Jump to content

Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
reverted edits by B.Dunne and all intermediate edits
Line 1: Line 1:
The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) program was established at Princeton University in 1979 by Professor Robert G. Jahn, an aerospace engineer who was then Dean of Princeton's School of Engineering and Applied Science. Its primary purpose was to pursue rigorous scientific study of the interaction of human consciousness with physical devices, systems, and processes common to contemporary engineering practice. An interdisciplinary staff of engineers, physicists, psychologists, and humanists conducted a comprehensive agenda of experiments in human/machine interaction and remote perception, and attempted the development of complementary theoretical models to enable better understanding of the role of consciousness in physical reality. The program has been endorsed by numerous scientific scholars in this and related fields. The book, ''Margins of Reality: The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World'', co-authored by Robert Jahn and the PEAR Laboratory Manager, Brenda Dunne, was originally published in 1987 has been widely cited as the definitive text on the topic, and has been adopted for many academic curricula. In 2011 the authors published a sequel entitled ''Consciousness and the Source of Reality: The PEAR Odyssey.'' The laboratory concluded its University-based operations in February 2007 after 28 years of basic research, education, and outreach activities.
The '''Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research''' ('''PEAR''') program was established at [[Princeton University]] in 1979 by [[Robert G. Jahn]], then Dean of the [[Princeton University|School of Engineering and Applied Science]], to pursue rigorous [[scientific study]] of the [[interaction]] of [[human consciousness]] with physical devices, [[system]]s, and [[process (engineering)|processes]] common to contemporary engineering practice. Its methods were controversial and at the end of February 2007, it closed its doors.<ref name="NY Times 2007-02-06">{{cite news
| last = Carey
| first = Benedict
| title = A Princeton Lab on ESP Plans to Close Its Doors
| publisher = New York Times
| date = 2007-02-06
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/science/10princeton.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=2f8f7bdba3ac59f1&ex=1328763600
| accessdate = 2007-08-03 }}
</ref> From 1979 until its closing, interdisciplinary staff of [[engineers]], [[physicists]], [[psychologists]], and [[humanists]] conducted a comprehensive agenda of experiments and attempted the development of complementary theoretical models to enable better understanding of the role of consciousness within physical reality. Some academics have tried calling into question the PEAR data, by suggesting that the PEAR methodologies were flawed and questioning their interpretation of the collected data.<ref>[http://skepdic.com/pear.html Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research at The Skeptic's Dictionary<!-- Bot generated title-edited by omgoleus 2009 Jan 4 -->]</ref>


'''Research'''
== Research ==
⚫
=== Consciousness Fields ===


In the PEAR Labs, operators frequently spoke of "achieving a state of resonance" with the devices they were working with, which positively correlated with higher than chance performance in random trials. Their data gives “a consistent empirical indication in the presence of groups of people engaged in shared cognitive or emotional activity”<ref name=Nelson>{{cite journal|last=Nelson |first= R. D. |authorlink= |coauthors= Jahn, R. G., Dunne, B. J., Dobyns, Y. H., & Bradish, G. J. |title=Field REG II: Consciousness field effects: Replications and explorations |journal=Journal of Scientific Exploration |volume=12 |issue=3 |pages=425–454 |year=1998 |url=http://www.princeton.edu/%7Epear/pdfs/FR3.pdf}}</ref> “One conceptual hypothesis for the group-related anomalies indicated by FieldREG is that the emotional/intellectual dynamics of the interacting participants somehow generate a coherent ‘consciousness field,’ to which the REG responds via an anomalous decrease in the entropy of its nominally random output.” That is, emotional intention, especially group emotional intention, increases order. “Bonded co-operator pairs” also show increased order (Dunne, 1991) <ref name="Nelson"/> Jahn and his team confirm Radin’s experiments indicating that random chance machines “may be affected by group consciousness.”<ref name="Nelson"/> Such a group consciousness field effect would then transcend space and time limitations defined in historic models.
'''Human/Machine Interactions'''


