Nonlocality, Intention, and Observer Effects in Healing Studies: Laying a Foundation for the Future

All research domains are based upon epistemological assumptions. Periodic reassessment of these assumptions is crucial because they influence how we interpret experimental outcomes. Perhaps nowhere is this reassessment needed more than in the study of prayer and intention experiments. For if positive results from this field of research are sustained, the reality of nonlocal consciousness must be confronted. This paper explores the current status of healing and intention research, citing a number of major studies and using the “Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in Cardiac Bypass Surgery Patients: A Multicenter Randomized Trial of Uncertainty and Certainty of Receiving Intercessory Prayer” as a case study of this line of research. The paper argues that the dose-dependent model typical of drug trials, and adopted for use in the STEP and other studies, is not the optimal model for intention-healing research, and critiques this approach in detail, citing apposite research from which we draw our recommendations and conclusions. The paper suggests that the usual assumptions concerning blindness and randomization that prevail in studies using the pharmacological model must be reappraised. Experimental data suggest that a nonlocal relationship exists among the various individuals participating in a study, one which needs to be understood and taken seriously. We argue that it is important to account for and understand the role of both local and nonlocal observer effects, since both can significantly affect outcome. Research is presented from an array of disciplines to support why the authors feel these issues of linkage, belief, and intention are so important to a successful, accurate, and meaningful study outcome. Finally, the paper offers suggestions for new lines of research and new protocol designs that address these observer-effect issues, particularly the nonlocal aspects. The paper finally suggests that if these effects occur in intention studies, they must necessarily exist in all studies, although in pharmacological studies they are often overshadowed by the power of chemical and biological agents.

Introduction

Epistemologically periodically reassessing what constitutes good research is crucial because this process gives us the ability to distinguish justified belief from opinion. Perhaps nowhere is this distinction of greater significance than in the study of prayer and intention experiments. For if the positive results from this field of research are sustained, the reality of nonlocal consciousness must be taken seriously. This paper explores the current status of healing and intention research, cites a number of major studies, and uses the “Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in Cardiac Bypass Surgery Patients: A Multicenter Randomized Trial of Uncertainty and Certainty of Receiving Intercessory Prayer” conducted by Herbert Benson et al¹ as a case study of this line of research. In April 2006, researchers from Harvard Medical School published this long-awaited study in the American Heart Journal.¹ The $2.4 million study was funded in large part by the John Templeton Foundation, which promotes the study of the intersection of religion and science. Its publication grabbed headlines across America for two main reasons: it originated from Harvard Medical School, and it had an unexpected result—patients who were prayed for, and knew they would be prayed for, fared the worst of the three intervention groups.

Because of its venue, its level of funding, and the media attention the study has engendered, we have selected this study as a case demonstrating issues common to much of this research field, and we use it to explore those issues. In the process, we also examine attitudes that prevail in the arguments of both proponents and skeptics of prayer and intention research. What we seek is a discussion on the basic assumptions implicit, but usually unacknowledged, in these studies, and a reappraisal of the design parameters upon which prayer and intention studies have been grounded. In our view, STEP is a noble failure; noble because it was done with integrity, on the basis of imperfect understanding, and because its failure has much to teach us.