Letters To The Editor

Clinical Parapsychology Thrives Under Mind-Body Research Guise

James Alcock's declaration of the demise of parapsychology in his May/June 2000 SI article on CSICOP's history ("Science vs. Pseudoscience ...") seems to be grossly premature. He bemoans the "withering" of parapsychology; he even seems genuinely concerned that the ranks of "bright, creative, and respectable scholars" of parapsychology have been declining. He claims that "respectable" parapsychologists and the skeptics of CSICOP share a common commitment to the scientific method.

One can only scratch one's head over why Professor Alcock would admire so-called "scientific" parapsychologists who for decades have refused to accept that their "science" is a chimera and who consistently contort their own and others' findings in order to keep open a window of "hope" for evidence of a psychic dimension.

I, for one, share no such admiration for these mischief makers. Indeed, has Professor Alcock not noticed that parapsychology is now achieving perhaps its greatest level of success ever, not in the "formal" parapsychology labs, but rather in alternative medicine under the guise of clinical mind-body "research"?

The most glaring example of this unparalleled success is the $2 million in research and grant monies given last year by NIH's National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) to para-psychiatrist Elisabeth Targ for two multiyear research studies: one on "distant healing" for AIDS patients and the other for "distant healing" for cancer tumors. Targ, the daughter of "remote viewing's" Russell Targ, has done two prior studies showing strong positive results for "distant healing." When Targ completes her two NCCAM studies--with their no doubt "positive" results--those studies will stand as the gold standard for "distant healing" and "intercessory prayer" research, in other words as proof of the validity of medical psychokinesis.

Her official grant proposal to NCCAM contains numerous shabby citations from the parapsychological literature. These citations were accepted as proper science by the NIH grant reviewers. Therefore, as far as United States government health science is concerned, the parapsychological venture is alive, well, and extraordinarily credible. Indeed NCCAM has at least three parapsychological supporters on its Scientific Advisory Board, including Marilyn Schlitz, the Research Director of the parapsychologically-oriented Institute for Noetic Sciences. Schlitz was a collaborator with Russell Targ on the original "remote viewing" research. Schlitz also has a NCCAM research grant to study direct "brain-to-brain" communication. Her co-researcher, Leanna Standish, is the Director of Research of Bastyr University, a naturopathic "university" that is a NCCAM research center.

CSICOP's response to this serious entry of parapsychology into medicine has been inadequate, to say the least. While SKEPTICAL INQUIRER has had several good articles about other aspects of alternative medicine, until Martin Gardner's March/April 2001 column on Elisabeth Targ, the parapsychological research breakthrough in alternative medicine had gone completely unnoticed by CSICOP and SI.

If ever there were "claims of the paranormal" that needed to be investigated, surely paranormal health research ought to be at the top of the list. If we wait until paranormal healing is covered by Medicare, Medicaid, and private health insurance, it will be too late. CSICOP should be assigning its top investigators right now to blow the lid off this debacle at the National Institutes of Health.

Then, perhaps, it will be time to celebrate.

E. Patrick Curry

Consumer Health Advocate

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Value of Negative Results

Douglas M. Stokes ("The Shrinking File Drawer," May/June 2001) has convinced me that the statistical meta-analysis used in parapsychological research is flawed, as he claims. However, I go beyond his conclusion that "the foundation [of statistical meta-analysis] may be less solid than it appears." It is impossible to decide just what statistics should be used to estimate the size of the file drawer.

For example, in the physical sciences a negative result can be just as worthy of publication as a positive one. Consider the experiment of Michelson and Morley, who set out to measure the velocity of Earth with respect to Newton's absolute space and got the most famous null result in the history of science. Should we really assume that all parapsychologists are so self--deluding as to publish only positive results? In the physical sciences statistical meta-analysis is unnecessary.

Several decades after Einstein published his work on relativity, a collection of papers was published called 100 Authors Against Einstein which sought to show by sheer number of contrary opinions that Einstein must be wrong. A reviewer said, "One paper, if it were correct, would suffice to refute Einstein."

In my opinion, statistical meta-analysis should be cast out of the toolbox of science.