Pentagon’s Parapsychology

Re “A Psychic Power Outage,” editorial, Dec. 1:

As a researcher who has worked on the government parapsychology project for over a decade, I can assure you that several of the statements in your editorial are misleading.

It is generally not the case that information has to be 100% accurate for it to be of practical utility. For instance, the example you give of the alleged statements that [Libyan dictator Moammar] Kadafi was at a site with “sand, water and a mosque” might be of considerable utility when combined with other intelligence.

The unreferenced figure of 15% which you quote probably refers to the percentage of laboratory trials where the resulting description of a remote place was of a quality similar to that produced by a person making a sketch at the site. Of course the remaining 85% of trials are of lower quality, but no claim that the “crystal balls” are 100% accurate was made.

I have no way to assess whether the program was worth the bucks in terms of intelligence, though the Legion of Merit award given to one of the participants for his descriptions suggests that some people felt that it was. But considering the weight of the scientific evidence from many laboratories for the “remote viewing” method used in the program you criticize, I think that the scornful and dismissive tone of your editorial reflects more on your research of the topic than on the work itself.

JAMES SPOTTISWOODE

Beverly Hills

*

* Your editorial was right on track in condemning the U.S. government’s waste of $20 million on parapsychological research.

But you blew it by saying that parapsychology “is of course an area for legitimate study.” Of course individuals can “legitimately” study anything they want. But to imply that it is a legitimate topic for government-sponsored research--especially in the light of the results you report--is a disservice to the public.

DONALD E. BROWN

Santa Barbara