The Psi-Seeding of Academe

Parapsychology in the UK is in excellent health. So says Deborah Delanoy, president of the Society for Psychical Research, in the new edition of its Paranormal Review.

Is it really true? My perception has been that parapsychology as a discipline is somewhat moribund, both in Britain and the US. There's still experimental stuff going on, but there is little of the excitement generated by the ganzfeld debates of the 1980s, for instance, when there was a sense in some quarters that parapsychology might be on the brink of acceptance by the scientific community. Not much is heard from Edinburgh's Koestler Institute, especially since the death of its head Bob Morris four years ago. Rupert Sheldrake is very active and has been getting interesting results, as well as a fair amount of media coverage, for instance with his experiments on psi in animals and the sense of being stared at. But one doesn't get the sense of parapsychology as a discipline striding ahead.

However Delanoy is looking at the long-term. She points out that thanks to the Koestler Institute, parapsychology is being taught at more UK universities than ever before, both to undergraduates and graduates doing research.  Morris supervised more than 30 PhD students, many of whom are training their own students at other universities, who in turn are becoming academics and training other PhD students. There are now 45 PhDs, Delanoy says, and no fewer than eleven UK universities where one can either take classes or pursue a research degree in parapsychology - they include Northampton, Liverpool Hope, Goldsmiths (London) and Coventry. This is having a snowball effect, she says. As more people get involved in psi research it will start to seem normal, and teachers and students in other disciplines will not be fazed by it. 

Delanoy compares the situation favourably with the US, which led the way from the 1930s but has since become increasingly focused upon privately funded research, which is less secure than universities. (I don't know how much documented linkage there is, but it's hard to think that CSICOP has not had a lot to do with that.) Delanoy's point is that a solid university base is a much more effective means of furthering the subject, a means to train the next generation of researchers and make them financially secure. That in turn enables longer-term projects to be carried out, and influences the general public's perception of the field.

I completely agree that all this is a major step forward. But I have some concerns.

A lot depends on parapsychology maintaining strict professionalism and not setting itself up as a target. That means pursuing sceptic-proof methodologies and avoiding the kind of scandals that can undo much good work.  It's worth remembering Ray Hyman's advice to fellow-sceptics in the context of the Stargate remote viewing. The results may be impressive, and he can't see anything wrong with them yet. But wait awhile and they will be discredited for one reason or another, as has always happened in the past.  It would only take one researcher, however lowly, to be exposed massaging his or her results, or as having been tricked by subjects planted by a magician, perhaps as a scam financed by a newspaper, for this brave new wave of parapsychologists to be discredited for the next ten years. And it's safe to assume there will be plenty of efforts in that direction.

In fact I think the Koestler people understood all this very well. I'm not aware of them suffering any serious controversy: an attempt to do a 'Project Alpha' was nipped in the bud before it could do any harm, which was reassuring. But if the Koestler activity is multiplied across the country by a factor of ten or more, then so is the chance of a mishap or of standards slipping. I'd be curious to know whether these new parapsychology units have any system in place to review each other's experimental activity and generally keep an eye on each other, to minimise the chance of negative publicity and scandal.

The real test will come when research teams have something worthwhile to report. We may not have long to wait, to judge by talk of significant remote viewing results in the University of Northampton (see my Jan 28 post). By definition, success in this field automatically leads to media interest. That is followed by barracking from high-profile scientists and sceptics, as sure as night follows day. The greater the success, the bigger the threat is perceived to be, and the more vicious the campaigning to stop it will become. It has taken more than two decades for the psi-seeding of academe in the UK to take place, but a sceptical campaign to discourage universities from 'harbouring pseudo-science' could quickly reverse that. Scientists see creationism as the main threat right now, but that's only because the movement to teach intelligent design in schools has had a much higher profile. Parapsychology could soon be in the firing line.

If this sounds a bit gloomy it's because, as a long-time student of parapsychology, I know how easy it is for sceptics to manipulate public perceptions. My point is that something rather more is demanded of parapsychologists than in any other discipline one can think of. They don't just need to be passionate about their subject; to be taken seriously, and to face down the opposition, they need also to be diplomats, publicists and public relations experts, writers, controversialists, street-fighters even. Many scientists have at some time or other to fight for funding and get involved in politicking, but this is political activity on a quite different level.

I'm not at all saying that British parapsychologists can't succeed in getting their subject accepted and achieving that all-important breakthrough. But I think that the process that Delanoy quite rightly welcomes is just a first step.

Comments

[Leo MacDonald]

Interesinteresting article!!! I found this on materialist Dr. Steven Novella and his attack on Dr. Michael Engor a neurosurgeon and Dr. Deepak Chopra saying that every materialist about the mind and brain every prediction has been validated. Check it out here
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=165

[John]

Self congratulatory junk, Leo. There are neuroscientists who absolutely do not subscribe to these views, and they still dodge the fundamental question of consciousness itself.

[Kevin]

As difficult and frustrating as it may be, I would urge you to remain confident about the continuance of psi research not only in the UK but anywhere curiosity is pursuable. Since psi-related experiences will not disappear and remain resistant to the explanations of scientific materialism, the stimulus to spur investigation will remain. A steady, measured and resolute determination coupled with careful and forthright research procedures will be able to withstand the onslaught of scepticism. If protocols are rigorously maintained, claims of "pseudo-science" will be unavailing. More importantly, the realization will eventually be made that the scientific method itself will require modification if it is to be usefully employed in the search for answers in the realm of consciousness-related study. Empiric reductionism cannot be effective in researching something irreducible, regardless of its efficacy with materiality. The indications of quantum physics and the persistence of human experience are inescapable, burying fossilised concepts in a continuing stratum of further discoveries. But fossilised minds will not be covered quietly, as researchers like Dr. Sheldrake can attest. Still, I am confident that knowledge will advance,even if only by that aphoristic "one funeral at a time".