a decrease in hit rate from the first half to the second half of the
total experiment. Still others find a decline effect across separate experiments. Indeed,
almost any variation where the direction is from a higher hit rate to a lower hit rate has been
offered as evidence for a decline effect. To confuse matters further, some investigators have
claimed finding evidence for an incline effect.
If the decline effect is a token for the presence of psi, what should one conclude when the
data, as was the case in the SAIC experiment on binary coding, show a significant departure
3-60 American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
from the null hypothesis but no decline effect? We know what the parapsychologist's
conclude. As long as they get a significant effect, they do not interpret the absence of the
decline effect as the absence of psychic functioning. This state of affairs holds as well for
several other effects that have been put forth as tokens or signs of anomalous mental
functioning. Several such signs are listed in the Handbook of parapsychology [1977, B.B.
Wolman, Editor].
Typically, such signs are sought when the attempt to reject the ordinary null hypothesis fails.
Displacement effects are frequently invoked. When his attempts to replicate Rhine's results
failed, Soal was persuaded to re-analyze his data in terms of displacement effects. His
retrospective analysis uncovered two subjects whose guesses significantly correlated with the
target one or two places ahead of the intended target. In his subsequent experiments with
these two subjects, one kept hitting on the symbol that came after the intended target while
the other produced significant outcomes only when her guesses were matched against the
symbol that occurred just before the intended target. Negative hitting, increased variability,
and other types of departures from the underlying theoretical probability model have all been
used as hidden signs of the presence of psychic functioning.
What makes this search for hidden tokens of psi problematic is lack of constraints. Any time
the original null hypothesis cannot be rejected, the eager investigator can search through the
data for one or more these markers. When one is found, the investigator has not hesitated in
offering this as proof of the presence of psi. However, if the null hypothesis is rejected and
none of these hidden signs of psi can be found in the data, the investigator still claims the
presence of psi. This creates the scientifically questionable situation where any significant
departure from a probability model is used as proof of psi but the absence of these departures
does not count as evidence against the presence of psi.
So, acceptable evidence for the presence of anomalous cognition must be based on a positive
theory that tells us when psi should and should not be present. Until we have such a theory,
the claim that anomalous cognition has been demonstrated is empty. Without such a theory,
we might just as well argue that what has been demonstrated is a set of effects - each one of
which be the result of an entirely different cause.
American institutes for Research 3-61
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Review 2: Dr. Ray Hyman -
Professor Utts implicitly acknowledges some of the preceding argument by using consistency
of findings with other laboratories as evidence that anomalous cognition has been
demonstrated. I have already discussed why the apparent consistency in average effect size
across experiments cannot be used as an argument for consistency of phenomena across these
experiments. To be fair, parapsychologists who argue consistency of phenomena across
experiments often go beyond simply pointing to consistency in effect sizes.
One example is the claim that certain personality correlates replicate across experiments.
May and his colleagues correctly point out, however, that these correlations tend. to be low
and inconsistent. Recently, parapsychologists have claimed that extroversion correlates
positively with successful performance on anomalous cognition tasks. This was especially
claimed to be true of the ganzfeld experiments. However, the apparently successful
replication of the autoganzfeld experiments by the Edinburgh group (under subcontract to the
SAIC program) found that the introverts scored, if anything, higher than the extroverts.
The autoganzfeld experiments produced significant effects only for the dynamic targets. The
static targets produced zero effect size. Yet the bulk of the targets in the original ganzfeld
database were static and they produced an effect size that was significantly greater than the
zero effect size of the autoganzfeld experiments (I was able to demonstrate that there was
adequate power to detect an effect size of the appropriate magnitude for the static targets in
the autoganzfeld experiments). Further indication of inconsistency is the SAIC experiment
which found that only the static targets produced a significant effect size, whereas the
dynamic targets yielded a zero effect size. May and his colleagues speculated that the failure
of the dynamic targets was due to a "bandwidth" that was too wide. When they apparently
narrowed the bandwidth of the dynamic targets in a second experiment, both dynamic and
static targets did equally well. It is unclear whether this should be taken as evidence for
consistency or inconsistency. Note that the hypothesis and claim for the autoganzfeld
experiments is that dynamic targets should be significantly better than static ones. As far as I
can tell, the original dynamic targets of the ganzfeld experiments are consistent: with an
unlimited bandwidth.
Other important inconsistencies exist among the contemporary databases. The raison d'@tre
for the ganzfeld experiments is the belief among some parapsychologists that an altered state
3-62 American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
facilitates picking up the psi signal because it lowers the noise-to-signal ratio from external
sensory input. The touchstone of this protocol is the creation of an altered state in the
receiver. This contrasts sharply with the remote viewing experiments in which the viewer is
always in a normal state. More important is that the ganzfeld researchers believe that they
get best results when each subject serves as his/her own judge. Those experiments in the
ganzfeld database that employed both external judges and subjects as their own judges found
that their results were more successful using subjects as their own judges. The reverse is true
in the remote viewing experiments. The remote viewer experimenters believe that external
judges provide much better hit rates than viewer judges. This difference is even more
extreme in the SAIC remote viewing where a single judge was used for all experiments. This
judge, who was also the principal investigator, believed that he could achieve best results if
he did the judging because of his familiarity with the response styles of the individual
viewers.
So even if the ganzfeld and the SAIC remote viewing experiments have achieved significant
effects and average effect sizes of approximately the same magnitude, there is no compelling
reason to assume they are dealing with the same phenomena or phenomenon. To make such
a claim entails showing that the alleged effect shows the same pattern of relationships in each
protocol. Almost certainly, a positive theory of anomalous mental phenomena that predicts
lawful relationships of a recognizable type will be necessary before a serious claim can be
made that the same phenomenon is present across different research laboratories and
experiments. Such a positive theory will be necessary also to tell us when we are and when
we are not in the presence of this alleged anomalous cognition.
WHAT NEEDS TO BE EXPLAINED?
Professor Utts and many parapsychologists argue that they have produced evidence of an
anomaly that requires explanation. They assert that the statistical effects they have
documented cannot be accounted for in terms of normal scientific principles or
methodological artifact. After reviewing the results from the SAIC experiments in the context
of other contemporary parapsychological research, Utts is confident that more than an
American Institutes for Research 3-63
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Review 2: Dr. Ray Hyman
anomaly has been demonstrated. She believes the evidence suffices to conclude that the
anomaly establishes the existence of psychic functioning.
This evidence for anomalous cognition, according to Utts and the parapsychologists, meets the
standards employed by the other sciences. By this, I think Professor Utts means that in many
areas of scientific inquiry the decision that a real effect has occurred is based on rules of
statistical inference. Only if the null hypothesis of no difference between two or more
treatments is rejected can the investigator claim that the differences are real in the sense that
they are greater than might be expected on the basis of some baseline variability. According
to this standard, it seems that the SAIC experiments as well as the recent ganzfeld
experiments have yielded effects that cannot be dismissed as the result of normal variability.
While the rejection of the null hypothesis is typically a necessary step for claiming that an
hypothesized effect or relationship has occurred, it is never sufficient. Indeed, because the
underlying probability model is only an approximation, everyone realizes that the null
hypothesis is rarely, if ever, strictly true. In practice, the investigator hopes that the statistical
test is sufficiently robust that it will reject the null hypothesis only for meaningful departures
from the null hypothesis. With sufficient power, the null hypothesis will almost certainly be
rejected in most realistic situations. This is because effect sizes will rarely be exactly zero.
Even if the true effect size is zero in a particular instance, sufficient power can result in the
rejection of the null hypothesis because the assumed statistical model will depart from the
real-world situation in other ways. For most applications of statistical inference, then, too
much power can result in mistaken inferences as well as too little power.
Here we encounter another way in which parapsychological inquiry differs from typical
scientific inquiry. In those sciences that rely on statistical inference, they do se, as an aid to
weeding out effects that could be the result of chance variability. When effect sizes are very
small or if the experimenter needs to use many more cases than is typical for the field to
obtain significance, the conclusions are often suspect. This is because we know that with
enough cases an investigator will get a significant result, regardless of whether it is
meaningful or not. Parapsychologists are unique in postulating a null hypothesis that entails a
true effect size of zero if psi is not operating. Any significant outcome, then, becomes
evidence for psi. My concern here is that small effects and other departures from the
3-64 American institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
statistical model can be expected to occur in the absence of psi. The statistical model is only
an approximation. When power is sufficient and when the statistical test is pushed too far,
rejections of the null hypothesis are bound to occur. This is another important reason why
claiming the existence of an anomaly based solely on evidence from statistical inference is
problematic.
This is one concern about claiming the existence of an anomaly on the basis of statistical
evidence. In the context of this report, I see it as a minor concern. As I have indicated, I am
willing to grant Professor Utts' claim that the rejection of the null hypothesis is probably
warranted in connection with the SAIC and the ganzfeld databases. I have other concerns.
Both have to do with the fact that no other science, so far as I know, would draw conclusions
about the existence of phenomena solely on the basis of statistical findings. Although it is
consistent with scientific practice to use statistical inference to reject the null hypothesis, it is
not consistent with such practice to postulate the existence of phenomena on this basis alone.
Much more is required. I will discuss at least two additional requirements.
Thomas Kuhn's classic characterization of normal and revolutionary science has served as the
catalyst for many discussions about the nature of scientific inquiry. He popularized the idea
that normal scientific inquiry is guided by what he called a paradigm. Later, in the face of
criticisms, he admitted that he had used the term paradigm to cover several distinct and
sometimes contradictory features of the scientific process. One of his key uses of the term
paradigm was to refer to the store of exemplars or textbook cases of standard experiments
that every field of scientific inquiry possesses. These exemplars are what enable members of
a scientific community to quickly learn and share common principles, procedures, methods,
and standards. These exemplars are also the basis for initiating new members into the
community. New research is conducted by adapting one or more of the patterns in existing
exemplars as guidelines about what constitutes acceptable research in the field under
consideration.
Every field of inquiry, including parapsychology, has its stock of exemplars. In
parapsychology these would include the classic card guessing experiments of J.B. Rhine, the
Sheep-Goats experiments, etc. What is critical here is the striking difference between the role
of exemplars in parapsychology as contrasted with their role in all other fields of scientific
American Institutes for Research 3-65
"'r Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Review 2: Dr. Ray Hyman
inquiry. These exemplars not only serve as models of proper procedure, but they also are
teaching tools. Students in a particular field of inquiry can be assigned the task of replicating
some of these classic experiments. The instructor can make this assignment with the
confident expectation that each student will obtain results consistent with the original
findings. The physics instructor, for example, can ask novice students to try Newton's
experiments with colors or Gilbert's experiments with magnets. The students who do so will
get the expected results. The psychology instructor can ask novice students to repeat
Ebbinghaus' experiments on forgetting or Peterson and Peterson's classic experiment on short-
term memory and know that they will observe the same relationships as reported by the
original experimenters.
Parapsychology is the only field of scientific inquiry that does not have even one exemplar
that can be assigned to students with the expectation that they will observe the original
results! In every domain of scientific inquiry, with the exception of parapsychology, many
core exemplars or paradigms exist that will reliably produce the expected, lawful,
relationships. This is another way of saying that the other domains of inquiry are based upon
robust, lawful phenomena whose conditions of occurrence can be specified in such a way that
even novices will be able to observe and/or produce them. Parapsychologists do not possess
even one exemplar for which they can confidently specify conditions that will enable anyone
- let alone a novice - to reliably witness the phenomenon.
The situation is worse than I have so far described. The phenomena that can be observed
with the standard exemplars do not require sensitive statistical rejections of the null
hypothesis based on many trials to announce their presence. The exemplar in which the
student uses a prism to break white light into its component colors requires no statistics or
complicated inference at all. The forgetting curve in the Ebbinghaus experiment requires
nothing more than plotting proportion recalled against trial number. Yet, to the extent that
parapsychology is approaching the day when it will possess at least one exemplar of this sort,
the "observation" of the "phenomenon" will presumably depend upon the indirect use of
statistical inference to document its presence.
