Precognitive Texting: Sheldrake

[dalriada]

Interesting concept here from Rupert Sheldrake (apologies if someone else has already posted it) I know Sheldrake has received some criticism in the past for "desk drawer" research and this protocol all seems open and above board...

http://www.sheldrake.org/Onlineexp/portal/precogtexttest.html

I might be wrong on this, however the big gaping flaw in the approach seems to be that there is NOTHING stopping senders and recipients tipping each other off (by normal physical means) that they're about to send a text and thus getting really high "psychic" scores. OK, participants are REQUESTED not to, but does that really count as a water-tight methodology?

I see quite a few parapsychy people have participated, more than once, and it is quite touching that their generally random-chance-and-worse scores show that they have probably been totally honest in taking the test (they breed them innocent in Northampton, bless)...

but still...:-[

[Cuddles]

I might be wrong on this, however the big gaping flaw in the approach seems to be that there is NOTHING stopping senders and recipients tipping each other off (by normal physical means) that they're about to send a text and thus getting really high "psychic" scores. OK, participants are REQUESTED not to, but does that really count as a water-tight methodology?

Yes, any test that relies on trust and has no controls is pretty much useless. Of course, this is all that is really expected of Sheldrake.

[dalriada]

http://precog.mobifi.com/reports/subjects.asp?ALLROWS=A

I actually HADN'T expected that Sheldrake himself would feature so heavily as a subject in his own research (see link above) and apparently participants were not informed that their details would be made public on the internet.

I am surprised at some of the people who decided that it was a piece of research worth participating in.

[median]

Well, of course it's bound to work.....Der!

He's using predictive text

;D

Yes it really is that bad :cheesy:

[tkingdoll]

Dear all forumites,

Median has been banned.

Love,

tkingdoll

[Dr B]

I think he is working with some skeptical researchers now..........let's see how that goes......

[dark matter]

Pre cognitive texts??? I have always been interested in how to send anonymous texts ie Sending a text to someone (from your own phone) and the recepient not knowing who the sender is.

Is that possible???

[bobdezon]

There are online proxy services for sending mobile phone texts, I think orange mobile has one on its site.

[Atavis]

I might be wrong on this, however the big gaping flaw in the approach seems to be that there is NOTHING stopping senders and recipients tipping each other off (by normal physical means) that they're about to send a text and thus getting really high "psychic" scores. OK, participants are REQUESTED not to, but does that really count as a water-tight methodology?

Hello,

This is my first post to this forum. I've noticed the above and, having been a participant in the study you cite above, I'm a little curious as to where you are getting your information from. As the website you link to states:

"The system then sends you a text asking who is about to send you a message. You reply with your guess. The system then selects one of these three contacts at random and sends him/her a text message asking him/her to write you a text message, which is sent back to the system, which forwards it to you."

This is exactly the methodology followed last year when I participated in the test. I received a text asking me to intuit who was about to send me a text message and it was only after I had made my guess that one of my contacts was asked to send me a text. (And yes, before anyone askes, I had the opportunity to check this with my sister-in-law, whom I had listed as a contact.)

Since the experiment did not work in the way you relate and thus there is no reason to request people don't cheat I'm curious to know why you would make out of whole cloth - in all caps - that participants were requested not to 'tip each other off'?

Atavis

[Fiona]

I am missing something here. What is the participant supposed to be doing if the result is better than chance? If the sender does not know before the guess is made then what is the person supposed to be guessing? not telepathy clearly; just a dissociated ability to predict the future? Or is there something more? What about a guess that some 4th or 5th person texts next and that guess is correct? how is that built in ?

Secondly I do not understand the purpose of such a small number of tests? it seems that only 6 guesses are included? how can you measure the reliability and confidence levels of such a test? if it is an analysis of all the results of all participants then assuming most are not psychic how likely is it that any effect would show? How distinguish it from chance?

Statisticians...help please

[Atavis]

I am missing something here. What is the participant supposed to be doing if the result is better than chance?

I think accurate description would be precognition or precognitive telepathy.


Secondly I do not understand the purpose of such a small number of tests? it seems that only 6 guesses are included? how can you measure the reliability and confidence levels of such a test? if it is an analysis of all the results of all participants then assuming most are not psychic how likely is it that any effect would show? How distinguish it from chance?

