Paranormal Investigation & Human Subjects Experiments: Overlap (1)

If any of you know me, you know that for a long time I considered myself a paranormal investigator. I would wander around dark buildings with a flashlight and various bits of equipment to contact those souls on the other side. I actually had cases where I went into a person’s home, gathered personal information about them, and experimented with techniques to contact the spirits of their passed on family members still haunting them.

If only I knew then what I know about the law and ethics now.

Which is why I’m writing this. I’ve recently been through a rigorous amount of informed consent and human subjects experiments training for my degree (and upcoming practicum with human subjects) and that has me thinking about paranormal investigation and asking the question: Is paranormal investigation considered experimentation? Are there humans involved? Is paranormal investigation ethical, or even legal?

When questions about waivers and consent come about, you will inevitably hear the words ‘documents’ and ‘we have a lawyer’ dropped by seemingly concerned team leaders. While that may mitigate some concern, I don’t think it begins to address the question whether or not paranormal investigation is considered experimentation, and if it is, then it is subject to so much more than just a legal document that gets signed by a scared homeowner.

Because this is a very dense topic ,and there is a lot of support and citation involved in presenting my argument, I’m going to consider this a continuing series. In this article, I’m going to first address the definitions of human subjects experiments and the common field practices of paranormal investigations in order to support my idea: Paranormal investigation is experimentation with LIVING human subjects and is therefore subject to all the legal stipulations and ethical guidelines that human subjects experimentations are.

To support this, I will first look at some common practices of paranormal investigators. This isn’t a scientific, nor a complete, look at the ‘field’, but rather based on first-hand accounts as well as second-hand stories, observations from paranormal television shows, and other stories. I have been in the process of developing a survey for quite some time in order to empirically gather this type of data, so I would like to stress until such data is gathered and examined that this article series is merely an idea. It is not a hypothesis that has 100 percent empirical support. Yet, I would also argue that it would be rather hard to logically argue against it (I’m a little full of myself ). Second, I will briefly present some of the definitions of human subjects, experimentation and research as outlined by federal documents such as The Belmont Report (as well as provide links and information how to see such documents for yourself).

Many paranormal investigations begin with a homeowner contacting a paranormal team in need of help. Information presented by a team’s website, for example, may claim that they are able to search for information to help explain the ‘haunting’ in the home. Many teams may offer cleansing services or referrals to those that perform them. The team usually delegates one or two members to do a pre-interview with the client either on the spot on the phone or at the client’s home. At this time, name, contact information and more is gathered. In some cases, teams may ask the client for any pertinent medical information, such as medications, to rule in or out a physiological ’cause’ of the paranormal disturbance.

Once the team ‘approves’ the case, an investigation is conducted. The team arrives, and as with the case of many teams, presents the homeowner with a legal form that they are to sign. This usually states something to the effect of ‘if we break something, you can’t sue us’. It protects the team members performing the investigation. Some forms may include a statement where the homeowner gives the team legal cause to be on the property.

Next the investigation begins. Members go throughout the property and collect data. Many EVP sessions may be conducted based on information given by the homeowner as to the history of the property or the ‘ghost’ said to be present. Video is taken. The inside of the home and many items belonging to the homeowner are documents on photograph or video. All of this data is collected and taken out of the home to be reviewed by team members. Many teams divide up the work. Some members take audio/video home to analyze over the course of a few days. Once the ‘evidence’ is compiled, it is sometimes presented to the homeowner. Follow up interviews and investigations may be conducted. Referrals may be done. Comprehensive reports may be written and stored on someone’s computer, a disk drive, or in a file. The case ‘ends.’

Now, if my idea (above in bold) is accepted as true, then nearly every step of the above investigation is in human rights violation. If my premise is not true, even then some of the ethics of said technique are questionable. To help determine this, I will briefly outline some of these legal documents and considerations I mentioned earlier.

The Belmont Report, adopted by the US Government in 1979, outlines ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects for research. In the document (which may be viewed by clicking the name above), the following defintions are provided:

Practice: “refers to interventions that are designed solely to enhance the well-being of an individual patient or client and that have a reasonable expectation of success” (this is further outlined in the document as scientifically ‘proven’ success).

Research: “an activity designed to test a hypothesis, permit conclusions to be draw, and thereby to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge….usually described in a formal protocol…”

In the above scenario, paranormal investigators may act out their cases as if the work they are doing is practice, when in fact there has been no scientficically ‘proven’ success for their protocols. That would leave the work they are doing defined as research (and does it pain me to even say this). Therefore, if they are performing research, they are bound to the principles outlined in The Belmont Report (and other documents).

But then the question arises, would this be considered research on the living client or the ghost? Of course some of the data being collected in an investigation is going to be determine the existence of a ‘ghost’, however, the majority of verifiable data collected by the team involves personal information about the living client who contacted the team with a problem. Ultimately, the team is intervening in order to help the living client. This would be a living human subject, from which you are collecting personal and identifiable data from.

Title 45, Code 46 defines human subjects as: “a living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) conducting research obtains 1) data through intervention or interaction with the individual or 2) identifiable private information.”

What does this mean? It means that Paranormal investigation is then definable as research involving human subjects and therefore subject to the same laws and guidelines as other human subjects research.

In my next article on this series, I will go further into detail about the basic principles outlined in The Belmont Report and 45 CRF 46. These documents explain the duties of the investigator, the protections that are the right of the client/subject, and the need for external review boards to review every single investigation that is conducted.

Advertisement