Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Singh plans to appeal ruling in libel case
4 June 2009
Support campaign kicks off as science writer insists he will continue fighting suit over remarks about chiropractic treatments. Zoë Corbyn reports
A British science writer who is being personally sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) says he intends to appeal against a preliminary ruling in the case, citing the “chilling effect” that losing would have on public scientific discussion.
Simon Singh’s announcement was made at the same time as the launch of a publicity campaign supporting him, which aims to “keep libel laws out of science”.
So far, more than 100 leading scientists, writers, artists and lawyers have signed up to the campaign. They include Lord Rees, the president of the Royal Society, and Sir David King, the former Chief Scientific Adviser.
The campaign calls on the BCA to discuss the evidence for its treatments “outside the courtroom”, saying that it is “inappropriate” to use libel laws to “silence critical discussion of medical practice and scientific evidence”.
In a statement, the campaigners say: “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.
“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.”
Dr Singh, who last year co-authored a book on complementary medicine, Trick or Treatment?, says he has spent many months and £100,000 building a defence against a BCA decision to sue him for libel. The legal action was prompted by a comment article Dr Singh wrote for The Guardian newspaper in April 2008 that criticised the promotion of chiropractic treatments, which are based on spinal manipulation, for infant conditions such as asthma.
In the article, Singh described the treatments as "bogus" and said the BCA "happily promotes" them.
Last month, prior to a full trial, the judge in the case made a ruling on the “meaning” of the article, which says that Dr Singh had in his article in effect accused the BCA of deliberate dishonesty in promoting the treatments.
Justice Eady said the article contained “the plainest allegation of dishonesty and indeed it accuses them [the BCA] of thoroughly disreputable conduct.”
It is this meaning – which Dr Singh says was not his intention and would be very hard to defend – that he is now appealing against.
“Although I maintain my position that such chiropractic treatment for childhood conditions lacks any significant scientific basis and that chiropractic in general carries risks, I do not and never have meant to imply that chiropractors are deliberately and dishonestly offering such treatments,” said Dr Singh, “I share the commonly held view that alternative therapists who offer treatments unsupported by reasonable evidence are deluded rather than deliberately dishonest. I think that Justice Eady has failed to interpret the meaning of the article in a way that a reasonable reader would understand it.”
“The problem from my point of view is that Justice Eady gave a meaning that I think is very extreme,” he said. “We thought the article had a different meaning, and we thought we would be going to trial on that.”
He said the application to the Court of Appeal would “probably fail” because meanings were rarely revisited. If it did fail, he would be prepared to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
“We will fight it until all the options are exhausted,” he said.
He added that he expected it to take one or two months before he knew whether his appeal had been accepted and up to six months before a final decision was made on whether or not it was successful.
Dr Singh said the case highlighted how the English libel laws clashed with the right to discuss science frankly and fairly.
“The clear message is back off,” he said. “Everyone agrees that there is something fundamentally wrong with the English libel laws, which have a chilling effect on journalists, whether they write about science or anything else.”
The campaign supporting Dr Singh is being run by the charity Sense about Science.
Tracey Brown, the charity’s director, said the lawsuit was clamping down and shutting off debate that should be of “huge public interest”.
It was not only about the rights of scientists and journalists to inform the public, but also about the right of the public to hear their voices, she said.
“We have had a long battle in the past decade to get scientists to speak up and share with the public their reasoning. There was a time when some people did not deign to. Now I think there is a real danger that people won’t dare to.”
Richard Brown, the vice-president of the BCA, said in a statement that the organisation had sued Dr Singh “only as an act of last resort”.
“He published what the association believed were libellous remarks in The Guardian.
“He could have retracted the remarks and apologised, and the debate would have continued away from the legal world. He chose not to do so.
“The case against Simon Singh has been re-characterised by his supporters as a freedom-of-speech issue. It is not. The law of libel is about the proper censuring of individuals’ ability to publish false and defamatory material that causes damage to reputation.
“To stifle scientific debate would clearly be wrong. The BCA is fully supportive of scientific debate, and this should be a fundamental right.
“However, with rights come responsibility, and scientists must realise that they cannot simply publish with impunity what they know to be untrue and libellous.”