The purpose of this test is not to study individual psychics. You, as a participant, get three contacts and six tests in total are run. At the end of the study when the total number of trials has been reached (say 600 or whatever, I'd imagine) the numbers are crunched. Chance alone suggests that participants should only be able to accurately predict who is going to contact them 33% of the time.

I can't recall if, in this study, Sheldrake has people declare in advance whether they (and/or their three nominated friends) believe in psi or not. (Which would be a slightly different - though interesting - experiment, perhaps for some point in the future.)

Ultimately, the point of this experiment is to see whether or not people (in general) can predict accurately at a rate above chance who is going to contact them. (And of course, the question is how are they doing this under these controls? Is it psi or not?)

Atavis

[Fiona]

I think accurate description would be precognition or precognitive telepathy.

Atavis

Don't see how it can be telepathy if the other end of the communication does not know at the time of the guess.

And I do not know how the numbers can be crunched. Even if you take all the results, unless a very high number of people perform better than chance it seems to me that any effect would be buried in the margin of error? Heads can come a surprisingly large number of times. What sample size do you need to reach say 95% confidence the result is not due to chance? And does he have that sample size?

[Atavis]

Even if you take all the results, unless a very high number of people perform better than chance it seems to me that any effect would be buried in the margin of error?

I think that Sheldrakes working theory is that everyone has a small degree of psi ability - whether they realise it or not. I envisage that it would be useful to retest those with the best scores, but remember this is open to the public and contacting all the people again - and having them contact each of their three contacts again....

Well, basically, I'd say that's a wholly different experiment.

What makes Sheldrakes experiments intriguing is his training in biology and his ability to think up experiments that just might draw out psi ability as an evolutionary advantage. Consider the staring experiment whereby the subjects, Sheldrake claims, can tell at a rate above chance when someone is staring at them but not so when they're not not being stared at. If it's some kind of unconscious signalling (and not psi) how do we explain this discrepancy?


Heads can come a surprisingly large number of times. What sample size do you need to reach say 95% confidence the result is not due to chance? And does he have that sample size?

You'll have to wait until the results are published as I certainly cannot answer that question. What I do know is that Sheldrake is usually very thorough in presenting all his data for scrutiny.

Atavis

[dalriada]

Hello,
his is my first post to this forum. I've noticed the above and, having been a participant in the study you cite above, I'm a little curious as to where you are getting your information from.

Hi Atavis, welcome to the skeptics, welcome to the forum. My information came from the Sheldrake website and from one of your fellow research participants. You’re quite right the website link does say

“The system then sends you a text asking who is about to send you a message. You reply with your guess. The system then selects one of these three contacts at random and sends him/her a text message asking him/her to write you a text message, which is sent back to the system, which forwards it to you."

Those four lines, smack in the middle of the screen are so stunningly obvious I’m surprised I missed them and even more surprised that other responding posters missed them too- especially I specifically asked if I was wrong in spotting a flaw in the methodology. Is it possible that this online protocol has been changed between October and your post of December 27th? You said in your Boxing Day 2007 first post that you took part in the project “last year” do you mean 2006? The particular experiment under discussion here seems only to have gone online in February 2007 with Sheldrake himself (and presumably his immediate acquaintances) taking part in the first test experiments over the next 1-2 months, were you involved this or in a different experiment? As its now the festive season possibly you may have had some confusion over the dates.



Since the experiment did not work in the way you relate and thus there is no reason to request people don't cheat I'm curious to know why you would make out of whole cloth - in all caps - that participants were requested not to 'tip each other off'?

On the basis of evidence. Messages sent by the automated service read as follows:

"This is the Precognitive Test. Please send an SMS reply which will be forwarded to < name>. Do not attempt to contact <name > directly. Thank you. "

No fabrication needed but bold italics entirely my own… >:D

I’m curious as to why, if you had been clearly informed that if was only after you had made your guess that one of your contacts was asked to send you a text, you still checked up on the timing of guesses and texts with one of your listed contacts? Possibly just a natural (and healthy) skepticism.

