Editing Rupert Sheldrake (section)

== Public reception ==
Sheldrake's ideas have been discussed in academic journals and books. His work has also received popular coverage through newspapers, radio, television and speaking engagements. The attention he receives has raised concerns that it adversely affects the public understanding of science.<ref name=whitfield/><ref name="Maddox 1981"/><ref name=rose/><ref name=Rutherford/> Some have accused Sheldrake of self-promotion,<ref name=Rutherford/> with Steven Rose commenting, "for the inventors of such hypotheses the rewards include a degree of instant fame which is harder to achieve by the humdrum pursuit of more conventional science."<ref name=rose/>

=== Academic debate ===
A variety of responses to Sheldrake's ideas have appeared in prominent scientific publications.

Sheldrake and theoretical physicist [[David Bohm]] published a dialogue in 1982 in which they compared Sheldrake's ideas to Bohm's [[implicate order]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Sheldrake|first1=R.|last2=Bohm|first2=D.|year=1982 |title=Morphogenetic fields and the implicate order |journal=ReVision |volume=5 |page=41}}</ref> In 1997, physicist [[Hans-Peter Dürr]] speculated about Sheldrake's work in relation to [[modern physics]].<ref>{{cite book |editor-last=Dürr|editor-first=H. P.|year=1997 |title=Rupert Sheldrake in der Diskussion |publisher=Scherz}}</ref>

Following the publication of ''A New Science of Life'', ''[[New Scientist]]'' sponsored a competition to devise empirical tests for morphic resonance.<ref name="Roszak"/> The winning idea involved learning Turkish nursery rhymes, with psychologist and broadcaster [[Sue Blackmore]]'s entry involving babies' behaviour coming second.<ref name="Blackmore 2009"/> Blackmore found the results did not support morphic resonance.<ref name="Blackmore 2009"/>

In 2005, the ''[[Journal of Consciousness Studies]]'' devoted a special issue to Sheldrake's work on the sense of being stared at.<ref name=sciam/> For this issue, the editor could not follow the journal's standard peer-review process because "making successful blind peer review a condition of publication would in this case have killed the project at the outset."<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.imprint.co.uk/Editorial12_6.pdf |title=The Sense of Being Glared At- What Is It Like to be a Heretic? |author= Anthony Freeman |access-date=12 December 2013 |archive-date=28 July 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130728012154/http://www.imprint.co.uk/Editorial12_6.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> The issue thus featured several articles by Sheldrake, followed by the open peer review, to which Sheldrake then responded.<ref name=sciam/> Writing in ''Scientific American'', Michael Shermer rated the peer commentaries, and noted that the more supportive reviews came from those who had affiliations with less mainstream institutions.<ref name=sciam/>

Sheldrake denies that DNA contains a recipe for [[Morphogenesis|morphological development]]. He and developmental biologist Lewis Wolpert have made a [[scientific wager]] about the importance of [[DNA]] in the developing organism. Wolpert bet Sheldrake "a case of fine port" that "By 1 May 2029, given the genome of a fertilised egg of an animal or plant, we will be able to predict in at least one case all the details of the organism that develops from it, including any abnormalities." The Royal Society will be asked to determine the winner if the result is not obvious.<ref>{{cite journal |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327161.100-what-can-dna-tell-us-place-your-bets-now.html |title=What can DNA tell us? Place your bets now |journal=New Scientist |date=8 July 2009 |last1=Wolpert|first1=L.|last2=Sheldrake|first2=R. }}</ref>

===="A book for burning?"====
In September 1981, ''Nature'' published an editorial about ''A New Science of Life'' entitled "A book for burning?"<ref name=TimAdams/><ref name="Maddox 1981"/> Written by the journal's senior editor, [[John Maddox]], the editorial commented:

{{blockquote|Sheldrake's book is a splendid illustration of the widespread public misconception of what science is about. In reality, Sheldrake's argument is in no sense a scientific argument but is an exercise in pseudo-science ... Many readers will be left with the impression that Sheldrake has succeeded in finding a place for magic within scientific discussion—and this, indeed, may have been a part of the objective of writing such a book.<ref name="Maddox 1981"/>}}

