I don't know that one can so easily dismiss the research. Web sites put online by ideological opponents have many untruths and half truths. But if you look at the scientific literature, the evidence is compelling. It includes a series of randomized controlled trials funded by the National Institutes of Health. This is the most rigorous research design. In addition, independent meta-analyses of these trials again shows beneficial effects. Many independent studies have been done, and much of the funding has come from NIH.

See, for example, the 2006 study in Archives of Internal Medicine, which is put out by the American Medical Association, and the meta-analysis by James Anderson published earlier this year in the American Journal of Hypertension.

Hi Tim…

Agreed, just because the researchers are biased doesn't necessarily invalidate the research.

And to take a look at each bit of research on the efficacy of TM would be a complete blog unto itself.

Can you point me to a link for the Anderson meta-analysis?

I haven't seen yet a meditation study that has really good controls. Having a non-meditating group as a control isn't really valid. What's needed is something to test for the false-positive like, for example, a group that gets massage for the same amount of time that the meditators are doing their practice.

Also, let's not conflate the research on hypertension, for example, with the "research" on how TM reduced crime (which it undeniably did not). And, I'm not saying that you're conflating the two, since you're not; this is just a reminder for the conversation.

Finally (for now), take a look at http://www.meditationtruth.com/meditating-and-depression/ for a reason why we should be more careful about the research. One piece of research showing a 1-hour/day meditation practice is more effective than anti-depressants… but is WAY less effective than a 1-hour/month therapy session at preventing recurrence of depression… should we be impressed with meditation's effects when the comparison is so dramatic?

"I haven't seen yet a meditation study that has really good controls."

Take a look at the TM research funded by the NIH, and many other studies on TM found at DoctorsOnTM.org. "Good controls" are standard in quality, peer-reviewed research. Many of the studies compare TM to not only eyes-closed rest, but to many other meditation techniques. Research on reduced anxiety, depression, cigarette smoking, and brain functioning and increased self-actualization, for example, all used such control groups and resulted in statistically significant findings reflected by "p" values. see also truthabouttm. org.

"Also, let's not conflate the research on hypertension, for example, with the "research" on how TM reduced crime (which it undeniably did not)."

which it undeniably did not? There are 13 peer-reviewed studies supporting the "field effect" of consciousness, first articulated by Patanjali a couple thousand years ago. This sociological effect of TM has been demonstrated about 50 times around the world. Why make such an absolute, off-hand rejection of a plausible and promising crime-reduction technology? Several very prestigious journals, such as Yale's Journal of Conflict Resolution, has published the crime research. If you understand the mechanics of the phenomenon, as explained by Maharishi or physicist John Hagelin, it makes sense. Besides, got any better ideas about how to create world peace? Everything else has failed. This is the only scientifically tested technology to create peace. Give it some thought and look at the research, don't just listen to the naysayers.

"Unfortunately, the science behind these kinds of studies was doesn't really support the theories. At all."

This generalized statement I find rather, uh, thoughtless, not to mention unfounded and untrue.

The basic "theory" behind TM is that deep within everyone is a limitless reservoir of creativity and intelligence, and that anyone can access that inner field of pure consciousness twice daily through TM and thereby unfold their full potential. This process of "self-actualization" is experienced as growth of awareness, creativity, intelligence, greater well-being and a higher state of health. The 600 research studies on TM very directly support this theory that life gets better and better when you meditate. The EEG studies show that a transformation takes place in the brain, as EEG brainwave coherence grows in daily activity, along with higher IQ, better moral reasoning, more efficient nurological functioning, etc.
So the research very solidly supports the theory espoused by Maharishi.

As far as the research being bias, and therefore not compelling, this is a glib statement often made by anti-meditation activists, but has no real meaning in the world of science. There are over 350 peer-reviewed published research studies on TM. This means that hundreds of independent, professional scientists and editorial boards of researchers, who had no vested interest in the outcomes of the research and who did not practice TM (presumably), reviewed and analyzed the TM research and found it promising and worthy of publication, time and time again in leading scientific journals.

