The next phase supporting the worldwide public interested in consciousness.

Please share! Check for updates at

Ways to be part of the community or be involved as a professional:
1. LIKE and Share the FB page-
2. Sign up for email announcements-
3. Donate directly to CERC/UWB
4. Contribute content, media/interviews – Email us at

‘Consciousness For the New Generation’ New Campaign Launched – SSF as advocate for the establishment of programs in consciousness research and education

Building on its successful 2014 campaign, The Public Rebuttal which was backed by 250+ PhD/MDs, Set Science Free (SSF) is now spearheading a related campaign to support consciousness research and education in university programs. The purpose of the TED Campaign was to demonstrate to TED that there is support among the scientific and academic community to challenge dogmatic materialistic belief systems. Our goal was also to challenge TED to live up to its own mission statement.

We discovered in our conversation with Chris Anderson, curator of TED, that he alone made the decision to pull Rupert Sheldrake’s controversial TED talk (about the limits of materialistic science) based on an “informal discussion” with a few unnamed scientists and journalists. Anderson also cited entries that were critical of Sheldrake from the online crowd-sourced ‘Wikipedia’ as a reason to segregate Sheldrake’s talk. Wikipedia, a known hotbed of consciousness deniers and organized pseudo-skeptic groups was a part of the decision making process for TED. These disclosures do not bode well for the reputation of TED’s curatorial process.

In short, belief-laden interests as well as willful ignorance of research has guided TED’s actions. To be fair, Mr. Anderson’s decision reflects a common and well known academic and institutional bias in support of philosophical materialism. With that said, willful ignorance and institutional bias do not constitute any semblance of a plan of action for the new generation of scientists. The very spirit of science itself is at stake when research (from Sheldrake and a multitude of others) is dismissed sight unseen, solely based on the subject matter and not on the content or merits of the actual research. The educational system must change to combat this hindrance to scientific progress.

In recognition of the critical and timely need for paradigmatic change, Set Science Free’s sophomore campaign has now been launched. SSF is focusing on assisting the introduction of new consciousness research programs (and related curricula) into the American educational system. We are doing this by offering direct assistance to the professors, researchers, and students who are initiating these programs through an awareness campaign and fundraising. The consciousness research findings that are presently available are not being utilized in academia and we are advocating a change to include appropriate representation.

While many scientists and academics worldwide understand and regularly experience the challenges of materialist politics firsthand, they are justifiably engaged with research and professorial duties, and thus do not have the time to act as educational activists. This is where Set Science Free aims to insert itself—in the role of aid and advocate. Our new campaign can be defined as tersely thus:

Set Science Free is currently working with any professor or student organization that has an interest in starting a Consciousness research program at their respective university. Our current effort is focused on the Center for Education and Research in Consciousness (CERC)—an initiative at the University of Washington, Bothell. Click here to download the official CERC proposal. This is an initiative that began through the vision and persistent determination of UWB professor, Dr. Kathleen Noble and a group of devoted students who organized a consciousness club. The university has recently completed a historic first quarter of Consciousness as a minor. This is a significant milestone for consciousness research and education as a whole, as it has set a precedent for the possibility for similar programs on a national level. UWB’s minor in consciousness is the first of its kind at a public research university and in a School of (STEM) Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math. CERC’s logical next step is to develop and offer an undergraduate major (a BA or BS) in Consciousness, and it hopes to achieve this in the next two years. In the next four years, CERC’s objective is to offer an entire graduate-level program. These goals cannot be met, however, without a 20 million dollar endowment. Set Science Free is coordinating the fundraising effort for CERC and is actively seeking donations. Help us raise 20 million for CERC. But first let’s get to $250,000. This would give CERC the official status within the state of Washington as an entity within the university system. This would be a major boost in terms of development and fundraising capacity.

