Although this method has been found independently in several places over the last 20 years, including by my late wife Aurelia and myself, it became widely known only during the last few years, mainly through the work of Rosemary Crossley in Australia, Douglas Biklen at Syracuse University, and Carol Berger of Eugene, Oregon. Many people are using it now, and the results have often been spectacular. To give just one instance, David Eastham in Canada wrote a book of poetry which was published and translated into French. He graduated from junior college before his untimely death, and his mother Margaret Eastham has detailed his accomplishments in the biography Silent Words.

There have been skeptics and a number of quantitative studies have been attempted to validate this form of communication. In each of them, the student was asked to convey some information not known to the facilitator. However, most of these studies have given negative results because of serious flaws in their methods, resulting from a failure to understand what was being tested. In fact, all that these studies have shown is that it is possible to interfere with the process of facilitated communication.

Those of us who have had extensive experience realize that the non-verbal people are shy and that communication is inherently difficult for many of them. One attempted validation method used has been to show the person four objects, then bring in the facilitator and try to get the names of the objects. But who has not had the experience of being unable to think of the name of a familiar person when suddenly confronted with the need to make an introduction? Finding names for objects is often not easy for many non-verbal people, although they can do better with practice in a relaxed setting. In another kind of failed validation experiment, pictures are shown to the person communicating and to the facilitator, with a screen arranged so that each could not see what the other saw. When the two saw the same picture, sometimes the name was typed, but not when different pictures were shown. This not only involves the problem of naming objects, but also defeats the facilitated communication by distracting the facilitator who should be paying attention to nothing but the movements of the hand being steadied, avoiding perseveration on one key to produce a string like xxxxx. The facilitator needs to make sure that the person is concentrating on the task of communicating.

Despite the handicaps of the non-verbal subjects, statistically valid tests of facilitated communication can be done. It is necessary first to test whether the person can do the sort of thing that is asked, under quiet, relaxed conditions. Not every non-verbal person can do everything. It has been said, quite rightly, that they have "splintered abilities," very strong in some things but deficient in others. Once it has been found that the person can do some thing such as match a name to a picture of an object or even pick a word from a list or from a printed page, then he or she should be allowed to practice that skill until it can be used during the validation test. This might well take several weeks. All of us have practiced taking examinations from infancy, so that most of us are not upset by further testing. Finally, the facilitator should not be distracted by information, true or false. {Any physicist knows that you must be careful to disturb the thing being measured as little as possible. To disturb the communication being tested is like looking for a ping pong ball on the floor of a dark room by shuffling your feet around. If you kick it even slightly, it's not there any more, and you can deny its existence.)

Indeed. four such tests have been carried out and announced. In Australia, students were able to communicate the order of four blocks, colored red, yellow, green and blue, which the facilitator could not see. In a court case in New York, a well- practiced non-verbal girl was able to identify objects whose photographs were shown to her. Attempts to fool the facilitator by showing pictures which were sometimes the same, sometimes not, were overcome because the facilitator deliberately ignored anything shown and concentrated on the communication. In Connecticut the person was shown a page with a question on it, and gave the answer by communication through a facilitator who could not see the questions. Many more such careful experiments are in progress.

Clearly, there is an enormous amount of evidence that, under proper conditions, facilitated communication really does work. Not everything communicated is true; non-verbal persons can fantasize, lie and tell the facilitator what they think is wanted, just as verbal persons do. Under some circumstances communication is very positive and unmistakable. At other times, the response can be weak and could be manipulated even unconsciously by the facilitator. But if it concerns a matter of any importance, the information can be checked by at least one other experienced, responsible facilitator.

It is scandalous that some people are using the unscientific "validation" experiments as an excuse to describe facilitated communication as fraudulent. One recent television program deliberately set out to convey that impression, even though the producers were given, and refused to show, much of the positive evidence. Even worse, they want to deny these non-verbal people their only way to escape their prison of silence and condemn them to a lifetime of futility and frustration.

Facilitated communication is real. It has been and is being subjected to rigorous well-designed scientific tests. Most of all, it has made an enormous improvement in the quality of life for many people, and given hope to many who had none.