(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
I have to be careful here, as it’s not unknown for bloggers to be sued in the English courts for the things they write about science. So I will begin by saying I am not, and have no intention of, casting aspersions on the integrity of any of the authors of the paper I am about to discuss. Indeed, my main aim is to ask a few questions.
The paper is “Effects of Intentionally Enhanced Chocolate on Mood“, published in 2007 in issue 5 of volume 3 of “Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing” by Dean Radin and Gail Hayssen, both of the Institute of Noetic Sciences in California, and James Walsh of Hawaiian Vintage Chocolate.
The reason it came to my attention today is because it was mentioned in the “Feedback” diary column of the current issue of the New Scientist:
the authors insist that in “future efforts to replicate this finding… persons holding explicitly negative expectations should not be allowed to participate for the same reason that dirty test tubes are not allowed in biology experiments”. [Correspondent] asks whether this may be “the most comprehensive pre-emptive strike ever” against any attempt to replicate the results.
But I want to ask a few questions about the findings of the report which are, in summary, that casting a spell over chocolate makes it a more effective mood improver.
In their introduction to the paper the authors state:
Cumulatively, the empirical evidence supports the plausibility that MMI [mind-matter interaction] phenomena do exist.
Unfortunately, the source quoted for this is a book -Entangled Minds - so I cannot check if this is based on peer reviewed science. But you can read this review (as well as those on Amazon) – and make your own mind up.
Again, not doubting their sincerity, I do have to question their understanding of physics when they state:
Similarities between ancient beliefs about contact magic and the modern phenomenon of quantum entanglement raise the possibility that, like other ethnohistorical medical therapies once dismissed as superstition – eg, the use of leeches and maggots in medicine – some practices such as blessing food may reflect more than magical thinking or an expression of gratitude.
The study measured the mood of the eaters of chocolate over a week. Three groups ate chocolate “blessed” in various ways and one ate unblessed chocolate.
The first thing that is not clear (at least to me) is the size of each group. The experiment is described as having been designed for 60 participants, but then states that 75 signed informed consents before reporting that 62 “completed all phases of the study”. Does that mean that 13 dropped out during it? As readers of Bad Pharma will know it is an error to simply ignore drop outs (if they are there – as I say it is not clear.)
The researchers base their conclusion that -
This experiment supports the ethnohistorical lore suggesting that the act of blessing food, with good intentions, may go beyond mere superstitious ritual – it may also have measurable consequences
- substantially on the changes in mood on one day – day 5 of the 7.
The researchers say that the p-value for their finding on that day is 0.0001 – ie there is a 1 in 10000 chance this is the result of chance alone.
I have to say I just not convinced (not by their statistics which I am sure are sound) but by the argument. Too small a sample, too short a period, too many variables being measured (ie days, different groups), a lack of clarity about participation and so on. But I would really appreciate it if someone who had a stronger background in statistics than me had a look.