Consciousness Club - University of Washington - Bothell
Consciousness Club – University of Washington – Bothell

Set Science Free is also actively seeking professors and/or students who might have an interest in starting a similar program at their own universities. Our close partnership with CERC has given us the opportunity to learn key political, organizational, and fundraising strategies. Please contact us if you are a professor, student, or teacher and are interested in bringing Consciousness Studies to your university or school, and/or if you would like more information on CERC. Email us at The abovementioned campaign will define Set Science Free’s primary focus and ongoing priorities until it is fully realized.

For Financial Donations to CERC please send check made out to —
“University of Washington – Bothell”

and send here with attention to —

Melissa S. Arias Associate Vice Chancellor of Advancement
University of Washington Bothell
Box 358528
18115 Campus Way NE Bothell, Washington 98011-8246
I would suggest adding a note that the donation is made to the CERC initiative with “no restrictions” so that they can use the funds immediately for whatever need is most urgent during these early stages.


Previous Campaign

On April 2, 2014, Set Science Free held its public rebuttal of TED and delivered the petition signed by 251 PhDs and MDs.

Chris Anderson, curator and leader of TED, kindly accepted the petition and spoke with Set Science Free supporters for about 15 minutes. Furthermore, he promised to review the petition and list of signatories.

We invite Anderson to contact Set Science Free for any additional assistance in bringing together scientists who are uninformed about relevant research. We support TED’s mission and we look forward to assisting TED should they call on us to help Set Science Free from dogma.

Set Science Free congratulates the signatories for their effort to support science and challenge dogma. Stay tuned for further updates.

For those TED watchers who signed a petition on, that petition will be left in place gathering additional signatures before being sent to TED.

Paul Revis handing over petition to TED curator, Chris Anderson
Paul Revis handing over petition to TED curator, Chris Anderson






Richard Perl, Esq., speaking at Set Science Free public rebuttal
Richard Perl, Esq., speaking at Set Science Free public rebuttal


Set Science Free supporter
Set Science Free supporter


Paul Revis speaking with Set Science Free supporter
Set Science Free supporter speaking with Revis




Science should be open to challenge and anonymous scientific boards must be exposed as a matter of scientific principle. Help us set science free. Petition for PhDs and MDs. Let’s make this Science Spring 2014′. 251 signatures.

On April 2, 2013, finalized their decision to ban Rupert Sheldrake, PhD‘s TEDx talk “The Science Delusion” from their main database of searchable talks. Sheldrake’s talk focused on general dogma and other assumptions in science, more specifically the theory of materialism (the view that all reality is reducible to physical matter including mind, will, humor, emotions, and memory). Read more about materialism

The decision to remove the talk was handed down by TED’s ‘anonymous scientific board’ which, according to TED, consists of a few unnamed scientists and journalists. TED’s ‘scientific board’ initially challenged the scientific validity of the talk but failed and their objections were ultimately retracted. Yet despite being unable to find any reasonable justification, TED proceeded to remove it, ignoring the advice of a multitude of scientists who had called for them to reinstate it. The removal of the lecture has ignited an intellectual and scientific backlash against TED that has been raging for nearly a full year.

Here is the TEDx Talk that started the controversy and inspired this movement. “The Science Delusion”:

It was disrespectful for TED to remove his talk without giving a valid reason. In response to TED’s action, we are organizing a public rebuttal to be held at the TED Headquarters in Lower Manhattan, New York City. This is scheduled to occur April 2, 2014 on the one-year anniversary of the removal of Sheldrake’s talk. ALL PhDs and MDs are encouraged to attend and/or sign the petition today.

Sheldrake challenged TED’s ‘anonymous scientific board’ to a public debate. TED refused, and additionally refuses to name the members of the “scientific board” that called for the removal of his talk. Legitimate scientific boards are not anonymous. Science is based on personal accountability and members of scientific boards and scientific journals must be public.

