Deflection And Withholding Evidence In The David Jacobs Scandal
by Guest Blogger,
Tyler A. Kokjohn, Ph. D.
Dr. David Jacobs has been accused of serious wrongdoing involving a former research subject known as Emma Woods. Some persons have deflected the charges by communicating there are additional factors to consider or they possess information confirming Dr. Jacobs is reliable and trustworthy. Are these simply opinions regarding the personal attributes of Dr. Jacobs or is it possible that information now apparently limited to a select few persons could dispel the longstanding and specific allegations against him?
Recent sad experiences with Ata the “extraterrestrial” and the Roswell slides remind us initial appearances may be deceiving and to base our conclusions on the complete body of evidence. If objective facts and rationales absolving Dr. Jacobs of allegations of misconduct against Emma Woods are known it is an extreme disservice to withhold them. Hinting that such evidence exists is not sufficient and only serves to prolong an already protracted dispute.
Since it is difficult understand how the disturbing allegations against Dr. Jacobs could be effectively countered, it is essential that information be detailed in full and explained completely. To document her charges Emma Woods published extensive audio recordings of her hypnosis sessions with Dr. Jacobs (http://ufoalienabductee.com). Demonstrating she altered these recordings to create false impressions would have immediately cast serious doubt on her version of events. However, no evidence of tampering has been produced leaving us in a situation where the body of available evidence places Dr. Jacobs in an unfavorable light. Justifying his own words and deeds appears to present a substantial challenge.
Participation in research programs may sometimes involve risks. Accordingly, investigators are obligated to respect subject autonomy by providing prospective participants with information regarding the full purposes of the research and any foreseeable hazards before anyone agrees to participate. In addition, researchers adhere to a general guiding principle of beneficence by preventing any harm to their subjects and ensuring their wellbeing through acting with forethought to maximize benefit and reduce risks (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html).
Dr. Jacobs discussed with Emma Woods the idea of acquiring a chastity belt to frustrate the alien hybrids she reported were terrorizing her. It is difficult to reconcile this strange banter with either the practices of a rigorous scientific investigation or the core principles of informed consent and beneficence. First, Dr. Jacobs’s chastity belt discussion plainly served no scientifically valid purposes. Further, if Emma Woods had followed through with using a chastity belt, the reasonably foreseeable event would have been a vastly increased threat of immediate and direct physical retaliation against her.
Exposing the subject to increased risk without benefit is unethical. It is important to bear in mind that Dr. Jacobs had revealed his personal fears these hybrids terrorizing Emma would find him. In light of that admission, any discussion that might increase Emma’s anguish and fears would have been scientifically unjustified, ludicrous and utterly callous. Limited to communicating with Emma by telephone and physically located thousands of miles away from her, it is hard to imagine what protective measures Dr. Jacobs had in place if either his continued investigations or deliberately calculated provocations succeeding in further angering the aliens already reportedly assaulting Emma.
Whatever underlying purposes the chastity belt discussion served, the best interests and wellbeing of Emma Woods seem to have been decidedly secondary considerations. The overall situation leaves an impression that Emma Woods was treated not with the full respect and concern due an autonomous individual, but as a strictly instrumental means to satisfy the personal curiosities and needs of Dr. Jacobs. Someone will have to explain how this evidence is not what it appears to be.
Perhaps the chastity belt conversation was never intended to propose an experimental protocol for Emma to carry out, but was simply another ‘tactic’ used by Dr. Jacobs to throw the allegedly threatening mind-reading alien hybrids off his track. Reconciling such actions with the researcher’s explicit obligations to prevent any harm to his subject while acting with beneficence and in accord with the spirit of ethical informed consent principles is impossible. In no way, shape or form would it ever be acceptable for any researcher to use a subject in such a manner.
Could the chastity belt chat, false memory implantation tactics to safeguard Dr. Jacobs from threatening hybrids and dire intrigues have simply been ploys to keep a highly hypnotizable subject engaged and interested in continuing to feed him juicy copy for a new book? Somewhere during this strange journey it appears Emma Woods the research subject was converted into an expedient mechanism enabling Dr. Jacobs to ensure his personal security or reach his eccentric goals. Someone will need to explain how appearances are misleading and his actions were ethical.
When Emma Woods took her complaints to higher authority, Dr. Jacobs maintained he was only engaged in oral history taking and denied conducting research. Clearly, his actions had no therapeutic intent or benefit, but squaring the deployment of hypnosis-mediated manipulations to implant false memories, requests to collect soiled underwear and additional statements made in an interview conducted several years later (The UFO Trail Blog, http://ufotrail.blogspot.com/2012/04/bizarre-world-of-doctor-david-jacobs.html) with actions customarily associated with oral history taking seems impossible. Someone needs to explain how that can be done.
Appearances may sometimes be deceiving. If critical, perception-changing objective information relevant to the Emma Woods-David Jacobs dispute exists, withholding it is both a gross disservice to the unjustly maligned and an insult to the entire community. Those who have hinted or asserted directly they possess superior relevant knowledge have a responsibility to explain why the evidence available to the rest of us is not what it appears to be.