I’m also curious to know if you recall being informed that your participation in the experiment would be made public, with your name- and those of your contacts- being published on the website database? (The link is in my second post on this thread-go to excel database). The fellow participant whom I mentioned earlier, certainly wasn’t told and on discovering this at the start of October, they emailed Rupert Sheldrake asking that their personal details be removed from public view. Three months later, this has still not been done.

At best, this is a very discourteous way to treat a research participant, and at worst, it is downright unethical behaviour. A researcher working within the confines of UK university research governance procedures would be expected to conform to the commonly accepted standards of good practice, and while Sheldrake’s status as an independent researcher may let him escape from university bureaucracy, I would have though some degree of self-regulation would have been expected, especially given that his research methods have been thoroughly criticised in the past.

There is international agreement that research should be undertaken in accordance with generally agreed standards of good practice such as are laid down in the Helsinki Accords, these may broadly be categorised as:

1)Beneficence - 'do positive good'
2) Non-Malfeasance - 'do no harm'
3)Informed Consent
4) Confidentiality/ Anonymity

In this particular “precognitive-texting” experiment, conformance with points 1 and 2 are debatable, for example, a person may well feel that having details of their participation in an ESP experiment made available on the web might well cause them mental distress or damage their social standing, thus causing them harm) and points 3) and 4) do not appear to have been actually met. In particular, despite the declaration on the online registration form that “We can assure you that this information will not be passed on to any other organisation” those personal details are nevertheless available freely to all and sundry on the website excel database (and these details do show up on google searches).

The Sheldrake experiment portal also appears to be actively encouraging the participation of young people with a special note to group leaders and teachers encouraging them to set the experiment as a homework exercise (!) This is concerning, as in the case of minors (or others who legally cannot give informed consent) research participation consent should really be obtained from a legal guardian, however there does not appear to be any recognition of this issue on the Sheldrake website. Have I missed it? As young participant names, and those of their ‘text-buddies’ would be available online, this would appear to be occasioning risk at an unacceptable level.

Given the above points I don’t think that this piece of research has been carried out in accordance with basic standards expected of a professional researcher working within UK academia. In particular, the use of human subjects without fully informed consent should make publication of the data in any reputable journal very difficult indeed.

The work being carried out with Chris French at Goldsmiths should be a lot more credible.

http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/apru/telephone-telepathy.php

[dalriada]

I
You'll have to wait until the results are published as I certainly cannot answer that question. What I do know is that Sheldrake is usually very thorough in presenting all his data for scrutiny.
Atavis


Doubtless you will also the aware of the extent to which this has been criticised (as per the folllowing references) Far from an exhaustive list, and I know its not formatted correctly, but goddamnit its late... and we're talking about a man who believes in psychic parrots here...


Blackmore, S. (1999) If the truth is out there, we've not found it yet. Times Higher Education Supplement, 27 August, 18.

Carrol,R. (2007) http://skepdic.com/refuge/replytosheldrake.html

Maddox, J. (1981), ‘A book for burning?’, Nature, Editorial for 24th September.

de Pracontal (2001) L'Imposture Scientifique en Dix Lecons, "Pseudoscience in Ten Lessons Editions La Decouverte, Paris, 2001. ISBN 2-7071-3293-4.
(see http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_27/ai_108114819 )

Savva, L. (2006) http://www.everythingispointless.com/2006/12/sheldrake-vs-savva.html

Schmidt,s (2006) http://www.uniklinik-freiburg.de/iuk/live/forschung/publikationen/Comment_Shreldrake_staring_JCS_2005.pdf

Shermer, M. (2005) "Rupert's Resonance". Scientific American 19.http://sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=00022BBF-C300-1353-830083414B7FFE9F

Watt, C. & Wiseman, R. (1999). Rupert Sheldrake and the Objectivity of Science, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 13, 538. (Letter to Editor)

Wiseman, R., Smith, M. & Milton, J. (1998 ) Can animals detect when their owners are returning home? An experimental test of the 'psychic pet' phenomenon. British Journal of Psychology 89, 453-462 http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk/wiseman/papers/psychicdogreply.pdf

Wiseman, R. & Watt, C. (1999). Rupert Sheldrake and the Objectivity of Science, Skeptical Inquirer, 23 (5), 61-62. (Follow-Up

Wiseman, R., Smith, M. & Milton, J. (2000) The 'psychic pet' phenomenon: A reply to Rupert Sheldrake. JSPR 64, 46-49.

