Bestselling science writer Simon Singh, who was sued for penning an article criticising claims about chiropractic treatments, believes the UK's libel laws are stifling debate, writes Karlin Lillington
WHEN HE penned a science column for the Guardiannewspaper last year, well-known science writer Dr Simon Singh hardly expected that a lawsuit, much less an international protest movement, would follow.
But when the British Chiropractic Association sued Singh for criticising the organisation’s claims that chiropractic treatments can cure several childhood ailments – and won a £100,000 (€117,000) judgment – scientists and researchers, as well as many public figures and private citizens, responded with alarm.
As a result, Singh, the author of bestsellers The Code Book, Fermat's Last Theoremand Big Bang, as well as a book examining alternative medicine called Trick or Treatment?co-written with Edzard Ernst, professor of complementary medicine at Exeter university, now finds himself the primary spokesman for a movement to reform the UK's libel laws.
Those laws are known to be so favourable to the party bringing a suit that cases that arise in other territories are being taken to the UK in the hopes of a favourable outcome. In many such cases, internet publication of an article is said to allow for international readership, enabling the case to be pursued in the UK.
“The cost of a libel action in Britain is 140 times higher than the European average, if you exclude Ireland,” says Singh. (A diagram of EU defamation cost figures published in 2008 is available at http://tinyurl.com/mu5hqh.)
President Mary McAleese last week signed the Defamation Bill, which updates Irish legislation on defamation and libel, into law.
Ireland is at the moment the second-most expensive European territory in which to take a libel case, says Singh. But it is still 10 times less costly than the UK. “The fact that we’ve become the libel capital of the world just says there’s something fundamentally wrong,” he says.
For example, a Saudi man took a libel case in the UK against a US author for being named in a book on terrorism that had not even been published in Britain. The judge assigned to the case, Mr Justice David Eady, ruled in favour of the Saudi plaintiff.
The US Congress was so alarmed by the ruling that it and, separately, several US states are drafting or have already put in place laws that allow them to ignore libel judgments coming from British courts.
Even the United Nations got involved, concerned about the ability of what the Wall Street Journalcalled "libel tourists" to bring cases in the UK that could suppress debate on matters of public interest. Such wealthy individuals now "jet to British courts seeking protection from public scrutiny", said the newspaper in an opinion piece on Singh's campaign.
In the UK as well as Ireland, the burden of proof in a libel or defamation case is on the person being sued, not, as in the US, on the plaintiff. “I am guilty until proven innocent,” notes Singh.
The judge who ruled on Singh’s case? The same Eady.
Sense About Science (senseaboutscience.org.uk), an independent charitable trust that promotes good science and scientific debate, counts Singh as a member of its board of trustees and has stepped up to highlight his case in the UK and internationally. It also has an online petition that can be signed by supporters.
The organisation’s broader concern, according to a statement, is that the existing law could have a “chilling effect” and be used to suppress scientific and scholarly debate and reporting.
“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 statement reads. “The libel laws discourage argument and debate and merely encourage the use of the courts to silence critics.”
Petition signatories and Singh backers include leading UK scientists such as former UK government scientist Sir David King, biologist Richard Dawkins, Irish astronomer Jocelyn Bell, and Royal Society president Lord Martin Rees.
On the heels of previous controversial judgments, Singh’s case is now drawing international attention. He says he feels the case – which he has recently appealed – has galvanised a public response because it does not involve politicians or celebrities, but science.
“In my case, it is about children’s health,” he says. “I feel I should be able to write about that issue fairly. I don’t think I should have to retract what I said, or say it is wrong.”
Singh says the same laws stifle the ability of journalists generally to report on contentious issues, especially if they involve a powerful corporation or organisation or a wealthy individual able to finance a case. Small local newspapers in particular may back off investigative reporting because libel costs could bankrupt them.
Even large publications such as the Guardianwould fear libel payouts that could strip cash from other projects, he says.
Unlike US law, libel law in the UK lacks any sort of public-interest definition, Singh says.
Singh hopes to get another chance to defend his words. His lawyers were back in court last month, and the British system will decide whether to grant an appeal in the coming weeks. “I think I’ve got a right to say what I’ve written,” he says. “I’ll carry on.”