zoe.corbyn@tsleducation.com
Readers' comments
I am not aware of any evidence that either Simon Sing, or the British Chiropractor's Association has brought to bear to prove their respective points and claims. However, I do tend to agree with the Chiropractor's on the matter of Simon Singh's comments being libelous and that it is not a freedom of speech issue. Simon Singh could easily have made his point, while avoiding any problems with libel, if he had made more judicious choice of words. Science is, after all, supposed to be about precision, including with words, definitions, and the presentation of information and views generally, though standards have declined markedly over recent decades. In engineering precision is paramount. Imagine writing manufacturing standards in the aerospace industry, which I have, the nuclear industry, operational procedures, etc., a major incident occurs, the problem is traced to a lack of precision in wording and the author responds, “Ah, well, yes. That is what I wrote and that is the dictionary definition of that word but that is not exactly what I meant.” There is a similar lack of precision in “Trick or Treatment”, the book Simon Singh wrote with Edzard Ernst; prolific use of the word “lies” with no proof of anyone lying, no references, misinterpretation of procedures of those therapies with which I am familiar as well as totally erroneous definitions, etc. That lack of ability to define certain therapies and, apparent total misunderstand, lack of understanding, of what is involved is, presumably what led Edzard Ernst to carry out certain experiments that failed to exclude a very obvious variable, not that it is easy to exclude it but not doing so invalidates the results obtained and conclusions arrived at. Science constitutes less than 20% of engineering, art more than 40%, engineering is far older than science and was contributing to humanity millenia before science, as such, existed, as well as contributing mightily to the development of science. Therein lies much of the problem. People like Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst are only scientists. If Simon Singh had been as precise in his writings about Chiropractic, in terms of wording, definitions, references and evidence, as he would have had to if he was an professional engineer, it is very unlikely he would have had any problems; he seems to have some way to go in that respect, as does Professor Ernst and many others.
" scientists must realise that they cannot simply publish with impunity what they know to be untrue and libellous" Agreed. True and factual statements are OK, though. So why the court case?
The response from the BCA in this article - "“He could have retracted the remarks and apologised, and the debate would have continued away from the legal world. He chose not to do so" - is a bald-faced lie. As Singh explains in his press-release for his appeal (http://tinyurl.com/on6cbx), "Initially The Guardian newspaper tried its best to settle the matter out of court by making what seemed to be a very generous offer. There was an opportunity for the BCA to write a 500 word response to my article to be published in The Guardian, allowing the BCA to present its evidence. There was also the offer of a clarification in the "Corrections and Clarifications" column, which would have pointed out: "The British Chiropractic have told us they have substantial evidence supporting the claim they make on their website that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying. (Beware the spinal trap, page 26, April 19)." This is about the BCA trying to stifle informed criticism of the reckless behaviour of some of their members through the courts, rather than through presenting evidence that the treatments they promote and charge handsomely for actually work as claimed.
There is no credible scientific evidence that chiropractic treatments can do anything for a condition like asthma (there is some evidence that it may help some back pain), and the reasons put forward as to why spinal manipulation might have any effect on asthma are considered plausible by scarcely anyone besides chiropractors. Those seem to be reasonable grounds for considering words like 'bogus' to be appropriate - but that's not actually the issue. The accusation is that Singh asserted that chiropractors know their claims are bogus but make them anyway, whereas it's clear that they sincerely believe in the efficacy of their treatments - and clear enough, on anything but the most perverse reading of his article, that this is what Singh himself believes. The implication of this, and of Mr King's comment, is that scientists need to spend the whole time inserting redundant qualifications whenever they say anything negative. "Using the wrong sun protection can give you skin cancer - but obviously I don't mean to suggest that the manufacturers are trying to kill their customers"; "giving children cod-liver-oil pills doesn't have any effect on their performance - but I'm sure that the people doing it sincerely believe that it will help".
Which many "alternative" or "complimentary" treatments may be effective in a number of cases, the "scientific" explanation or model may still be flawed and therefore does not assist understand or prediction as to where the treatment might be further beneficial or appropriate. I believe that, whilst Chiropractic does work in many cases, the subluxation theory behind it does not stand rigorous scrutiny and is "bogus" to that extent. The Judge has made a incorrect judgment in believing that bogus means ineffective, fruadulant or dishonest claims, when in fact it here means not supported by a testable model with predictive and explanatory powers.
The problem here are the libel laws. It seems if I say I have a cure for cancer and then someone says don't be daft. I can sue them for libel and they have to prove what they say is true. I don't have to prove a thing! Private Eye have been following chilling libel cases for months. What Singh said was reasonable, which was "spinal manipulation to treat children with colic, ear infections, asthma, sleeping and feeding conditions, and prolonged crying." Singh described the treatments as "bogus" and based on insuffcient evidence. Science works on the free exchange of ideas. The result of this case is totally contradictory to how Science should work.