In the standard domains of science, this problem of having not a single exemplar for reliably
observing its alleged phenomenon, would be taken as a sign that the domain has no central
3-66 American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
phenomena. When Soviet scientists announced the discovery of mitogenetic radiation, some
western scientists attempted to replicate the findings. Some reported success, others reported
mixed results, and many failed entirely to observe the effect. Eventually, scientists, including
the Soviets, abandoned the quest for mitogenetic radiation. Because no one, including the
original discover, could specify conditions under which the phenomenon - if there was one
- could be observed, the scientific community decided that there was nothing to explain
other than as-yet-undetected artifacts. The same story can be told about N-Rays, Polywater,
and other candidate phenomena that could not be reliably observed or produced. We cannot
explain something for which we do not have at least some conditions under which we can
confidently say it occurs. Even this is not enough. The alleged phenomenon not only must
reliably occur at least under some conditions but it also must reliably vary in magnitude or
other attributes as a function of other variables. Without this minimal amount of lawfulness,
the idea that there is something to explain is senseless. Yet, at best, parapsychology's current
claim to having demonstrated a form of anomalous cognition rests on the possibility that it
can generate significant differences from the null hypothesis under conditions that are still not
reliably specified.
I will suggest one more reason for my belief that it is premature to try to account for what
the SAIC and the ganzfeld experiments have so far put before us. On the basis of these
experiments, contemporary parapsychologists claim that they have demonstrated the existence
of an "anomaly." I will grant them that they have apparently demonstrated that the SAIC and
the ganzfeld experiments have generated significant effect sizes beyond what we should
expect from chance variations. I will further admit that, at this writing, I cannot suggest
obvious methodological flaws to account for these significant effects. As I have previously
mentioned, this admission does not mean that these experiments are free from subtle biases
and potential bugs. The experimental paradigms are too recent and insufficiently evaluated to
know for sure. I can point to departures from optimality that might harbor potential flaws -
such as the use of a single judge across the remote viewing experiments, the active coaching
of viewers by the experimenter during judging procedures in the ganzfeld, my discovery of
peculiar patterns of scoring in the ganzfeld experiments, etc. Having granted that significant
effects do occur in these experiments, I hasten to add that, without further evidence, I do not
think we can conclude that these effects are all due to the same cause - let alone that they
result from a single phenomenon that is paranormal in origin.
American Institutes for Research 3-67
-.W Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Review 2: Dr. Ray Hyman
The additional reason for concern is the difference in the use of 'anomaly' in this context and
how the term 'anomaly' is used in other sciences. In the present context, the
parapsychologists are using the term 'anomaly' to refer to apparently inexplicable: departures
from the null hypothesis. These departures are considered inexplicable in the sense that
apparently all normal reasons for such departures from the null hypothesis have been
excluded. But these departures are not lawful in the sense that the effect sizes are consistent.
The effect sizes differ among viewers and subjects; they also differ for different
experimenters; they come and go in inexplicable ways within the same subject. Possibly
some of these variations in effect size will be found to exhibit some lawfulness in the sense
that they will correlate with other variables. The SAIC investigators, for example, hope they
have found such correlates in the entropy and bandwidth of targets. At the moment this is
just a hope.
The term "anomaly" is used in a much more restricted sense in the other sciences. Typically
an anomaly refers to a lawful and precise departure from a theoretical baseline. As such it is
something the requires explaining. Astronomers were faced with a possible anomaly when
discrepancies from Newtonian theory were reported in the orbit of Uranus. In the middle
1800s, Urban Leverrier decided to investigate this problem. He reviewed all the data on
previous sightings of Uranus - both before and after it had been discovered as new planet.
On the basis of the previous sightings, he laboriously recalculated the orbital path based on
Newtonian theory and the reported coordinates. Sure enough, he found errors in the original
calculations. When he corrected for these errors, the apparent discrepancy in Uranus' orbit
was much reduced. But the newly revised orbit was still discrepant from where it should be
on Newtonian theory. With this careful work, Leverrier had transformed a potential anomaly
into an actual anomaly. Anomaly in this sense meant a precise and lawful departure from a
well-defined theory. It was only after the precise nature, direction, and magnitude of this
discrepancy was carefully specified did Leverrier and the scientific community decide that
here was an anomaly that required explanation. What had to be explained was quite precise.
What was needed was an explanation that exactly accounted for this specific departure from
the currently accepted theory.
Leverrier's solution was to postulate a new planet beyond the orbit of Uranus. This was no
easy task because it involved the relatively unconstrained and difficult problem of inverse
American Institu.ies for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
perturbations. Leverrier had to decide on a size, orbit, location, and other attributes of a
hitherto unknown body whose characteristics would be just those to produce the observed
effects on Uranus without affecting the known orbit of Saturn. Leverrier's calculations
resulted in his predicting the location of this hitherto unknown planet and the astronomer
Galle located this new planet, Neptune, close to where Leverrier had said it would be.
The point of this story is to emphasize the distinction between the parapsychologists' use of
'anomaly' from that of other scientists. Anomalies in most domains of scientific inquiry are
carefully specified deviations from a formal theory. What needs to be explained or accounted
for is precisely described. The anomalies that parapsychologists are currently talking about
differ from this standard meaning in that the departures are from the general statistical model
and are far from having the status of carefully specified and precise deviations from a
theoretical baseline. In this latter case we do not know what it is that we are being asked to
explain. Under what conditions can we reliably observe it? What theoretical baselines are the
results a departure from? How much and in what direction and form do the departures exist?
What specifically must our explanation account for?
Finally, I should add that some parapsychologists, at least in the recent past, have agreed with
my position that parapsychological results are not yet ready to be placed before the scientific
community. Parapsychologists such as Beloff, Martin Johnson, Gardner Murphy, J.G. Pratt
and others have complained that parapsychological data are volatile and messy. Some of
these investigators have urged their colleagues to first get their house in order before they ask
the scientific community at large to take them seriously. Martin Johnson, especially, has
urged his colleagues to refrain from asking the scientific community to accept their findings
until they can tame them and produce lawful results under specified conditions. Clearly,
parapsychology has still not reached this desired state. At best, the results of the SAIC
experiments combined with other contemporary findings offer hope that the parapsychologists
may be getting closer to the day when they can put something before the scientific
community and challenge it to provide an explanation.
American Institutes Vor Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Review 2: Dr. Ray Hyman
POTENTIALS FOR OPERATIONAL APPLICATIONS
It may seem obvious that the utility of remote viewing for intelligence gathering should
depend upon its scientific validity. If the scientific research cannot confirm the existence of a
remote viewing ability, then it would seem to be pointless to try and use this non-existent
ability for any practical application. However, the matter is not this simple. If the scientific
research confirms the existence of anomalous cognition, this does not guarantee that this
ability would have useful applications. Ed May, in his presentation to the evaluation panel,
gave several reasons why remote viewing could be real and, yet, not helpful for intelligence
gathering. In his opinion, approximately 20 percent of the information supplied by a viewer
is accurate. Unfortunately, at the time the remote viewer is generating the information, we
have no way of deciding which portion is likely to be the accurate one. Another problem is
that the viewer's information could be accurate, yet not relevant for the intelligence analyst's
purposes.
This question is related to the problem of boundary conditions which I discussed earlier in
this report. From both a scientific and an operational viewpoint, the claim that anomalous
cognition exists is not very credible until we have ways to specify when and when it is not
present. So far, parapsychology seems to have concentrated only in finding ways to
document the existence of anomalous cognition. The result is a patchwork quilt of markers
that, when present, are offered as evidence for the presence of psi. These markers or
indicators include the decline effect, negative hitting as well as positive hitting, displacement
hitting, the incline effect, increased variability, decreased variability, and just about any other
way a discrepancy from a probability model can occur. A cynic will note that the absence of
any or most of these markers is not used as evidence for the absence of psi. This lack of a
way to distinguish between the presence and absence of anomalous cognition creates many
challenges for parapsychology, some of which I have already discussed.
So, even if remote viewing is a real ability possessed by some individuals, its -usefulness for
intelligence gathering is questionable. If May is correct, then 80% of the all the information
supplied by this talented viewer will be erroneous. Without any way to tell which statements
of the views are reliable and which are not, the use of this information may make matters
worse rather than better.
3-70 American institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
Can remote viewing have utility for information gathering even if it cannot be scientifically
validated? I can imagine some possibilities for remote viewing to be an asset to the
intelligence analyst even when the viewer possesses no valid paranormal powers. The viewer
might be a person of uncommonly good sense or have a background that enables him or her
to provide helpful information even if it does not come from a paranormal source. Another
possibility is that the viewer, even though lacking in any truly accurate intelligence
information, might say things or open up new ways of dealing with the analyst's problem. In
this latter scenario, the remote viewer is a catalyst that may open up new ways of looking at
an intelligence situation much as programs for problem solving and creative thinking
stimulate new ways of looking at a situation. However, if the usefulness of the remote
viewer reduces to a matter of injecting common sense or new perspectives into the situation, I
believe that we can accomplish the same purpose in more efficient ways.
In considering potential utility, I am most concerned about separation of the operational
program in remote viewing from the research and development phase. By default, the
assessment of the usefulness of the remote viewing in the operational arena is decided entirely
by subjective validation or what May and Utts call prima facie evidence. Granted, it is
difficult to assess adequately the effectiveness of remote viewing in the operational domain.
Nevertheless, better ways can be devised than have apparently been used up to now. In our
current attempt to get an initial idea about the effectiveness of the current operational use of
remote viewing, we have simply been asking individuals and agencies who have used the
services of the remote viewers if the information they received was accurate and useful.
Whatever information we get from this survey is extremely limited for the purposes of
judging the utility of remote viewing in the operational domain.
Even psychologists who should know better underrate the power of subjective validation.
Anyone who relies on prima facie evidence as a basis for affirming the validity of remote
viewing should carefully read that portion of Marks and Kamman's The Psychology of the
Psychic [1981] in which they discuss the SRI and their own experiments on remote viewing.
In the early stages of their attempt to replicate the SRI remote viewing experiments, they
were astonished at the high quality of their subject's protocols and the apparent accuracy of
the viewing. After each session, the experimenters and the subject (viewer) would visit the
target site and compare the verbal protocol with the actual site. The specific details of the
American Institutes for Research 3-71
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Review 2: Dr. Ray Hyman
viewers' responses appeared to match specific objects in the target site with uncanny
accuracy. When they gave the verbal protocols to the judge, a distinguished professor, to
blindly match against the actual target sites, he was astonished at how well what he
considered the closest matching protocol for each site matched actual details of the target. He
had no doubt that the viewers had demonstrated strong remote viewing abilities..
So, both the viewers and the judge quickly became convinced of the reality of remote
viewing on the basis of the uncanny matches between the verbal descriptions and the actual
target sites. The experimenters received a rude awakening when they discovered that, despite
the striking matches observed between target and verbal. description, the judge had matched
the verbal protocols to the wrong target sites. When all parties were given the results the
subjects could not understand how the judge could have matched any but the actual target site
to their descriptions. For them the match was so obvious that it would be impossible for the
judge to have missed it. The judge, on the other hand, could not accept that any but the
matches he made could be paired with the actual target sites.
This phenomenon of subjective validation is pervasive, compelling and powerful.
Psychologists have demonstrated it in a variety of settings. I have demonstrated it and
written about in the context of the psychic reading. In the present context, subjective
validation comes about when a person evaluates the similarity between a relatively rich verbal
description and an actual target or situation. Inevitably, many matches will be found. Once
the verbal description has been judged to be a good match to a given target, the description
gets locked in and it becomes virtually impossible for the judge to see the description as
fitting any but the original target.
