body does constantly put out an electromagnetic field of sorts—we radiate heat, at least when we are alive and, sometimes—as during decomposition—when we aren’t. Heat is simply a type of electromagnetic energy, one that happens to lie in the infrared range. Devices such as infrared sensors and cameras with special film can easily detect the electromagnetic energy in this range. Our infrared radiation will be important in the discussion below of just what it might be that Therapeutic Touch practitioners are detecting when they claim to be sensing a human energy field. Such practitioners, of course, are not claiming that they are detecting something as mundane as body heat. The human energy field is, they argue, something previously unknown to science: a new type of energy, previously undetected by physicists. But how plausible is this claim? Whatever type of energy it is, it is strong enough to be sensed by some sort of sensory system in the practitioner’s hands. As Stenger (2000) has pointed out, physicists have long had the ability to measure astonishingly weak energy fields with great precision. For example, the magnetic field of an electron can be measured to an accuracy of one ten billionth. It seems unreasonable, in the face of such great sensitivity, to suggest that for over a hundred years physicists have overlooked an entirely different type of energy that is so strong that it can be detected just by waving one’s hands through its field. It’s rather like saying that ornithologists, who have recorded extremely rare species of birds, have for over one hundred years, failed to ever notice a species as common as the robin.
If the claim made by Therapeutic Touch supporters is true, the discovery of a strong but previously unknown type of energy would be a major scientific breakthrough, worthy of a Nobel prize. Given the potential importance of such a discovery, both theoretically and practically, one would expect that the developers of Therapeutic Touch would have spared no expense in doing elegant experiments clearly demonstrating that this new energy really exists and outlining is characteristics. Such an expectation would meet great disappointment. Consistent with the pseudoscientific characteristic of not looking closely at the phenomenon in question, Therapeutic Touch proponents have never, done even a single experiment to try to conclusively show that this energy field exists, or what its characteristics are—nor have they ever done a single study aimed at determining whether practitioners could really detect the alleged energy field.
The concept of the human energy field actually predates the rise of Therapeutic Touch by many years. For more than a hundred years psychics and related mystics have claimed to be able to see the human aura and sense a human energy field. They seem to be dead on at detecting the presence of these phenomena when there is a human being directly in front of them. Since the aura is said to extend a few inches outward from the body, it ought to be possible to detect the presence or absence of a human hidden behind, but very close to the edge of, an object that blocks the actual person from view. Psychics, of course, have never bothered to test the reality of their claimed powers in this regard—they have simply asserted that they have this power. Loftin (1989–90) did perform a test on one psychic who claimed to be able to see auras. This person did not score above chance at detecting whether or not a person was actually hidden behind a partition.
The first actual test of whether Therapeutic Touch practitioners could detect the human energy field was published by Rosa et al. in 1998. In this study, twenty-one different practitioners took part in a very simple test of their ability to detect the energy field. The practitioners sat on one side of a table. On the other side of the table was the experimenter. The table was divided by a “tall opaque screen” with two holes cut at the bottom through which, on each trial, the practitioner would put his hands. Once the hands were placed through the holes, a cloth was placed over the practitioner’s arms to prevent any cues from the experimenter’s side of the screen from being visible through the holes. On each trial, the experimenter would place one of her hands about four inches above either the left or right hand of the practitioner. Whether the left or right hand was the “target” was determined at random. The practitioners’ task was to simply indicate whether the experimenter’s hand was above his left or right hand. If practitioners can detect a human energy field, as they claim, then they should score well above the 50 percent chance figure in this situation. They did not. The overall score was 44 percent correct—below, but not significantly different from—chance.
The publication of the Rosa et al. (1998) study, the first to really examine one of the fundamental claims of Therapeutic Touch, generated a great deal of attention in the media. One reason, of course, was that the study was such a simple and elegant test of a controversial theory. Another reason was that the experiment was designed and carried out by a nine-year-old girl, Emily Rosa, who was also the second author on the paper. Emily’s mother, Linda Rosa, was the first author. Thus, Emily became the youngest person to author a scientific paper published in a professional scientific journal. Linda Rosa was a registered nurse who had serious doubts about Therapeutic Touch. Overhearing her mother discuss the issue, Emily came up with her experiment for a school science fair. This combination of an interesting and easily understood experiment with the human-interest aspect of a nine-year-old carrying it out was irresistible to the media. The story was featured on the evening news programs of all the major networks on March 31, 1998, and on the front page of the
The reaction of the Therapeutic Touch community to the publicity was the expected outrage and a considerable amount of hand waving and unintentionally humorous attempts to discredit the results of Rosa et al. (1998). It was argued that the results weren’t valid since Emily Rosa, whose energy field was to be detected in the study, wasn’t ill, and therapeutic touch practitioners could only work with the energy fields of sick people. Oddly, nowhere in the Therapeutic Touch literature had this fact ever been mentioned—it was only trotted out as an excuse after the Rosa et al. findings were published. There was much New Age-type hand waving about the inability of science to deal with something as mysterious as Therapeutic Touch. Thus, Schuller and Pennachio (1998), two RNs at Yonkers (New York) General Hospital, said that there is a “problem inherent in using standard research methodologies to research holistic practices” such as therapeutic touch.
This, of course, is nonsense. Practitioners of
Given the simplicity of the method used in Rosa et al. (1998), one might wonder why no one had thought to do such a study before. Perhaps Therapeutic Touch practitioners had thought of it, but they certainly never actually carried out such a study. Why not? As noted above, pseudoscientists rarely look closely at the phenomena they claim to be real. They rarely do well-controlled experiments to see if such phenomena are real. They much prefer to rely on intuition and the fact that they just “know” that the effect is real or the treatment works—no need to waste time doing boring old science! Schuller and Pennachio (1998) again provide a great example of this type of magical thinking. How do they know Therapeutic Touch works? “We have had very good experiences with therapeutic touch. We have had it done to ourselves, have learned how to do it, and use it with staff and patients” (p. 14A). I wonder if they would accept the same standard of proof for, say, a new drug therapy. Personal experience with a new therapy of whatever type,is valid as a guide to what might or might not be effective, but such experience, for reasons noted at the beginning of this chapter, should never be taken as the end point of an evaluation of a therapy’s effectiveness. Such experience can serve only as a guide to further objective testing of effectiveness.
While the Therapeutic Touch community may have thought about a study like Rosa et al. (1998), they obviously never carried one out. However, other, more skeptical investigators had thought of doing such a study. Specifically, James Randi tried to do a very similar study, but was unable to get any Therapeutic Touch practitioners to agree to take part (Kolata 1998). Randi, a well-known skeptic, felt that practitioners stayed away from his study because they knew it would be a careful, rigorous examination. Perhaps they didn’t take a study done by a nine- year-old as seriously.
Ironically, a later report (Long, Bernhardt, and Evans 1999) showed that a human energy field can be detected by one’s hands alone—but it’s not the human energy field therapeutic touch practitioners claim to be detecting. Long, Bernhardt, and Evans performed an experiment using apparatus much like that used by Rosa et al. (1998). Subjects, who were not Therapeutic Touch practitioners, placed their hands through a hole in a screen and tried to detect the presence or absence of the experimenter’s hand held over theirs. The experimenter’s hand was held at varying distances (three, four or six inches) above the subject’s hand. In one condition, subjects responded at a rate significantly above chance when the experimenter’s hand was three or four inches above theirs. Is this