Maddox argued that Sheldrake's hypothesis was not [[testable]] or "falsifiable in Popper's sense," referring to the philosopher [[Karl Popper]]. He said Sheldrake's proposals for testing his hypothesis were "time-consuming, inconclusive in the sense that it will always be possible to account for another morphogenetic field and impractical."<ref name="Maddox 1981" /> In the editorial, Maddox ultimately rejected the suggestion that the book should be burned.<ref name="Maddox 1981" /> Nonetheless, the title of the piece garnered widespread publicity.<ref name="maddox2" /><ref name="Rutherford" /><ref name="Rose 1988" /> In a subsequent issue, ''Nature'' published several letters expressing disapproval of the editorial,<ref name="josephson">{{cite journal |last=Josephson|first=B. D.|year=1981 |title=Incendiary subject |journal=Nature |volume=293 |page=594 |doi=10.1038/293594b0 |issue=5833|bibcode=1981Natur.293..594J|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Clarke|first=C. J. S. |year=1981 |title=Incendiary subject |journal=Nature |volume=293 |page=594 |doi=10.1038/293594a0 |issue=5833|bibcode=1981Natur.293..594C |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Hedges|first=R. |year=1981 |title=Incendiary subject |journal=Nature |volume=293 |page=506 |doi=10.1038/293506d0 |issue=5833|bibcode=1981Natur.293..506H |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Cousins|first=F. W. |year=1981 |title=Incendiary subject |journal=Nature |volume=293 |pages=506–594 |doi=10.1038/293506e0 |issue=5833 |bibcode=1981Natur.293..506C |doi-access=free }}</ref> including one from physicist [[Brian Josephson]], who criticised Maddox for "a failure to admit even the possibility that genuine physical facts may exist which lie outside the scope of current scientific descriptions."<ref name="josephson" /><!--Additional citations needed: Other letters called for Sheldrake's ideas to be tested scientifically to determine their validity.-->

In 1983, an editorial in ''The Guardian''<!-- possibly by Brian Inglis --> compared the "petulance of wrath of the scientific establishment" aimed against Sheldrake with the [[Galileo affair]] and [[Lysenkoism]].<ref name="Galileo">''Being more than sorry about Galileo'', ''[[The Guardian]]'', 14 May 1983, p. 10</ref> Responding in the same paper, [[Brian Charlesworth]] defended the scientific establishment, affirming that "the ultimate test of a scientific theory is its conformity with the observations and experiments" and that "vitalistic and Lamarckian ideas which [''The Guardian''] seem to regard so highly have repeatedly failed this test."<ref name="Charlesworth">[[Brian Charlesworth|Charlesworth, Brian]], ''The Holy See—but it takes a long time to admit it'', ''[[The Guardian]]'', 19 May 1983, p. 12.</ref>

In a letter to ''The Guardian'' in 1988, a scientist from [[Glasgow University]]<!-- that is David P. Leader, Glasgow University--> referred to the title "A book for burning?" as "posing the question to attract attention" and criticised the "perpetuation of the myth that Maddox ever advocated the burning of Sheldrake's book."<ref name="Leader"/> In 1999, Maddox characterised his 1981 editorial as "injudicious," saying that even though it concluded that Sheldrake's book

<blockquote>should not be burned ... but put firmly in its place among the literature of intellectual aberration. ... The publicists for Sheldrake's publishers were nevertheless delighted with the piece, using it to suggest that the Establishment (''Nature'') was again up to its old trick of suppressing uncomfortable truths.<ref name=maddox2/></blockquote> An editor for ''Nature'' said in 2009 that Maddox's reference to [[book burning]] backfired.<ref name=Rutherford/>

In 2012, Sheldrake described his time after Maddox's review as being "exactly like a papal excommunication. From that moment on, I became a very dangerous person to know for scientists."<ref name=TimAdams/>

====Sheldrake and Steven Rose====
During 1987 and 1988 Sheldrake contributed several pieces to ''The Guardian'''s "Body and Soul" column. In one of these, he wrote that the idea that "memories were stored in our brains" was "only a theory" and "despite decades of research, the phenomenon of memory remains mysterious."<ref>{{cite news|title=Resonace [sic] of memory: Body and soul|last=Sheldrake|first=Rupert|work=The Guardian|date=6 April 1988|page=21}}</ref> This provoked a response by [[Steven Rose]], a neuroscientist from the [[Open University]], who criticised Sheldrake for being "a researcher trained in another discipline" (botany) for not "respect[ing] the data collected by neuroscientists before begin[ning] to offer us alternative explanations," and accused Sheldrake of "ignoring or denying" "massive evidence," and arguing that "neuroscience over the past two decades has shown that memories are stored in specific changes in brain cells." Giving an example of experiments on chicks, Rose asserted "egregious errors that Sheldrake makes to bolster his case that demands a new vague but all-embracing theory to resolve."<ref name="Rose 1988"/>

