Science writer Simon Singh has been silenced by English libel laws.
Credit: Simon Singh
SYDNEY: Renowned British science writer, Simon Singh, will appeal a libel ruling brought against him by the British Chiropractic Association.
"While there is still the slightest chance of defending my rights as a journalist then I am determined to continue with this legal battle. Indeed, I look forward to the opportunity to discuss the evidence for chiropractic in court," said Singh, who announced his decision to fight on Wednesday.
Singh has published a number of best-selling popular science books, including Fermats's Last Theorem and The Code Book. His latest, co-authored with the professor of complementary medicine Edzard Ernst is titled Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial.
The meaning of "bogus"
The controversy started in 2008, when Singh wrote an opinion piece for Britain's The Guardian newspaper discussing the history of chiropractic and a claim by chiropractors that it could cure a variety of childhood illnesses. The article was timed to coincide with Chiropractic Awareness Week, an event organised by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA).
Chiropractic is an alternative health care treatment which involves manipulating the spine using short but forceful hand movements.
The BCA took the bait of the opinion piece. However, instead of engaging in a constructive scientific debate, and putting the evidence for their claims forward, they sued, claiming Singh had defamed them.
The offending passage of his article read: "The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments."
A preliminary ruling by the Royal Courts of Justice in London stated that Singh's article contains "the plainest allegation of dishonesty and indeed it accuses them [the BCA] of thoroughly disreputable conduct."
Bad news for Singh
Singh denies that he used "bogus" to mean that chiropractors know they are offering a sham treatment. Instead, he says, most believe the treatments to be genuine, even if studies show they offer little real benefit.
The ruling is bad news for Singh. Losing a future trial, based on this ruling, could cost him up to £1 million (A$2 million). The libel case has already cost him up to £100,000 (A$200,000) in legal fees. Instead of proceeding to trial, Singh announced on Wednesday that he has decided to appeal the ruling. If he loses his appeal, he says he will take the case to the European Court of Human Rights.
"While this case is alive there is an opportunity to raise a whole series of arguably more important issues, particularly the appalling state of English libel laws," he said in a statement.
Legal Action by BCA
It is essential that all scientists have the right to question things even if they are considered orthodoxies of the day. Unfortunately, this case also demonstrates the need to ensure good grammatical and language practice when writing so that ambiguities or interpretations about words used are not subject to this kind of hair-splitting.
When Simon Singh said that
When Simon Singh said that the BCA "happily promotes bogus treatments" that ambiguously suggests that he is implying that they know the treatments are bogus and deliberately deceive the public by promoting them. This is the interpretation the judge gave.
However, Simon Singh intended the word "bogus" to apply to Chiropractic treatment, not the Chiropractors themselves, and the rest of his article goes on to talk about these "bogus" treatments, not about "bogus" Chiropractors. He is also on record elsewhere as saying that he does not believe that Chiropractors themselves are "bogus" in the sense that they are promoting treatments that they know to be bogus.
Two further points.
- When he talks about "bogus" treatments he is referring to the treatment of children with sleeping disorders, eating problems, prolonged crying, frequent ear infections, and asthma.
- The judge has been critised in the past for his decisions in libel cases and, as a result many states in the USA are preparing to pregvent his decisions from affecting authors living in the USA
regards,
BillyJoe