Parapsychology Wins Blind Testing Survey by D. Trull Enigma Editor dtrull@parascope.com Skeptics and mainstream scientists are accustomed to sneering at the idea that parapsychology is a legitimate field, writing it off as an undisciplined, "anything goes" pseudoscience. But a recent study suggests that scientists living in glass laboratories shouldn't throw stones. A survey of over a thousand published research papers indicates that parapsychology actually adheres much more strictly to the scientific method of blind techniques than the "hard sciences" do. Tests in the areas of ESP, telekinesis and other paranormal studies frequently employ blind controls to eliminate experiment biases, whereas research in chemistry and physics hardly ever follows such practices. But before these findings can be proclaimed an unequivocal vindication for the much-maligned field of parapsychology, there's an important fact to be taken into account: the source of this astounding report is Rupert Sheldrake, a fringe parapsychologist known for promoting a number of truly koo-koo theories. Formerly a research fellow at Cambridge University, Sheldrake is most famous for his theories of "morphic resonance" of energy fields flowing between all living things. He has used this reasoning to concoct explanations for all manner of psychic phenomena, including the often-noted feeling of "being watched" and the apparent ESP of dogs who can sense when their masters are coming home. Since Sheldrake is behind this glowingly pro-parapsychology report on blind techniques (available in its entirety on Sheldrake's web site), we clearly have to suspect that his own conclusions might be clouded by experimenter bias. Assuming that his data sampling and analysis procedures are sound, the fundamental question is whether it's valid to assume that all types of scientific experiments require blind techniques. Is Sheldrake comparing apples and oranges, and baselessly accusing the scientific establishment of imagined oversights -- or has he truly shed light on a deep-seated hypocrisy? Blind techniques are most commonly used in experiments involving human test subjects. In trials of an experimental drug, for example, one group of subjects receives the medication and another group receives a placebo. The test is blinded if the subjects don't know whether they are taking the real thing or the placebo, and thus their responses will not be influenced by their expectations. Upon first consideration, it might seem that blind techniques would have no place in such fields as chemistry and physics, where the subjects of experimentation possess no sentience or thought that can affect the outcome. But there is another kind of blinding that may be more widely applicable: experimenter blinding. Under this method, the experimenter would not know whether he is giving a subject the real treatment or a placebo. Studies have demonstrated that a researcher's predetermined beliefs or knowledge can influence the test's results, either intentionally or unintentionally. A double-blind experiment is one in which both subject blinding and experimenter blinding are used. Tests for supposed psychic powers are ideally suited for employing double-blind techniques, and paranormal experiments have many times produced faulty evidence when performed otherwise. Parapsychology pioneer J. B. Rhine once collected data that seemingly proved the existence of psychic powers, but his findings were later found to lack the needed blind controls. Blind techniques are the mantra of debunkers like James Randi, who will award his million-dollar "Psychic Challenge" jackpot to anyone who demonstrates psychic powers in a properly blinded experiment. Unlike subject blinding, experimenter blinding appears to be a technique that could be of benefit to a wide variety of scientific disciplines, and ensure a higher level of validity for any experiment in which a human being partakes in recording or analyzing data. Yet Rupert Sheldrake has found experimenter blinding to be almost entirely absent from scientific research, except in the fields of medicine, psychology and parapsychology. The reason? Apparently the majority of scientists think they don't need blind methods. "Most hard scientists take it for granted that blind techniques are unnecessary in their own field," Sheldrake said. "Parapsychologists, on the other hand, have been constantly subjected to intense scrutiny by skeptics, and this has made them more rigorous." Sheldrake surveyed several hundred papers published in an assortment of scientific journals between 1996 and 1997, and categorized them according to their use of blind methodologies. He found that experiments in the medical sciences scored a blind rating of 5.9% (6 out of 102), and psychology and animal behavior studies rated 4.9% (7 out of 143). Sheldrake found a mere seven blind experiments out of 914 in the biological sciences, and none out of 237 in the physical sciences. Parapsychology experiments, in contrast, weighed in with a whopping 85.2% blind rating, although this percentage is drawn from a comparatively tiny number of studies (23 out of 27). Beyond collecting these numbers, Sheldrake also interviewed academic staff members in science departments at 11 British universities. He asked them, "Do you ever use blind experimental methodologies in your department?" and "Are students taught about blind methodologies and experimenter effects in general?" The results of this survey were even more dramatic than his study of scientific journals, and not as easy to dismiss. Sheldrake found that blind techniques were somewhat common in physiology and genetics departments, but virtually ignored in physics, chemistry and molecular biology departments. A number of respondents reportedly didn't even know what blind techniques were, or expressed confusion as to why such procedures would apply to their branches of science. "Most were aware of blind techniques, but thought that they were necessary only in clinical research or psychology," Sheldrake said. "They believed that their principal purpose was to avoid biases introduced by human subjects, rather than by experimenters. The commonest view expressed by physical and biological scientists was that blind methodologies are unnecessary outside psychology and medicine because 'nature itself is blind,' as one professor put it." Sheldrake reported that some of university staff admitted that experimenters' biases and expectations could theoretically influence research in their departments, but they denied that this was enough of a danger to be concerned with. A chemistry professor exempted himself from blind techniques with this assertion: "Science is difficult enough as it is without making it even harder by not knowing what you are working on." These sorts of attitudes seem disturbingly elitist and hypocritical. No amount of scientific training can elevate a person above the basic human fallibility that creeps unbidden into everyone's judgment and reason. Imagine the outcry that would ensue if psychics and parapsychologists took a similar position on the issue of blind testing. The argument that "science is already hard enough" is no different from the familiar excuse that a psychic's powers are too mystical and unfathomable to be tested in a cold, harsh experiment. Rupert Sheldrake is far from being a reliable source, and on the basis of his previous escapades, anything he says should be taken with a grain of salt the size of a Ford Explorer. He may have misrepresented the hard sciences' stand on experimenter blinding, and his report may be unbalanced or exaggerated, especially in light of the low number of parapsychology studies represented in his survey. But this might be a case of the fringe parapsychologist who cried wolf, and maybe we should actually listen to Sheldrake this time. He has proposed the following simple experiment to test whether blind techniques are needed in general scientific research: Take a typical experiment that involves a test sample and a control, for example the comparison of an inhibited enzyme with an uninhibited control in a biochemical experiment. Then carry out the experiment both under open conditions, and also under blind conditions, in which the samples are labeled A and B. In student practical classes, for instance, half the class would do the experiment blind. The other half would know which sample is which, as usual. If in such tests there are no significant experimenter effects, then for the first time there will be evidence to support the belief that blind techniques are unnecessary. On the other hand, significant differences between the results under open and blind conditions would reveal the existence of experimenter effects. Further research would then be needed to find out whether the experimenters' expectations were influencing experimental systems themselves, or merely the way that the data were recorded or selected. Sources: The Rupert Sheldrake Homepage; New Scientist; How to Think About Weird Things, Theodore Schick, Jr. and Lewis Vaughn. © Copyright 1998 ParaScope, Inc. Enigma: Paranormal Phenomena Paranormal message board: Share your views The ParaStore: Books on the Paranormal