An Editorial in Nature (456, 142; 13 November 2008, free to access online) this week discusses the curious libel case of Biopure, a struggling biotechnology company, versus Natanson, a biomedical researcher (see Nature News doi:10.1038/news.2008.1219; 2008). Biopure of Cambridge, Massachusetts, is attacking an analysis performed by Charles Natanson, a senior NIH investigator, and his colleagues, and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (C. Natanson et al. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 299, 2304–2312; 2008). Historically, such attacks on the scientific literature have been given short shrift by the courts. The case is dangerous, nevertheless.
According to the Editorial, “There is a traditional forum, in science, to air such grievances: the journal itself. And indeed, after the article was published, JAMA published numerous critiques from readers and the authors’ response. Biopure elected to put its questions about scientific quality into the hands of the law. It claims that it has suffered financial loss and that its corporate mission, financed to the tune of $600 million, has been put at risk.
The US legal system has historically treated scientific publications with respect under the US constitution’s first amendment, which protects freedom of the press. That does not mean that scientists are exempt from laws on libel and slander simply because they are scientists. But those involved should be aware that this action potentially threatens public trust in the very industry of which Biopure is a part, which is founded on open scientific analysis and debate. Researchers (and their editors) must never forget what is at stake in a meta-analysis, but above all must not be intimidated by this action.”