===Psychokinesis===
PEAR employed random event generators (REGs), to explore the ability of untrained volunteers to influence the random output distribution of these devices to conform to their pre-recorded intentions to produce higher numbers, lower numbers, or nominal baselines. Most of these experiments utilized a microelectronic REG, but additional experiments were also conducted with a macroscopic random mechanical cascade (RMC), and other random physical device. In all cases, the observed effects were very small, but over extensive databases they compounded to statistically significant deviations from chance behavior.
{{Main| Psychokinesis}}


PEAR employed the use of [[random number generators]] (RNG), to test for [[psychokinesis]]. In these experiments, subjects attempted to mentally alter the distribution of the random numbers, in an experimental design that is functionally equivalent to getting more "heads" than "tails" while flipping a coin. In the RNG experiment, design flexibility can be combined with rigorous controls, while collecting a large amount of data in very short period of time.<ref name=Dunne85>{{cite journal |last=Dunne |first=Brenda J. |authorlink= |coauthors=Jahn, Robert G. |title=On the quantum mechanics of consciousness, with application to anomalous phenomena |journal=Foundations of Physics |volume=16 |issue=8 |pages=721–772 |year=1985 |url=http://www.springerlink.com/content/vtrr87tg356154r7/ |doi=10.1007/BF00735378|accessdate=2007-07-31 |bibcode=1986FoPh...16..721J}}</ref>
⚫
'''Consciousness Fields'''


Meta-analyses of the RNG database have been published every few years since appearing in the journal ''[[Foundations of Physics]]'' in 1986.<ref name="Dunne85"/> PEAR founder [[Robert G. Jahn]] and his colleague Brenda Dunne stated that the effect size in all cases was found to be very small, but consistent across time and experimental designs, resulting in an overall [[statistical significance]]. A recent meta-analysis on [[psychokinesis]] was published in ''[[Psychological Bulletin]]'', along with several critical commentaries.<ref name="pmid16822162">{{cite journal |author=Bösch H, Steinkamp F, Boller E |title=Examining psychokinesis: the interaction of human intention with random number generators&mdash;a meta-analysis |journal=Psychological bulletin |volume=132 |issue=4 |pages=497–523 |year=2006 |pmid=16822162 |doi=10.1037/0033-2909.132.4.497|quote=The study effect sizes were strongly and inversely related to sample size and were extremely heterogeneous. A Monte Carlo simulation revealed that the very small effect size relative to the large, heterogenous sample size could in principle be a result of publication bias.}}</ref><ref name="pmid16822164">{{cite journal |author=Radin, D.; Nelson, R.; Dobyns, Y.; Houtkooper, J. |title=Reexamining psychokinesis: comment on Bösch, Steinkamp, and Boller |journal=Psychological bulletin |volume=132 |issue=4 |pages=529–32; discussion 533–37 |year=2006 |pmid=16822164 |doi=10.1037/0033-2909.132.4.529}}</ref> It analyzed the results of 380 studies. While the authors reported an overall positive effect size that was statistically significant, it was small relative to the sample size and might be explained by [[publication bias]].<ref name="pmid16822164"/>
Since many PEAR operators frequently spoke of "achieving a state of resonance" with the devices they were addressing, an experiment was designed to examine the influence on REGs in environments entailing group resonance. Portable REG devices were operated in a variety of venues where groups of people were engaged in emotionally charged shared experiences, and the output data were compared with data generated in more mundane situations. Results indicated highly significant deviations from chance during the resonant applications, suggesting that the emotional/intellectual dynamics of the interacting participants somehow generated a coherent ‘consciousness field.’ Bonded co-operator pairs, working together at a shared task also showed anomalous effects that were several times larger than the results produced by the same individuals working alone.


