The Ashta ProjectASHTA
Join the Circle

Our Scientific Lineage

Research Lineage and Contested Claims

Ashta does not assume these effects are real; it builds pre-registered, adversarially auditable tests of the claims in this literature, and publishes null results.

The Stance

Ashta's research is situated in a lineage of highly debated claims regarding human consciousness and intention. We do not take these claims as settled fact. Instead, our goal is to design rigourous, double-blind replications, pre-registering every protocol on the Open Science Framework, and committing to publish all outcomes—especially null results. By making our data, protocols, and analysis code open, we allow independent sceptics and believers alike to audit the results.

Researchers We Build On

The Lineage: Credible but Contested

We trace our experimental designs back to several key figures in consciousness research. Below is the honest layout of their credentials, the status of their claims, and their primary anchor works:

Contested

Rupert Sheldrake

A biologist known for morphic resonance hypotheses, staring experiments, and telephone-telepathy trials. His claims remain highly contested by mainstream science due to lack of a known physical mechanism.

Anchor Work: "Testing for Telepathy in Connection with E-Mails" (DOI: 10.2466/pms.101.3.771-786).

Mainstream Respected / Interpretation Contested

Jessica Utts

A mainstream-respected statistician (former President of the American Statistical Association) who analysed the CIA Stargate data, arguing it demonstrated a statistically significant anomalous cognition signal.

Anchor Work: CIA/AIR Evaluation Report (1995 PDF).

Contested

Robert Jahn & Brenda Dunne (PEAR)

A long-running Princeton Engineering lab that reported minute anomalies in random event generators correlated with human intention, though independent replications have yielded conflicting results.

Anchor Work: "Correlations of random binary sequences with pre-stated operator intention" (PMID: 17560346, DOI: 10.1016/j.explore.2007.03.009).

Mainstream Credentials / Claims Contested

Dean Radin / IONS

Chief Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS); meta-analytic researcher testing anomalous physical systems, intention effects, and double-slit anomaly observation claims.

Anchor Work: "Evidence for consciousness-related anomalies in random physical systems" (DOI: 10.1007/BF00732509).

Contested

Russell Targ & Hal Puthoff (SRI)

Physicists who initiated early remote-viewing experiments at the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) which became central to the Stargate military programme.

Anchor Work: "Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding" (PMID: 4423858, DOI: 10.1038/251602a0).

Contested

Roger Nelson (GCP)

A PEAR researcher who founded the Global Consciousness Project to test correlations between distributed random number generators and global attention events.

Anchor Work: "Searching for Global Consciousness" (PMID: 28279629, DOI: 10.1016/j.explore.2016.12.003).

Highly Contested

Lynne McTaggart

A public-facing author best framed as a mass-intention experiment organiser. Her work lacks academic peer-review but serves as an inspiration for testing group-intention effects.

Anchor Work: Germination Intention Experiments Summary.

Empiricist / Contested Field

Stephan Schwartz

Founder of the Mobius Society and applied remote viewing researcher. Best known for using consensus remote viewing in archaeology and marine archaeology.

Protocols: We are replicating his double-blind protocols. Read the full Schwartz profile and replication details →

Frequently Asked Questions

Why does Ashta call these claims "contested"?
Because mainstream science holds that anomalies like remote viewing, telephone telepathy, and mind-on-matter interactions are unproven, lacking replicable evidence or plausible physical mechanisms. We categorise them as hypotheses-under-test rather than established facts.
What is the difference between a believer-led and an independent study?
Believer-led studies are often run by investigators who expect a positive result, which can introduce subtle experimental biases. Independent, pre-registered replications, especially those involving sceptics or automated software, frequently report null results. Ashta aims to run adversarial tests with believers and sceptics in the same cohort.
How does pre-registration work?
Before collecting any data, we file our exact experimental protocol, sample size, and analysis plan on a public registry (such as the Open Science Framework). This prevents optional stopping, post-hoc data filtering, and publication bias, ensuring that null results are published with the same prominence as positive ones.