While we understand Ted is a non profit with no legal responsibility to accept the thought of all scientists or thinkers, it has become the central hub of cutting edge social and scientific thought internationally. With 1.5 billion+ followers, Ted is often referenced by schools, universities and other institutional communities (scientific, religious, philosophical and more) as the online hub for the most current thought. We accept and appreciate Ted for this. Our goal is not to destroy Ted, but rather to keep its stage one that doesn’t promote dogmatism and provokes evolving thinking. We believe Ted, as an institution with so much influence and trust from its constituents has a duty to hear, acknowledge and respond to those same constituents.

Join our growing list of scientists and academics, including Nobel Prize winning Physicist, Brian D. Josephson FRS, Emeritus Professor of Physics at University of Cambridge, in signing the petition calling for the Sheldrake lecture to be fully reinstated. If you are a PhD or MD and you care about scientific integrity and open science for all disciplines, click Petition & Recommendations to sign the petition. 

We urge everyone, including PhDs and MDs to attend as the larger number of people who participate, the greater impact we can have. IF YOU CAN BE IN NYC, WE NEED YOU IN PERSON. PLEASE TAKE THIS CALL TO ATTENDANCE SERIOUSLY. The public rebuttal will held at the TED Headquarters in Lower Manhattan, New York City.

TED Conferences
250 Hudson St.
Suite 1002
NY, NY 10013

To read more in depth about this controversy and discover why the scientific and academic communities are organizing to fight forward, click here. Summary of TED Controversy

If you are planning to attend in person, please email us at so that we can better gauge how many are coming and plan accordingly. 

Wish you could be there but it’s just not feasible? Read the Petition and sign the demands here. Petition & Recommendations. Take immediate action. Enter your information to the right under “Sign the Petition” and we’ll add your name to our petition of supporters which will be delivered to TED’s corporate offices on the day of the public rebuttal.

If you prefer to sign the petition by email, please email: Please include your full name and a link to your credentials.

Please feel free to send us your comments below in “leave a reply”  which will be made public,  or contact us directly in the “feedback form”.


  1. nancy L. Lyon

    Censorship denotes a closed mind. I believe your disallowing Rupert Sheldrake to speak is in direct conflict with the TED mission.

  2. TED’s ‘Anonymous Scientific Body’ represents a dangerous turn for science the world over as (1) TED remains a standard for the general public in comprehending the current state of science and (2) as an institution that presents itself as a science-promoting body, it necessarily requires and demands evidentiary scrutiny; this includes scrutiny of its shadowy, and thereby suspect, Body. What is being suggested by the events that befell Sheldrake is that there is a backdoor collusion in the works at TED that promotes ideologies over facts. That evidence is not the name of the game at TED, despite that it is entirely the purpose of science. This is patently dangerous, if not nefarious, as well as opposed to the very spirit of science and to the public that relies on TED to reflect not only scientific and technological progress but reality itself.

  3. May I sign the petition, even thought I’m only a lowly MA? My dad had 2 PhDs, so epigenetically, I have PhD genetic material, right? 😉

  4. Fred Bloggs

    A quotation from Nikola Tesla comes to mind here:

    “The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all previous centuries of its existence.”

    If science is to break through to this next level of understanding, it will need an intellectual background which supports research into ‘non-physical phenomena’.

    If the materialist ideologues are allowed to persist with their control over science, they will continue to try to kid us that they’ve got the universe all sorted out – which is no different from living under the rule of a fundamentalist theocracy.

    The world needs all freethinking MDs, PhDs and Nobel Laureates to ‘come out of the closet’ – and as soon as possible.

  5. I couldn’t agree more with everything Rupert said, and in fact, everything he said has been troubling me for some time now. I am at the point, and have been saying this prior to viewing this wonderful lecture, that basically, “science” has become the new Catholicism. I hope this horrible politcal and cultural movement will come to a sharp end and free the minds of the many who were seduced into drinking its pseudo-intellectual hemlock kool-aid.

  6. can you please give me a reference for that qoute, i love it so much i want to find it from its original source, thank you please let me know.