[tkingdoll]

What I do know is that Sheldrake is usually very thorough in presenting all his data for scrutiny.



LOL. Is he as thorough when interpreting his data for the purposes of selling books?

[Atavis]

Hi Atavis, welcome to the skeptics, welcome to the forum.

Cheers and Seasons Greetings!


You said in your Boxing Day 2007 first post that you took part in the project “last year” do you mean 2006? The particular experiment under discussion here seems only to have gone online in February 2007 with Sheldrake himself (and presumably his immediate acquaintances) taking part in the first test experiments over the next 1-2 months, were you involved this or in a different experiment? As its now the festive season possibly you may have had some confusion over the dates.

I've had a look at my emails to check the dates. I recieved an email from Sheldrake Online about the experiment on 10th Jan 2007 and applied on the 16th. I was accepted as a participant on the 17th and was emailing back and forward with my contacts for a day or two after that to explain to them what was going to happen. So, my mistake - not last year - still 2007.

Either way I know for certain that my sister-in-law definately never got her text to text me until after I had been sent a text asking me to text back my guess as to who was about to text me......

(Yes, I think I've explained that right!)

Phew...!!! ::)


On the basis of evidence. Messages sent by the automated service read as follows:

"This is the Precognitive Test. Please send an SMS reply which will be forwarded to < name>. Do not attempt to contact <name > directly. Thank you. "

No fabrication needed but bold italics entirely my own… >:D

I’m curious as to why, if you had been clearly informed that if was only after you had made your guess that one of your contacts was asked to send you a text, you still checked up on the timing of guesses and texts with one of your listed contacts? Possibly just a natural (and healthy) skepticism.

Well, of course... and I see very clearly now how the above text from Sheldrakes automated system isn't very clear!!!!

Yes, I remember now receiving this text myself! What it was actually telling participants to do was to text back the system with your prediction rather than your contact. In other words I was to text back the system with one name from, say, Tom, Dick or Harry and not to text, say, Tom personally...

Once the system had my prediction it would then send out a text to one of my three contacts at random, who would text me, etc., etc., and collect the data as to how good or poor my hit rate was.

I see the mix-up now and hope I didn't seem too harsh.


I’m also curious to know if you recall being informed that your participation in the experiment would be made public, with your name- and those of your contacts- being published on the website database? (The link is in my second post on this thread-go to excel database).


Hmmm... On the page you've lined to http://precog.mobifi.com/reports/subjects.asp?ALLROWS=A you will see a link at the top left to "Test Results". When I went to that page, I had to type in my group name and stuff in order to access our results and don't recall my name ever appearing on that front page....


The fellow participant whom I mentioned earlier, certainly wasn’t told and on discovering this at the start of October, they emailed Rupert Sheldrake asking that their personal details be removed from public view. Three months later, this has still not been done.

If your friends name is there then I don't really know how or why, as I believed that front page was for Sheldrakes own group or something and couldn't access my own results without going through to the next page and specifically looking for our group results.


At best, this is a very discourteous way to treat a research participant, and at worst, it is downright unethical behaviour. A researcher working within the confines of UK university research governance procedures would be expected to conform to the commonly accepted standards of good practice, and while Sheldrake’s status as an independent researcher may let him escape from university bureaucracy, I would have though some degree of self-regulation would have been expected, especially given that his research methods have been thoroughly criticised in the past.

The email I received from Sheldrake Online on the 17th of January included the following statement:

When you register, and when your subjects register, you need to use a group name which should be five letters long. It could, for example, be the first five letters of your name.

This group name serves as a password and enables you to access the results of the groups you have recruited online at:
http://telemail.mobifi.com/reports/mainresults.asp?ROWSFROM=1&ROWSTO=20

And that is exactly how I recall things working....

I think we might have to ask what counts as personal details here as one of the participants listed on the first link in this message lists their name as "Rich yourmama" with the group name "TestU"...


despite the declaration on the online registration form that “We can assure you that this information will not be passed on to any other organisation” those personal details are nevertheless available freely to all and sundry on the website excel database (and these details do show up on google searches)."

