Keep libel laws out of science

doi:10.1136/bmj.b2783

Published 9 July 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b2783
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;339:b2783

Editor's Choice

Keep libel laws out of science

Fiona Godlee, editor, BMJ

fgodlee{at}bmj.com

I hope all readers of the BMJ are signed up to organised scepticism.It’s not a blog, but it could be. It’s one of thefour principles of good science as articulated by Robert Mertonnearly 70 years ago. The other three—communalism, universalism,and disinterestedness—are no less important, but I hadto turn to Wikipedia to remind me what they were. Merton definedorganised scepticism as the requirement that scientific claimsbe exposed to critical scrutiny before they are accepted.

This wasn’t a new idea. Tony Delamothe reminds us (doi:10.1136/bmj.b2771)that the motto of the Royal Society translates as "Take nobody’sword for it," showing its commitment "to withstand the dominationof authority...and to verify all statements by an appeal tofact determined by experiment."

Longstanding and essential though it is, this principle is underserious threat. As Harvey Marcovitch explains (doi:10.1136/bmj.b2759),people whose scientific claims are questioned are turning tothe law to attempt to silence their critics rather than engagingin open scientific debate. England’s libel laws are particularlyappealing to libel tourists around the world because they putthe burden of proof on the defendant, who risks incurring hugecosts. Marcovitch references several cases in which libel lawshave been used to stifle scientific criticism, including theongoing fight between science journalist Simon Singh and theBritish Chiropractic Association (BCA).

In an article in the Guardian last year, Singh made claims regardingthe evidence base alleged to support the promotion of chiropractictreatments in certain non-skeletal conditions in children. AsSingh explains on the website www.senseaboutscience.org.uk,the Guardian offered the BCA an opportunity to lay out theirevidence rather than to sue him for libel. The BCA opted tosue.

But in response to our recent editorial by Evan Harris (doi:10.1136/bmj.b2254),the vice president of the BCA, Richard Brown, has now presentedthe evidence (doi:10.1136/bmj.b2782). He writes, "There is infact substantial evidence for the BCA to have made claims thatchiropractic can help various childhood conditions" and lists18 references. Readers can decide for themselves whether ornot they are convinced. Edzard Ernst is not (doi:10.1136/bmj.b2766).His demolition of the 18 references is, to my mind, complete.

Weak science sheltered from criticism by officious laws meansbad medicine. Singh is determined to fight the lawsuit ratherthan apologise for an article he believes to be sound. He andhis supporters have in their sights not only the defence ofthis case but the reform of England’s libel laws. Despitethe daunting odds, Marcovitch is cautiously optimistic aboutthe future for medical science. A US judge recently dismisseda device manufacturer’s lawsuit against a group of authors,concluding that the fight should take place "in the pages ofthe journal, not in court." And last year when chiropractorsthreatened to sue over an article in the New Zealand MedicalJournal, its editor Frank Frizelle spoke for all of us whenhe asked them to provide "your evidence not your legal muscle."

Cite this as: BMJ 2009;339:b2783

Add to CiteULike CiteULike Add to Complore Complore Add to Connotea Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us Add to Digg Digg Add to Reddit Reddit Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon Add to Technorati Technorati What's this?

Relevant Articles

Libel law in the UK: Harvey Marcovitch
BMJ 2009 339: b2759. [Extract] [Full Text]

Chiropractic for paediatric conditions: substantial evidence?: Edzard Ernst
BMJ 2009 339: b2766. [Extract] [Full Text]

Chiropractors: clarifying the issues: Richard Brown
BMJ 2009 339: b2782. [Extract] [Full Text]

Thinking about Charles II: Tony Delamothe
BMJ 2009 339: b2771. [Extract] [Full Text]

Science in court: Evan Harris
BMJ 2009 338: b2254. [Extract] [Full Text]