  7. I invent, I develop and I do research using good old fashioned rules of science, I have a background in Electronics, Engineering, Telecoms & software
    I am preparing publications on advanced machine translation work I have done, shows standard SMT to be obsolete
    For me, I want to see science open to challenge, open to examination and being excluded from signing the petition because of a piece of paper (MA/PHD) is no better than the TED board actions
    I have knowledge, expert knowledge in my field and as an avid reader of scientific papers I am a person who may be affected by decisions of boards like this
    Does this attitude mean that my papers will be judged on the fact I do not hold a university MA/PHD or doctorate instead of on its merit where it stands as equal among some of the best in the world?

  8. Exclusion of all without Md or Phd ? Not a good start to a protest against dogmatic science. Mark Twain quit at age 11, Henry Ford at 15, Father of the Typewriter and equatorial sextant never went, and scores of other great minds who actually produced brilliance for the use by society. Wright bros, 16. The dogma of science begins with “requirements”, “entitlements” and Titles.
    It certainly should not be limited only to those who can actually stomach that many years listening to it in the first place. Harumph!! , What about those who actually never bought it, never wanted it, and were willing to take life without it at any cost ?
    Banal rhetoric. Science does not require a predisposition to obedience, but an Md and Phd do.
    The case for compulsory ed is on the same chopping block as your petition.

  9. Blair Frazer Smith

    For all the comments here complaining about not being able to sign, well how about you start a petition yourself? its pretty easy through or avaaz etc. Whereas I hear your points, I think your ego’s have crept into the debate just a little. I do not have an MD or Phd but have no issue with not being able to sign this because I intuitively realised that the point of creating a petition signed by MD’s and Phd’s will send a very concrete and powerful message to TEDx (or more importantly it’s anonymous scientific board). They claim Rupert’s talk is pseudo-science but this petition will show that the scientific community disagree and want the subject matter open for public debate. As I say, a general petition for anyone to sign can easily be created.

    I have heard Rupert Sheldrake speak in public and in the questions and answers he came across as a very unassuming man, definitely someone willing to debate any subject, open to other people’s views and ideas. He talked about how Richard Dawkins had invited him for interview and debate, so Rupert said he would like to talk about certain things, as well as what Richard had in mind. Dawkins responded saying he was not willing to discuss those points because he considered it pseudo-science and as such the meeting was cancelled. To this day Rupert Sheldrake has always stated he is willing to do a public debate with Dawkins but the gauntlet has yet to be taken up, funny that. I would not be surprised if Dawkins turned out to be one of the anonymous TEDx scientific board.

  10. Bree

    I agree, I understand why I cannot sign as I am not a PhD or MD, but I will be showing up at the protest anyway. Please post date and time – get a movement going!

  11. Barbara Kiley

    Let us all sign and send our petition alongside the officially educated. I agree with the non-Phd, MD posts above that it would be useful to have the input of all who would like to prevent censorship on TED. I believe there should be a parallel petition of interested parties (who, after all, reflect TED’s potential ratings). Creating a separate petition elsewhere would be lost in the fog, however, using them in tandem has more kick. Various alternative website blogs like,,, etc., even various professional organization blogs like those for pilots and engineers would insure a high number of signatures. Hit this with our best shot. People are sick (literally) of nuclear lies, energy-breakthrough “keep-aways,” medical tyranny, and food contamination. They are ready to address many of the scientific hoaxes.

  12. An

    I agree that everyone who believes in setting science free should be enabled to sign. I also think that Tesla was alot more modest & tolerant of everyone, than todays’ professionals. It’s ironic, isn’t it, that the very scientists who are anti-dogma, are also elitist themselves by excluding us. If they truly believed in God (i.e. not just the existence of Non-materialism, but also that God is resident even within the most lowly Non-scientists) – then they’d be more inclusive of all mankind, would they not? Indeed they’re defeating their own purposes by being exclusionary, NO DIFFERENT than TED has excluded some from within their rank. Don’t they see the irony?