Sheldrake responded to Rose's article, stating that there was experimental evidence that showed that "memories can survive the destruction of the putative memory traces."<ref>{{cite news|title=The chick and egg of morphic resonance|last=Sheldrake|first=Rupert|work=The Guardian|date=20 April 1988|page=23}}</ref> Rose responded, asking Sheldrake to "get his facts straight," explaining the research and concluding that "there is no way that this straightforward and impressive body of evidence can be taken to imply that memories are not in the brain, still less that the brain is tuning into some indeterminate, undefined, resonating and extra-corporeal field."<ref>{{cite news|title=No proof that the brain is tuned in|last=Rose|first=Steven| date=27 April 1988|work=The Guardian|page=23}}</ref>

In his next column, Sheldrake again attacked Rose for following "[[materialism]]," and argued that [[quantum physics]] had "overturned" materialism, and suggested that "memories may turn out to depend on morphic resonance rather than memory traces."<ref>Memory over matter: Body and Soul The Guardian 4 May 1988, p 21</ref> Philosopher Alan Malachowski of the [[University of East Anglia]], responding to what he called Sheldrake's "latest muddled diatribe," defended materialism, argued that Sheldrake dismissed Rose's explanation with an "absurd rhetorical comparison," asserted that quantum physics was compatible with materialism, and argued that "being roughly right about great many things has given [materialists] the confidence to be far more open minded than he is prepared to give them credit for."<ref>Alan Malachowski, A bum note in morphic resonance, The Guardian 11 May 1988</ref>

In 1990, Sheldrake and Rose agreed to and arranged a test of the morphic resonance hypothesis using chicks.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Sheldrake |first=Rupert |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SyeKFT9hPTUC&dq=rupert+sheldrake+steven+rose+chicks&pg=PT204 |title=The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature |date=2011-07-01 |publisher=Icon Books Ltd |isbn=978-1-84831-313-2 |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last=Rose |first=Steven |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9SM3lw_4wTcC&dq=rupert+sheldrake+chicks&pg=PA49 |title=Lifelines: Life beyond the Gene |date=2003-10-09 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-803424-7 |language=en}}</ref> They were unable to agree on the intended joint research paper reporting their results,<ref name=":0" /> instead publishing separate and conflicting interpretations. Sheldrake published a paper stating that the results matched his prediction that day-old chicks would be influenced by the experiences of previous batches of day-old chicks—"From the point of view of the hypothesis of formative causation, the results of this experiment are encouraging"—and called for further research.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Sheldrake |first=Rupert |journal=Rivista di Biologia |url=http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/morphic/pdf/formative.pdf |title=An experimental test of the hypothesis of formative causation |year=1992 |volume=85 |issue=3–4 |pages=431–43 |pmid=1341836 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130727181657/http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles%26Papers/papers/morphic/pdf/formative.pdf |archive-date=27 July 2013 }}</ref> Rose wrote that morphic resonance was a "hypothesis disconfirmed."<ref name=rose/> He also made further criticisms of morphic resonance, and stated that "the experience of this collaboration has convinced me in practice, Sheldrake is so committed to his hypothesis that it is very hard to envisage the circumstances in which he would accept its disconfirmation."<ref name=rose/> Rose asked [[Patrick Bateson]] to analyse the data, and Bateson offered his opinion that Sheldrake's interpretation of the data was "misleading" and attributable to experimenter effects.<ref name=rose/>

Sheldrake responded to Rose's paper by describing it as "polemic" and "aggressive tone and extravagant rhetoric" and concluding: "The results of this experiment do not disconfirm the hypothesis of formative causation, as Rose claims. They are consistent with it."<ref>{{cite journal|title=Rose Refuted|url=http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/morphic/Rose_refuted.html|journal=Rivista di Biologia|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130921153139/http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles%26Papers/papers/morphic/Rose_refuted.html|archive-date=21 September 2013}}</ref>

=== On television ===
Sheldrake was the subject of an episode of ''Heretics of Science'', a six-part documentary series broadcast on [[BBC Two|BBC2]] in 1994.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.episodecalendar.com/show/heretics-of-science |title=Heretics of Science |publisher=episodecalendar.com}}</ref> In this episode, John Maddox discussed "A book for burning?," his 1981 ''Nature'' editorial review of Sheldrake's book, ''A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance''. Maddox said that morphic resonance "is not a scientific theory. Sheldrake is putting forward magic instead of science, and that can be condemned with exactly the language that the popes used to condemn Galileo, and for the same reasons: it is heresy."<ref name=heretics/> The broadcast repeatedly displayed footage of book burning, sometimes accompanied by audio of a crowd chanting "heretic."<ref name=heretics/> Biologist [[Steven Rose]] criticised the broadcast for focusing on Maddox's rhetoric as if it was "all that mattered." "There wasn't much sense of the scientific or metascientific issues at stake," Rose said.<ref name="Rose 1994"/>