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Real Science?: Neil menzies
bmj.com, 11 Jul 2009 [Full text]
CAM, free speech, and the law: Lionel R Milgrom
bmj.com, 12 Jul 2009 [Full text]
Keep libel laws out of science: John Marks
bmj.com, 13 Jul 2009 [Full text]
Can libel laws deal with metaphysics?: Richard Rawlins
bmj.com, 13 Jul 2009 [Full text]
But was it libel?: Trisha Greenhalgh
bmj.com, 13 Jul 2009 [Full text]
Real Science!: Joe Magrath
bmj.com, 13 Jul 2009 [Full text]
Make fair comparisons: John S Garrow, et al.
bmj.com, 13 Jul 2009 [Full text]
Choosing our words carefully: Hazel Thornton
bmj.com, 13 Jul 2009 [Full text]
Unprofessional language is appropriate when dealing with unprofessional people: David Colquhoun
bmj.com, 15 Jul 2009 [Full text]
Re: CAM, free speech, and the law: Leslie B Rose
bmj.com, 14 Jul 2009 [Full text]
Pseudoscience, quackery and English libel: Nick Ross
bmj.com, 14 Jul 2009 [Full text]
Innappropriate advertising in the BMJ: David J Eedy
bmj.com, 14 Jul 2009 [Full text]
Re: Re: CAM, free speech, and the law: Lionel R Milgrom
bmj.com, 15 Jul 2009 [Full text]
Business models: Richard Bartley
bmj.com, 15 Jul 2009 [Full text]
Re: Pseudoscience, quackery and English libel: Lionel R Milgrom
bmj.com, 16 Jul 2009 [Full text]
Re: Re: Re: CAM, free speech, and the law: Richard D Rawlins
bmj.com, 16 Jul 2009 [Full text]
Public forums may require less "scholarly" language: Austin C Elliott
bmj.com, 16 Jul 2009 [Full text]
Critical assessment is important: Edzard Ernst
bmj.com, 16 Jul 2009 [Full text]
Welome to the Monkey House: Joan McClusky
bmj.com, 16 Jul 2009 [Full text]
Patients and clinicians benefit from open and unhindered debate.: Simon Carley, et al.
bmj.com, 16 Jul 2009 [Full text]
Re: Re: Re: CAM, free speech, and the law: Leslie B Rose
bmj.com, 17 Jul 2009 [Full text]
Re: Re: Re: Re: CAM, free speech, and the law: Lionel R Milgrom
bmj.com, 18 Jul 2009 [Full text]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CAM, free speech, and the law: Simon J Baker
bmj.com, 19 Jul 2009 [Full text]
Reasonable debate: Noel B Thomas
bmj.com, 20 Jul 2009 [Full text]
Apples and cherries aren't the only fruit....: Lionel R Milgrom
bmj.com, 20 Jul 2009 [Full text]
Re: Keep libel laws out of science: Stephen F Hayes
bmj.com, 20 Jul 2009 [Full text]
Misuse of scientific authorities: Leslie B Rose
bmj.com, 21 Jul 2009 [Full text]
Cherry picking?: Edzard Ernst
bmj.com, 21 Jul 2009 [Full text]
Re: Misuse of scientific authorities: Lionel R Milgrom
bmj.com, 23 Jul 2009 [Full text]
NICE and homeopathy: Richard D Rawlins
bmj.com, 23 Jul 2009 [Full text]
Honesty and cherries.....: Lionel R Milgrom
bmj.com, 25 Jul 2009 [Full text]
Re: Cherry picking? - Side-splitting!: William Alderson
bmj.com, 25 Jul 2009 [Full text]
We need not scholarly language but scientifically defined terms: William Alderson
bmj.com, 25 Jul 2009 [Full text]
NICE and easy.: Richard Rawlins
bmj.com, 25 Jul 2009 [Full text]
Literature reviews and meta-analysis in homeopathy: Petter Viksveen, et al.
bmj.com, 26 Jul 2009 [Full text]
Re: Literature reviews and meta-analysis in homeopathy: Simon J Baker
bmj.com, 26 Jul 2009 [Full text]
Re: Re: Cherry picking? - Side-splitting!: E Ernst
bmj.com, 27 Jul 2009 [Full text]
This all seems like a terrible waste of intellect: Hywel Thomas
bmj.com, 28 Jul 2009 [Full text]