'''Remote Perception'''
===Remote viewing===
{{Main| Remote viewing}}


Following the termination in 1995 of the [[U.S. government]] espionage program [[Stargate Project]], which failed, in the government's eyes, to document practical intelligence value,<ref name="Time">''Time'' magazine, 11 December 1995, p.45, ''[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983829,00.html The Vision Thing]'' by Douglas Waller, Washington</ref> PEAR sought to replicate the [[Science Applications International Corporation|SAIC]] and [[Stanford Research Institute|SRI]] experiments. PEAR created an analytical judgment methodology to replace the human judging process that was criticized in past experiments. The researchers felt that the results of the experiments were consistent with the SRI experiments.<ref>{{cite journal | url = http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/jse_papers/9PRP%20i0892-3310-010-01-0109.pdf | journal = [[Journal of Scientific Exploration]] | publisher = [[Society for Scientific Exploration]] | volume = 10 | issue = 1 | pages = 109–110 | year = 1996 | title = Precognitive Remote Perception: Replication of Remote Viewing | coauthors = R. D. NELSON, B. J. DUNNE, Y. H. DOBYNS, R. G. JAHN | accessdate = 2008-06-02 |format=PDF |archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20080407143457/http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/jse_papers/9PRP+i0892-3310-010-01-0109.pdf |archivedate = 2008-04-07}}</ref>
In another class of studies, the ability of human participants to acquire information about spatially and temporally remote geographical targets, otherwise inaccessible by any of the usual sensory channels, was clearly demonstrated over more than 650 carefully conducted experiments. The protocol required a “percipient” to attempt to describe the scene where a second participant, the “agent,” was stationed at a randomly selected location at a given time, without recourse to any normal sensory information. Incisive analytical techniques were developed and applied to these data to establish more precisely the quantity and quality of objective and subjective information acquired, and to guide the design of more effective experiments. Beyond confirming the validity of this anomalous mode of information acquisition, these analyses demonstrated that this capacity of human consciousness is also largely independent of the distance between the percipient and the target, and similarly independent of the time between the specification of the target and the perception effort. The composite database yielded a probability against chance of approximately three parts in ten billion.


⚫
==Closing of the laboratory==
'''Theoretical Models'''


PEAR closed its doors at the end of February 2007 with its founder, [[Robert G. Jahn]], concluding that after tens of millions of trials they had demonstrated that human intention has a slight effect on random-event machines.<ref name="Nature 2007-03-01">{{cite journal |title=The lab that asked the wrong questions |journal=Nature |date=2007-03-01 |first=Lucy |last=Odling-Smee |issue= 7131|pages=10–11 |doi=10.1038/446010a |volume=446 |pmid=17330012}}</ref> "For 28 years, we’ve done what we wanted to do, and there’s no reason to stay and generate more of the same data,"<ref name="NY Times 2007-02-06"/> Jahn said. Jahn felt that the work showed, on average, people can shift 2–3 events out of 10,000 from chance expectations.<ref name="Nature 2007-03-01"/>
The stark inconsistencies of PEAR’s empirical results with established physical and psychological theory, such as the roles of operator intention and emotional resonance, the operator-specific structure evident in the data, the absence of traditional learning patterns, and the lack of explicit space and time dependence, made it clear that no direct application or minor alteration of existing theoretical frameworks are capable of accommodating such anomalous effects. Consideration was given to the development of alternative models that would allow consciousness a proactive role in the establishment of its experience of the physical world and facilitate a constructive dialogue between data and theory. Three such models have been proposed.
The first is based on the premise that the basic processes by which consciousness exchanges information with its environment, orders that information, and interprets it, also enable it to bias probabilistic systems. This model regards the concepts that underlie all physical models of reality, particularly those of observational quantum mechanics, as fundamental characteristics of consciousness rather than as intrinsic features of an objective physical environment.
The second proposes a modular conceptual framework wherein direct attention of the conscious mind to observable physical processes is bypassed in favor of alternative routes whereby the inherently probabilistic nature of unconscious mind and intangible physical mechanisms are invoked to achieve anomalous acquisition of information about, or anomalous influence upon, otherwise inaccessible material processes. Theoretical requisites for its pursuit include better understanding of the dialogue between the conscious and unconscious aspects of the mind; more pragmatic formulations of the relations between tangible and intangible physical processes; and most importantly, cogent representation of the merging of mental and material dimensions into indistinguishability at their deepest levels.
A third approach emphasizes the need to elevate the subjective capacities of consciousness to complementary status with those of the more objective physical senses, along with recognition of the bi-directional capabilities of both, thereby allowing establishment of resonant channels of communication between the unconscious mind and the intangible substrate of physical phenomena that can exceed conventional information processing. The key elements in tuning these channels to amplify such information creation are the physiological and psychological filters imposed upon them, some of which can be enhanced or altered by conscious or unconscious attention.