Unfortunately, all the so-called prima facie evidence put before us is tainted by subjective
validation. We are told that the many details supplied by the viewers were indeed inaccurate.
But some details were uncannily correct and even, in one case, hidden code words were
correctly revealed. Such accounts do, indeed, seem compelling. They have to be put in the
context, however, of all such operational attempts. We have to know the general background
and expectations of the viewers, the questioners, etc. Obviously, the targets selected for the
viewers in the operational setting will have military and intelligence relevance. If the viewer
- some of the viewers have intelligence backgrounds - suspects the general nature of the
3-72 American institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
target, then previous background knowledge might very well make the presence, say, of a
gantry, highly likely. In addition, the interactions and questioning of the viewers in these
settings appear to be highly suggestive and leading.
I can imagine that the preceding paragraph might strike a reader as being unreasonable. Even
allowing for subjective validation, the possibility that a viewer might accurately come up with
secret code words and a detailed description of particular gantry on the basis of common
sense and sophisticated guessing is quite remote. I understand the complaint and I realize the
reluctance to dismiss such evidence out of hand. However, I have had experience with
similarly compelling prima facie evidence for more than a chance match between a
description and a target. In the cases I have in mind, however, the double blind controls were
used to pair descriptions with the true as well as with the wrong target sites. In all these test
cases with which I am familiar, the unwitting subjects found the matches between their
descriptions and the presumed target equally compelling regardless of whether the presumed
target was the actual or the wrong one.
What this says about operational effectiveness is that, for evaluation purposes, half of the time
the viewers and the judges should be misled about the what was the actual target. In these
cases, both the interrogator and the viewer, as well as the judge, have to be blind to the actual
targets. Under such conditions, if the judges and the others find the matches between the
verbal descriptions and the actual targets consistently better than the matches between the
verbal descriptions and the decoy targets, then this would constitute some evidence for the
effectiveness of remote viewing. I can confidently predict, regardless of the outcome of such
an evaluation, that many of the verbal descriptions when matched with decoy targets will be
judged to be uncanny matches.
SUGGESTIONS: WHAT NEXT?
I have played the devil's advocate in this report. I have argued that the case for the existence
of anomalous cognition is still shaky, at best. On the other hand, I want to state that I
believe that the SAIC experiments as well as the contemporary ganzfeld experiments display
methodological and statistical sophistication well above previous parapsychological research.
American Institutes for Research 3-73
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Review 2: Dr. Ray Hyman
Despite better controls and careful use of statistical inference, the investigators seem to be
getting significant results that do not appear to derive from the more obvious flaws of
previous research. I have argued that this does not justify concluding that anomalous
cognition has been demonstrated. However, it does suggest that it might be worthwhile to
allocate some resources toward seeing whether these findings can be independently replicated.
If so, then it will be time to reassess if it is worth pursuing the task of determining if these
effects do indeed reflect the operation of anomalous cognition. This latter quest will involve
finding lawful relationships between attributes of this hypothesized phenomenon. and different
independent variables. Both the scientific and operational value of such an alleged
phenomenon will depend upon how well the conditions for its occurrence can be specified
and how well its functioning can be brought under control.
Both Professor Utts and I agree that the very first consideration is to see if the SAIC remote
viewing results will still be significant when independent judges are used. I understand Ed
May's desire to use a judge who is very familiar with the response styles of the experienced
viewers. However, if remote viewing is real, then conscientious judges who are blind to the
actual targets should still be able to match the verbal descriptions to the actual targets better
than chance. If this cannot be done, the viability of the case for remote viewing becomes
problematical. On the other hand, assuming that independent judges can match the
descriptions to the correct targets reasonably well, then it becomes worthwhile to try to
independently replicate the SAIC experiments.
At this point we face some interesting questions. Should we try to replicate the remote
viewing studies by using the same viewers, the same targets, and the same protocol? Perhaps
change only the experimenters, the judge, and the laboratory? At some point we would also
want to change the targets. For completeness, we would also want to search for new, talented
viewers.
If independent replications confirm the SAIC findings, we still have a long way to go.
However, at this stage in the proceedings, the scientific community at large might be willing
to acknowledge that an anomaly of some sort has been demonstrated. Before the scientific
community will go beyond this acknowledgment, the parapsychologists will have to devise a
3-74 American Institcites for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
positive theory of anomalous communication from which they can make testable predictions
about relationships between anomalous communication and other variables.
CONCLUSIONS
THE SCIENTIFIC STATUS OF THE SAIC RESEARCH PROGRAM
1. The SAIC experiments on anomalous mental phenomena are statistically and
methodologically superior to the earlier SRI remote viewing research as well as to
previous parapsychological studies. In particular, the experiments avoided the major
flaw of non-independent trials for a given viewer. The investigators also made sure to
avoid the problems of multiple statistical testing that was characteristic of much
previous parapsychological research.
2. From a scientific viewpoint, the SAIC program was hampered by its secrecy and the
multiple demands placed upon it. The secrecy kept the program from benefiting from
the checks and balances that come from doing research in a public forum. Scrutiny by
peers and replication in other laboratories would have accelerated the scientific
contributions from the program. The multiple demands placed on the program meant
that too many things were being investigated with too few resources. As a result, no
particular finding was followed up in sufficient detail to pin it down scientifically.
Ten experiments, no matter how well conducted, are insufficient to fully resolve one
important question, let alone the several that were posed to the SAIC investigators.
3. Although I cannot point to any obvious flaws in the experiments, the experimental
program is too recent and insufficiently evaluated to be sure that flaws and biases have
been eliminated. Historically, each new paradigm in parapsychology has appeared to
its designers and contemporary critics as relatively flawless. Only subsequently did
previously unrecognized drawbacks come to light. Just as new computer programs
require a shakedown period before hidden bugs come to light, each new scientific
program requires scrutiny over time in the public arena before its defects emerge.
Some possible sources of problems for the SAIC program are its reliance on
American Institutes or search 3-75
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Review 2: Dr. Ray Hyman -
experienced viewers, and the use of the same judge - one who is familiar to the
viewers, for all the remote viewing.
4. The statistical departures from chance appear to be too large and consistent to attribute
to statistical flukes of any sort. Although I cannot dismiss the possibility that these
rejections of the null hypothesis might reflect limitations in the statistical model as an
approximation of the experimental situation, I tend to agree with Professor Utts that
real effects are occurring in these experiments. Something other than chance
departures from the null hypothesis has occurred in these experiments.
5. However, the occurrence of statistical effects does not warrant the conclusion that
psychic functioning has been demonstrated. Significant departures from the null
hypothesis can occur for several reasons. Without a positive theory of anomalous
cognition, we cannot say that these effects are due to a single cause, let alone claim
they reflect anomalous cognition. We do not yet know how replicable these results
will be, especially in terms of showing consistent relations to other variables. The
investigators report findings that they believe show that the degree of anomalous
cognition varies with target entropy and the "bandwidth" of the target set. These
findings are preliminary and only suggestive at this time. Parapsychologists, in the
past, have reported finding other correlates of psychic functioning such as
extroversion, sheep/goats, and altered states only to find that later studies could not
replicate them.
6. Professor Utts and the investigators point to what they see as consistencies between
the outcome of contemporary ganzfeld experiments and the SAIC results. The major
consistency is similarity of average effect sizes across experiments. Such consistency
is problematical because these average effect sizes, in each case, are the result of
arbitrary combinations from different investigators and conditions. None of these
averages can be justified as estimating a meaningful parameter. Effect size, by itself,
says nothing about its origin. Where parapsychologists see consistency, I see
inconsistency. The ganzfeld studies are premised on the idea that viewers must be in
altered state for successful results. The remote viewing studies use viewers in a
normal state. The ganzfeld experimenters believe that the viewers should judge the
American nstiti tes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
match between their ideation and the target for best results; the remote viewers believe
that independent judges provide better evidence for psi than viewers judging their own
responses. The recent autoganzfeld studies found successful hitting only with dynamic
targets and only chance results with static targets. The SAIC investigators, in one
study, found hitting with static targets and not with dynamic ones. In a subsequent
study they found hitting for both types of targets. They suggest that they may have a
solution to this apparent inconsistency in terms of their concept of bandwidth. At this
time, this is only suggestive.
7. The challenge to parapsychology, if it hopes to convincingly claim the discovery of
anomalous cognition, is to go beyond the demonstration of significant effects. The
parapsychologists need to achieve the ability to specify conditions under which one
can reliably witness their alleged phenomenon. They have to show that they can
generate lawful relationships between attributes of this alleged phenomenon and
independent variables. They have to be able to specify boundary conditions that will
enable us to detect when anomalous cognition is and is not present.
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
1. Both Professor Utts and I agree that the first step should be to have the SAIC
protocols rejudged by independent judges who are blind to the actual target.
2. Assuming that such independent judging confirms the extra-chance matchings, the
findings should be replicated in independent laboratories. Replication could take
several forms. Some of the original viewers from the SAIC experiments could be
used. However, it seems desirable to use a new target set and several independent
judges.
OPERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS
1. The current default assessment of the operational effectiveness of remote viewing is
fraught with hazards. Subjective validation is well known to generate compelling, but
false, convictions that a description matches a target in striking ways. Better, double
American Institutes for Research 3-77
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Review 2: Dr. Ray Hyman
blind, ways of assessing operational effectiveness can be used. I suggest at least one
way in the report.
2. The ultimate assessment of the potential utility of remote viewing for intelligence
gathering cannot be separated from the findings of laboratory research.
American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
The Reply
Response to Ray Hyman's Report of September 11, 1995
"Evaluation of Program in Anomalous Mental Phenomena"
Jessica Utts
Division of Statistics
University of California, Davis
Ray Hyman's report of September 11, 1995, written partially in response to my written report
of September 1, 1995, elucidates the issues on which he and I agree and disagree. I basically
concur with his assessment, but there are three issues he raises with regard to the scientific
status of parapsychology to which I would like to respond.
,1. "Only parapsychology, among the fields of inquiry claiming scientific status, lacks a
cumulative database." (p.6)
It is simply not true that parapsychology lacks a cumulative database. In fact, the
accumulated database is truly impressive for a science that has had so few resources. While
critics are fond of relating, as Professor Hyman does in his report, that there has been "more
than a century of parapsychological research" (p. 7)"psychologist Sybo Schouten (1993, p.
316) has noted that the total human and financial resources devoted to parapsychology since
1882 are, at best, equivalent to the expenditures devoted to fewer than two months of research
in conventional psychology in the United States.
On pages 4 and 5 of their September 29, 1994 SAIC final report, May, Luke and James
summarize four reports that do precisely what Professor Hyman claims is not done in
parapsychology: they put forth the accumulated evidence for anomalous cognition in a
variety of formats. Rather than dismissing the former experiments, parapsychologists build on
them. As in any area of science, it is, of course the most recent experiments that receive the
American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
The Reply: 1),r. Jessica Utts
most attention, but that does not mean that the field would divorce itself from past work.
Quite to the contrary, past experimental results and methodological weaknesses are used to
design better and more efficient experiments.
As an example of the normal progress of inquiry expected in any area of science, the
autoganzfeld experiments currently conducted by parapsycholgists did not simply, spring out
of thin air. The original ganzfeld experiments followed from Honorton's observation at
Maimondies Medical Center, that anomalous cognition seemed to work well in dreams. He
investigated ways in which a similar state could be achieved in normal waking hours, and
found the ganzfeld regime in another area of psychology. The automated ganzfeld followed
from a critical evaluation of the earlier ganzfeld experiments and a set of conditions agreed
upon by Honorton and Professor Hyman. The current use of dynamic targets in autoganzfeld
experiments follows from the observation that they were more successful than static targets in
the initial experiments. The investigation of entropy at SAIC follows from this observation as
well. This is just one example of how current experiments are built from past results.
