Hmm. The small sample size is concerning, I must admit, as is the lack of corroborating evidence. Did Sheldrake have any partners in his research, or has that information been disclosed?

I'm also a bit concerned by the use of the word "proof." Any good scientist can tell you that you can't ever have "proof" of anything - the whole point of scientific theory is that new evidence can overrule old ideas. Either that's bad reporting by Reuters, or I have even more reason to doubt this guy.

Not that I don't trust the theory itself, but I hesitate to trust the study.