skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Controversial libel laws in the U.K. are the subject of a powerful reform movement, which has gained another supporter and voice of reason: Belle de Jour.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with her, Belle de Jour had been the nom de plume of a celebrated British author, who was also a London call girl for two years.
Last year, Belle revealed she is Dr. Brooke Magnanti, of Bristol, England, a noted scientist. Brooke’s specialist areas are developmental neurotoxicology and cancer epidemiology. She has a PhD in informatics, epidemiology and forensic science and is now working at the Bristol Initiative for Research of Child Health. She is currently part of a team researching the potential effects on babies of their mothers' exposure to toxic chemicals.
It is Brooke in her science hat who has written a thoughtful guest column that appeared in today’s Guardian U.K. Below is the full article. Read it here, or directly at the newspaper’s website:
Above: Simon Singh outside the Royal Courts of Justice on 23 February 2010. Photograph by Gavin Rodgers/Rex Features
Simon Singh and the threat to science
Simon Singh's legal win is great news, despite the ruinous cost, but scientists are still at risk from our unreformed libel law
Brooke Magnanti
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 1 April 2010 13.40 BST
“It's a subject of grim amusement among scientists that while it is perfectly acceptable for wrinkle creams to claim to be "inspired by the science of genes" (whatever that means), real discussion of scientific process and results could result in a lawsuit.
Scientists are trained to do their battles in public, with disprovability and reproducibility as guiding concepts. Their standard is already higher than much of the rest of public discourse; by definition it has to be.
Simon Singh was sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association over an article that suggested there was a lack of evidence for the claims over colic, asthma and other conditions. Singh's original statement was judged lawful in a ruling on the appeal on Thursday…at an expense to him of over £200,000.
What the case came down to was the meaning of a few words – did Singh's statement allege that the BCA was purposely misleading people? It is having to consider the possible interpretations of the readers that makes skirting libel law so frightfully difficult, as well as unclear.
Singh has described the ruling as "brilliant" – and it is, because in such a high-profile case, this could set precedents. But it doesn't go far enough.
On Tuesday night, MPs rejected a libel reform proposal. The sticking point was the "no win, no fee" deals in libel cases that would reduce the "success fees" imposed on the losing side from 100% to 10% of costs. Justice Secretary Jack Straw has said he remains "hopeful" of a turnaround before the general election, but libel reform supporters are doubtful that the issue will be resolved in this parliament.
While the changes Straw put forward did not go as far as libel reformers would like to see – cracking down on "libel tourism" seemed particularly weakly supported – any advance on the arcane system now in place would be seen as improvement. The perfect, as ever, is the enemy of the good. While Labour MPs rebel over a proposal that was expected to be nodded through, others could find themselves in Singh's position. There are still a number of libel cases in the pipeline which many scientists fear could have a chilling effect on what they say.
Just last week, I attended a public health conference in Valencia where a noted doctor, Philippe Grandjean, railed against scientists who are "too polite" in publicising the results of toxic chemical studies. This caution could, he warned, lead to "silent epidemics" of negative health outcomes. Sadly, many of us operate in a world where politeness is actually a proxy for fear.
Threats of libel action have a real effect on research. Whether it's critics of lie detector technology who fear a lengthy and expensive case if their study results are challenged, or a cardiologist being sued by a medical technology company, there are examples that go wider than Singh's case. The effect on the right of scientists to publicly debate results and the implications of those results is clear.
Of particular interest is Paragraph 34 of Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger and Lord Justice Sedley's ruling on Singh's case. It quotes the judgment in a US court of a science and libel case, Underwager v Salter:
"[Plaintiffs] cannot, by simply filing suit and crying 'character assassination!', silence those who hold divergent views, no matter how adverse those views may be to plaintiffs' interests.
"Scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation […] More papers, more discussion, better data, and more satisfactory models – not larger awards of damages – mark the path towards superior understanding of the world around us."
The idea that loss of reputation has such a high perceived monetary effect on the accused is a difficult notion to brook in the modern age. After all, reputations are formed and reformed by the near-constant barrage of information available to us every day. If Einstein could take Bohr's criticisms of relativity debates in his stride, than surely the rest of us can as well.
There is nothing wrong with requiring a high standard of proof in public statements. Libel laws should exist in some form to protect against blatantly untrue damaging statements. However, where the standard is applied unequally, and very much favours the accuser over the accused without regard for scientific process, it does raise the question of whose interests are being served.”
While this issue rages in the U.K., those of us living in other countries should reflect seriously on this issue. Without freedom to express ideas, scientific or otherwise, a society stagnates, and civil liberties begin to erode.
Bravo to Brooke for expressing her professional opinion as a scientist. She brings her celebrity as Belle to an important topic, and does so with her usual aplomb!