2. "Only parapsychology claims to be a science on the basis of phenomena. (or a
phenomenon) whose presence can be detected only by rejecting a null hypothesis."
(p.8)
While it is true that parapsychology has not figured out all the answers, it does not differ
from normal science in this regard. It is the norm of scientific progress to make observations
first, and then to attempt to explain them. Before quantum mechanics was developed there
were a number of anomalies observed in physics that could not be explained. There are many
observations in physics and in the social and medical sciences that can be observed, either
statistically or deterministically, but which cannot be explained.
As a more recent example, consider the impact of electromagnetic fields on health. An article
in Science (Vol. 269, 18 August, p. 911) reported that "After spending nearly a decade
reviewing the literature on electromagnetic fields (EMFs), a panel of the National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) has produced a draft report concluding that
some health effects linked to EMFs - such as cancer and immune deficiencies - appear real
and warrant steps to reduce EMF exposure ... Biologists have failed to pinpoint a
convincing mechanism of action." In other words, a statistical effect has been convincingly
3-80 American Institeites for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
established and it is now the responsibility of science to attempt to establish its mechanism,
just as in parapsychology.
As yet another example, consider learning and memory, which have long been studied in
psychology. We know they exist, but brain researchers are just beginning to understand how
they work by using sophisticated brain imaging techniques. Psychologists do not understand
these simple human capabilities, and they certainly do not understand other observable human
phenomena such as what causes people to fall in love. Yet, no one would deny the existence
of these phenomena just because we do not understand them.
In any area involving the natural variability inherent in humans, science progresses by first
observing a statistical difference and then attempting to explain it. At this stage, I believe
parapsychology has convincingly demonstrated that an effect is present, and future research
attempts should be directed at finding an explanation. In this regard, parapsychology in on a
par with scientific questions like the impact of electromagnetic fields on health, or the cross-
cultural differences in memory that have been observed by psychologists.
3. "Parapsychology is the only field of scientific inquiry that does not have even one
exemplar that can be assigned to students with the expectation that they will observe
the original results." (p. 18)
I disagree with this statement for two reasons. First, I can name other phenomena for which
students could not be expected to do a simple experiment and observe a result, such as the
connection between taking aspirin and preventing heart attacks or the connection between
smoking and getting lung cancer. What differentiates these phenomena from simple
experiments like splitting light with a prism is that the effects are statistical in nature and are
not expected to occur every single time. Not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer, but we
can predict the proportion who will. Not everyone who attempts anomalous cognition will be
successful, but I think we can predict the proportion of time success should be achieved.
Since I believe the probability of success has been established in the autoganzfeld
experiments, I would offer them as the exemplar Professor Hyman requests. The problem is
that to be relatively assured of a successful outcome requires several hundred trials, and no
student has the resources to commit to this experiment. As I have repeatedly tried to explain
American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
The Reply: or. Jessica Utts
to Professor Hyman and others, when dealing with a small to medium effect it takes hundreds
or sometimes thousands of trials to establish statistical significance. In fact, the: Physicians
Health Study that initially established the link between taking aspirin and reducing heart
attacks studied over 22,000 men. Had it been conducted on only 2,200 men with the same
reduction in heart attacks, it would not have achieved statistical significance. Should students
be required to recruit 22,000 participants and conduct such an experiment before we believe
the connection between aspirin and heart attacks is real?
Despite Professor Hyman's continued protests about parapsychology lacking repeatability, I
have never seen a skeptic attempt to perform an experiment with enough trials to even come
close to insuring success. The parapsychologists who have recently been willing to take on
this challenge have indeed found success in their experiments, as described in my original
report.
REFERENCE:
Schouten, Sybo (1993). "Are we making progress?" In Psi Research Methodology: A Re-
examination, Proceedings of an International Conference, Oct 29-30, 1988, edited by
L. Coly and J. McMahon, NY: Parapsychology Foundation, Inc., pp. 295-322.
3-82 American lnstitrltes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
Discussion
Points of Agreement and Disagreement
The exchanges between Dr. Utts and Dr. Hyman have converged upon a number of
issues bearing on the remote viewing research, and parapsychological research in general. In
this section of the report, we summarize the major points of agreement and disagreement,
particularly as they pertain to the remote viewing laboratory experiments conducted as part of
the current program. By adopting this more narrow focus, we are intentionally bypassing the
evidence for remote viewing or other paranormal phenomena that have arguably been
demonstrated in other paradigms (e.g., the autoganzfeld studies) or prior to the present set of
laboratory studies. Our position is that the charter for the present evaluation is to examine
the current program; evidence obtained by other researchers in other laboratories is not a
direct component of this program.
Before beginning this discussion, we feel it is important to recognize that, in our
opinion, both review papers are of exceptional quality. One of Dr. Hyman's first comments
about Dr. Utts' review was that he considered it perhaps the best defense of parapsychological
research he has come across. We concur; likewise, we feel that Dr. Hyman's paper represents
one of the clearest expressions of the skeptic position we have seen.
At the outset, it should be noted that the two reviewers agree far more than they
disagree. One central point of agreement concerns the existence of a statistically significant
effect: Both reviewers note that the evidence accrued to date in the experimental laboratory
studies of remote viewing indicate that a statistically significant effect has been obtained.
Likewise, they agree that the current (e.g., post-NRC review) experimental procedures contain
significant improvements in methodology and experimental control.
American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
The Reply: Dr. Jessica Utts
The major remaining area of disagreement concerns attribution of causality. It is Dr.
Hyman's position that existence of a statistically significant effect does not allow one to infer
that these laboratory experiments have provided an unequivocal demonstration of remote
viewing. A statistically significant effect might arise from many sources; more simply stated,
the results could have occurred for many different reasons. Until the reasons for the results
can be pinpointed, one can not say that fully adequate evidence has been obtained for the
existence of any phenomenon, including paranormal phenomena such as remote viewing.
Typically, the process of identifying causes involves both eliminating competing explanations
and developing and testing - in Dr. Hyman's terms - "positive" hypotheses. :Dr. Hyman
states that these competing explanations have not been adequately eliminated; Dr. Utts
believes that they have.
Our conclusion is that, although the remote viewing research has made substantial
methodological progress in recent years, a central problem remains in the laboratory
experiments conducted as part of the present program. The problem is that most, if not all,
significant findings have been obtained by using the sauce remote viewers, the same judge,
the same target set, and the same scoring procedures. This characteristic of the remote
viewing research in the program raises the possibility of what has been termed "monomethod
bias" - a factor limiting the confidence we can have in drawing conclusions about the
general utility of the phenomenon. Basically, the concept here is that a specific method could
have some very subtle influences on performance that only appear over many repetitions or
trials; these influences could have nothing to do withh the phenomenon being investigated.
Recognition of this point is why both reviewers stress the need for independent replication.
Another consequence of this experimental situation (the same remote viewers, etc.) is
that it makes attribution of causation difficult. For example, one interpretation of the
significant outcomes obtained is that the judge has the ability to influence the results of the
remote viewing. As unlikely as this seems, this interpretation cannot be ruled out unless
different judges are used.
Although this general problem was of some concern to the reviewers, both were more
concerned about one specific aspect of the problem: The methods used in the current
program to study remote viewing involve having a judge assess the degree of correspondence
between the viewings and a set of targets. In the current studies, this judge has typically been
3-84 American Institu tes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
the principal Investigator, a person who has substantial familiarity with both the viewers and
the research paradigm. In addition to the potential confounding noted above, this kind of
procedure can potentially result in "criterion contamination"- some unconscious,
nondeliberate influence on the results in a particular direction. As a result, both reviewers
stress the point that cross judge agreement needs to be demonstrated; the studies need to be
replicated using independent judges before strong statements can be made about the existence
of remote viewing.
Another issue where there seems to be some remaining disagreement is a variant of
the causation problem. Methodological problems are, of course, not the only reason a
statistically significant effect might occur but still fail to provide evidence for the existence of
a phenomenon. It is quite possible that an effect occurred for reasons other than the proposed
cause. In other words, normal psychological processes rather than paranormal processes
might account for the effects obtained in the remote viewing studies. Recognition of this fact
led both reviewers to stress the point that more attention needs to be given to the
identification of underlying causes in remote viewing research.
The reviewers however, differ somewhat in the way they would approach this issue.
Dr. Utts believes that the existence of the phenomenon has been adequately demonstrated;
therefore, the focus of future research should be on causative mechanisms - how the ability
works. Dr. Hyman takes the position that competing hypotheses have not yet been
eliminated; thus, he stresses the continued need for replication in different laboratories, with
different investigators, etc., so that causal mechanisms, specifically paranormal mechanisms,
can be identified.
Our conclusion about this issue is direct: If laboratory research is to continue, this
research must be conducted in such a way that causal mechanisms can be articulated, and that
also serves to rule out competing explanations.
A final point of disagreement has to do with the nature of the remote viewing
phenomenon itself. Dr. Hyman argues that the effect has not been readily replicated in other
laboratory settings. Instead, it appears inconsistently, occurring only for certain people at
certain times. He argues that the size of the observed effects are small, they do not
consistently emerge under certain specified conditions, and that a coherent pattern of results
American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
The Reply: Dr. Jessica Utts
has not been obtained in studies of remote viewing. At the risk of misrepresenting his
position, the implication is that, unless more is uncovered about the phenomenon, it is not
likely to be a fruitful area for further research. Dr. Utts counters with a compelling argument,
noting that many effects are statistical in nature, occurring only rarely and under certain
conditions. This should not preclude further research into the causes and operation of the
phenomenon.
We agree with Dr. Utts that the conditions under which a phenomenon occurs should
not determine whether or not it is worth exploring and pursuing scientifically. On the other
hand, Dr. Hyman's observations point to a broader problem. If weak, inconsistent effects are
obtained in a laboratory-based research program, it is open to question whether the
phenomenon under investigation has any practical value. The anomaly may occur from time
to time but it occurs in such an erratic fashion that it cannot be used to guide one's actions.
In this regard, we find some agreement between the two reviewers, both of whom question
whether the kind of strong consistent effects needed for practical applications have been
demonstrated.
Conclusions from the Expert Reviews
In the preceding section we noted the points of agreement and disagreement among
the reviewers. We tried, furthermore, to clarify and reconcile these points of agreement and
disagreement. With this background in mind, we now return to the basic questions presented
to the reviewers and attempt to draw some firm conclusions about the implications to be
drawn from this research review.
The first question presented to the reviewers was whether the evidence indicated the
presence of a statistically significant effect. This question was answered in a straightforward
fashion: the reviewers agreed that, considered broadly, statistically significant effects have
been obtained in these studies. It appears that viewers' descriptions produce hits more
frequently than would be expected by chance.
The second question presented to the reviewers considers the nature of these effects.
The question to be answered was whether the effects could be attributed to paranormal
American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Three: Research Reviews
phenomena. In this regard, the reviewers disagreed, with Dr. Utts arguing positively and Dr.
Hyman negatively. Our conclusion from the discussions is that direct evidence has not been
provided indicating that this paranormal ability of the remote viewers is the source of these
effects. Attribution in general is difficult to demonstrate; for the present set of laboratory
experiments, a primary concern for us is that the same viewers, the same judge, the same
target set, and the same scoring procedures were repetitively used. This makes it difficult or
impossible to localize the source of the phenomenon.
The third question presented to the panel asked whether we have obtained an adequate
understanding of the phenomenon. Do we know how the ability, if it exists, works? Here it
is clear that the present research program has failed to identify mechanisms explaining the
source of these effects.
