Perhaps, if you were so *open-minded* about the subject you might have bothered to read Rupert Sheldrakes response to the study, and the clear and demonstrated flaws in their experimental protocol, and weak reasoning they used to dismis the positive results of the first trial:
http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-03/stare.html
You see - a balanced view requires just that - a balance. If all you ever read are articles debunking events, then you will begin to believe they are always false.
Now, I am not particularly interested in the staring phenomenon but, there is good science and bad science, and the protocols used by csicop for this particular example (which you link to) were plain bad. Their logic is weak, their protocol even more so, as is unavoidably obvious when you read Sheldrakes critique. The experiment was designed in such a way as to make any significant results much harder to detect. Which is, in fact, what you would expect from an organisation that wants to debunk, rather than investigate, on the other hand the investigators may simply have been incompetent....
Presumably, you will dismiss Sheldrakes results as he is a supporter of the idea? (just as anyone can also dismiss csicop's poor results of the grounds they are against the idea).
This is a complicated and subtle area of study, it may go against *common sense* but, then again, so does Quantum Physics. The fact that most scientific protocols are, and have been for over 200 years, based on *clearly observable events* in hard physical environments, may itself be an obstacle to accurately studying consciousness-related phenomena, let alone the entrenched ideas of the skeptics. OK, sure, there are plenty of mood-making whackos out there, but to try and dismiss ESP or whatever particular consciousness-based phenomena, out of hand due to its somewhat bizarre supporters, is also unscientific.
Everything you experience in your life is a funtion of your brain and your consciousness. Take a mind-altering drug and see if the world looks the same. This is an intriguing and fascinating area of study which gets to the heart of what it means to be human. So what if we cannot prove that A can tell if B is staring at them, the results that come out of such experimental approaches may yield far more useful, and potentially far-reaching implications than you or I can imagine. Science itself may need to change to accomodate the results - and this may in fact be the hardest thing to shift of all - far harder than any *mind-over-matter* spoon-bending experiment.