— The Curator
Controversial libel laws in the U.K. are the subject of a powerful reform movement, which has gained another supporter and voice of reason: Belle de Jour.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with her, Belle de Jour had been the nom de plume of a celebrated British author, who was also a London call girl for two years.
Last year, Belle revealed she is Dr. Brooke Magnanti, of Bristol, England, a noted scientist. Brooke’s specialist areas are developmental neurotoxicology and cancer epidemiology. She has a PhD in informatics, epidemiology and forensic science and is now working at the Bristol Initiative for Research of Child Health. She is currently part of a team researching the potential effects on babies of their mothers' exposure to toxic chemicals.
It is Brooke in her science hat who has written a thoughtful guest column that appeared in today’s Guardian U.K. Below is the full article. Read it here, or directly at the newspaper’s website:
Libel tourism is a public health risk
By Brooke Magnanti
(Guardian Profile: Brooke Magnanti is the author of Belle de Jour: Diary of a London Call Girl, and works as a scientist in child health at Bristol University. Her areas of research include cancer biostatistics, genetic epidemiology and forensic science)
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 11 March 2010 13.35 GMT
Article history
British libel law is being used by corporations from around the world to suppress legitimate reporting of bad science
Legal manual: the British Chiropractic Association is suing science writer Simon Singh over an article he wrote in the Guardian questioning the efficacy of certain chiropractic treatments.
Above Photograph: Corbis
"Last year, I had mumps. I blame the libel laws.
The recent case of Simon Singh being sued by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) is one example of the out-of-control libel laws in this country, and how they can stop people telling good information from bad. This week is Libel Reform Week and there is no shortage of cases bringing the health risks of such lawsuits to light.
Public discussion – journalism included – involves freely debating topics in the public interest. It is similar to what scientists do in peer-reviewed journals. But because most people don't read those, we depend on trusted sources like Singh to bring the facts and arguments to us.
Libel laws have good reason to exist – to stop irresponsible reporting. However, British laws so favour one side that they can be used to intimidate journalists in other countries: "libel tourism". A US citizen can write for a US paper and be called up before courts here. Hence the likes of the Wall Street Journal considering not selling papers in the UK.
Nor is libel simply a concern of big business and Brangelina.
The international nature of collaboration and publication makes scientists particularly vulnerable. A British cardiologist, Peter Wilmshurst, is being sued by US company NMT Medical after he had questioned the effectiveness of a heart implant. NMT Medical says he accused the firm of research fraud; yet the company is based in Boston, and it was a report on a US-based website that triggered the libel action, Wilmshurst is being sued in the UK.
I can understand his frustration. As an employee of the NHS, research requires a mountain of paperwork. Patient confidentiality must be guaranteed and ethics applications approved. I once spent five months of a year-long project on the paperwork alone. You could be tempted to think if the Trust R&D department eventually green-lights your project, there won't be any further liability problems.
You could be wrong.
The implications of these cases mirror the MMR scare. While epidemiologists such as myself can read Wakefield's original publication and judge whether his conclusions regarding autism were justified, others rely on what is re-reported elsewhere. It was years before that paper was publicly retracted by the Lancet.
Even now, fresh suits threaten the dissemination of knowledge that is widely accepted among scientists. The damage can't be undone. In spite of the retractions, many people still believe a discredited study. This could have a devastating health outcome for a family.
Given the option, wouldn't you choose a treatment that works over one that doesn't? But when a face cream can claim to be "inspired by the science of genes" while real scientists are tied up in the courts, it's little wonder many people can't tell the salve from the snake oil.
Now, about those mumps: I had a full course of MMR as a child. When I moved to the UK, I had it again.
The MMR confers herd immunity – not everyone becomes immune, but the few unlucky people who don't (like me) are protected when most other people are immunised.
So when I moved to an area where many parents opted out of jabs, I fell ill. I was, after two courses of MMR, not immune to measles. I had follow-up jabs and am still not immune to rubella. If I become pregnant this could be a great concern.
At first, I was angry; and then sad. It costs £100,000 and more to defend libel suits. The sources we trust are being gagged because they can ill afford a case, even if they win. The costs are too high, the process too long, to risk it.
Nature abhors a vacuum, as does knowledge. Misinformation reigns.
These cases influence what the news tells us. If sources won't report facts established through scientific process, what is left to trust? It leaves a gaping hole that charlatans and manipulators will rush to fill.
• The Libel Reform Campaign's libel reform week culminates in the Big Libel Gig on Sunday 14 March 2010.”
Important FYI: The lawsuit against Mr. Singh was dismissed on March 12. See Amy Wallace blog for details.
Anyone reading this and lives in the U.K. should strongly consider signing this petition. If I lived there, I would sign it in a heartbeat.
Thanks to Brooke for writing about yet another important topic!
— The Curator