It is also a myth that the majority of these studies were conducted by "TM scientists" or funded by the TM organization. The NIH alone has awarded over $24 million for scientists to further the research into TM effects on brain fitness and cardiovascular health.

I suggest you look a little closer at the research, where it was conducted (places like Harvard Medical School, Yale Medical School, UCLA Medical School, Stanford, etc.), and who did it before making such sweeping statements that serve only to spread misinformation.

Laughing Crow out…peace, man.

PS: But thanks for writing about meditation anyway.

Crow…

I'm not an anti-meditation activist. I TEACH meditation.

And rather than simply claiming that these studies prove whatever you're claiming they prove, CITE the study itself.

Let's take a look. I'm willing to bet that they are not as unambiguous as you think.

Your claim, without references to back it up, is no more valid than my "sweeping statements."

And, admittedly, my argument would be better supported with references as well… but I'm the kind of guy who likes to dive into the conversation first and look at the details once the ball gets rolling.

FWIW, the "peers" who reviewed the "TM eliminates crime" study in Washington, D.C. were all TM practitioners, which is hardly an independent group. And during the time of the study, most measures of crime went UP.

Glory… while "good controls" SHOULD BE a standard, they aren't as common as we would like. Even smart scientists design bad studies… if they didn't, we wouldn't need the peer review process.

Worse, many studies discover correlations and report them as causal (in part because reporters don't know the difference and merely regurgitate what came from the scientist's press release).

For example, some of the fMRI studies of long-term meditators like to report that meditation is the CAUSE of the interesting patterns they're seeing in a guy who meditated for 40,000 hours… but for all we know, that guy was able to make those brain patterns 40,001 hours ago. He could simply be the Tiger Woods of meditation.

To claim causation we'd need to make a significant number of random people meditate (and you'll have to define which type of meditation) for 40,000 hours and then check them out. And the odds are good that we'll find only certain people are "built" to meditate for 40,000 hours.

BTW, regarding "This sociological effect of TM has been demonstrated about 50 times around the world"… the "effect" has been debunked every time… read Freakonomics for just one example.

Side note… what's funny here is that I have almost no interest in debating whether TM does what the proponents claim it does. I find it fascinating that the immediate response is "YES IT DOES!" (plus some valid and some ad hominem attacks) from some obvious supporters.

My bigger interest is in the methodology by which we come to the conclusion of Yes *or* No.

And the best way to do that would be to examine one study, look at those who agree with its conclusions and those who disagree, and see what we can discover on our own.

So, once again, my request: produce one of the studies that demonstrates the beneficial effects of TM and let's start from there (I'll do a bit of hunting on my end as well, but given my current chest cold and need for bed rest, I'm not likely to get to it for a few days).

I didn't say you were an anti-meditation activists, I said the claim is one propagated by them.

"FWIW, the "peers" who reviewed the "TM eliminates crime" study in Washington, D.C. were all TM practitioners, which is hardly an independent group. And during the time of the study, most measures of crime went UP."

Actually, this is not true. A board of professional sociologists, non-meditators, independent and unaffiliated with TM were taken on to analyze the research, just to guarantee objectivity.

All the research studies with references can be found on the websites, ask the doctors, and permanent peace . org.

And, BTW, Glory and Crow… since you're the same person (same email, same IP, same website), why use different pseudonyms to make it seem that you're more than one person?

Just curious since I've never seen that kind of behavior.

Oh, and I'm loving your last line of the Glory post: "… don't just listen to the naysayers."

Why not? If they're correct, wouldn't they be the only ones worth listening to?

Again, I'm not saying they ARE correct until we have more information at our fingertips, but to dismiss someone's opinion with the ad-hominem attack that they're merely a nay-sayer is illogical.

At one point, not that long ago in our history, some nay-sayer claimed that sacrificing children each night to make sure the sun came back the next morning wasn't the real cause of the sunrise.

Glad people eventually listened to him, and him alone!

Crow… I have a friend who, along with a large group of other TMers, has been in Fairfield, Iowa, being paid to do TM for a few years… the reason for the subsidized sitting? To get the stock market to rise.

They predicted that their meditation would get the DOW to 15,000.

And, with every passing day that the market tumbles, the word from the mid-West has been: Just give it time!

