Simon Singh to appeal libel decision

Simon Singh has decided to appeal the grossly unfair and astonishingly illiberal ruling from Sir David Eady in the libel case over an article he wrote in The Guardian newspaper brought about by the British Chiropractic Association.  The charity Sense About Science working with Simon Singh are launching a campaign to highlight issues raised by this case, I will be adding my name to the great and the good who have already signed the statement below, I hope you will too.

This is a risky and brave decision by Simon Singh.  There is no guarantee that he will win, British libel law is notoriously unfair, with success often decided by wealth than by ideals of fairness.  Nevertheless Simon Singh must be supported, science and science communication depends on the free and frank exchange of ideas and accepting criticism is a necessity, not a choice.  All too often we have seen those who peddle pseudoscience, nonsense and bogus treatments resort to threats and actions involving lawyers and libel in attempts to silence their critics.  A clear message needs to be sent that those who care about evidence, science and free debate will not stand for such behaviour.

The campaign website is below:

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/freedebate

Sign the Support Statement.

Also, download the campaign button and add it to your website.

A rolling update of the blogosphere’s reaction to Simon Singh and the BCA is kept by Chris Kavanagh here.

The law has no place in scientific disputes

We the undersigned believe that it is inappropriate to use the English libel laws to silence critical discussion of medical practice and scientific evidence.

The British Chiropractic Association has sued Simon Singh for libel. The scientific community would have preferred that it had defended its position about chiropractic for various children’s ailments through an open discussion of the peer reviewed medical literature or through debate in the mainstream media.

Singh holds that chiropractic treatments for asthma, ear infections and other infant conditions are not evidence-based. Where medical claims to cure or treat do not appear to be supported by evidence, we should be able to criticise assertions robustly and the public should have access to these views.

English libel law, though, can serve to punish this kind of scrutiny and can severely curtail the right to free speech on a matter of public interest. It is already widely recognised that the law is weighted heavily against writers: among other things, the costs are so high that few defendants can afford to make their case. The ease and success of bringing cases under the English law, including against overseas writers, has led to London being viewed as the “libel capital” of the world.

Freedom to criticise and question in strong terms and without malice is the cornerstone of scientific argument and debate, whether in peer-reviewed journals, on websites or in newspapers, which have a right of reply for complainants. However, the libel laws and cases such as BCA v Singh have a chilling effect, which deters scientists, journalists and science writers from engaging in important disputes about the evidential base supporting products and practices. The libel laws discourage argument and debate and merely encourage the use of the courts to silence critics.

The English law of libel has no place in scientific disputes about evidence; the BCA should discuss the evidence outside of a courtroom. Moreover, the BCA v Singh case shows a wider problem: we urgently need a full review of the way that English libel law affects discussions about scientific and medical evidence.

Signed