Using the law to stifle scientific debate
Maxine Clarke
Wednesday, 20 May 2009 09:39 UTC
A court case between one of Britain’s leading science writers and an organization representing alternative medicine practitioners is causing renewed concern about the potential for libel laws to stifle debate on scientific issues (Nature News, 13 May 2009).
Simon Singh, author of Fermat’s Last Theorem and other books, is being sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association over an article he wrote for the Guardian newspaper last year. In an unusual move, the BCA is suing Singh personally, and not the newspaper.
The case has international implications for science reporting and journalism more generally, warns Singh. It comes against a background of increasing concern in many quarters that litigants opt for British courts as they are seen as easier places to get a favourable result; a problem labeled ‘libel tourism’.
Neil White, a partner at legal firm Taylor Wessing (which undertakes some legal work for Nature_), says the case should serve as a warning not just for science writers, but more generally for scientists and all who write about similar topics. “I think there is a degree of ignorance on the part of scientists about libel law, particularly UK libel law,” he says. “I do think there are some scientists who are rather arrogant about it, and think because they’re scientists with a view to express on a matter of potentially considerable importance they can say what they please. That is just not the case. The lesson I think they need to learn is you can usually say what you want to say in a way that doesn’t expose you to litigation, by taking a bit of care and taking a bit of advice.”
Edzard Ernst, professor of complementary medicine at Peninsula Medical School in Plymouth, UK, says, “Recent history shows quite clearly there is a danger people can be silenced by the financial and legal might of their opponents.”
What are your views? Please let us know, either by commenting here or at the "_Nature News website":http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/full/news.2009.479.html (where there is a comment in favour of the BCA, as well as others taking the opposite view). How confident are you about expressing a scientific opinion publicly? How well-informed are you about the legal consequences of what you might write on your blog or for a publication?
See also this Nature Network blog post by Stephen Curry; and this alert by Brian Clegg .
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
Nature has an Editorial on this topic out today (459, 751; 11 June 2009), free to access online.
Unjust burdens of proof
English libel law adversely affects every publisher and website host whose content can be read in the United Kingdom. It must be changed.
Continues here. -
RE: The Nature Editorial is unscientific nor common sensical!
As a retired scientist and published author in both the academic and clinical research settings, I would totally disagree with the June 11 Editorial, as it does not distinguish how and why any scientific debates should be conducted under these 2 different settings (which may be held privately or publicly; but must be argued in front of a panel of qualified scientists and/or clinical specialists, just as a matter of proper proceedings).
As much as I would sympathize with Singh — as a non-clinical science writer — unfortunately, he has clearly crossed the line of his freedom of speech into the allegation of the BCA’s clinical matters, that The Guardian is definitely not qualified nor licensed to arbitrate earlier (whether in the public or a private setting). That’s why the BCA has every right to litigate Singh under these circumstances affordable by the British Libel Law!
Besides, as I’ve also commented on this “Singh v BCA” test-case before that The Libel Law has nothing to do with Science absolutely! And, that’s why the Nature Editorial is clearly unscientific nor logical, by messing up all these matters: scientific, academic, clinical, public, privacy, legal, free speech, libel, etc!
Best wishes, Mong 6/11/9usct12:45p; author Decoding Scientism and Consciousness & the Subconscious (works in progress since July 2007), Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now!
-
I am not so sure that it is Nature’s editorial that is “messing up” these various matters, but maybe others have a view on that.
Results
-