[ RUPERT SHELDRAKE ONLINE ] [ RUPERT SHELDRAKE ONLINE ]
 
  Articles
  Audio Online
  Biography
  Blogs & comments
  Books & Tapes
  Controversies
   
  Email Rupert
  eNewsletter
  Experiments
  FAQ
  Glossary
   
  Interviews
  Nkisi Project
  Schedule
  Scientific Papers
  Video Online
  Web Links
   
 
 
 
 
 
   
 

Home :

Home

Abstract - Scientific Research

JOURNAL VOL, PAGES (DATE)

Experimenter Effects in Scientific Research: How Widely are they Neglected?

by Rupert Sheldrake


Abstract:
A survey of recent papers published in a range of scientific journals showed that the used of blind methodologies is very rare in the so-called hard sciences. In the physical sciences, no blind experiments were found among the 237 papers reviewed. In the biological sciences, there were 7 blind experiments out of 914 (0.8%). There was a higher proportion in the medical sciences, 6 out of 102 (5.9%), and in psychology and animal behaviour, 7 out of 143 (4.9%). By far the highest proportion (85.2%) was in parapsychology. A survey of science departments in 11 British Universities showed that blind methodologies are neither used nor taught in 22 out of 23 physics and chemistry departments, or in 14 out of 16 biochemistry and molecular biology departments. By contrast, blind methodologies are sometimes practised and taught in 4 out of 8 genetics departments, and in 6 out of 8 physiology departments. I propose a simple procedure that could be used to detect possible experimenter effects in any branch of science, by comparing the results of a given experiment conducted both under open and blind conditions.

 

For full text in html or pdf formats:          html           pdf


 
Recommended browser: this site is best viewed on Explorer 5 or better using screen resolution 800x600
© 2005 Rupert Sheldrake. All rights reserved.
Privacy Statement
return to top