Discovery Lab Answers

Dean I. Radin, PhD is Chief Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) and Associated Distinguished Professor at the California Institute of Integral Studies (from 2015), and co-founder of Cognigenics. His research centers on whether human consciousness can interact with physical systems in ways not explained by conventional science — spanning anomalous cognition, mind-matter interaction, and the Global Consciousness Project. His profile page is at Dean I. Radin, PhD.

Before reading the findings below: the library’s share of the published literature on Radin’s work has not been measured. The 66 studies and 81 result rows in the evidence table reflect what the ESP-Nexus library currently holds, not a complete account of his published output or the broader field. Treat the summary below as a sample, not a census. The chart beneath this answer plots a subset of results on a single comparable metric (z/√N) against publication year, with a fitted trend — see it for the time-course pattern.

Experiments

Radin’s documented experimental output spans several distinct research programs:

Global Consciousness Project (GCP). Two recent papers examine whether the network of random number generators maintained by the GCP shows anomalous deviations during globally shared events. Radin (2025) analyzed GCP data across New Year’s Eve celebrations from 1998 through 2025, treating the stroke of midnight as a case study in what he calls “experimental metaphysics.” A 2026 corrigendum corrects the PCA composite score reported in that paper.

Double-slit mind-matter interaction. Radin has conducted and co-analyzed a series of experiments asking whether directed human attention alters the interference pattern in a double-slit optical apparatus. Kauffman (2023) references a cumulative analysis across 30 experiments at five laboratories.

Water excess-correlation. Radin (2025) reports a preliminary independent replication of a claimed “excess correlation” in pH between isolated beakers of water using magnetic field stimulation — a protocol originating outside his own laboratory that he attempted to replicate.

Presentiment / electrodermal anticipation. The evidence table includes results from studies examining physiological anticipatory responses (electrodermal activity, heart rate) before randomly selected stimuli.

Meditation and consciousness. Several entries involve meditators or practitioners as participants, examining whether practice level modulates anomalous effects.

Anomalous cognition / remote viewing. Work with Helané Wahbeh and collaborators at IONS examines remote viewing, near-death experience correlates, and extended perception tasks.

Sacred text and intention effects. Radin (2023) work includes a deconvolution analysis of EEG data across multiple languages and cultures.

Methodology

Radin’s methodological approach varies considerably across programs, but several recurring features appear across the retrieved sources:

Randomization and blinding. The GCP studies use pre-existing, continuously running hardware random number generators — the data stream is not under experimental control, which means blinding is structural rather than procedural. The double-slit experiments use pre-specified observation windows and scrambled control conditions. The water pH replication used Arduino-controlled magnetic stimulation with a non-stimulated control beaker placed between local and remote beakers, and varied separation distances (1 meter and 10 meters across different run sets).

Preregistration. At least one result in the evidence table is explicitly labeled a preregistered primary test (the 2026 human-cohort sensor study, row 1). Others are described as exploratory or as primary exploratory results (e.g., the EH3 trend analysis in Radin 2025).

Composite and multivariate analysis. The GCP New Year’s Eve study used Principal Components Analysis across multiple biosignaling measures (CD/PE/HFD/BDS/AC) at the midnight segment, with a parametric bootstrap correction. The 2026 corrigendum corrects an error in that PCA composite score — indicating active error-checking in the publication record.

Replication emphasis. Radin (2025) explicitly frames the water pH study as an independent replication of a prior group’s claim, using their stated protocol but testing sensitivity to unstated parameters (halo orientation, geomagnetic field strength, water quantity, magnetic sequence specifics).

Statistical methods. Across the evidence table, methods include Stouffer Z combination, Fisher’s method on bootstrapped p-values, repeated-measures ANOVA with Huynh-Feldt correction, permuted-slope analysis, and deconvolution. The metric mix is substantial — standardized effect sizes (Cohen’s d, Hedges’ g), raw hit rates, z-scores, correlation-family measures, and p-only reports appear across different studies and are not directly comparable.

Data

The evidence table covers 66 studies and 81 result rows, mixing several non-comparable metrics. The table below surfaces a representative cross-section; the full table renders beneath this answer.

What the pattern shows across the full set: the majority of result rows trend positive, but nine result rows report null or below-chance outcomes. The below-chance results are not marginal — the Radin (2023) single-participant experiment and the Wahbeh (2022) remote viewing result are statistically significant in the negative direction. The Alibalaei (2025) yoga-course precognition study is a clean null. Effect sizes where reported are generally small. Metrics are not pooled here because the table mixes standardized effect sizes, z-scores, hit rates, and correlation-family measures that are not mathematically comparable.

Skeptical critiques

What critics argue. Radin (2025) — the water pH replication — itself surfaces a direct methodological concern: the originating group’s protocol contained multiple unstated or underspecified parameters, including halo orientation relative to magnetic North, the Earth’s geomagnetic field strength at the test site, specific magnetic sequences, water quantity, and type. The paper notes these factors “indicate that the excess correlation effect may be sensitive” to such variables. This is not an external critic per se, but it documents the replication’s partial failure to fully constrain the protocol — a standard replication-validity concern.

What the experimental data show. The replication result for the water pH study is reported as a combined outcome across two experiments with p = 0.00046, which Radin describes as supporting the excess correlation claim. However, the protocol underspecification he documents means that the replication cannot firmly establish whether the effect, if real, depends on conditions that were not controlled — or whether positive outcomes in some runs and not others reflect those uncontrolled variables.

Analysis. Radin acknowledges in print that the replication is “preliminary” and that the parameter space of the original protocol is not fully specified. Independent replication by groups unaffiliated with IONS on the double-slit and GCP paradigms has been conducted at multiple sites (Kauffman 2023 references five laboratories), though the cumulative figure of p < 4 × 10⁻¹¹ across 30 experiments comes from a summary that does not disaggregate which laboratories produced which results. The GCP methodology has attracted criticism on the grounds that the network was not pre-specified as a single confirmatory instrument and that the choice of events and time windows introduces researcher degrees of freedom — these concerns are documented in the broader GCP literature, though the retrieved sources do not name a specific published critic for this question.

For deeper dives into specific research lines, see Dean I. Radin, PhD and the linked spoke pages on topics including the double-slit experiments, the Global Consciousness Project, presentiment, and meditation effects.