An experiment involving measuring the time for subjects to recognise hidden images, with morphic resonance being posited to aid in recognition, was conducted in 1984 by the [[BBC]] popular science programme ''[[Tomorrow's World]]''. In the outcome of the experiment, one set of data yielded positive results and another set yielded negative results.<ref name=heretics/>

===Public debates and lectures===
Sheldrake debated with biologist [[Lewis Wolpert]] on the existence of telepathy in 2004 at the [[Royal Society of Arts]] in London.<ref name=new-scientist-wolpert/> Sheldrake argued for telepathy while Wolpert argued that telepathy fits [[Irving Langmuir]]'s definition of [[pathological science]] and that the evidence for telepathy has not been persuasive.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/RSA_text.html |title=The RSA Telepathy Debate – Text |publisher=sheldrake.org |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131101173044/http://www.sheldrake.org/D%26C/controversies/RSA_text.html |archive-date=1 November 2013 }}</ref> Reporting on the event, ''New Scientist'' said "it was clear the audience saw Wolpert as no more than a killjoy. (...) There are sound reasons for doubting Sheldrake's data. One is that some parapsychology experimenters have an uncanny knack of finding the effect they are looking for. There is no suggestion of fraud, but something is going on, and science demands that it must be understood before conclusions can be drawn about the results."<ref name=new-scientist-wolpert/>

In 2006, Sheldrake spoke at a meeting of the [[British Association for the Advancement of Science]] about experimental results on telepathy replicated by "a 1980s girl band," drawing criticism from [[Peter Atkins]], [[Lord Winston]], and [[Richard Wiseman]]. The Royal Society also reacted to the event, saying, "Modern science is based on a rigorous evidence-based process involving experiment and observation. The results and interpretations should always be exposed to robust peer review."<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1528150/Festival-attacked-over-paranormal-nonsense.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1528150/Festival-attacked-over-paranormal-nonsense.html |archive-date=12 January 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |title=Festival attacked over paranormal 'nonsense' |date=6 September 2006 |work=The Telegraph |last1=Highfield|first1=Roger|last2=Fleming|first2=Nic}}{{cbignore}}</ref>

In April 2008, Sheldrake was stabbed by a man during a lecture in [[Santa Fe, New Mexico]]. The man told a reporter that he thought Sheldrake had been using him as a "guinea pig" in telepathic mind control experiments for over five years.<ref name=SFNM/> Sheldrake suffered a wound to the leg and has recovered,<ref name=SFNM/><ref>{{cite news |last=Sharpe|first=Tom|date=5 December 2008 |title=Judge orders mental-health help for man who insists his mind is being controlled |work=Santa Fe New Mexican}}</ref> while his assailant was found "guilty but mentally ill."<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.albuquerquejournal.com/news/state/apguilty11-08-08.htm |title=Jury Finds Japanese Attacker Guilty, Mentally Ill |work=[[Albuquerque Journal]] |date=8 November 2008 |access-date=6 November 2013 |archive-date=12 November 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131112052039/http://www.albuquerquejournal.com/news/state/apguilty11-08-08.htm |url-status=dead }}</ref>

In January 2013, Sheldrake gave a [[TEDx]] lecture at TEDxWhitechapel in [[East London]] roughly summarising ideas from his book, ''The Science Delusion''. In his talk, he said that modern science rests on ten dogmas that "fall apart" upon examination and promoted his hypothesis of morphic resonance. According to a statement by TED staff, TED's scientific advisors "questioned whether his list is a fair description of scientific assumptions" and believed that "there is little evidence for some of Sheldrake's more radical claims, such as his theory of morphic resonance." The advisors recommended that the talk "not be distributed without being framed with caution." The video of the talk was moved from the TEDx YouTube channel to the TED blog accompanied by the framing language called for by the advisors. The move and framing prompted accusations of censorship, to which TED responded by saying the accusations were "simply not true" and that Sheldrake's talk was "up on our website."<ref name=tedblog/><ref name=independent>{{cite news |last=Bignell|first=Paul |work=The Independent |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/ted-conference-censorship-row-8563105.html |title=TED conference censorship row |publisher=Independent Print Limited |date=7 April 2013}}</ref>

