An Experiment in Bad Science

In an attempt to show the positive effect of prayer, the Templeton Foundation promoted a really, really bad example of experimentation.  The experiment tested 24 Mozambicans on vision and hearing tests before and after a person prayed for healing.  In the case of Proximal Intercessory Prayer (PIP), a person prays on your behalf while making physical contact.  The researchers showed positive benefits for all 24 subjects.  Unfortunately, the methods of the "scientists" leaves so much doubt that nothing can be concluded from the study.  Sadly, this bad science received a mention on healthfinder.gov.   


Let's look at this from the level of the experiment.  Missionaries working in Mozambique to care for and convert the population ran this study of hands-on prayer.  Here are some of the problems with the experiment:

1. Small Sample Size: Only 24 subjects hardly leads to conclusive results.  The larger the sample size, the more compelling the results.
2. Control Group:  The study lacked any method of control.  All 24 subjects were not only a part of the experimental group, they new they were receiving the experimental treatment.
3. Double-Blind Study: When running an ideal medical experiment, neither the subjects nor the researchers should know who receives the control or the treatment.  At the very least, the subjects should not know which group they belong to.  In this case, all subjects clearly new they were being prayed for. 
4. Sample Selection:  The members of the study were self-selected from a evangelical gathering- and would be praised for not only for participation but for success.

Without proper controls and experimental set-up, very little can be concluded other than the fact that they did not know how to perform an experiment.  These tests were also open to all kinds of errors and alternative explanations.  When testing a hypothesis, a good experimenter should design the experiment to minimize doubts, biases, and errors.  Something these researchers failed to do.