I have to agree with the fact that (some) surnames being included on this page is questionable. But does that count as personal details where academic red tape is concerned? I'm not sure... since there are bound to be a lot of people out there in the world with the names listed....

What I can't see is the actual email (or physical!) addresses of these people so I'm not sure this info really counts as personal details.


The Sheldrake experiment portal also appears to be actively encouraging the participation of young people with a special note to group leaders and teachers encouraging them to set the experiment as a homework exercise (!) This is concerning, as in the case of minors (or others who legally cannot give informed consent) research participation consent should really be obtained from a legal guardian, however there does not appear to be any recognition of this issue on the Sheldrake website. Have I missed it? As young participant names, and those of their ‘text-buddies’ would be available online, this would appear to be occasioning risk at an unacceptable level.

Again, this depends on a number of factors such as how much details are being given away. As for doing experiments in schools - they occur all the time in biology, chemistry, physics and psychology at GSCE level and below. Things like parental agreement are only probably needed when there is actual risk or something like that.

I don't see any personally identifiable information (in a definitive sense) being given away here.


Given the above points I don’t think that this piece of research has been carried out in accordance with basic standards expected of a professional researcher working within UK academia. In particular, the use of human subjects without fully informed consent should make publication of the data in any reputable journal very difficult indeed.


The work being carried out with Chris French at Goldsmiths should be a lot more credible.

http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/apru/telephone-telepathy.php

This work is being carried out by Chris French with Rupert Sheldrake and is into actual telephone telepathy and not text precognition - but, yes, it will be very interesting to see the results.

As to your criticisms of Sheldrakes standards... I'm not sure they'd really hold up before an academic board of inquiry.

Atavis.

[dalriada]

Hi Atavis, I'm still not convinced by Sheldrake..


I have to agree with the fact that (some) surnames being included on this page is questionable. But does that count as personal details where academic red tape is concerned? I'm not sure... since there are bound to be a lot of people out there in the world with the names listed....What I can't see is the actual email (or physical!) addresses of these people so I'm not sure this info really counts as personal details.

As you found yourself, Full names, ages, lists of contacts and (if you browse around on the site a bit more) actual text messages sent- all of this is available on the website, and this counts as personal details being made public. All of this goes against standards of confidentiality and anonymity expected in ethical research and all of this is in direct contradiction to Sheldrake’s assurance in the participant registration form that: “We can assure you that this information will not be passed on to any other organisation”. There’s two ways of looking at this and neither is pretty, either it’s incompetence or active deception.


Quote:
The Sheldrake experiment portal also appears to be actively encouraging the participation of young people with a special note to group leaders and teachers encouraging them to set the experiment as a homework exercise (!) This is concerning, as in the case of minors (or others who legally cannot give informed consent) research participation consent should really be obtained from a legal guardian, however there does not appear to be any recognition of this issue on the Sheldrake website. Have I missed it? As young participant names, and those of their ‘text-buddies’ would be available online, this would appear to be occasioning risk at an unacceptable level. End Quote:

..Again, this depends on a number of factors such as how much details are being given away. As for doing experiments in schools - they occur all the time in biology, chemistry, physics and psychology at GSCE level and below. Things like parental agreement are only probably needed when there is actual risk or something like that..


No. There is no ‘depends’and there is no ‘probably’. There is a definite distinction here between science experiments which young people may carry out in school as part of their education in physics, geography or whatever and experiments in which adults use them as actual subjects. There are widely international standards on research with human subjects (Helsinki Accords), research within UK Universities must be carried out in accordance with these and every University has its own ethics procedures to ensure that this is the case. It is a serious business.

In the case of minors who are not legally able to give informed consent, the consent of a parent is needed for the young person to participate (there are also issues around vulnerable adults). The issues around research with children are extremely sensitive and the development of the complex ethical and legal frameworks surrounding this go back to the Nuremberg trials. It is not just a case of the researcher deciding that the research has no risk and going ahead. For any person carrying out human research under the auspices of a UK university the protocol must be presented to an ethics panel for consideration and if you take a quick browse round web for the policies of UK University ethics panels you’ll see that they take consent processes for minors very seriously indeed and research with school-kids requires both ethical panel approval and parental/guardian consent.

