Healthy Skepticism Library item: 17587
Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.
Publication type: Journal Article
England's libel laws: silencing scientific debate
The Lancet 2010 Apr 10; 375:(9722):1226
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)60525-9/fulltext
Abstract:
Imagine you have doubts about the effectiveness of a treatment being promoted for several childhood illnesses. You publish your concerns in a mainstream newspaper. You are then sued for libel by promoters of the treatment, resulting in a protracted court case taking more than 2 years of your time and costing you more than £200 000 in legal fees. This was the situation faced by scientist and science writer Simon Singh, who wrote an opinion piece in the UK newspaper The Guardian in April, 2008, suggesting that there was a lack of evidence behind claims being made by some chiropractors about being able to treat children’s colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, and asthma. Singh criticised the British Association of Chiropractors (BCA) for supporting members who made such claims. How did the BCA respond to this scientific debate? They turned down a chance to reply to Singh’s article and sued him for libel.
In a preliminary ruling last year, a High Court judge called Singh’s comments factual assertions rather than opinions, which meant he could not rely on the defence of fair comment. But, last week, Singh saw this ruling overturned in the Court of Appeal. The appeal judges rightly ruled that “scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigationâ€.
The decision is an important victory for freedom of speech and scientific debate. Still, without substantial reform of England’s archaic libel laws, which are being used to silence scientific opinions, cases such as Singh’s are likely to continue. Already a British cardiologist is being sued by a heart-device manufacturer after he criticised their handling of clinical trial data. Academics abroad are also affected. A Swedish professor had his review of voice-risk analysis systems, a type of lie detector technology, removed from the website of a peer-reviewed journal by its English publisher after the manufacturer threatened legal action.
England’s libel laws stifle scientific discourse, negatively affect scientific careers, and represent a threat to public health. Radical reform is urgently needed. Libel laws should be kept out of science.
