EXPLORATIONS Why Are Scientists Afraid of Daryl Bem? “When one village dog barks, the rest entists have become hostile toward what take up the howl.” they consider Republicans’ contempt for —Zen saying the basics of modern biology, anthropol- ogy, evolutionary theory, geology, cos- “If I want to stop a research pro- mology, stem cell research, and climate gram I can always do it by getting a 4 few experts to sit in on the subject, change. because they know right away that it The Pew findings imply that scientists was a fool thing to try in the first are liberal, progressive thinkers who are place.”1 tolerant of new ideas. Unfortunately, this —Charles F. Kettering, Head of re- is not always the case. search, General Motors, 1920-1947 BEM’S BOMBSHELL Prejudice: from the Latin, “judg- Flagrant prejudice among scientists 2 ment in advance” erupted in early 2011, when Cornell Uni- versity psychology professor Daryl Bem rejudice is never far from the expe- Daryl J. Bem, PhD had a paper accepted for publication in rience of most readers of Explore, the elite Journal of Personality and Social Psy- concerned as we are with concepts chology. Bem’s paper is titled “Feeling the Pof healing that are frequently out- portant issues of our time. I hope the fol- Future: Experimental Evidence for Anom- side the mainstream. Over the years we lowing discussion will help readers alous Retroactive Influences on Cogni- learn to expect prejudice and we become understand that consciousness manifests tion and Affect.”5 Bem is no ordinary psy- somewhat inured to it. But sometimes nonlocally in ways that defy the limita- chologist. He is widely respected for his prejudice is so blatant, so in your face, it is tions of space and time, why this concept clear, creative thinking and his meticu- shocking and cannot be ignored. is so offensive to many scientists, and why lous, original research. I’m referring to a recent event in the it is likely to become, at long last, a part of His study was an eight-year project in- field of consciousness research, which is the scientific worldview. volving more than a thousand Cornell stu- one of the main focus areas of Explore. dents in nine separate experiments. In one Bias against this field is nothing new, but SCIENTISTS AND POLITICS of the experiments, the subject sits in front in this instance it was more vehement In 2009, the Pew Research Center released of a computer screen on which pictures of than usual and achieved national atten- a report on scientists and politics, con- two curtains appear. Behind one of the tion. ducted in collaboration with the Ameri- curtains is a picture of an erotic nature; This conflict is an example of the “de- can Association for the Advancement of behind the other curtain is a blank wall. nier movements” that are currently ram- Science. The study involved a survey of The subject’s task is to indicate which cur- pant in our culture, and which have 2,500 American scientists. They found tain conceals the erotic photo. At the time recently been described by Explore that only 9% of the scientists considered of the subject’s choosing, however, nei- columnist Stephan A. Schwartz. In his themselves politically conservative, and ther curtain conceals the photo. It is only seminal report in May 2010,3 Schwartz that only 6% identified themselves as Re- after the subject chooses that the computer specified the denial of the concept of non- publicans. The most frequent reason makes a random choice and assigns the local consciousness as one of the most im- given for this dramatic skewing is that sci- erotic picture to one of the curtains. If the Explorations EXPLORE May/June 2011, Vol. 7, No. 3 127 subject merely guesses, he or she should and opening the floodgates to the fre- unaware that precognition, or future be right 50% of the time. But that is not quent publication of crackpot ideas in top- knowing, usually takes place not in labs the way the experiment turns out. The hit notch journals would . spell the end of but in free-range humans in the wild. He rate for the erotic stimulus was 53.1%—not science as we know it.”7 displays not a glimmer of awareness of the a huge departure from chance but statisti- Columbia University astronomer Da- hundreds of experiments in remote view- cally significant nonetheless. It was as if vid Helfand thundered that Bem’s find- ing at the Princeton Engineering Anoma- the subjects were seeing the future, or that ings were “an assault on science and ratio- lies Research lab and elsewhere,11,12 which information from the future was perhaps nality.” Breezily ignoring more than a also take place outside the lab in the real traveling