(in the meantime, I'm doing a quick search on the D.C. crime study to show some analysis of it).

sorry, glory dog and I live in the same house, share a router with the same satellite server, but use two different computers, which probably more than anyone wanted to know. i could go downstairs and use my wife's cable DSL, if that would make you happy. it would show a different IP.

your point is well taken about the naysayers.

on the other hand, many African Americans pleaded for people not to head the naysayers who burned crosses in yards throughout the south during the civil rights Movement.

sometimes there can appear to be a think line between critical thinking and prejudice. i'm only suggesting that one keep a keen awareness of which side of that line one is on.

Quick search, quick results.

I'm not posting this to convince you of anything, Crow, since you're clearly a believer and I have no interest in arguing with that.

In order to give a dissenting opinion, though, here's one from Robert Park, professor of physics and former Executive Director of the American Physical Society… Did TM reduce crime?

that's "heed" not "head." uh, the naysayers.

I think we're in agreement that we should look at particular studies, their strengths and weaknesses, and not make sweeping statements about the entire body of research. and yes, you are right about controls, not all research studies are necessarily strong in that regard. truth about TM website by David Orme-Johnson looks at these issues closely, regarding TM research.

permanent peace ,org presents a fairly clear look at the sociological studies and the principles behind it.

Totally agreed re: keeping track about the line between critical thinking and prejudice (as well as where one stands)… that was my real point in this post.

thanks for that article. i think i've seen it before, but will read again. as i recall, it expresses the usual dismissal of the Maharishi Effect on grounds that, to my ear, sound more like intellectual prejudice than actual science. thomas kuhn articulates the process of a new science and the usual bias and resistance that a new science meets from the old paradigm. but it's all good and part of the process. kuhn says it's very hard for a man to desert a tradition, that the old generation usually just dies out, then the newer generation can embrace the new world view. that TM can reduce crime is definitely a new world view. (or, a really old one, if you read Patanjali…)

Kuhn says that people who are career scientists can easily just cease to be scientists when confronted with research that conflicts with their world view. they often can't even look at the data. i find this is common with the Maharishi Effect. the objections are usually, almost always, not about the actual studies, controls, findings, and statistical significance, but are about how this new theory clashes with or undermines their world view. fascinating. so thank yo, i will read the article with interest.

When you read it, I think you'll see it's not the kind of pat dismissal you're describing here.

Far from it, I'd say.

Whew, what an exchange. I believe that most of the clinical studies were rigorously controlled. The control groups in most of the NIH-funded randomized controlled trials were given training in health education (e.g., diet and exercise).

The Doctors on TM web site gives an overview of the study I mentioned that was published by the AMA:

http://www.doctorsontm.com/american-medical-association

The abstract of the meta-analysis in AJH can be found here:

http://www.nature.com/ajh/journal/v21/n3/abs/ajh200765a.html

The crime studies aren't on Transcendental Meditation per se, but on group practice of Transcendental Meditation AND the TM-Sidhi program. You can read a response to Park here:

http://istpp.org/crime_prevention/voodoo_rebuttal.html

Steven, I'd have to agree with you regarding the tone of the responses.

ok, will read. "participants seemed unaware of the mounting carnage around them."

see, the tone, that's not science, that's emotional. this is not about telling a dramatic story to sway the reader, it's about time series analysis and statistical projections, comparisons to crime in previous years.

I was there as part of that group. i also lived in DC. i was well aware of the crime. that's why we were there.

will read on. thanks.

Yes, I have read this one. And, actually I do find it to be a prime example of paradigmatic bias and even intellectual bigotry. Note that this is a paper in a peer-reviewed journal, but an article by a "professional skeptic."

see truthabout tm rebuttal:

Park’s book and article put forward the specious claim that the D.C. experiment was a failure. Yet violent crimes against the person (homicides, rapes and assaults) not only decreased during the 8 weeks of the experiment, but also closely tracked the rise in the number of participating TM meditators, as predicted. The 23% drop in violent crime was confirmed to be statistically significant using time series analysis: the probability that the decrease was due to chance is less than two in a billion. The analysis showed that violent crime decreased when it usually reaches its peak during the hot summer weather, and a direct relationship between the size of the meditating group and the drop in violent crime.

