Approved For Release 2003/04/1&@.@- DP96-OOM7ROO0200200001-9
17 October 73
MEMO FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT Proposal for Paranormal Research at SRI
SG11 1. On 16 October 73 of OTS briefedl -land me on a proposal which
SG1 I
(as a consequence of a specific OTS request) SRI had just submitted for a new, one year
program of paranormal research. The proposal (attached) calls, essentially, for a contin-
uation of their 'coordinates' work with SWANN and PRICE, their 'sealed envelopes, work
with GELLER and their EEG studies with 'normal' subjects to determine whether there are
subliminal correlations with remote stimuli; most of the attached proposal consists of a
rehash of their earlier work--with the substance of the new proposal being contained in
pages 40-44 of the larger document. The price tag is 149K.
SG11 2. On 17 October called me to state that, largely in response to D/OTS'
desire to ensure that someone is doing something in the paranormal field and to use the
SRI proposal as a test case to spark a management decision, they are going to start paper-
work in support of the SRI proposal. He also said that his boss, C/OTS/Development &
SG11 Engineering is going to forward the proposal to D/OTS with the recom-
mendation that OTS and ORD be jointly in charge of the program and split the costs. I
SG11 told that I had both practical and philosophic reservations on that score (see
para 3) but that I would undertake to acquaint ORD management with these developments so
that they could be prepared to respond when the proposal is officially surfaced.
3. With reference to my 26 September 73 memo on this topic, my primary objections
to this proposal are: it would be a continuation of the same undisciplined approach which
has given us so much trouble in the past, with no well-defined research goals, no internal
focal-point of authority and control, little control over the conteactor's efforts and
almost certainly equivocal results; an objective management decision should come first and,
if positive, the effort should be a serious one--selecting the best (not merely an opportune)
vehicle for the postulated goals and handled in a highly secure, need-to-know fashion. I
do not question the SRI investigators' motivation at all and I do feel that their work has
been interesting and very possibly of some real value--but there is some doubt as to the
soundness of some of their methodologies and, in any case, the controlersy surrounding them
and their subjects still has a 'flap' potential which would unnecessarily preoccupy and
distract us even if the DCI gave his approval (which is doubtful at best). SRI's efforts
could be supported on a sub-contract basis by whatever vehicle we might chose for the
overall effort--leaving us securely out of the picture.
SG1 1 4. comments: (5'
SG1 I
Approve er Re' @@fk;@/_C(4/vl 8: CIA-RDP96-60787Rooo,'!00200001-9