backward in time to the present. century of experimental investigation, world, and that most of these results are In another experiment, students were Helfand questioned “whether ESP is even precognitive in nature. He has apparently shown a list of words and were then asked amenable to scientific inquiry.” He com- never heard of entire books devoted to to recall words from it, after which they pared Bem’s study to “the memos describ- locating sunken ships and buried or inun- were told to type the words that were ran- ing the weapons of mass destruction in dated archaeological sites by extrasensory domly selected from the same list. Oddly, Iraq, the rantings of Senator Jim Inhofe on means.13,14 Or that psychics in several the students were better at recalling words climate change, and the triple-A ratings of real-world experiments have made consid- that they would later type, as if reinforce- collateralized debt obligations.” He erable sums of money predicting the silver ment from typing acted backward in time. charged that Bem’s paper, like these exam- futures market, one study of which was In an additional study, Bem employed ples, had not been “subjected to rigorous featured on the front page of the Wall research on “priming”—the effect of a sub- and impartial peer review,” and would Street Journal.15,16 Or that a 10-year study liminally presented word on a subject’s re- therefore cause similar mischief—an accu- of 385 chief executive officers of US cor- sponse to an image. For example, if some- sation that is vigorously disputed by psy- porations found that 80% of executives one is momentarily flashed the word chologist Charles Judd of the University whose companies’ profits had more than “ugly,” it will take her longer to decide that of Colorado, the editor of the journal that doubled in the past five years had above- a picture of a kitten is pleasant than if accepted Bem’s paper. Helfand cheekily average precognitive powers on ESP tests; “beautiful” had been flashed. Running the suggested that psi may deserve “the same and that the correlations were so definitive experiment backward, Bem found that the exalted status as belief in the Pastafarian that the researchers were able to examine priming effect seemed to work backward Flying Spaghetti Monster.”8 financial reports and predict in advance in time as well as forward. Physicist Lawrence M. Krauss, of Ari- how a given CEO would do in ESP exper- All the nine experiments were varia- 17 zona State University, excoriated Bem’s iments. tions on this general theme. All but one paper as an example of “bad research Ray Hyman, a retired psychologist at were statistically significant. Eight of the [which] gets happily buried in the dustbin the University of Oregon, who for decades nine seemed to indicate that an effect of history, which is what I expect will hap- has been a voluble, dedicated foe of such could come before its cause. pen in this case,”9 although he gave no findings, screeched that Bem’s work and specific reasons why Bem’s research was its imminent publication are “craziness, SHOOTING FROM THE LIP “bad.” pure craziness. I can’t believe a major jour- Bem’s study prompted a hissy fit among Philosopher Anthony Gottlieb, a visit- nal is allowing this work in. I think it’s just scientists. When an article about his re- ing scholar at N.Y.U.’s philosophy depart- an embarrassment to the entire field.” Hy- sults appeared on the front page of the ment, amazingly suggested that Bem’s ev- man even suggested the Bem’s paper New York Times on January 6, 2011, the idence simply does not matter, no matter might be a hoax. “He’s got a great sense of controversy was suddenly thrust before how solid it might be: “But even if Daryl humor,” he said. “I wouldn’t rule out that 18 the nation.6 The following day, additional Bem’s study . turns out to be gold-stan- this is an elaborate joke.” outbursts from several scientists and phi- dard science and breaks none of the stan- Hyman had said in 1985, as if uncon- losophers were featured in the Times in the dard procedural rules, one can still be con- sciously describing himself, “The level of 10 “Room for Debate” section. There was al- fident that its findings are incorrect.” (If the debate [about these kinds of findings] most no debate, however, because nearly Gottlieb is correct and he is indeed capa- during the past 130 years has been an em- all the experts whose opinions were solic- ble of seeing through air-tight evidence, he barrassment for anyone who would like to ited by the Times were hostile to Bem’s must be psychic, thereby defeating his believe that scholars and scientists adhere findings.