Researchers who work unaccompanied with children also need to have police checks and whereas this does not apply to the ‘precognitive texting experiment’ I would argue that any research which might potentially involve a middle aged man soliciting the phone numbers of minors is unwise and unnecessary but if it should be allowed to proceed it should also require such checks.


As to your criticisms of Sheldrakes standards... I'm not sure they'd really hold up before an academic board of inquiry.

I sit on a university ethics committee and I’m absolutely sure that they would give cause for concern. 1) breaches of confidentiality and anonymity without consent and despite assurances to the contrary 2) encouraging research with minors without consent of parents or guardians 3) failure to remove a participant’s details from the website when requested… and then there’s point 4) the query about the wisdom of soliciting young people’s phone-numbers….

Sheldrake’s research standards (as evidenced in this study) are well below those that would be generally expected in academia. It is not the first time this has been said, it probably won’t be the last…

If he wrote books about magical parrots (clearly labelled FICTION!) I'd probably buy them though...

;)

[Atavis]

As you found yourself, Full names, ages, lists of contacts and (if you browse around on the site a bit more) actual text messages sent- all of this is available on the website, and this counts as personal details being made public.

I think people should have been given the advice (if indeed they weren't) not to use their real surname - as the individual "Rich yourmama" did.

In my opinion, having a surname and age certainly does narrow things down and possibly make someone identifiable - but only if someone who know that name and age happens to be looking (which is definately not impossible.)

But while that might count "as personal details being made public" to you, I have to wonder if that much detail actually is considered wrong by Cambridge (where Sheldrake does his research from and is funded by) and the regulatory standards they adhere to.

If it's not, then perhaps it should be and your friend should write a letter of complaint to Cambridge.

What has to be remembered here is that Sheldrake himself is probably not the computer programer or website designer and he (along with everyone else in his team) should have every right to be wrong or to make mistakes without being hung for it.

Ultimately though, it really depends on what the rules are and pointing out what should probably be fixed.


All of this goes against standards of confidentiality and anonymity expected in ethical research and all of this is in direct contradiction to Sheldrake’s assurance in the participant registration form that: “We can assure you that this information will not be passed on to any other organisation”. There’s two ways of looking at this and neither is pretty, either it’s incompetence or active deception.

Come on now! Seriously, why would Sheldrake's team sit around and think 'let's tell people we won't give out any information and then share surnames, ages and contacts so that someone looking can say "oh, I recognise that name, and s/he's about the right age and those three contacts are her friends!"'

Even 'incompetence' is too strong a word here in my opinion.


In the case of minors who are not legally able to give informed consent, the consent of a parent is needed for the young person to participate (there are also issues around vulnerable adults). The issues around research with children are extremely sensitive and the development of the complex ethical and legal frameworks surrounding this go back to the Nuremberg trials. It is not just a case of the researcher deciding that the research has no risk and going ahead.

Firstly, I could be wrong, but I don't see any children's names, surnames, ages or friends names on the website. Second, if you think that Sheldrake shouldn't be working with children in this way and/or may not have obtained ethical approval from Trinity College, etc., etc., then going on about it on forum isn't going to do anything to change that fact.

You'll have to right to Cambridge explaining exactly the nature of your accusations.


For any person carrying out human research under the auspices of a UK university the protocol must be presented to an ethics panel for consideration and if you take a quick browse round web for the policies of UK University ethics panels you’ll see that they take consent processes for minors very seriously indeed and research with school-kids requires both ethical panel approval and parental/guardian consent.

Again, see above. But, look, if he's just saying something like "Why not see if teacher really has got eyes in the back of her head?" or "See if you can guess if your friends are contacting you?" and not collecting data then there's nothing any more wrong with that than me saying to a youngster why not go see if you and a friend can guess the roll of a dice or whatever.

If you think he is collecting data from and about children and hasn't saught the correct ethical approval and/or done something else wrong then write to Cambridge about it.