The fourth and final question presented to the reviewers was whether the research
provides support for intelligence gathering operations. Here the magnitude of the observed
effects, their consistency and replicability, and the need for subjective interpretation all seem
to argue against potential applications.
Taken as a whole, these answers lead to relatively straightforward general conclusions:
? The laboratory research conducted as part of the present program has identified a
statistically significant "anomaly."
? However, the experiments have not provided a convincing demonstration that a
paranormal ability is involved.
? The research studies have not identified the nature and source of the effect.
? There is no evidence that the phenomenon would prove useful in intelligence
gathering.
American Institutes or Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
The Reply: Cr. 1Jessica Utts
American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Four: Evaluating the Utility of Remote
Viewing in Intelligence Operations
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Evaluating the Utility of Remote Viewing in
Intelligence Operations
In the preceding section, we presented several conclusions bearing on evidence for the
existence of remote viewing and on the nature of the phenomenon. In this section, we will,
for the moment, assume that the phenomenon does indeed exist. This leads to questions of
the utility of the phenomenon for intelligence applications. As noted earlier, our evaluation of
remote viewing in terms of its value to the intelligence community had three components:
assessment of task requirements in relation to the boundary conditions believed to
influence application of the phenomenon
? interviews with various participants in the program
? user assessments of the information provided by the remote viewing process
In this section, we consider each of these components.
Research on Boundary Conditions
Historically, the literature on paranormal phenomena, and on remote viewing in
particular, has paid relatively little attention to establishing boundary conditions - more
specifically, the conditions under which effects are and are not observed. This point has been
made in numerous earlier critiques of parapsychological research (Druckman & Swets, 1988;
Hyman, 1994; Swets & Bjork, 1990). In response to these critiques, several investigators
have initiated research intended to provide more clear-cut evidence bearing on the conditions
influencing when effects are and are not observed in parapsychological studies (Bern &
Honorton, 1994; Honorton, 1994). Research on remote viewing reflects this same general
American Institutes for Research 4-1
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Four: Evaluating Utility in Intelligence Operations
trend. In fact, many of the studies conducted in recent years have expressly examined this
issue (May, Luke, & James, 1994; May, Luke & Lantz, 1993).
Senders and Distance. When one considers the remote viewing paradigm, one
boundary condition immediately comes to the fore with regard to intelligence applications.
During information gathering, it is unlikely that a "beacon" or sender will be at the site. In
fact, the interviews with end users and the remote viewers indicate that only in the case of
missing persons is a sender likely to be involved in information collection. If senders are
necessary for the phenomenon to occur, its utility would be dramatically reduced.
The laboratory experiments conducted as part of the current program avoid this issue;
since the targets are photographs kept in another part of the laboratory, the equivalent of a
"sender" would be the laboratory assistant who retrieves the photograph (or the computer that
selects it). If one considers a "sender" as either a transmitter of information or an active
participant in the remote viewing, this paradigm essentially does not have one. However, a
recent study by May, Spottswood, and James (1994) has specifically addressed this issue.
Their findings indicate that significant remote reviewing effects are obtained even when
senders are not available.
Another boundary condition that might influence the utility of remote viewing in
intelligence collection is the distance of the target from the viewer. More specifically, for
many of the tasks involved in intelligence applications, it may be impossible to place the
viewer anywhere near the target. Thus, if the accuracy of remote viewing is limited by
distance, this condition may, in turn, restrict its value. However, the work of May and his
colleagues (May, Luke, & James, 1994; May, Luke, & Lantz, 1994) indicates that remote
viewing may not be related to distance.
Targets. A set of studies conducted by Lantz, Luke, and May (1994) examined
another boundary condition of particular importance when assessing potential applications of
the remote viewing phenomenon. Most recent research on remote viewing has been based on
a fixed set of "static" targets, drawn from National Geographic photographs. Lantz, Luke,
and May varied target type by including a new set of targets covering a wider range of novel
stimuli, referred to as "dynamic" targets. Perhaps another relevant aspect of these new
4-2 American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Four: Evaluating Utility in Intelligence Operations
targets is that the remote viewers in the standard paradigm are very familiar with the National
Geographic photographs, but were unfamiliar with the dynamic targets. The researchers
found that significant effects were obtained for static but not dynamic targets.
This finding is of some importance from an operational intelligence perspective. In
Appendix C, the interview reports, end users and remote viewers describe the operational
targets presented to remote viewers. These targets represent a diverse set of potentially novel
stimuli ranging from the location of ships to the likely background characteristics of a person.
The findings obtained in the Lantz, Luke, and May study suggest that accurate viewings are
less likely to be obtained for these dynamic "real-world" targets, a finding which, if
replicated, represents a severe constraint on the utility of remote viewing to the intelligence
community. Even if, as May, Spottiswood, and James (1994) point out, those effects can be
explained in terms of target "bandwidth," there is no reason to assume that intelligence targets
will conform to a limited range of predefined bandwidths.
Information Requirements and Specificity. Another set of boundary conditions
examined in recent studies considers the nature of the targets and the information to be
assessed by judges. Intelligence consumers place a premium on the availability of specific,
concrete, potentially verifiable information. On the other hand, the information obtained from
remote viewings tends to be stated in broad, vague terms; a critical role must be played by
judges or intelligence analysts, who must interpret the remote viewers' reports.
Recognizing this problem, a series of studies (May, Luke, & Lantz, 1993) were
initiated intended to provide more concrete judgments framed in terms of the presence or
absence of specific categories of objects, a technique referred to as "binary coding." Results
from these studies indicated that when relatively specific information was used in judging
matches, weak or insignificant effects were obtained.
Specificity, as a boundary condition, can also be assessed in terms of targets. This
issue was examined in a meta-analysis (May, Luke, & Lantz, 1993) contrasting the effects
obtained for different types of targets. They found that effect sizes were related to target
complexity, with more dynamic targets showing larger effect sizes. Incidentally, and
seemingly in contradiction to the Lantz, Luke, and May (1994) study cited above, they found
American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Four: Evaluating Utility in Intelligence Operations
insignificant effects for static photograph targets. This pattern of effects, if intrinsic to the
remote viewing process, would seem to limit applications to those involving more complex
targets requiring less specific descriptions. Furthermore, it may also represent a significant
limitation on applications of the remote viewing phenomenon where specific information is
required.
Another aspect of specificity has to do with the degree of accuracy of the remote
viewers' reports. Most remote viewing reports contain a large number of potentially
interpretable components, an unknown percentage of which may not be related to the target.
The end users cannot know which components are or are not related. This makes it difficult
for end users, particularly if they are not highly trained, to separate valid information from
irrelevant information, a problem that may prohibit effective operational applications of the
results of the viewing process.
Feedback. Perhaps the most widely accepted boundary condition applying to remote.
viewing is the need for feedback. It is commonly held that the accuracy of viewings depends
on the viewer receiving feedback following production of the viewing. In fact, one
explanation of the remote viewing phenomenon is that viewings represent a fonn of
precognition where the viewers identify future outcomes or events that they themselves will
experience; in effect, they "communicate" with themselves across time (May, Lantz, &
Piantineda, 1994). The important point here is that in "real-world" information gathering
situations, it may be impossible for viewers to acquire the kind of feedback needed for
accurate viewings.
Remote Viewer Training. A final boundary condition frequently noted in the
literature on remote viewing pertains to the nature and development of the presumptive
remote viewing ability. Typically, remote viewing is held to represent a relatively rare talent
not widely distributed in the population. Recent studies have suggested that associative
learning techniques may contribute to improved performance on remote viewing tasks (May,
Luke & Lantz, 1993). However, little evidence is available indicating that the capacity for
producing accurate viewings can be systematically developed. This has implications for
information gathering operations, since the burden would fall on the ability of the sponsoring
agency to recruit and/or select individuals who already possess remote viewing skills.
4-4 American institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Four: Evaluating Utility in Intelligence Operations
Other Boundary Conditions. In the preceding discussion, we have limited
commentary to those boundary conditions directly addressed in the literature. However, a
number of other boundary conditions exist that might limit potential applications of the
remote viewing phenomenon. One such limitation on potential applications of the
phenomenon involves the assessments of the information provided by the remote viewers.
Typically, when judgmental data, such as target matches, are to be used in decision making,
evidence is required indicating that end-user analysts arrive at much the same decisions. If
analysts (or trained judges) cannot arrive at similar decisions, it is impossible to know what
kind of actions should be taken. Unfortunately, evidence is not available indicating the
degree of inter-rater, or cross judge, agreement. Accordingly, it is difficult to assess whether
different analysts or judges will reach similar conclusions given the same data. These
differences in assessments, if indeed they exist, may set another important limitation on
potential applications of remote viewings.
Another boundary condition that has potential importance for remote viewing
operational applications pertains to the degree of prior practice. In the remote viewing
research studies conducted as part of the present program, both judges and the viewers have
had years working together on a rather limited target set. Putting aside for the moment
potential cueing and rule-based learning effects resulting from long periods of practice, in
most field settings viewers and judges or analysts will have only limited opportunities to work
together. As a result, it is open to question whether the findings obtained in these laboratory
experiments can be extended to field settings.
Boundary Conditions: Conclusions
The issue of boundary conditions is part of a broader problem in generalizing research
findings to operational settings. Typically, generalization from laboratory, to operational
settings is contingent on three requirements (Cook & Campbell, 1979). First, there is a need
to demonstrate that an observed effect is sufficiently robustto be observed using different
methods. Second, explicit verified causal explanations, reflecting an understanding of the
source of observed effects, need to be provided. Third, alternative causal explanations, for
example judges and viewers learning implicit rules, must be ruled out. The laboratory
American Institutes For Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Four: Evaluating Utility in Intelligence Operations
experiments in the current research program conducted to date have relied on one method,
judgmental matching; plausible causal mechanisms has not been identified; and studies have
not been conducted drawing out competing explanations. Lacking this evidence., drawing
strong conclusions concerning the potential operational applications of remote viewing is at
best tenuous, and at worst misleading.
Taken as a whole, prior laboratory experiments examining the boundary conditions
related to remote viewing have clearly provided an important foundation for establishing the
nature of the phenomenon. On the other hand, however, the findings obtained in, these studies
actually argue against operational applications in the intelligence community. Broadly
speaking, it appears that the conditions under which intelligence information is gathered, the
nature of the targets, the unavailability of feedback, and the inconsistency with which accurate
viewings are obtained may all limit the usefulness of the phenomenon in intelligence
operations. Further, many significant boundary conditions have not been examined and the
scientific basis for generalizing from laboratory to field settings has not been provided.
Given these observations, it appears that the existing research does not justify operational
applications and, in fact, vis a vis the known boundary conditions, argues against operational
applications.
Interview Findings
The second component of the operational evaluation was the interviews conducted
with the various parties who had direct involvement in the remote viewing program in various
intelligence operations. A detailed description of the procedures used in interviewing
program participants and the results obtained in individual interviews is presented in
Appendix C; here, we briefly summarize the interview procedures before turning to the
principal findings which they generated.
Structured interviews were conducted with the three principal types of program
participants: recent users of the remote viewing service, the remote viewers themselves, and
the Program Manager. Separate interview protocols were developed for each type of
4-6 American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Four: Evaluating Utility in Intelligence Operations
respondent to capture their unique perspectives. The interview questions were written to
obtain objective information about characteristics of the program as opposed to more
subjective evaluative assessments of parapsychological phenomena. All questions were
reviewed by AIR psychologists.
Interview Results: End Users. The interviews conducted with representatives of end
user groups were particularly noteworthy: these interviews directly examined the accuracy and
utility of the information being provided by the remote viewers and provided user assessments
of the operational value of the viewings.
