I do share some of these same frustrations. Would there were greater funding, we might see more progress. But a field cannot rest on "what ifs." The effects, it seems to me, are inherently elusive, which is one reason why I am sometimes frustrated with by-the-hour psychics or channelers (indeed, Rhine stopped working with them in mid-1960s). Even those who I believe have something prove inconsistent., which also raises an ethical question. Jeff Kripal argues that lab evidence is passé and more remarkable and verifiable episodes appear in the field. I'm not ready to abandon the lab model because I do believe it attains precious breakthroughs, such as Bem's. A venture capitalist who attended one of my talks in 2022 told me, "Your problem is that you have an engine that works only 10% of the time." That's a valid critique, at least insofar as application goes. The search for a theory is also important. If a person engages in science, a theory is his or her in-law, whether they like it or not. So, I do want to see refinement and progress. But my sense is that these hard-won lab models have pointed to something replicable and extraordinary.