Discovery Lab Answers

The question touches on the library’s quantitative holdings, but a precise count of effect sizes per scientist isn’t something I can supply from current site data — the CURRENT SITE DATA block carries no such inventory, and counting retrieved passages would not reflect the full library (see the hard rule on that above).

What I can do is tell you which scientists appear most extensively in the quantitative and meta-analytic literature retrieved and synthesized across ESP-Nexus, based on the sources and pages actually available for this question.

Scientists with the deepest quantitative coverage in retrieved sources

Roger D. Nelson

Nelson’s work is among the most numerically dense in the library. His collaborations on RNG/REG meta-analyses — particularly with Dean Radin, York Dobyns, and Joop Houtkooper — produced explicit effect sizes, z-scores, and combined statistics across large study databases ^[4]. The retrieved commentary on Bösch, Steinkamp, and Boller (2006) alone engages effect-size distributions, heterogeneity estimates, and Monte Carlo modeling across hundreds of micro-PK studies ^[4]. His ESP-Nexus spoke page on meta-analysis and statistical methods covers individual intention vs. group effects with quantitative benchmarks. You can explore that at Meta-Analysis and Statistical Methods for Consciousness Effects.

Jessica M. Utts

Utts has produced some of the most explicitly effect-size-centered writing in the parapsychology literature — her 1991 Statistical Science paper ^[1] and her 1999 JSE work compare effect sizes across ganzfeld, remote viewing, and medical benchmark meta-analyses. Her ESP-Nexus spoke page is organized around the distinction between p-values and effect sizes, and discusses the small-to-medium effect-size range across multiple meta-analytic programs. Her profile is at https://esp-nexus.org/scientists/jessica-m-utts/.

Robert G. Jahn

Jahn’s PEAR laboratory work generated decades of REG/RNG effect-size data, and his FieldREG studies produced effect sizes across group and mass-consciousness contexts. His ESP-Nexus pages note consistent but modest effect sizes across multiple sites and protocols, with larger effects during emotionally engaged group sessions. His profile page was retrieved as directly on-topic.

Marilyn J. Schlitz

Schlitz’s electrodermal/remote staring collaboration with Richard Wiseman is notable precisely because it produced directly comparable effect sizes across experimenter conditions — the same protocol, same equipment, different experimenters, different outcomes [see her ESP-Nexus page at https://esp-nexus.org/scientists/marilyn-j-schlitz/]. That design makes it one of the few programs where effect sizes are interpretable as experimenter-effect estimates rather than just outcome measures.

A note on what “most effect sizes” means here

The library’s quantitative depth for any given scientist depends on whether their work involved meta-analyses (which aggregate effect sizes across many studies) or single-study programs. Nelson and Utts both worked extensively in meta-analytic synthesis, which means their pages and associated primary literature carry effect sizes for large numbers of underlying studies — not just their own experiments. That likely makes them the densest in raw effect-size counts across the corpus.

For the full picture of which studies carry audited, verified effect sizes, the Studies section is the place to browse — each study-audit page reports statistics only from the verified primary source.