SSE’s March Babies are in Good Company!

• March 3, 1847: Alexander Graham Bell was born—the visionary scientist who famously invented the telephone and discovered the photoacoustic effect (the understanding of which via the later-developed principle of thermoelastic expansion also helped explain microwave auditory effect). Interestingly, variations on his original invention have since played a sporadic but meaningful role in frontier science.
  
  For example, Brian Laythe and Natalie Roberts’ 2023 paper in the Journal of Scientific Exploration presented a new application (‘app’) for mobile phones that uses symbols of the four elements (earth, wind, fire, and water) to test an individual’s psi performance in real-world settings (see: https://doi.org/10.31275/20222789).  

• March 26, 1953: Jonas Salk announced on a national radio show that he had successfully tested a vaccine against poliomyelitis, the virus that causes the crippling disease of polio. Before his accomplishment, the disease paralyzed or killed over half-a-million people.
  
  Vaccines are now commonplace in many respects, but related controversies persist in the biomedical field as exemplified by Harald Walach and Rainer Klement’s case study of dubious review and retractions processes they personally encountered for a couple of papers that challenged mainstream narratives about treatment and public policy issues during the COVID-19 pandemic (see: https://doi.org/10.31275/20243249)
  

Every March 15th, the world recalls the Ides of March, the infamous date in 44 BCE when Gaius Julius Caesar was assassinated by those who saw him as a threat to the Roman Republic. It is a day imbued with cautionary symbolism—the price of hubris, the peril of challenging entrenched power, and the unpredictable nature of revolutionary change. But beyond political intrigue, the Ides of March offers a striking parallel to the world of frontier science, where radical ideas often meet the intellectual daggers of the entrenched and survival-oriented “status quo.”

Throughout history, scientific progress has depended on bold thinkers—mavericks willing to challenge prevailing dogma. Galileo defied the Church with heliocentrism, Pasteur battled skepticism over germ theory, and Wegener endured mockery for proposing continental drift. Their ideas, initially dismissed or derided, ultimately reshaped our understanding of the universe. Like Caesar marching on Rome, these pioneers dared to cross intellectual Rubicons, only to find themselves besieged by defenders of conventional “wisdom.”

Maverick scientists often find themselves in an uneasy alliance with institutions, just as Caesar’s populist reforms threatened the Senate. Disruptive theories that challenge established paradigms can provoke fierce resistance, whether from peer review boards, funding agencies, or professional societies. The history of science is littered with examples of innovators who, like Caesar, were metaphorically “stabbed”—not by physical blades, but by retractions, professional exile, or reputational ruin. Yet, time has vindicated many of these scientific insurgents.

However, not all revolutionary ideas withstand scrutiny. Some theories—like cold fusion or the steady-state universe—have faded after rigorous testing, much like political uprisings that fail to hold power. This underscores the delicate balance between open-minded inquiry and rigorous skepticism. Science, like governance, must evolve through debate and evidence rather than unchecked radicalism, and not to mention the threats of “scientism” and “pathological skepticism.”

The lesson of the Ides of March for frontier science seems clear to me: great paradigm shifts are not for the faint of heart. They demand resilience, strategic alliances, and a willingness to endure intellectual combat. Some visionaries will be vindicated, others will be forgotten, but history teaches us that revolutions—whether in Rome or in the laboratory—are never without consequence, which often includes great pain and sacrifice.

Warmly,

James Houran, Ph.D.

Interim-President, SSE
Editor-in-Chief, JSE

Back to Top

JSE’s Spring Issue Drops Soon

Readers should see the new open access issue around the end of March. Lots of intriguing content, including an editorial highlighting the innovative Frontier Journalists Network, research on the concept of psi-encoded information, a case study of a boy who perceived colored fields, after-death communications involving animals, and an investigation into Haunted People Syndrome. Plus, read essays on diverse topics like decolonizing the phenomenon of possession, the concept of non-probablistic futures, and the odd history of commercial bread.

SSE’s 43rd Annual Conference: August 30-31, 2025

This year’s Annual conference is an online event centered on “Exploring the Unexplained.” So, mark your calendars now.

With the ever-expanding scientific knowledge and ever-exploding technological advances, we may be wondering where the boundary of scientific discovery resides, what governs the conditioning of the boundary of discovery, and which edge of the establishment the boundary of the discovery must stay on and not walk off. “In fact, science is not a collection of truths. It is a continuing exploration of mysteries” (Freedman Dyson). “The value of science, of all its many values, the greatest must be the freedom to doubt” (Richard Feynman). Science advances by questioning the present.

SSE therefore solicits abstracts documenting exciting new frontier research related to the conference theme.

Read the "Call for Abstracts" at: https://www.scientificexploration.org/2025-Call-for-Abstracts

Submit your paper at: https://www.scientificexploration.org/event-6079383 

Hear the New Episode of “#Breakdowns”

Our series continues on “Extraordinary Ideas for Ordinary People.”  