In November 2013, Sheldrake gave a lecture at the [[Oxford Union]] outlining his claims, made in ''The Science Delusion'', that modern science has become constrained by dogma, particularly in physics.<ref name=OxStu>Gillett, George, [http://oxfordstudent.com/2013/11/28/the-science-delusion-has-science-become-dogmatic/ ''The Science Delusion: has science become dogmatic?''], 28 November 2013, ''[[The Oxford Student]]''. Retrieved 25 December 2013.</ref>

===In popular culture===
Between 1989 and 1999, Sheldrake, [[ethnobotany|ethnobotanist]] [[Terence McKenna]] and mathematician [[Ralph Abraham (mathematician)|Ralph Abraham]] recorded a series of discussions exploring diverse topics relating to the "[[Anima mundi|world soul]]" and evolution.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=sheldrake.org |title=The Sheldrake–McKenna–Abraham Trialogues |url=http://www.sheldrake.org/Trialogues/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131128060018/http://www.sheldrake.org/Trialogues/ |archive-date=28 November 2013 }}</ref> These resulted in a number of books based on the discussions: ''Trialogues at the Edge of the West: Chaos, Creativity and the Resacralization of the World'' (1992), ''The Evolutionary Mind: Trialogues at the Edge of the Unthinkable'' (1998), and ''The Evolutionary Mind: Conversations on Science, Imagination & Spirit'' (2005). In an interview for the book ''Conversations on the Edge of the Apocalypse'', Sheldrake says he believes the use of [[psychedelic drugs]] "can reveal a world of consciousness and interconnection", which he says he has experienced.<ref name="Brown2005">{{cite book|last=Brown|first=David Jay|title=Conversations on the Edge of the Apocalypse: Contemplating the Future with Noam Chomsky, George Carlin, Deepak Chopra, Rupert Sheldrake, and Others|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uCF5SBj0EmUC&pg=PA75|access-date=13 December 2013|date=6 June 2005|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|isbn=9781403965325|pages=75–}}</ref> Alternative medicine advocate [[Deepak Chopra]] is a supporter of Sheldrake's work.<ref name=baer>{{cite journal|doi=10.1525/maq.2003.17.2.233|title=The Work of Andrew Weil and Deepak Chopra—Two Holistic Health/New Age Gurus: A Critique of the Holistic Health/New Age Movements|year=2003|last1=Baer|first1=Hans A.|journal=Medical Anthropology Quarterly|volume=17|issue=2|pages=233–50|pmid=12846118|s2cid=28219719}}</ref><ref name=chopra-review/>

Sheldrake's work was amongst those cited in a faux research paper written by [[Alan Sokal]] and submitted to ''[[Social Text]]''.<ref name=Hoax>{{cite book |editor=Sokal, A. D. |year=2000 |title=The Sokal Hoax: The Sham that Shook the Academy |publisher=University of Nebraska Press.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=QkcuQFBXLFQC&q=Sheldrake |isbn=978-0803219243}}</ref> In 1996, the journal published the paper as if it represented real scientific research,<ref name=Will>Will, George, [https://books.google.com/books?id=QkcuQFBXLFQC&dq=George+Will+Gibberish+Sokal&pg=PA91 ''Smitten with Gibberish''], [[The Washington Post]], 30 May 1996. Republished in ''The Sokal Hoax: The Sham that Shook the Academy'', edited by Alan Sokal. University of Nebraska Press (2000). Retrieved 10 November 2013.</ref> an event that has come to be known as the [[Sokal affair]]. Sokal later said that he had suggested in the hoax paper that 'morphogenetic fields' constituted a cutting-edge theory of quantum gravity, adding that "This connection [was] pure invention; even Sheldrake makes no such claim."<ref name=Hoax />

Sheldrake has been described as a New Age author,<ref name="Guardian holistic"/><ref name=gunther/><ref name=frazier/> but does not endorse certain New Age interpretations of his ideas.<ref name=hanegraaff/>

The 2009 ''[[Zero Escape]]'' video game ''[[Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors]]'' was inspired by Sheldrake's morphogenetic field theories.<ref name="Oswald2016">{{cite journal |last1=Somerdin |first1=Melissa |title=The game debate: Video games as innovative storytelling |journal=The Oswald Review |date=2016 |volume=18 |issue=1 |page=7 |url=https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1165&context=tor |access-date=5 November 2022}}</ref><ref name="Siliconera2010">{{cite news |title=999: 9 Hours, 9 Persons, 9 Doors Interview Gets Philosophical, Then Personal |url=https://www.siliconera.com/999-9-hours-9-persons-9-doors-interview-gets-philosophical-then-personal/ |access-date=5 November 2022 |work=Siliconera |date=3 September 2010}}</ref>