Western Association for Biofeedback and Neuroscience — Spring 2017 20 conducted entirely within paradigm, and all the loopholes had been closed in that very first experiment. Neither the cats nor the research staff were aware at the time of the critical experiment in which they were playing their appointed roles. Hence neither researcher bias nor placebo factors could have been involved. The conclu- sion was mandated: EEG Neurofeedback could affect mammalian brain function over the longer term, with profound im- plications for organismic functionality. This already sufficed as a permission slip for all subsequent explorations regarding the clinical implications. Nothing more was needed. Sterman and Lubar were both conven- tional scientists who were thoroughly in- vested in the standard experimental meth- ods. This was an asset in the conduct of the early research, but later became very much an impediment when the flood- gates opened into the more exploratory investigations. Sterman adopted a strategy of narrow targeting: one clinical condi- tion and one protocol, and Lubar did the same. It was the battering-ram approach: assailing the castle of an intransigent mainstream with the force of a single, compelling claim pounding against the gate. In retrospect, their strategy clearly failed, and Sterman realized it: “I did ev- erything the world of science expected of me, and in the end it did not make any difference.” His intended audience of ac- ademic researchers was not only unper- suaded; they were not even engaged on the matter. Once outside of the paradigm, Sterman and Lubar were laboring in vain even with solid classical research designs. Success was to be found elsewhere, in the realm of exploratory research at the clinical frontier. We collectively built a new castle. Unfortunately, throughout his remaining professional life Sterman re- sisted these initiatives on all fours, as did Joel Lubar to a lesser degree. Seen as the father of clinical neurofeedback, Sterman was a sperm donor, not a father figure. He disowned his own scientific progeny. He begat Margaret Ayers, much to his own regret. Ayers in turn in turn begat Oth- mers, much to her regret. She also begat Nicholas Dogris and many others. And so it went. Sterman wouldn’t have any of it. Asked why he doesn’t do neurofeedback on his own head, Sterman answered: “Be- cause I don’t have seizures.” He continued to gaze fondly back upon his own early work and appeared not to be troubled that with respect to scientific productivity within his own field, he had turned into a pillar of salt. Deprived of a supportive, nurturing environment much like Harlow’s mon- keys on their wire mothers, the progeny propagated the judgmental climate that had been modeled for them. The perenni- al concern about the critical mainstream made thought leaders into their own jail- ers and impoverished our collective con- versation. This is the mess that now needs to be left behind, and the experience of our panel discussion gives me great hope that matters are already on the mend. In his opening remarks, Sterman high- lighted the importance of observation in the scientific process, but went on to say: “I don’t care if it works, if I don’t know what I am doing.” He had contempt for the converse attitude that “I don’t care if I don’t yet understand what I am doing… if it works.” Observation was going to be the theme of my comments! I feared