"Moreover, in his book he writes: “This . . . is not to say that those involved were not sincere in their belief. They may have believed so fervently that they felt a responsibility to make the facts support their belief” [emphasis in the original]. In other words, Park makes the unfounded claim that the researchers falsified evidence supplied by the Washington, DC, police. With high-handed condescension he acknowledges the “sincere belief” of the researchers, while making the most serious charge of scientific misconduct. These statements amount to a charge of scientific fraud. In his SI article and the book, Park also tries to insinuate that the researchers made fraudulent scientific claims — repeating the charge of “pseudoscience,” referring to the “experiment” in quotation marks, and again implying that the researchers were so biased that their beliefs were unalterable by the outcomes of the experiment. His statements are an insult to the integrity of the researchers, the Project Review Board, the editors and reviewers of Social Indicators Research, and the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department’s statistician, who provided the FBI crime data and co-authored the study.

"…mounting carnage" is editorial, but it's not unsubstantiated. It's referring to what he says in the next sentence about the the unprecedented rise in the murder rate during the 2 month experiment.

Crow, if you were part of the study and put all that energy into creating an effect, you would be a rare bird indeed to have your thoughts and opinions unbiased by your participation and whatever motivated you to participate in the first place.

It's an unusual scientist who can spend years on a thesis and then conclude, "Nope. Didn't work," especially when it can be tricky to define causality (there were lots of factors that could have influenced crime rates, including the non-linear factors of reversion to the mean… a test that I haven't heard conducted would be having TM meditators lower crime rates in a place where crime was already statistically low and, therefore, more likely to revert to the mean by rising).

Again, you may be that rare bird.

Tim, that first study is EXACTLY what I'm describing as a methodological problem… no test for a false positive!

Having meditators as the test and non-meditators as the control is NOT a valid control. Or, rather, what needs to be controlled or tested is whether it was the meditation that was the causal factor in any results.

For example, would the same results be seen if there was a group that, instead of meditating, just sat quietly for 20 min, twice a day?

If the meditators were taught in a group, or had any group interaction, we'd need a control group that had a similar set of meetings.

And we haven't even begun to approach a topic that is HIGHLY debated in the meditation research world, namely, the placebo effect of meditation — that most people EXPECT meditation to have an effect.

Further, your own example supports my point when the meta analysis says "may decrease blood pressure of normotensive and hypertensive individuals but study-quality issues have been raised."

And, OF COURSE the ISTPP.org will argue with Park's analysis… because ISTPP is John Hagelin's organization, and Park is criticizing Hagelin in the excerpt, above.

BTW, my comment about the full-time TM effort to raise the DOW vanished in the mix here

Thanks again, guys! Very provocative chat.

Again, I'm not going to try to win a debate about whether TM lowers crime or not.

Just once again going to highlight that this stuff is not NEARLY as simple as people want it to be and that much of the research proves how challenging it can be when even smart people design bad studies.

I'm reminded of the guys who "invented" cold fusion. One physicist said to them, "Have you tried the experiment with regular water instead of 'heavy water?"

"Why would we do that?" replied the VERY smart scientists who "discovered" cold fusion.

"Because you say that heavy water is what makes this experiment work. So if you replace the heavy water with regular water and you still get energy out of that jar, you've just proven that the effect is coming from some other cause."

Needless to say:

A) when they used regular water, they still got "energy," proving that there was something wrong with their premise, and;

B) They hid that data

As I said, I haven't seen a similarly designed study in the meditation world yet.

not sure what to say about the Dow Jones thing. Stock market is wild and going through so many adjustments now. any assessments of correlation between group meditation and the rise and fall would take careful study, and cannot be evaluated by anecdotes. Have there been formal claims as to specific TM effects on the current stock market? Not to my knowledge.

