birth data of athletes against statistical probabilities; the Humanistchallenged the
Gauquelins to test their findings against the actual birth data of nonathletes. Contrary
to the expectations of skeptical critics, the Zelen Test (after Marvin Zelen, who carried
out the test) confirmed the Gauquelins’s original findings. Reluctant to admit defeat,
Zelen, Kurtz, and their colleagues quickly changed direction and began questioning the
validity of the Gauquelins’s original sample of athletes. This disagreement eventually led
the Gauquelins to agree to a new test of the Mars effect, which was to be conducted by
CSICOP with a sample of American athletes.
Dennis Rawlins, one of the founders of CSICOP and a planetary motion spe-
cialist, oversaw the calculations. Anxious to have a “sneak peak” at the preliminary
findings of the new test, Kurtz called Rawlins, only to be told that the early results
seemed to confirm the Mars effect. According to Rawlins, in an article in the October
1981 issue of Fate,a popular magazine on the paranormal, Kurtz responded to the
news with a groan and spoke “in a pained voice, as someone cursed with a demon that
would not go away.” Kurtz then supplied Rawlins with additional samples of athletes.
The last sample supplied to Rawlins contained athletes with an extremely low Mars
effect—so low as to effectively cancel the Mars effect of the original sample. Rawlins
became convinced that the last group of athletes was not a random sample (i.e., that
the sample had been intentionally designed to negate the Mars effect).
Rawlins initially attempted to correct what he saw as a cover-up by appealing
to other people within CSICOP. That group’s leadership responded by ejecting him
from the organization. Meanwhile, Kurtz published the results of the “test,” claiming
that the Mars effect had been decisively disproved. Rawlins, however, soon published
his “sTARBABY” exposé in Fate.Rawlins’s accusations were reinforced by Patrick
Curry’s article “Research on the Mars Effect,” which appeared in the Zetetic Scholar
soon after the publication of “sTARBABY.” The ensuing uproar eventually forced
Kurtz and the other CSICOP personnel involved with the test to issue a partial con-
fession. This “reappraisal” acknowledged many weaknesses in the test without admit-
ting either that the data had been manipulated or that the Mars effect might possibly
be the result of astrological influences.
To most astrologers, the “sTARBABY” incident has come to epitomize the
attitude of would-be debunkers. While many skeptics are far more reasonable than
CSICOP, the individuals behind the “sTARBABY” cover-up were clearly more inter-
ested in defending a rather narrow interpretation of scientific orthodoxy than in
empirical truth. Its image tarnished by the incident, CSICOP has since avoided active
experimentation.Sources:
Abell, George O., Paul Kurtz, and Marvin Zelen. “The Abell-Kurtz-Zelen ‘Mars Effect’ Experi-
ments: A Reappraisal.” The Skeptical Inquirer7, no. 3 (Spring 1983): 77–82.
Bok, Bart J., Lawrence E. Jerome, and Paul Kurtz. “Objections to Astrology: A Statement by
186 Leading Scientists.” The Humanist35, no. 5 (September/October 1975): 4–6.
Curry, Patrick. “Research on the Mars Effect.” Zetetic Scholar9 (March 1982): 34–53.
Forrest, Steven. “Exploring the Fear of Astrology Among the Educated.” Paper delivered at the
Cycles and Symbols conference, San Francisco, California, July 26–29, 1990.sTARBABY
[628] THEASTROLOGYBOOK