The second episode involves the SSE commentators discussing Eric Dullin’s 2024 JSE article about the features and patterns of anomalies reported in poltergeist cases—really fascinating stuff.

Back to Top

Meet SSE’s masterful Secretary and Full member, Mark Urban-Lurain.

Mark is an SSE Emeritus, Full member since the mid-1990’s, as well as serves as SSE’s Secretary (since 2008, no less!). No one works harder for SSE than Mark, even though his critical contributions to maintaining SSE’s website and membership records are often taken for granted. With a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology and an Associate Professor Emeritus with Michigan State University, Mark is also a big deal in mainstream academia. His research has focused on theories of cognition, how these theories inform the design of instruction, how we might best design instructional technology within those frameworks, and how the research and development of instructional technologies can inform our theories of cognition. Lately, his studies have examined the use of a variety of statistical and machine learning techniques to analyze student writing in introductory STEM courses. He recently talked with us about his backstory and long-standing involvement with the SSE.

Please talk about your career journey and what led you to your current work

My career journey is non-traditional.  After completing my bachelor's degree, I worked as an engineer in radio and television stations.  During that time, I learned about the work of Michele and Francoise Gauquelin, sometimes known as the “Mars effect,” a statistical effect where eminent professionals had certain planets rising or culminating at the time of their birth.  This was the first, large scale, statistical evidence for an astrological phenomenon.

Studying the Gauquelin results and other research on astrological effects, I realized that research in this area requires more statistical expertise than I had.  That prompted me to complete my Master’s degree in statistics and computer modeling.  For my thesis, I did the first multivariate study of astrological phenomena.  Eventually, I applied my statistical skills to modeling more mainstream topics: how to best teach computer science to non-computer science students, the focus of my Ph.D. research.

This led to a faculty position and a very rewarding mainstream research career.  My research group was the first to apply machine learning analyzing student writing about key scientific concepts to reveal student misconceptions and help improve undergraduate science classes. That work was a precursor to much of the current work in Large Language Models (e.g., ChatGPT).

What do you find most rewarding about your research in frontier science?

My interest started with a particular topic (astrology) but I soon became interested in the broader role of frontier science as I studied the history and philosophy of science. Thomas Kuhn contrasts normal science, the daily work of most scientists who use current paradigms to make predictions, with scientific revolutions. In normal science, there can be anomalous results that do not conform to the accepted paradigm.  Generally, these anomalies are dismissed as experimental errors. However, as more anomalies accumulate, more and more scientists begin to question the accepted theories.  Eventually, new theories emerge that accommodate both the old data and the anomalous data, and a paradigm shift occurs. Therefore, anomalies are usually at the cutting edge of scientific advances.

What sets SSE apart from other organizations addressing specific frontier topics (e.g., UFOs, Psi) is that SSE is the “big tent” which provides a meeting ground for researchers across various frontier topics.  Bob Jahn, SSE’s founding Vice President, was always pushing researchers to look for theoretic frameworks that explain or encompass multiple frontier phenomena.  I believe that approach is what is needed for frontier topics to be accepted or incorporated into existing science and help science advance.  

What are some of the biggest challenges you’ve faced in your career, and how have you overcome them?

During my Master’s work, I struggled to find faculty who would support my astrological research interests.  Eventually, I was fortunate to find some who were willing to suffer the derision of their colleagues and stand up for academic freedom.  While they did not think anything would come of my work, they supported open, rigorous study.  It was my first exposure to how close-minded some in the academy are. 

As I moved into a faculty position, I knew that I had to foreground my “normal” science to obtain funding, build a research program and publish.  My involvement in SSE, although it occasionally raises some eyebrows, allows me to emphasize that SSE exists as a forum for presenting peer-reviewed research.  While most scientists dismiss frontier topics out-of-hand, they value the peer-review process and academic freedom.  By demonstrating that we play by the rules, I encounter less pushback. 

How has being a part of SSE benefited you both professionally and personally?

One of the rewarding aspects of science is participating in a community of practice with others who share interests.  Attending professional conferences and talking with colleagues is a key part of developing as a scientist.  For me, SSE provides a community of practice where we share a culture of scientific curiosity and support/critique each other’s frontier work.  And I’ve learned about topics that I knew nothing about before I was part of SSE.

What advice would you give to someone just starting out in frontier science?

Don’t quit your day job! There are very few funding opportunities for frontier science, so most researchers must find other means to support their work.  If you are interested in an academic career, be aware that work in frontier science is not likely to help your tenure review.  This is why most academics who are actively involved in frontier science tend to be senior, having obtained tenure by publishing mainstream work in mainstream journals before branching out into frontier science. 

Back to Top

A Farewell Funny

“How did Julius Caesar like his water? — Rome temperature.”