As can be seen in the individual interview reports (Appendix C), initial interest in the
potential uses of remote viewing was linked to contact with the Program Manager. Typically,
users decided to try out the viewings on an exploratory basis. The primary reasons users
were willing to explore the potential value of this technique were that it might (a) provide
information otherwise difficult or impossible to obtain, and (b) provide information more
rapidly and economically than other sources. All of the users indicated that viewings might
be especially attractive when other, more traditional options had been exhausted.
The tasks assigned to viewers involved a number of different types of targets.
Although all of these targets were relevant to operational intelligence issues, the targets were
not the same as those reported in the laboratory experiments. The targets included people,
their backgrounds, and their actions, as well as their locations. Likewise, the typical tasks
asked of the remote viewers were dissimilar to laboratory conditions: they were asked to
identify objects at specified locations and where certain objects might be found. When
responding to these task demands, the remote viewers typically had at least some background
knowledge; in some cases,this background knowledge was substantial. Typically, three
independent viewings were obtained. The results of each viewing were summarized in a
three- or four-page report which included drawings and verbal descriptions.
With regard to the information provided in each report, five general observations
emerged across all interviews:
? The information provided in the reports was stated in broad, vague terms.
American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Four: Evaluating Utility in Intelligence Operations
? The reports were most likely to prove accurate with regard to general stereotypical
characteristics of the situation. Such results might be attributable to the
background information available to the viewers.
The reports were most likely to prove inaccurate with regard to concrete specifics
of the task. For example, the reports often were not consistent with key known
facts nor did they provide information about the unique features of a location.
? A large amount of irrelevant and often inaccurate information was contained in the
reports, thus making them difficult to apply without substantial interpretive effort.
? The reports independently provided by different remote viewers displayed many
inconsistencies.
Because the viewings were not consistent with each other, because inaccuracies were
observed, and because the information lacked the specificity needed for intelligence'
operations, the viewings were never used as a primary source of evidence in making
decisions. In fact, even the most favorable of the user groups found the information
inadequate for operational decisions. Instead, it was used to fill in background information on
people that could not be readily obtained through available assets. All of the users noted that
viewings should only be considered as providing supplemental information, and. should be
judiciously interpreted, if used at all.
The perceived utility of the information varied with the nature of the organization
using the viewing services. Typically, viewings were seen as more valuable when the
organization involved did not have adequate assets available and when there was no other
convenient way of obtaining requisite information. When other information sources were
available, the users found the viewings to be less valuable. In all cases, the users remarked
that they would continue to consider working with the viewers on an exploratory basis.
However, in most cases, the users were not willing to invest their own operational funds to
obtain viewings. In part, this was an issue of cost; in part, however, the users felt that
because the remote viewing process was controversial, official acknowledgement of its value
was essential for routine use in intelligence gathering. This point was illustrated by the
American institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Four: Evaluating Utility in Intelligence Operations
manager of the most favorable user group, who noted that many of the analysts were critical
of the technique and unwilling to apply it unless specifically directed to do so.
Remote Viewers. The three remote viewers we interviewed were all working in the
intelligence community when they were recruited to be viewers. Although one viewer was
subjected to a formal screening process, all were primarily selected on the basis of their
interest in parapsychology. The viewers all received formal training as described in Appendix
C and continued to extend this initial training through active exploration of various
parapsychological techniques. The viewers used a variety of techniques to produce viewings
including automatic writing, meditation, and channelling.
With regard to the procedures used in generating viewings, a number of factors were
noted that influenced the nature and outcomes of the viewers' efforts. First, the viewers
disagreed as to how useful it was to have background information concerning the nature of
their tasking. Second, the viewers noted that the usefulness of viewings depended on having
sophisticated, knowledgeable users who accepted the technique and were willing to actively
work with what was necessarily somewhat ambiguous information. Third, they uniformly
agreed that the types of information requested - such as activities of individuals and specific
locations of specific people or objects - were not particularly compatible with their remote
viewing experiences.
In addition to these observations, the viewers indicated a number of other
considerations that might contribute to program outcomes. Some of these considerations,
such as balancing work load and the repetitive nature of specific tasks, related to better
management. Other considerations, such as management support and the availability of
managers familiar with the process, related to the day-to-day management of the program.
From a parapsychological perspective, a potentially disturbing aspect of the interview
was that the remote viewers commented that their written reports were occasionally
inconsistent with their viewings. They themselves considered it appropriate to make the
written reports consistent with known characteristics of the target, even if the report was
different from their viewing. Similarly, the remote viewers commented that previous
managers also changed viewers' reports to make them more consistent.
American Institutes for Research 4-9
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Four: Evaluating Utility in Intelligence Operations
The Program Manager. Appendix C presents a summary of the interview with the
most recent program manager. Although the manager did not have any prior background in
parapsychology, he did bring to the program a background in operational intelligence. This
background played an important role in allowing the manager to recruit clients. Most clients,
however, had been interested in the program in the past - an interest maintained, in part,
because the program provided a rapid turnaround of otherwise difficult-to-obtain information.
The manager noted that none of the user groups had used the viewings as a primary
basis for operational decisions. Instead, they were using the service to explore potential
applications of the technique or, alternatively, as a source of supplemental information.
Roughly half of the groups contacted agreed to participate in the program on an exploratory
basis.
During his interview, the manager stated that recruitment of clients was in large
measure due to the Congressional mandate. He noted however, that acceptance of the
program was limited by the controversy surrounding remote viewing. The research
component was seen as potentially helpful in addressing this issue, although it did not
contribute much to operational management. The manager felt that the program's long-term
results, particularly in foreign assessment, would be enhanced by declassifying the research
work and assigning responsibility for it to another government organization such as the
Department of Justice or the National Science Foundation. Along similar lines, he suggested
that remote viewing services be provided on a contract basis whenever the need for them
arose.
Conclusions
Before turning to the broader conclusions flowing from these interviews, certain
limitations inherent in this particular evaluative effort should be mentioned. First, the
evaluation was limited to recent operations. Although this factor reduces and focuses the
range of information considered, it does not help to ensure the accuracy of the information
reported. Indeed, if previous managers or the viewers themselves changed viewer reports,
4-10 American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Four: Evaluating Utility in Intelligence Operations
then relying on this body of information could potentially be misleading with respect to the
remote viewing phenomenon or to the operational use of remote viewing. Second, it should
be recognized that interviews generate qualitative information that does not permit us to draw
strong quantitative conclusions. Third, it is clear that this report necessarily focuses on actual
operations and not on operations as they might occur under ideal conditions.
Even bearing these points in mind, we believe that the interviews have a number of
significant implications. The most important implication pertains to the nature of the
information provided by the remote viewing process and the potential applications of this
information in intelligence operations. The information provided by viewings:
? is vague and general in nature;
? is not consistent across independent viewings;
? lacks specific content consistent with known facts of the case; and
? includes a large amount of irrelevant, often erroneous, information.
Intelligence operations are contingent on the availability of relatively specific information
which is reliable, consistent, and potentially verifiable. The lack of specifics apparent in the
viewings may well be an intrinsic characteristic of the process - a point noted by the remote
viewers. Nonetheless, this vagueness and the limited agreement evident in viewers' reports
make it impossible to apply this information in decision making. One potential strategy for
addressing this issue would be to seek more specific information in viewings. However,
existing laboratory research provides little support for the likely success of .this approach.
Alternatively, one might explicitly train users to work with this kind of broad, rather vague
information in such a way that they would attend to both its strengths and its weaknesses.
However, this kind of effort would require a strong commitment from sponsoring
organizations and unambiguous, high-level support for the program.
In addition to the problems associated with the reliability and vagueness of the
information provided, the viewings typically contain a large amount of irrelevant information
American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Four: Evaluating Utility in Intelligence Operations
and often fail to capture key aspects of the case. These characteristics of the viewings reduce
user confidence in the information provided. Further, the nature of this information is such
that the burden is effectively placed on the user in sorting out what is and is not relevant.
Under these conditions, it is quite possible that the information provided by viewings will
lead users down a number of blind alleys, thereby resulting in misallocation of intelligence
resources. Alternatively, it may do little more than reinforce existing preconceptions and
stereotypes about the targets - a trend evident in the user interviews.
This observation brings us to the accuracy issue. Although the viewings tended not to
be accurate with regard to concrete specifics, a characteristic which held true regardless of the
type of tasking, the users felt that they were more accurate in describing broad background
factors involved in the case. The problem here, of course, is that this outcome may simply
reflect the availability of background information and the logical use of relevant: analytic cues.
This problem was, in fact, noted by the viewers when they indicated that they modified
reports to make them consistent with known background factors. This observation suggests
that the viewers may not be providing any more information than could be obtained from
perceptive analysis working without the aid of remote viewing techniques.
Still another limitation on the operational value of the information being provided
pertains to its source. Remote viewing is a controversial phenomenon. Accordingly, routine
operational use of the resulting information across multiple units in the intelligence
community may well be contingent on a compelling demonstration of the phenomenon and
broad acceptance of the resulting findings. Without this acceptance, users will discount the
information provided and attempts to force analysts to use this information are likely to cause
conflict. If, however, comparable information were provided by the viewings, it could be
argued that the program would be more cost-effective than conventional techniques.
The fact that the information being provided is too vague and unreliable to permit
operational application suggests that the viewing program is of limited value to the
intelligence community. This conclusion, however, pertains to the current program. It is, of
course, always possible that a substantially restructured and redirected research effort along
with a substantial additional investment of resources might yield better results. Given the
costs involved, however, and the need for specific, reliable information, any investment along
American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Four: Evaluating Utility in Intelligence Operations
those lines should be contingent on successful demonstration of not only the existence of the
phenomenon but also its ability to consistently produce specific accurate information.
Our foregoing observations of the interview results can be summarized as follows:
? The viewing process has not provided information of adequate specificity and
reliability for use in intelligence gathering.
? The process is not widely accepted and is not seen as essential to intelligence
gathering.
? The process is often used experimentally because the needed information is
difficult to obtain.
? Accuracy is limited to broad superficial characteristics of the case and may
simply reflect good logical analysis.
? The available research does not directly support operations and new types of
research are needed to justify current operational use.
User Assessments
A third source of evidence used to evaluate operational utility consisted of analyses of
user feedback. This feedback was in the form of assessments of product (i.e., the remote
viewers' reports) accuracy and value collected from end users. This information was collected
by a representative of the U.S. Government in the spring and summer of 1995. The results of
these analyses have been compiled in a report; this report is included as Appendix D. We
summarize the findings and implications below.
The program office asked each user submitting tasks to evaluate the accuracy and
value of the viewings. Evaluations were available for forty viewings obtained in 1994 and
1995. Accuracy (i.e., "Is the information accurate?") was rated on a six-point scale with 1
American Institutes for Research 4-13
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Four: Evaluating Utility in Intelligence Operations
indicating high degrees of accuracy. Value (i.e., "What is the value of the source's
information?") was rated on a five-point scale where a 1. indicated major significance, while
a 5 indicated no value. It should be noted that separate ratings were obtained for each
viewer's report on each tasking requested by an organization.
The average accuracy rating was 3.0 across viewers and tasks, indicating that there
might "possibly" be some accurate information provided.. The average value rating was 3.5
(out of 5) indicating that the information was of relatively low value. This pattern of results
is consistent with the interview findings. Remote viewings were better at capturing broad
background information rather than the concrete, specific information needed for intelligence
operations.
Bearing this general conclusion in mind, a number of other questions about the remote
viewings can be addressed by these data. For example, one important question is whether
any particular remote viewer did particularly well. The accuracy scores of all three viewers
were within a tenth of a standard deviation from the mean, while value scores were within a
quarter of a standard deviation. Thus, it appears that no one viewer performed exceptionally
well or poorly.
