Commentators have criticized Emoto for insufficient
experimental controls,
[6] and for not sharing enough details of his approach with the scientific community.
[7] In addition, Emoto has been criticized for designing his experiments in ways that leave them open to human error influencing his findings.
[8]
In the day-to-day work of his group, the creativity of the photographers rather than the rigor of the experiment is an explicit policy of Emoto.
[9] Emoto freely acknowledges that he is not a scientist,
[10] and that photographers are instructed to select the most pleasing photographs.
[11]
In 2003,
James Randi publicly offered Emoto
one million dollars if his results can be reproduced in a double-blind study.
[12]
In 2005, Kristopher Setchfield from the Natural Science Department at Vermont published a paper
[13] that analyzed deeper motives regarding Emoto's study. In his paper, Kristopher writes,
Unfortunately for his credibility with the scientific community, Dr. Emoto sells products based on his claims. For example, the products page of Emoto's Hado website is currently offering "geometrically perfect" "Indigo water" that is "highly charged hexagonally structured concentrate," and supposedly creates "structured water" that is "more easily assimilated at the cellular level" for $35 for an eight-ounce bottle. Without providing scientific research references for the allegedly amazing qualities of his Indigo Water, Emoto's commercial venture calls to mind ethical concerns regarding his intent and motivation—questions that would not be present if any scientist had published research supporting his claims.
In 2006, Emoto published a paper together with
Dean Radin and others in the peer reviewed
[14] Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing. They describe that in a
double blind test approximately 2000 people in Tokyo could increase the aesthetic appeal of water stored in a room in California, compared to water in another room, solely through their positive intentions.
[15]