1997, p. 137).
In more recent times, random number generator (RnG) tests have replaced dice tossing tests. Random number generators incorporate an element that either emits particles from random radioactive decay or produces random electronic noise. Either of these will produce in the RnG circuitry random surges (spikes) in the signal. These spikes interrupt a special digital clock, which is emitting a stream of alternating ones and zeros (1010101010101 . . .), with the alternations occurring millions of times per second. The RnG circuitry is designed so that the apparatus records the state of the clock (one or zero) at the times the spikes interrupt the stream of alternating ones and zeros. If the spikes are coming randomly at a rate of ten thousand times per second, the RnG will therefore record a random sequence of ten thousand ones and zeros per second (for example, 10001101000111101010. . . .). The modern RnG machines are tamper-resistant and record data automatically. The percentage of ones from an RnG generating a random series of ones and zeros should, over a sufficiently large number of trials, be 50 percent. But when subjects are asked to will more ones than zeros, the percentage climbs to a level beyond what could be expected by chance.
Modern RnG studies began with the work of Helmut Schmidt, a physicist at Boeing Laboratories. Robert Jahn, dean of Princeton’s School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, initiated his own program of RnG studies, and these studies have continued up to the present at PEAR, Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research. In 1987 dean Radin and Roger nelson, a Princeton psychologist, did a meta-analysis of all RnG experiments up to that time. Their report appeared in the prestigious mainstream science journal Foundations of Physics. Examining data from 597 experimental studies, carried out from 1959 to 1987, they found that the overall hit rate was about 51 percent. This might not sound like much, but the odds against this occurring by chance in the number of reported trials was over a trillion to one (Radin and nelson, 1989, p. 140). Was selective reporting responsible for the results? To eliminate the evidence for a psychical effect would require 54,000 unpublished reports, or about ninety unpublished reports with negative results for each published report (Radin and nelson 1989, p. 142). Another set of 1,262 experimental studies from PEAR, carried out from 1989 to 1996, was analyzed by York dobyns, a mathematician at Princeton University. His analysis confirmed the previous studies (dobyns 1996).
Analyzing the whole RnG research program, nelson and Radin (1996) reported: “The primary overall findings, considering all available data, are that (a) nearly 40 years of experiments continue to show small but statistically unequivocal mental interaction effects, (b) the effect has been independently replicated by researchers at dozens of universities around the world, and (c) the effect has been replicated using a new experimental design involving skeptical third-party observers . . . A wide variety of theoretical models have been proposed for the interaction effect, ranging from observer effects in quantum mechanics to precognition.”
Evaluations of modern laboratory Based Psychical Research
Several studies commissioned by various agencies of the United States government have given support to psychical research. A study by the congressional Research Service, published in 1981, said, “Recent experi-ments in remote viewing and other studies in parapsychology suggest that there exists an ‘interconnectedness’ of the human mind with other minds and with matter” (U.S. Library of congress 1983; in Radin
1997, p. 4). A few years later, the Army Research Institute commissioned a report on the status of parapsychology. Published in 1985, the report stated that the data reviewed in the report were “genuine scientific anomalies for which no one has an adequate explanation or set of explanations” (Palmer 1985; in Radin 1997, p. 4).
The U.S. Army in 1987 asked the national Research council to review the state of parapsychological research. The nRc committee advised the Army to monitor parapsychological research in the United States and in the Soviet Union and to spend money in support of parapsychological research. The committee also admitted that for some categories of parapsychological experiments it could not provide alternatives to explanations involving paranormal influence. One of the committee members was the skeptical dr. Ray Hyman, a psychology professor at the University of Oregon, who later said: “Parapsychologists should be rejoicing. This was the first government committee that said their work should be taken seriously” (Chronicle of Higher education, September 14, 1988, p. A5; in Radin 1997, p. 4).
Macro Psychokinetic effects
Although much of the recent work in parapsychology has focused on micro-psychokinetic effects and remote viewing, some experimental work in macro-psychokinetic phenomena, like that conducted in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, has continued. Richard Broughton has discussed some of these cases in his book Parapsychology: the Controversial Science (1991), from which I will take two examples, one from Russia and the other from china. Both of these cases involve experiments conducted and reported by professional scientists. I shall also include here a particularly well documented poltergeist case, involving movements of objects by a variety of witnesses.
In Moscow, in June 1968, Soviet bloc scientists such as dr. Zdenek Rejdak from czechoslovakia, showed films of experiments with the Russian medium nina Kulagina, giving Western scientists their first look at her abilities. Broughton (1991, p. 144) stated: “One film excerpt shows her moving a cigar tube standing upright on a playing card inside a closed, clear plastic case . . . Other film excerpts show Kulagina selectively moving one or two matchsticks among several scattered on a table as well as moving several objects simultaneously in different directions. Soviet investigations of Kulagina were extensive. Besides studies by Soviet scientists openly interested in psychic phenomena, Kulagina was also investigated by committees and individuals from impartial scientific and medical institutes. The investigations appear to be quite competent regarding the elimination of fraud. Typically Kulagina was searched for magnets, strings, and other paraphernalia that might be used to simulate PK. for one series of filmed investigations she was examined by a physician and X-rayed for hidden magnets or traces of shrapnel from a war wound that could possibly act as a magnet. Often she was required to move nonmagnetic objects in sealed containers to eliminate magnetism or concealed threads as explanations.”
In October of 1970, Kulagina was tested in St. Petersburg, Russia, by Gaither Pratt, who at the time was with the division of Parapsychology at the University of virginia at charlottesville in the United States. He was accompanied by an associate, champe Ransom. Also present were Kulagina’s husband, a marine engineer, and two scientists, Genady Sergeyev, a physiologist who had been studying Kulagina, and Konstantin Ivanenko, a mathematician (Broughton 1991, p. 141). The meeting took place in a hotel room. Pratt and Ransom had with them some objects that could be used for tests, including a compass and a box of matches. Sergeyev placed them on a table in front of Kulagina, and then asked the group to step away from the table for a few minutes while Kulagina got herself into the proper mood. from a short distance, Pratt watched as Kulagina stretched her hands out over the objects. The matchbox moved towards her several inches. She put it back to its original position in the center of the table, and repeated the performance. The matchbox again moved toward her. She then declared herself ready to begin (Broughton1991, p. 142).