Another question is whether the remote viewers performed better on some tasks than
others. Because tasks differed by the nature of the organization, this question can be
addressed by contrasting the evaluations obtained from different organizations. Two
organizations, one concerned with tracking people and one concerned with combat
intelligence, indicated that the information provided was of substantially greater accuracy and
value than was reported by the other user organizations., In the case of the two organizations
providing positive evaluations, however, the viewers had substantial general background
information concerning the targets, a finding suggesting that the ratings of outcomes of
viewings may be dependent on the amount of pre-existing background information.
These findings are noteworthy because they confirm a conclusion derived from the
interviews. More specifically, viewings apparently were of limited accuracy, with accuracy
being linked to the availability of general background information. Such background
information, however, was not believed to have much operational value.
American institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Four: Evaluating Utility in Intelligence Operations
Information Gathering Applications: Operational Conclusions
The findings obtained in this evaluation of the intelligence applications of remote
viewing lead us to the conclusion that remote viewing as used in the present program has
limited value for the intelligence community as an information gathering technique. The
basic considerations that lead us to this conclusion are:
?
Conditions under which significant effects are observed in experimental laboratory
research are, for the most part, unlikely to occur in intelligence operations.
only will feedback be unavailable, but the target pool will typically be
unconstrained.
Not
?
Information provided by the remote viewing technique tends to be vague and
ambiguous and it appears difficult, if not impossible, to consistently obtain
accurate information from the remote viewers across a range of targets.
These problems with the consistency and accuracy of viewings were also apparent in the end
user interviews. In these interviews, viewings were found to be too broad and vague; the
viewings failed to provide the concrete, specific information needed for actionable
intelligence. Further, there were indications that its potential usefulness was limited to
information which could be acquired in other ways.
Thus, the evidence accrued from research, interviews, and user assessments all indicate
that the remote viewing phenomenon has no real value for intelligence operations at present.
In fact, given the findings obtained to date and the nature of intelligence operations, one must
question whether any further applications can be justified without major theoretical and
practical advances in our understanding of the phenomenon, assuming it exists at all.
American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Four: Evaluating Utility in Intelligence Operations
4-16 American InstitLifes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Five; Conclusions
American Institutes or Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Conclusions
In the preceding sections of this report, we have presented a variety of evaluative data bearing
on the existence of the paranormal phenomenon known as remote viewing and its potential
applications in intelligence gathering. This multifaceted evaluation effort was structured to ensure a
fair, unbiased evaluation of both the research program and its intelligence applications. As is the case
with any objective, relatively sophisticated program evaluation effort, many pieces of evidence bearing
on different aspects of the program have been presented. In this section, we summarize the basic
conclusions flowing from this evaluation effort.
Summary of Key Findings
Two expert reviewers, one known to be a sophisticated advocate of the study of paranormal
phenomena and one viewed as a fair-minded skeptic, reviewed the laboratory experiments conducted
as part of the current program that bear on the existence of the remote viewing phenomenon. They
focused primarily on recent, better-controlled laboratory studies, drawing from other sources as needed
to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of the research literature. Although the reviewers disagreed on
some points, on many points they reached substantial agreement.
The first important point of agreement concerns the existence of a statistically significant
effect, which leads to the following finding:
? A statistically significant effect has been observed in the recent laboratory experiments of
remote viewing.
However, the existence of a statistically significant effect did not lead both reviewers to the
conclusion that this research program has provided an unequivocal demonstration that remote viewing
exists. A statistically significant effect might result either from the existence of the phenomenon, or,
alternatively, to methodological artifacts or other alternative explanations for the observed effects.
It is with regard to the explanation for these effects that the two reviewers differ most clearly.
American Institutes for Research 5-1
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Five: Conclusions
One reviewer argues that the procedures used in recent studies rule out many, but not all,
methodological explanations. The other reviewer argues that the consistency of the results obtained
across experiments strongly suggests the existence of the paranormal phenomenon. We concluded that
? The experimental research conducted as part of the current program does not
unambiguously support the interpretation of the results in terms of a paranormal
phenomenon.
Both reviewers agreed that one important methodological problem has not yet been addressed.
Specifically, only one judge - apparently the Principal Investigator - was used in assessing matches
throughout these experimental studies. As a consequence, there is no evidence for agreement across
independent judges as to the accuracy of the remote viewings. Failure to provide evidence that
independent judges arrive at similar conclusions makes it difficult to unambiguously determine
whether the observed effects can be attributed to the remote viewers' (paranormal) ability, to the ability
of the judge to interpret ambiguous information, or to the combination or interaction of the viewers
and the judge. Furthermore, given the Principal Investigator's familiarity with the viewers, the target
set, and the experimental procedures, it is possible that subtle, unintentional factors may have
influenced the results obtained in these studies. Thus, until it can be shown that independent judges
agree, and similar effects are obtained in studies using independent judges, it cannot be said that
adequate evidence has been provided for existence of the remote viewing phenomenon.
Both reviewers agree that no compelling explanation has been provided for the observed
effects. One reviewer considers the investigation of the determinants of remote viewing as the next
necessary step, but does not see it as essential to continue to conduct experiments designed solely to
demonstrate the existence of the phenomenon. The other reviewer argues that, without identifying
causal mechanisms and explicitly providing evidence that alternative explanations cannot account for
the observed effects, we cannot say we have convincing evidence for the existence of a phenomenon.
Essentially, this position holds that an observed effect may arise for many reasons; to say a
phenomenon has been demonstrated we must know the reasons for its existence.
Our conclusion is that at this juncture it would be premature to assume that we have a
convincing demonstration of a paranormal phenomenon. In fact, until a plausible causal mechanism
has been identified, and competing explanations carefully investigated, we cannot interpret the set of
anomalous observations localized to one laboratory with one set of methods. Given these
observations, and the methodological problems noted above, we must conclude that
American lnstitcites for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Five: Conclusions
? Adequate experimental and theoretical evidence for the existence of remote viewing as a
parapsychological phenomenon has not been provided by the research component of
current program. A significant change in focus and methods would be necessary to justify
additional laboratory research within the current program.
This is not to say definitively that paranormal phenomena do not exist. At some point in time,
adequate evidence might be provided for the existence of remote viewing. With this point in mind,
we considered the potential applications of remote viewing in intelligence gathering.
The first consideration involves the conditions under which remote viewing occurs and if those
conditions constrain its application for intelligence purposes. Prior research suggests that distance is
not a constraint and, indeed, that a sender or "beacon" may not be necessary. However, other
characteristics of intelligence gathering indicate that remote viewing is of little value. Intelligence
operations do not provide targets of a fixed bandwidth; rather, targets and target types are highly
variable. Moreover, the apparent necessity for feedback to the remote viewers would preclude its use
in intelligence gathering operations. Finally, intelligence information is most valuable if it is concrete
and specific, and reliably interpretable. Unfortunately, the research conducted to date indicates that the
remote viewing phenomenon fails to meet those preconditions. Therefore, we conclude that
? Remote viewing, as exemplified by the efforts in the current program, has not been shown
to have value in intelligence operations.
This point was also graphically illustrated in the user interviews, where it was found that remote
viewings have never provided an adequate basis for "actionable" intelligence operations - that is,
information sufficiently valuable or compelling so that action was taken as a result. If a phenomenon
does not contribute to intelligence operations, it is difficult to see what justification exists for its
continued application. This is particularly true in the case of remote viewing, where a large amount of
irrelevant, erroneous information is provided and little agreement is observed among viewers' reports.
Particularly troublesome from the perspective of the application of paranormal phenomena is
the fact that the remote viewers and project managers reported that remote viewing reports were
changed to make them consistent with known background cues. While this was appropriate in that
situation, it makes it impossible to interpret the role of the paranormal phenomenon independently.
Also, it raises some doubts about some well publicized cases of dramatic hits, which, if taken at face
value, could not easily be attributed to background cues. In at least some of these cases, there is
reason to suspect, based on both subsequent investigations and the viewers' statement that reports had
American Institutes for Research 5-3
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Chapter Five: Conclusions
been "changed" by previous program managers, that substantially more background information was
available than one might at first assume. Give these observations, it is difficult to argue that available
evidence justifies application of remote viewing in intelligence operations.
In summary, two clear-out conclusion emerge from our examination of the operational
component of the current program. First, as stated above, evidence for the operational value of remote
viewing is not available, even after a decade of attempts. Second, it is unlikely that remote viewing
- as currently understood - even if its existence can be unequivocally demonstrated, will prove of
any use in intelligence gathering due to the conditions and constraints applying in intelligence
operations and the suspected characteristics of the phenomenon. We conclude that:
? Continued support for the operational component of the current program is, not justified.
American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Appendix A - Reviewer Vitae
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
CURRICULUM VITAE'
RAY HYMAN
September 1994
Present position: Professor of Psychology
Department of Psychology
University of Oregon
Eugene, Oregon 97403
Date and place of birth: June 23, 1928
Chelsea, Massachusetts
Academic degrees: 1950 A.B., Boston University
Phi Beta Kappa
Honors in Psychology
1952 M.A., The Johns Hopkins University
1953(FEB) PhD., The Johns Hopkins Univ.
Positions belch
Jul 1953-Jun 1961 Assistant Professor of Social Psychology, Harvard University
Jul 1958-Jun 1961 Consultant in Behavioral Research, General Electric Company
Sep 1961-Aug 1964 Associate Professor of Psychology, University of Oregon
Sep 1964- Professor of Psychology, University of Oregon
Sep 1967-Aug 1968 Fulbright-Hays Research Scholar, University of Bologna, Italy
Sep 1976-Dec 1976/Jun 1977-Sep 1977/Jun 1978-Sep 1978 NSF Faculty Fellowship in
Science Applied to Societal Problems
'This is a very abbreviated and somewhat modified version of my full resume.
American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Appendix A: Reviewer Vitae
Sep 1982-Jun 1983 Visiting Professor of Psychology, Stanford University (Thomas Welton
Stanford Chair for Psychical Research)
Additional Positions and Experience
Mar 1949-Jul 1949 Statistician for antihistamine study, Allergy Fund of Boston
Jan 1953-Jul 1953 Consultant to Systems Coordination Division, Naval Research
Laboratory, Washington, D.C.
Jul 1974-Aug 1974 Subcommittee on Preparing Problems and Examples for Committee on
the Mathematical Training of Social Scientists, Social Science Research
Council
Oct 1955-Jan 1956/Oct 1956-Jan 1957/Oct 1957-Jan 1958 Director of Statistical Workshop
for Psychology Department, Clark University
Oct 1957-Jun 1958 Statistical Consultant, Age Center of New England
1970-1975 Statistical Consultant, Roseburg VA Hospital
Some Current or Recent Positions:
Executive Council, Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
Editorial Board, The Skeptical Inquirer
Member of National Research Council's Committee on Techniques for the Enhancement of
Human Performance (1985-1991)
Publications:
BOOKS 7 MONOGRAPHS:
Bush, R.R., Abelson, R.P., & Hyman, R. (1956). Mathematics for psychologists: examples
and problems. New York: Social Science Research Council.
2A Partial listing.
Americcn Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Appendix A: Reviewer Vitae
Hyman, R. (1960). Some experiments in creativity. New York: General Electric Company
(101 pages).
Hyman, R. (1960). Methods for the study of creativity: an evaluation of current research.
New York: General Ele^tric Company (204pp).
Hyman, R. (1964). The nature of psychological inquiry. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
Hyman, R. (1965). Creativity and the prepared mind: precon ptions in creative achievement
and creativity research. National Art Education Association.
Hyman, R. (1989). The elusive quarry: a scientific appraisal of psychical research. Buffalo,
NY: Prometheus Books.
Hyman, R. (in preparation). How smart people go wrong: cognition and human error.
ARTICLES:
I have published over 200 articles in professional journals on perception, pattern
recognition, creativity, problem-solving and critiques of the paranormal. I consider all my
publications as dealing with aspects of my major interest in human error and deception. I
have also published articles in magic journals and have won awards for inventing new
conjuring effects.
