OncologyMP Speaks Out Over Libel Threat To Scientific Debate
The MP Evan Harris is among a group of leading academics, publishers, journalists, performers, clinicians, and scientists backing science writer Simon Singh in his application to appeal against a libel judgment in the High Court today.
In an editorial published on bmj.com, he warns that this judgment - if upheld - would have "major implications for the ability of scientists, researchers, and other commentators freely to engage in robust criticism of scientific, and indeed purportedly scientific, work."
On 19 April 2008, Singh wrote an article in the Guardian newspaper criticising claims made by chiropractors about the efficacy of spinal manipulation in dealing with childhood conditions such as asthma, colic, and ear infections, among others.
He suggested there was "not a jot" of evidence to support such interventions for these ailments, and complained that the British Chiropractic Association "happily promotes bogus treatments." The British Chiropractic Association has sued for libel.
In a pretrial hearing on 7 May 2009, Mr Justice Eady upheld the assertion of the British Chiropractic Association that the words meant that it knowingly promoted a treatment that they knew to be a sham. The judge also decided that the words represented a statement of verifiable fact, and that Singh therefore could not benefit from a "fair comment" defence.
Singh has stated that, under the judge"s interpretation, it would be difficult for him to win the case.
What Singh"s case reinforces, writes Harris, is the increasing recognition that the libel laws in England and Wales give major advantages to the plaintiff.
It is also remarkable that the plaintiffs in this case are representatives of healthcare practitioners, who could, one would expect, make their case in peer reviewed scientific literature as well as through the usual letters columns of whatever newspaper they believe has treated them unfairly, he says.
In the field of health care, the consumer is particularly vulnerable to false promises of cure or symptomatic relief, and all practitioners - especially those in the private sector - need to be able to justify their claims in a transparent and scientific way, he concludes. If that debate is chilled, then the medical profession, patients" interests, and scientific discourse are severely undermined.
Link to editorial
British Medical Journal