Employing the UK's arcane and unjust libel "laws" in order to <i>silence</i> an individual who is prepared to document an inconvenient truth that harms a mere fringe of their animated fraudulent parasitic life-sucking activities, is an admission of complete guilt. "Yes, yer honour, it's a fair cop."... Might be a mitigating response. But no! These* completely unscrupulous bastards choose to pull the Mafia trick, and silence the truth-tellers. BCA? You and your kind are collectively classifed as a colonial colloquial term that represents "beneath contempt" Your woo-sayers & psykicks who obviously control your board will have predicted this email, and so know what that term in fact is. -------------------- * Chiroquacks
Employing the UK's arcane and unjust libel "laws" in order to <i>silence</i> an individual who is prepared to document an inconvenient truth that harms a mere fringe of their animated fraudulent parasitic life-sucking activities, is an admission of complete guilt. "Yes, yer honour, it's a fair cop."... Might be a mitigating response. But no! These* completely unscrupulous bastards choose to pull the Mafia trick, and silence the truth-tellers. BCA? You and your kind are collectively classifed as a colonial colloquial term that represents "beneath contempt" Your woo-sayers & psykicks who obviously control your board will have predicted this email, and so know what that term in fact is. -------------------- * Chiroquacks
The chilling effect on scientific discussion is created not by lawsuits but by the one sided views of writers like Singh. He and his prejudiced colleagues cannot imagine that after over 200 years of the history of homeopathy with recorded positive effects in acute epidemics and apparently hard to treat chronic diseases, that there might be something to it; is time to examine a new paradigm (Kuhn). Big pharma is openly behind him as the names of the manufacturing companies are there openly sponsoring 'Sense About Science' on their web site. I suggest an open mind and some serious study and reading before making more dangerous or one sided pronouncements.
The chilling effect on scientific discussion is created not by lawsuits but by the one sided views of writers like Singh. He and his prejudiced colleagues cannot imagine that after over 200 years of the history of homeopathy with recorded positive effects in acute epidemics and apparently hard to treat chronic diseases, that there might be something to it; is time to examine a new paradigm (Kuhn). Big pharma is openly behind him as the names of the manufacturing companies are there openly sponsoring 'Sense About Science' on their web site. I suggest an open mind and some serious study and reading before making more dangerous or one sided pronouncements.
A new paradigm: that a substance can be diluted to the point where not a single molecule remains, and yet somehow the water retains the 'memory' of the substance and so can be used to treat illness. Out of interest, why is it that ordinary tap water (which also contains miniscule or non-existent quantities of these substances) doesn't have the same beneficial effects? Oh yes, it hasn't been hit with the magic hammer, and you can't charge a fortune for it. Bleating about 'big pharma' can't disguise the fact that is utterly unscientific nonsense.
“Everyone agrees that there is something fundamentally wrong with the English libel laws, which have a chilling effect on journalists, whether they write about science or anything else.” No, Simon, you and your prejudiced cronies and drug company bankrollers "agree". Thank goodness the British justice system has seen fit to make sure that you will abide by the law, although you whinge about how you should be unshackled from these libel laws so that you may left free to rubbish who ever you see fit. By all means express your views, but within the confines of the law.
Strictly speaking, Singh's statement that, "everyone agrees there is something fundamentally wrong with the English libel laws" is disproved in both legal and scientific terms by Jenny Ojakovoh's testimony that there is at least one person who doesn't. Which raises some interesting questions. If "everyone" does not mean *every* *one*, then what does it mean? If by everyone Singh means "most people", or "everyone I know", or "everyone who matters", then why not say so? Is the use of inexact generalisations that may create misleading impressions "the cornerstone of scientific argument and debate", or the antithesis of it? According to the American National Standards Institute, "Good scientific writing is logical, clear, precise, direct, and concise. Its main scientific quality lies in precision, and all words should therefore be used in an exact sense. If the sense intended is different from that commonly understood or defined in dictionaries, the usage should be carefully explained." (ANSI, 1979b) Which raises an even more interesting question. If the freedom to use words imprecisely without careful explanation has become such a cornerstone of scientific argument that the libel laws now need to be changed to protect it, then wouldn't the word "science" also need to be redefined? Interestingly, it already has been - just a few months ago. "Britain's Science Council has spent the past year working out a new definition of the word 'science'," announced the Guardian in early March. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/mar/03/science-definition-council-francis-bacon "The definition would include historical research and indeed some journalism! It does not demarcate something called science from the humanities. This is a good and sensible thing," said David Edgerton, professor of the history of science and technology at Imperial College. On the other side of that argument stands the founder of the scientific method, Sir Francis Bacon, who said that "the ill and unfit choice of words wonderfully obstructs the understanding"; the founder of modern chemistry, Anton Lavoisier, who said "the art of reasoning is nothing more than a language well arranged"; and the founder of modern quantum electrodynamics, Richard Ferryman, who classified most of journalism and the humanities as cargo cult, pseudo-science. It's only when set against bright young scientific superstars with great haircuts, like Simon Singh, Richard Dawkins and Peter Andre, that it becomes apparent what a bunch of politically incorrect pedants those old farts really were. Now that leading scientists, writers, artists and lawyers are campaigning to have terms like "numpties" "charlatans" and "bogus" protected in law under the auspices of legitimate scientific debate, it seems appropriate that the only one left fighting the corner for old-school scientists like Bacon, Lavoisier and Feynman should be some old libel judge in a wig.