Researchers who work unaccompanied with children also need to have police checks and whereas this does not apply to the ‘precognitive texting experiment’ I would argue that any research which might potentially involve a middle aged man soliciting the phone numbers of minors is unwise and unnecessary but if it should be allowed to proceed it should also require such checks.

You are raising very serious issues here. If you believe you have all your facts right and that something should be stopped then write to Cambridge.

Atavis

[Cuddles]

In my opinion, having a surname and age certainly does narrow things down and possibly make someone identifiable - but only if someone who know that name and age happens to be looking (which is definately not impossible.)

But while that might count "as personal details being made public" to you, I have to wonder if that much detail actually is considered wrong by Cambridge (where Sheldrake does his research from and is funded by) and the regulatory standards they adhere to.

What Cambridge thinks is irrelevant. If any personal details, even just a name, are available on his website he is breaching the data protection act, especially if failing to remove it when actively requested. Dalriada, if what you say is true, I suggest contacting at least his head of department or something similar, and possibly even the police.

[Atavis]

What Cambridge thinks is irrelevant.

What the ethics board had to say when Sheldrake designed his experiment is very pertinent here.

Again, talking about this on a forum is not going to do anything. If Dalriada's friend believes they have a genuine complaint they should contact Trinity College.

Atavis

[Cuddles]

What the ethics board had to say when Sheldrake designed his experiment is very pertinent here.

No it isn't. As I said, Data Protection is a legal issue, not an ethical one. If he is breaching it, he is criminaly liable. I suppose it is slightly relevant what the ethics board said, since if they knew about it and approved it anyway, they are also liable.

[dalriada]

What the ethics board had to say when Sheldrake designed his experiment is very pertinent here.

Again, talking about this on a forum is not going to do anything. If Dalriada's friend believes they have a genuine complaint they should contact Trinity College.

Atavis


Just a quick post here, will probably come back to this, but what Cambridge thinks probably IS irrelevant if Sheldrake does not actually work there. He was (note past tense) a fellow of Clare College but I don't think he's officially employed by Cambridge now. He gets funding from the Perrott-Warwick fund which is a somewhat embarassing legacy from two dead spiritualists administered by Trinity College, but that's not the same as actually being a university employee. For example Profs Deborah Delanoy and Richard Wiseman also have held Perrott-Warwick grants but remain firmly in their chairs at Northampton and Hertfordshordshire respectively. Sheldrake does not appear on the Trinity College email list, nor is his experiment portal hosted by Cambridge. Sheldrake@Sheldrake.org appears to be entirely out on his own on this.

Unless you can show us differently Atavis?? ::)

PS Cuddles is entirely right on the data protection Act by the way although I don't think a researcher has ever been charged with breaking it- I just try to make sure I'm not the first!

[tkingdoll]

Again, see above. But, look, if he's just saying something like "Why not see if teacher really has got eyes in the back of her head?" or "See if you can guess if your friends are contacting you?" and not collecting data then there's nothing any more wrong with that than me saying to a youngster why not go see if you and a friend can guess the roll of a dice or whatever.Atavis, you seem to be misunderstanding the term 'collecting data'. If a scientist asks some kids if they ever feel their teacher has eyes in the back of her head, that is collecting data. You don't need to have any personal information about the person to qualify as having collected data from them. And the reason you need to get past an ethics committee to talk to kids is because simply asking them questions may have a psychological impact.

For example, you might ask what you think is an innocent question, let's use your example of the teacher with eyes in the back of her head. You ask ten kids that question, but you don't know that one of them has been recently severely reprimanded by the teacher for something he didn't actually do. You will be bringing back upsetting memories for that child and an ethics committee takes a very grim view of that. Another child you ask is actually currently having treatment for a behavioural problem. Your questions start him off on an obsessive paranoid episode about the paranormal.

And so on. Ethics committees exist for exactly this reason, and psychologists have to be very careful when asking anyone, not just children, to recount their experiences. Candidates for psychology experiments are vetted for mental illness, for example.

Collecting data in the context of an experiment does not mean 'names and addresses', it means the data you will be analysing. So your statement is wrong. There is a lot wrong with just asking kids questions.

As for Sheldrake's honesty, I'm going to start another thread as I have some very interesting new information.