  13. Winston Smith

    Why tolerate creativity censorship? Develop a forum of your own that’s true to the spirit of open dialogue…instead of kowtowing to, or whining about Comrade Ogilvy. Consider the genesis of other platforms: Facebook… youtube… Twitter…Instagram… This ain’t the only game in town unless you want it to be!

  14. Andromeda

    Why are you giving so much effort to TED? New life evolves by new sprouts growing around the old giants. They have become senile. Their time has passed.

    To quote Max Planck: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

    Let TED die. Start a new web forum!

  15. There are some parallel earlier open petitions at close to 1000 signatures each, you can find more info at the Facebook Group: Boycott TED support Graham Hancock, Rupert Sheldrake or the Facebook Page: TED vs Sheldrake, Hancock & TEDx West Hollywood

    We support the new effort by the Science Set Free organization!

  16. Tom Jones

    Science implies support of the scientific method. TED’s censorship (ie. moving Sheldrake’s talk elsewhere), fails the scientific method, and harks back to the church’s position on Galileo.

    Science and TED should welcome people like Sheldrake with open arms. If Sheldrake is making relevant points, then science will be the better for it. If Sheldrake is wrong, then the scientific method will be the better for it.

    Comments by Jerry Coyne about Sheldrake are an embarrassment to science and the University of Chicago, and fails to meet the basic standards of science.

  17. Ric Roderick

    When I grow up I want to be able to talk at a TED conference about eugenics like Bill Gates and help shut up legitimate voices like Suzanne Taylor, Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock. Before you know it you’ll be left with only people who would have burned Galileo at the stake, had they been alive back then.

  18. Mike S

    Well said Nancy, you summed my thoughts exactly. I think it is deplorable that so called “scientists” are allowed to indulge such ridiculous, petty biases at the expense of so many who are searching for the truth. The person or people involved should be forced to step down and should be barred from ever having anything to do with TED talks again. Censorship and outright social manipulation using main stream media is so prevalent I can’t believe it’s legal, it’s so insultingly stupid I refuse to follow any mainstream media. The internet is a great source of information if you take the time to read enough. Finding this kind of shallow self-indulgence in TED is extremely frustrating, especially when the researchers being blacklisted have a history of doing work with great intelligence, integrity, and scrupulous honesty. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the TED buffoons who prevented their work from being shown. The hypocrites in TED should be forced to step down.
    If TED continues to indulge these tyrants TED will see a declining following and something better will rise up to take it’s place. So my message to TED is, “change or die”. Perhaps the so called “scientists” who blocked these talks will recognize that phrase, although even that is open to question now. What can we expect from these mentally straight-jacketed in future?
    Change or die TED, Change or die!

  19. Mike S

    Well said Winston, my thoughts exactly.
    If TED indulges these tyrants it will become bland and uninspiring, and something better will rise up to take it’s place.
    Change or Die TED!

  20. I have been exploring for a little for any high quality articles or blog posts in this kind of area . Exploring in Yahoo I ultimately stumbled upon this web site. Reading this information So I’m glad to show that I have an incredibly good uncanny feeling I came upon exactly what I needed. I such a lot indubitably will make certain to don’t forget this web site and give it a look a relentless basis.

  21. Paul Revis

    Thank you for visiting. Together we can push science forward.

  22. Anonymous

    Somehow I imagine the comments here are being edited, shocking.

  23. Kirellous

    When science stops trying to prove itself wrong, or feels it has a monopoly on the truth the way it sees the truth, then it becomes a religion.

    This is scientism.

    I get the impression that science is simply being used as a vehicle to push atheism. When religion and politics mix, it is the religion that suffers as it loses credibility. In a similar vein, when science and any ideology mix, it too loses credibility. All of us can present theories and ideas that reflect our worldview. It doesn’t make them true, and if 2 worldviews oppose or contradict each other, it isn’t because of lack of evidence; it is due to the inherent worldview of that particular scientist.

Leave a Reply