The NIH-funded studies do control for contact time and the nature of the contact. Many different kinds of controls have been used in the 350-400 peer-reviewed studies on TM, including periods of relaxation. I would think that a randomized controlled trial would control for expectation. The subjects who were recruited had no interest in meditation. They were simply people who had health problems and agreed to participate in a study. They were randomly assigned to TM or to health education. Why wouldn't expectation be the same for the two groups? And why would one experience a placebo effect and not the other? Some of the particular populations studied likely had never heard of Transcendental Meditation.

An interesting study ($2 million, NIH) currently under way at Howard University will specifically address the one question you raise. Both groups will learn Transcendental Meditation, and one group will also be trained in health education.

It's hard for me to believe that there would be obvious methodological problems in a study that was funded by NIH. The grant process is, as you know, highly competitive. And presumably the AMA wouldn't publish a study with an obvious weakness.

In giving the ISTTP link I had hoped that you might read what Maxwell had written.

Time to go meditate. : )

Here's an overview of the NIH research, along with links to the full text of a number of studies:

http://www.tmeducation.org/research-national-institutes-of-health

Though my understanding of study design is somewhat limited, I was under the impression that studies are not considered definitive until they have been independently replicated. Has this been done with the crime study?

Also, I am curious about information showing that despite the constant presence of TM meditators in Iowa for decades, the crime rate in Iowa went up dramatically during a time period in which it went down in neighboring states:

http://www.behind-the-tm-facade.org/maharishi_effect-mdefect-iowa.htm

While I think it would be extraordinary if TM actually could reduce crime, in the absence of independent verification, that claim appears to be highly questionable–particularly when considered in light of the 2004 murder on MIU’s own campus.

Lena, I would like to distinguish between research on Transcendental Meditation and research on the group practice of the TM-Sidhi program. The former research is fairly well accepted. The latter is admittedly highly controversial. And it has not, to my knowledge, been independently replicated. Nor will it likely be, simply because it's difficult to do and unaffiliated researchers simply don't have the interest.

The web page you point to is unpublished. As such its hard to tell whether the methodology is valid. For example, it says that the murder index in Iowa increased 244% between 1991 and 1998, yet if you look at the following web page, the number of murders in 1998 was actually lower than in 1991:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/iacrime.htm

Yes, the murder on campus was tragic. I was in the dining hall when it happened.

And in reply to Steven, yes it was publicly and widely announced that a large group practicing the TM and TM-Sidhi programs that convened in 2006 would result in the stock market going up. And when the market initially did, the results of statistical analysis of the correlation were also announced widely. So it is difficult to explain the recent decline.

My personal feeling: there have been some interesting research results that have been published, especially related to violence, and are hard to dismiss. Anecdotal evidence can often contradict research results. And the tendency to make grand claims sometimes backfires. : )

And my personal feeling in regard to the market: the research is strongest in the area of violent crime. There's never been much of a correlation between group practice of the TM-Sidhi program and property-related crime rates. To my mind, the market hypothesis made the problematic assumption that a high market is prima facie a good thing. We're finding that market bubbles that are out of sync with reality seem to be a bad thing.

I have been meditating a long time and while scientific validation is great I am the sort of person who will rely more on personal experience. To me it is simple, TM works. Those 20 minutes of deep silence twice daily are invaluable. Over time I have become more settled, more peaceful and calm. There have been many times where the profound inner silence I have developed as a result of TM has helped me resolve difficult situations. I credit TM with helping me develop clarity of mind, happiness, courage, and self esteem. And when I begun practicing the TM-Sidhi program, I discovered that the positive e effects increased manifold.

Hi Serial,

Human beings are "wired" to trust their personal experience above almost anything else… even when personal experience is dramatically misleading.

I'm not suggesting that your experience is wrong or inaccurate, and you raise an interesting point: "it works."

Well, we need to define what "works" is… if it's the results you describe, then it raises an interesting set of questions, like:

* Are there more effective ways of getting the same results?
* Could these results be coming from some other cause? (that we haven't noticed because we're convinced we know the cause)
* Do these causes *always* lead to the same results? (or are their other factors, including "self-selection," where the kind of person for whom the cause will be effective are the very people attracted to the cause itself)

The value of a scientifically-minded investigation is to examine those types of questions, questions that we are highly unlikely to consider without provocation, and questions that lead to arguments (or worse) from people who have different personal experiences.