These tiny deviations from chance have failed to convince mainstream scientists who feel that the effect is inconsistent and that relatively few negative studies would cancel it out.<ref name="pmid16822162"/> Sceptical physicist [[Robert L. Park]] said of PEAR, "It’s been an embarrassment to science, and I think an embarrassment for Princeton".<ref name="NY Times 2007-02-06"/>
⚫
'''Closing of the Laboratory'''


== Staff ==
PEAR closed its doors at the end of February 2007 after 28 years of research, concluding that after tens of millions of trials it had provided definitive empirical evidence that human intention has a small, but cumulative effect on random physical processes and is capable of acquiring information about remote locations by non-sensory means. Jahn and Dunne continue to explore these phenomena and their implications in the context of a not-for-profit organization they established in 1996 called "International Consciousness Research Laoratories" or ICRL.
* [[Robert G. Jahn]], Program Director.
* [[Brenda J. Dunne]], Laboratory Manager. Dunne is formally trained as a psychologist and serves as the Laboratory Manager of the PEAR lab.
* [[York H. Dobyns]], Analytical Coordinator
* [[Lisa Langelier-Marks]], Administrative Assistant
* [[Elissa Hoeger]], General Factotum


===Emeritus members===
'''REFERENCES'''
* [[G. Johnston Bradish]], Technical Coordinator
* [[Arnold L. Lettieri Jr.]], Communications Director
* [[Roger D. Nelson]], Operations Coordinator


==Spin-offs==
R.G. Jahn and B.J. Dunne (2005). “The PEAR Proposition.” J. Scientific Exploration, 19, No.2, pp.&nbsp;195–246.
* [[International Consciousness Research Laboratories]],<ref name="princeton1">{{cite web|url=http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/press_release_closing.html |title= Princeton's PEAR Laboratory to Close |publisher=Princeton.edu |date=2007-02-10 |accessdate=2009-09-25}} {{Dead link|date=November 2010|bot=H3llBot}}</ref> a not-for-profit organization.<ref name="LostSymbol">
{{cite book
| author = John Weber, editor
| coauthors =
| year = 2009
| title = An Illustrated Guide to the Lost Symbol
| publisher = Pocket Books/Simon & Schuster Inc.
| location = New York
| page = 130
| isbn = 978-1-4165-2366-6
| quote = Chapter by Brenda Dunne, "The PEAR Laboratory": PEAR has now incorporated its former and future operations into the broader venues of the International Consciousness Research Laboratories (ICRL), a not-for-profit organization, and Psyleron, Inc., a company that develops products and deploys broadly ranging intellectual property that enable ongoing research and public exploration of mind-matter effects.
}}</ref>
* Psyleron, Inc.,<ref name="princeton1"/> a for-profit company.<ref name="LostSymbol" />
* [[Society for Scientific Exploration]]<ref name="princeton1"/>
* [[Global Consciousness Project]]


==See also==
Robert G. Jahn and Brenda J. Dunne (1987). Margins of Reality: The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World. San Diego, New York, London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Reprinted in 2009 by the ICRL Press.
*[[National Laboratory of Psychical Research]]
Benedict Carey, “A Princeton Lab on ESP Plans to Close Its Doors.” New York Times, February 10, 2007, The New York Times.
*[[List of parapsychology topics]]


== References ==
R. G. Jahn, B. J. Dunne, R. D. Nelson, Y. H. Dobyns, and G. J. Bradish, (1997). “Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention: A Review of a 12-Year Program.” J. Scientific Exploration, 11, No.3, pp.&nbsp;345–367.
{{reflist}}


== Further reading ==
B. J. Dunne, R.D. Nelson, and R. G. Jahn, (1988). “Operator-Related Anomalies in a Random Mechanical Cascade.” J. Scientific Exploration, 2, No.2, pp.&nbsp;155–179.
* {{cite book|isbn=9780691133553|author=Robert L. Park.|year=2008|publisher=Princeton University Press|location=Princeton, N.J.|title=Superstition : belief in the age of science}}
* {{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= |authorlink= | title=ESP laboratory closes its doors | date=2007-02-12 | publisher=BBC | url =http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6353941.stm | work = | pages = | accessdate = 2009-09-25 | language = }}
* {{cite news | first=JD | last=Reed | coauthors= |authorlink= | title=Mind Over Matter | date=2003-03-09 | publisher= | url =http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/nyregion/mind-over-matter.html | work =New York Times | pages = | accessdate = 2009-09-25 | language = }}
* {{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= |authorlink= | title=ESP Research Lab Closes After 28 Years | date=2007-02-12 | publisher=National Public Radio | url =http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7371765 | work =All Things Considered | pages = | accessdate = 2009-09-25 | language = }}