Public Talks and Media Presentations
During this period I have given talks to public schools, civic groups, and other
organizations. I also have appeared on several television and radio programs. I serve as a
resource to the media on various topics related to the paranormal, deception, mysticism, the
occult, and human error. In this connection I have appeared on all the major networks, on
Cable Network News, the Larry King Live show, Italian Television, Canadian Television,
BBC television, and Nova. I see these appearances as part of my program to help educate the
public about how human cognition both enables us to cope with problems and makes us
susceptible to illusion and deception.
My experience and Credentials Relevant to Alleged Psychic Phenomena
Since 1953, I have been called upon by various governmental agencies to investigate
or evaluate paranormal claims. Some examples would be the evaluation of a lady who
allegedly could read with her finger tips, the evaluation of the claim by a group of engineers
American institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Appendix A: Reviewer Vitae
that they could teach psychics to gather information from photographs; the assessment of
parapsychological research by American and foreign investigators; and the observation of
metal bending and other alleged miracles by Uri Geller. I have also served as consultant and
expert witness in court cases involving psychics or related paranormal claims. I have
appeared on several radio and television programs in the United States, Great Britain, Canada
and Italy to comment upon paranormal claims and to demonstrate how alleged paranormal
phenomena can be duplicated by simple trickery and psychological manipulation.
I earned my way through college performing mentalism and reading palms. I have
demonstrated psychic readings on several television and radio shows. I have done research
and written articles on why people can falsely believe that their psychic readings were
accurate and depended upon occult information. I have been invited to the Euroskeptics'
conference in Ostende, Belgium to conduct a workshop on psychic readings at the end of
September, 1994.
American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Appendix A: Reviewer Vitae
CURRICULUM VITAE
JESSICA UTTS
Current Employment:
Professor, Division of Statistics
916-752-6496 (office phone)
University of California, Davis
916-752-7099 (FAX)
Davis, CA 95616
[e-mail]
Education
BA State University of New York at Binghamton, Math and Psychology, 1973
MA Pennsylvania State University, Statistics, 1975
PhD. Pennsylvania State University, Statistics, 1978
Previous Titles and Visiting Positions:
Visiting Senior Research Fellow, Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh,
Scotland, Winter 1994.
Director, Statistical Laboratory, University of California, Davis, 7/88-6/93
SRI International, Cognitive Sciences Program, Menlo Park, CA, Visiting Scientist, 6/87-8/88
Stanford University, Dept. of Statistics, Visiting Professor, 6/83-9/83 and 9/84-6/85
University of California, Davis, Division of Statistics, Assistant and Associate Professor, 7/79-
6/79
University of California, Davis, Dept. of Mathematics, Assistant Professor, 7/78-6/79
Pennsylvania State University, Dept. of Statistics, Instructor, 3/78-8/78
Academic Honors:
Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1992
Fellow, Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 1991
American institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Appendix A: Reviewer Vitae
Fellow, American Statistical Association, 1990
Academic Senate Distinguished Teaching Award, University of California, Davis;, 1984
Magnar Ronning Award for Teaching Excellence, University of California, Davis, 1981
Phi Beta Kappa, State University of New York at Binghamton, 1973
Professional Affiliations and offices (alphabetical order):
American Association for the Advancement of Science: various roles in Section U (Statistics)
American Statistical Association: President, State College PA Chapter, 1977-78
Biometric Society, Western North American Region: President, 1986; Reg. Corrin., 1982-84;
Program Chair, 1983
Caucus for Women in Statistics: President, 1988
Institute of Mathematical Statistics: Treasurer, 1988-1994; Assistant Program Secretary,
1980, 1989
Parapsychological Association: Representative to AAAS Section X, 1989-
Phi Beta Kappa: President of UC Davis Chapter, 1984-85, Vice President, 1983-84
Society for Scientific Exploration: Council Member, 1987-93
Major Consultations and Panels,
National Academy of Sciences, Panel on the Evaluation of AIDS Interventions
Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, Panel to Assess Defense Technologies
National Park Service, Statistics Short Course for Resource Management Trainees
California Department of Health Services, Course on Statistics for Groundwater
SRI International Cognitive Sciences Program, Consultant
California Public Utilities Commission, Consultant
Hershey Medical Center, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Study, Consultant
ABC News 20/20 Program, Interview (appeared July 4, 1985); various other nalional
television shows
Editorial Positions:
Associate Editor, Journal of the American Statistical Association (Theory & Method)
Statistical Editor, Journal of the American Societyfor Psychical Research
American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Appendix A: Reviewer Vitae
JESSICA M. UTTS
PUBLICATIONS
1. 1976 Utts, J.M. and T.A. Ryan, Jr. Lack of fit in regression. American
Statistical Association Proceedings of the Statistical Computing
Section, 285-287
2, 1976 Varner, L. and J. Utts. Parallel prediction lines: a test for
interaction. The Journal of Educational Research, 70(2):63-66
3. 1977 Hettmansperger, T.P. and J.M. Utts. Robustness properties for a
simple class of rank estimates. Communication in Statistics - Theory and
Methods, A6(9): 855-868
4. 1977 Naeye, R.L., W.L. Harkness and J. Utts. Abruptio placentae and
perinatal death: a prospective study. American Journal of
Obstetrics and Gynecology, 128(7): 740-746
5. 1980 Utts, J.M. and T.P. Hettmansperger. A robust class of tests and
estimates for multivariate location. Journal of the American
Statistical Association, 75(372): 939-946
6. 1981 Ainley, D.G., C.R. Grau, T.E. Roudybush, S.H. Morrell and J.M.
Utts. Petroleum ingestion reduces reproduction in Cassin's auklets.
Marine Pollution Bulletin, 12(9): 314-317.
7. 1982 Utts, J.M. The rainbow test for lack of fit in regression.
Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods, 11(24): 2801-2815
8. 1983 Samaniego, F.J. and J.M. Utts. Evaluating performance in
continuous experiments with feedback to subjects. Psychometrika,
48(2): 195-209
9. 1985 Rucker, M.K. McGee, M. Hopkins, A. Harrison and J. Utts. Effects
of similarity and consistency of style of dress on impression
formation. In The Psychology of Fashion, ED. M.R. Solomon,
Lexington Books, Lexington, MASS, 309-318
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Appendix A: Reviewer Vitae
10. 1985 May, E.C., D.I. Radin, G.S. Hubbard, B.S. Humphrey and J.M. Ults.
Psi experiments with random number generators: an informational model.
Proceedings of the Parapsychological Association Annual ConvenVion, 235-266
11. 1985 Johnson, W.O., J.M. Utts, and L.M. Pearson. Bayesian robust
estimation of the mean. The Journal of the Royal Statistical Society
Series C (Applied Statistics), 35(l):63-72
12. 1986 Utts, J.M. The Ganzfel Debate: a statistician's perspective.
Journal of Parapsychology, 50: 393-402
13. 1986 Utts, J.M. Comment on "Computers in statistical research."
Statistical Sciuence, 1(4): 437-439
14. 1986 Johnson, W.O., L.M. Pearson, and J.M. Utts. A Monte Carlo
comparison of Bayesian estimators and trimmed means. Journal
of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 25:167-192
15. 1986 Utts, J.M. and E.C. May. An exact method for combining P-values. Research
in Parapsycholgy, 99-103, Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, N.J.
16. 1987 G.P. Hansen and J. Utts. Use of both sum of ranks and direct hi,:s
in free-response psi experiments. Journal of Parapsychology,
51:321-335
17. 1987 Utts, J. Psi, statistics, and society. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 10:615-616
18. 1988 Utts, J. Successful replication versus statistical significance.
Proceedings of the Parapsychological Association, 31:148-162
19. 1988 Humphrey, B.S., E.C. May and J. Utts. Fuzzy set technology in
the analysis of remote viewing, Proceedings of the Parapsychological
Association, 31:378-394
20. 1988 Palmer, J.A., C. Honorton and J. Utts. Reply to the National
Research Council study on parapsychology, Journal of the
American Society for Psychical Research, 83(l):31-49. (Also
American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Appendix A: Reviewer Vitae
published in Proceedings of the Parapsychological Association,
31:424-451
21. 1988 Utts, J. Successful replication versus statistical significance.
Journal of Parapsychology, 52(4):305-320
22. 1989 Radin, D. and J. Utts. Experiments investigating the influence of
intention on random and pseudorandom events. Journal of
Scientific Exploration, 3(1):65-79
23. 1989 Flay, B.R., R.C. Kessler, and J.M. Utts. Evaluating media
campaigns. In Evaluating AIDS Prevention Programs, Coyle,
Boruch, and Turner, Eds., National Academy Press, Washington,
DC
24, 1989 Utts, J. Randomness and randomization tests: A reply to Gilmore.
Journal of Parapsychology, 53(4):345-35
25, 1990 Utts, J. Use hammers for nails and corkscrews for wine: In
defence of defendable statistical methods. The Skeptic, 4(5):
Sept./Oct. 1990, 16-18
26. 1990 May, E.C., J.M. Utts, B.S. Humphrey, W. Luke, T.J. Frivold, and
V.V. Trask. Advances in Remote Viewing, Journal of
Parapsychology, 54(3), 193-228
27. 1991 Utts, J.M. Replication and meta-analysis in parapsychology (with
discussion). Statistical Science, 6(4), 363-403
28. 1992 Christensen, R. and J.M. Utts Testing for nonadditivity in log-linear and logit
models. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 33, 333-343
29. 1992 Christensen, R. and J.M. Utts. Bayesian resolution of the
exchange paradox. The American Statistician, November 1992, 274-276
30. 1992 Hansen G.P., J.M. Utts and B. Markwick. Critique of the PEAR
remote viewing experiments. Journal of Parapsychology, 56(2), 97-
113
American Institutes for Research A-9
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Appendix A: Reviewer Vitae
31.
1993
Utts, J. Analyzing free-response data-a progress report. In PSI
Research Methodology-A Reexamination, ed. L. Coly and J.D.S.
McMahon, Parapsychology Foundation, New York, 71-83
32.
1993
Utts, J. Honorton the Meta-Analyst. Journal of Parapsychology,
57(1), 89-100
33.
1993
Utts, J. Obituary: Florence Nightengale David, 1909-1993.
Biometrics, 49, 1289-1291
34.
1993
Krippner, S., W. Braud, I.L. Child, J. Palmer, K.R. Rao, M. Schl:tz,
R.A. White and J.M. Utts. Demonstration research and meta-
analysis in parapsychology. Journal of Parapsychology, 57(3), 275-
286
35.
1994
Utts, J. Social, Institutional, and Cultural Influences of Gender on Science.
Women and Parapsychology, ed. L. Coly and R.A. White, Parapsychology
Foundation, New York, 28-44
In
36.
1994
Murphy, T.M. and J.M. Utts. A retrospective analysis of peer review at
Physiologia Plantarum. Physiologia Plantarum, 92, 535-542
BOOKS
1.
1996
Utts, Jessica Seeing Through Statistics, Belmont, CA: Wadswoilh
LIMITED DISTRIBUTION
1.
1975
Utts, J.M. A test for lack of fit in regression models. Technical
Report No. 29, Department of Statistics, The Pennsylvania State
University.
2.
1979
Utts, J.M. and T.P. Hettmansperger. A robust class of tests and
estimates for multivariate location. Technical Report No. 1,
Division of Statistics, University of California, Davis. (see Publ.
#5A.)
3.
1980
Utts, J.M. and L.L. Varner. A procedure for analyzing a large data set using
log-linear models. Technical Report No. 14, University of California, Davis.
American Institutes for Research
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200180006-4
Appendix A: Reviewer Vitae
r