I'm reminded of a conversation I heard some Tai Chi teachers having. One described his personal experience of having broken his back and then claimed "the curving motions of Wu-style Tai Chi cured it. Wu style is best for this kind of thing." Another teacher said, "Yes, but I broke my back as well, and I cured it with Yang style Tai Chi."

The debate began in earnest until another teacher said, "Okay, shut up… here's what we do… we get 20 guys… we break their backs… each of you gets ten guys…"

Luckily the laughter calmed things down before a real fight over lineage began.

Now the other joke is nobody suggested another possibility: Perhaps that kind of broken back is "cured" by time and no other technique is the cause.

These are all good points that steven mentions:

* Are there more effective ways of getting the same results?
* Could these results be coming from some other cause? (that we haven't noticed because we're convinced we know the cause)
* Do these causes *always* lead to the same results? (or are their other factors, including "self-selection," where the kind of person for whom the cause will be effective are the very people attracted to the cause itself)

A logical and cogent assessment of possible alternative explanations of the reported and scientifically-validated benefits of TM.

Of course it is precisely because humans are "wired" to tend to trust their personal experiences that, in philosophy and science, more value is placed on intersubjective verification and empirical research findings that on subjective opinion.

All the major findings on TM's benefits have been replicated by independent research — reduced blood pressure, reduced anxiety, increased EEG coherence, etc. Many of the peer-reviewed studies did indeed control for the variables and alternative explanations mentioned above. Any single study by itself might not carry enough weight to convince your average reductivist scientist that TM's reported benefits are "caused" by twice daily meditation, or that no other form of meditation could produce the same results. But when you have over 350 peer-reviewed studies on a diversity of subjects varying in age, culture, background, occupation, lifestyle, diet, etc., showing dramatic results from a single type of meditation practice, studies with strong p values and statistical significance, then there's a point where the causal relationship between TM practice and the reported benefits becomes the most rational option.

Another important consideration is the highly successful, promising and concise theory of consciousness advanced by Maharishi, which offers a satisfying explanation of TM's benefits in terms of the mechanics of transcending and the natural development of consciousness to its full potential. I call it a 'successful' theory because TM's effectiveness — i.e., its many benefits to daily life (and to society — even though understanding and acknowledging the societal benefits requires a major shift in world view) — is a demonstration and validation of the theory. If TM produced no practical benefits, then Maharishi's theory of personal growth and development of consciousness would have no verification and would just be flowery words.

Finally, it is through direct personal experience that one ultimately verifies the source of TM's benefits. As Maharishi always said, "The taste is in the eating of the pudding." The experience of pure consciousness, the state of samadhi, is 100% self-verifying. That this is a valid and 'real' experience and not some private, exotic self-hallucination is corroborated by:

1. The scientific research studies on TM showing a 4th state of consciousness, especially the brain research.

2. The texts of Vedic Science (such as the Upanishads or Bhagavad-Gita) that very precisely describe the universal experience of transcending and higher states of consciousness.

3. Records from essentially every ancient culture, East and West — literature, philosophy, religion — that describe this universal experience of Transcendence in the same terms (silence, non-changing, awake, Self-knowing, Absolute, infinite, unbounded, etc.)

I personally place more stock in direct personal experience than scientific research, because no amount of science can authoritatively verify the existence of a higher state of consciousness; then secondly I appeal to Maharishi's seven states model of consciousness, which my own experience validates with ease.

The nature of the technique is such that it transcends itself and the whole realm of concept, opinion and belief, allowing one to gain the experience of pure consciousness. This may sound theoretical or metaphysical if you don't have the experience, but if you do, nothing is more real or concrete.
The clear experience through twice daily transcending leaves no doubt as to what is the cause of TM's many benefits. Such a question could only be raised from outside that experience.

Peer review does not guaranty quality. Peers don't review the hard data. You absolutely must look at individual studies and make a judgment about each one. I have read a number of TM studies and in every one I have found one issue or another.

As far as the value of the TM experience, I often wonder how many who were taught TM (claimed to be in the millions) continued to be regular meditators. The TMO doesn't keep track. My bet is not many. It never did much of anything for me.