==External links==
R.D. Nelson, R.G. Jahn, B.J. Dunne, Y.H. Dobyns, and G.J. Bradish (1998). “FieldREGII: Consciousness Field Effects: Replications and Explorations.” J. Scientific Exploration, 12, No.3, pp.&nbsp;425–454.
* [http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/ PEAR home]


{{Parapsychology}}
B.J. Dunne (1991). “Co-Operator Experiments with an REG Device.” Tech. Report PEAR 91005, December 1991. [Published in modified form in K.R. Rao, ed., Cultivating Consciousness for Enhancing Human Potential, Wellness, and Healing. (Westport, CT and London: Praeger, 1993) pp.&nbsp;149–163.]


[[Category:Consciousness studies]]
R.G. Jahn and B.J. Dunne (1986). “On the Quantum Mechanics of Consciousness with Application to Anomalous Phenomena.” Foundations of Physics, 16, No.8, pp.&nbsp;721–772.
[[Category:Parapsychology]]
[[Category:Paranormal]]
R.G. Jan and B.J. Dunne (2001). “A Modular Model of Mind/Matter Manifestations (M5).” J. Scientific Exploration, 15, No.3, pp.&nbsp;299–329.

R.G. Jahn and B.J. Dunne (2004). “Sensors, Filters, and the Source of Reality.” J. Scientific Exploration, 18, No.4, pp.&nbsp;547–570.



{{Uncategorized|date=February 2012}}


[[de:Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research]]
[[de:Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research]]

Revision as of 06:57, 26 February 2012

The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) program was established at Princeton University in 1979 by Robert G. Jahn, then Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science, to pursue rigorous scientific study of the interaction of human consciousness with physical devices, systems, and processes common to contemporary engineering practice. Its methods were controversial and at the end of February 2007, it closed its doors.[1] From 1979 until its closing, interdisciplinary staff of engineers, physicists, psychologists, and humanists conducted a comprehensive agenda of experiments and attempted the development of complementary theoretical models to enable better understanding of the role of consciousness within physical reality. Some academics have tried calling into question the PEAR data, by suggesting that the PEAR methodologies were flawed and questioning their interpretation of the collected data.[2]

Research

Consciousness Fields

In the PEAR Labs, operators frequently spoke of "achieving a state of resonance" with the devices they were working with, which positively correlated with higher than chance performance in random trials. Their data gives “a consistent empirical indication in the presence of groups of people engaged in shared cognitive or emotional activity”[3] “One conceptual hypothesis for the group-related anomalies indicated by FieldREG is that the emotional/intellectual dynamics of the interacting participants somehow generate a coherent ‘consciousness field,’ to which the REG responds via an anomalous decrease in the entropy of its nominally random output.” That is, emotional intention, especially group emotional intention, increases order. “Bonded co-operator pairs” also show increased order (Dunne, 1991) [3] Jahn and his team confirm Radin’s experiments indicating that random chance machines “may be affected by group consciousness.”[3] Such a group consciousness field effect would then transcend space and time limitations defined in historic models.

Psychokinesis

Main article: Psychokinesis

PEAR employed the use of random number generators (RNG), to test for psychokinesis. In these experiments, subjects attempted to mentally alter the distribution of the random numbers, in an experimental design that is functionally equivalent to getting more "heads" than "tails" while flipping a coin. In the RNG experiment, design flexibility can be combined with rigorous controls, while collecting a large amount of data in very short period of time.[4]

