Daylia,

they too have not reported random assignement of the mice to the groups, but in this case that is not so damning for the study because the effect sizes reported are so big (dead vs. alive).

In a somewhat simple example: If a messias heals/resurrects a person that is already dead the lack of a placebo control group (or nonrandom assignement) is not really vital. Whereas in pain perception a placebo effect can in the mind of most scientists explain all or most of the effect, there is no reasonable argument that a mere belief in the effectiveness of the treatment alone can wake up a dead person.

Extremely big effect sizes need no controls. If a messias really would wake up a dead person any scientist saying well he perhaps selected a dead still a bit fresh looking and therefore random assignement has been violated would only get laughter from his colleagues. There still could be counter arguments (fraud etc.) but lack of random assignement isn't a good one.

Still I would have preferred random assignement. All I said is under the assumption that the usual course, mice dying after about three weeks, is correct. I have no expertise at all on that field.

The study therefore seems good at the first glance but for two things: (1) The journal itself is a bit fringe science and is not considered respectable. But that alone is not a very good reason to reject it. There have been dismal studies in respectable jounals and vice versa.
(2) They only cite positive references. No really critical discussion of their results can be found. That looks a bit fishy to me.

I would have loved to read more about precautions against fraud in that study for that in my eyes is the most probable hypothesis. Replacement of the mice by similar looking ones by a person with a strong interest in one particular result. That thought seems not to have crossed their minds.

Anyway, such a result when corroborated should get a Nobel prize but my guess is we'll never more read about it in any mainstream journal. If the authors really believe they have found what they claim they should seek the way out into the world of peer reviewed journals.

I'll have to rethink what I have said about Backster. Perhaps I have mixed him up with another person doing similar research. I find normally the information in the Scepdic reliable but their language too hard and uncompromising. (Don't show that link to Amos, he'll not like what one can read there about Swann.)

Wolfgang