Meta-analyses of the RNG database have been published every few years since appearing in the journal Foundations of Physics in 1986.[4] PEAR founder Robert G. Jahn and his colleague Brenda Dunne stated that the effect size in all cases was found to be very small, but consistent across time and experimental designs, resulting in an overall statistical significance. A recent meta-analysis on psychokinesis was published in Psychological Bulletin, along with several critical commentaries.[5][6] It analyzed the results of 380 studies. While the authors reported an overall positive effect size that was statistically significant, it was small relative to the sample size and might be explained by publication bias.[6]

Remote viewing

Main article: Remote viewing

Following the termination in 1995 of the U.S. government espionage program Stargate Project, which failed, in the government's eyes, to document practical intelligence value,[7] PEAR sought to replicate the SAIC and SRI experiments. PEAR created an analytical judgment methodology to replace the human judging process that was criticized in past experiments. The researchers felt that the results of the experiments were consistent with the SRI experiments.[8]

Closing of the laboratory

PEAR closed its doors at the end of February 2007 with its founder, Robert G. Jahn, concluding that after tens of millions of trials they had demonstrated that human intention has a slight effect on random-event machines.[9] "For 28 years, we’ve done what we wanted to do, and there’s no reason to stay and generate more of the same data,"[1] Jahn said. Jahn felt that the work showed, on average, people can shift 2–3 events out of 10,000 from chance expectations.[9]

These tiny deviations from chance have failed to convince mainstream scientists who feel that the effect is inconsistent and that relatively few negative studies would cancel it out.[5] Sceptical physicist Robert L. Park said of PEAR, "It’s been an embarrassment to science, and I think an embarrassment for Princeton".[1]

Staff

Emeritus members

Spin-offs

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c Carey, Benedict (2007-02-06). "A Princeton Lab on ESP Plans to Close Its Doors". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-08-03.
  2. ^ Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research at The Skeptic's Dictionary
  3. ^ a b c Nelson, R. D. (1998). "Field REG II: Consciousness field effects: Replications and explorations" (PDF). Journal of Scientific Exploration. 12 (3): 425–454. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ a b Dunne, Brenda J. (1985). "On the quantum mechanics of consciousness, with application to anomalous phenomena". Foundations of Physics. 16 (8): 721–772. Bibcode:1986FoPh...16..721J. doi:10.1007/BF00735378. Retrieved 2007-07-31. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ a b Bösch H, Steinkamp F, Boller E (2006). "Examining psychokinesis: the interaction of human intention with random number generators—a meta-analysis". Psychological bulletin. 132 (4): 497–523. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.4.497. PMID 16822162. The study effect sizes were strongly and inversely related to sample size and were extremely heterogeneous. A Monte Carlo simulation revealed that the very small effect size relative to the large, heterogenous sample size could in principle be a result of publication bias.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. ^ a b Radin, D.; Nelson, R.; Dobyns, Y.; Houtkooper, J. (2006). "Reexamining psychokinesis: comment on Bösch, Steinkamp, and Boller". Psychological bulletin. 132 (4): 529–32, discussion 533–37. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.4.529. PMID 16822164.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  7. ^ Time magazine, 11 December 1995, p.45, The Vision Thing by Douglas Waller, Washington
  8. ^ "Precognitive Remote Perception: Replication of Remote Viewing" (PDF). Journal of Scientific Exploration. 10 (1). Society for Scientific Exploration: 109–110. 1996. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2008-04-07. Retrieved 2008-06-02. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  9. ^ a b Odling-Smee, Lucy (2007-03-01). "The lab that asked the wrong questions". Nature. 446 (7131): 10–11. doi:10.1038/446010a. PMID 17330012.
  10. ^ a b c "Princeton's PEAR Laboratory to Close". Princeton.edu. 2007-02-10. Retrieved 2009-09-25. [dead link]
  11. ^ a b John Weber, editor (2009). An Illustrated Guide to the Lost Symbol. New York: Pocket Books/Simon & Schuster Inc. p. 130. ISBN 978-1-4165-2366-6. Chapter by Brenda Dunne, "The PEAR Laboratory": PEAR has now incorporated its former and future operations into the broader venues of the International Consciousness Research Laboratories (ICRL), a not-for-profit organization, and Psyleron, Inc., a company that develops products and deploys broadly ranging intellectual property that enable ongoing research and public exploration of mind-matter effects. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Further reading

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Princeton_Engineering_Anomalies_Research_Lab&oldid=478905362"