Additional Comments
Keep the libel laws out of science
Stephen Fry, Broadcaster and Author: "It may seem like a small thing to some when claims are made without evidence, but there are those of us who take this kind of thing very seriously because we believe that repeatable evidence-based science is the very foundation of our civilisation. Freedom in politics, in thought and in speech followed the rise of empirical science which refused to take anything on trust, on faith, on hope or even on reason. The simplicity and purity of evidence is all that stands between us and the wildest kinds of tyranny, superstition and fraudulent nonsense. When a powerful organisation tries to silence a man of Simon Singh's reputation then anyone who believes in science, fairness and the truth should rise in indignation. All we ask for is proof. Reasoned proof according to the established protocols of medicine and science everywhere. It is not science that is arrogant: science can be defined as 'humility before the facts' - it is those who refuse to submit to testing and make unsubstantiated claims that are arrogant. Arrogant and unjust."
Professor Richard Dawkins, FRS, University of Oxford: "This splendid manifesto hits so many bullseyes, I feel like adding my signature to every line of it. The English libel laws are ridiculed as an international charter for litigious mountebanks, and the effects are especially pernicious where science is concerned."
Jonathan Heawood, Director, English PEN: "You know there's something badly wrong with the libel law when a serious scientific writer is dragged through the courts for something he didn't even mean to say! Simon Singh's only mistake was not to distinguish clearly enough between ineffective and fraudulent treatments - both of which might equally be termed 'bogus'. The real culprit here is the rich English language and the arcane law of libel."
Professor Richard Wiseman, Professor of the Public Understanding of Psychology, University of Hertfordshire, and author: "England's strict libel laws can deter individuals from speaking out against bad science, even when they have strong evidence for their argument. Simon's campaign deserves the support of everyone who cares about fighting pseudoscience."
Diana Garnham, Chief Executive, The Science Council: "Delivery of professional health care should be based on science, not libel laws. It goes without saying that all professional health care scientists must be expected to base their professional practice on scientific methodology, encompassing both a rigorous evidence base and open peer review."
Professor Les Iversen FRS, Department of Pharmacology, University of Oxford: "It is shocking that our health service is willing to use taxpayers money to provide alternative treatments that have not been scientifically validated, and even worse is the gagging of journalists who dare to point out the shortcomings of these treatments. "
James Randi, CEO and Dr Philip Plait, President, The James Randi Educational Foundation: "We at the JREF support Simon in his quest for justice. It's clear from his writing that his intent was not to claim that the BCA knowingly commits acts of fraud, but that the BCA is nonetheless incorrect in their claims of the efficacy of chiropractic. Simon is, of course, correct. Furthermore, the ruling, as it stands, would produce a chilling effect on the ability of journalists to question the claims of anyone, including pseudoscientists. Whatever path Simon chooses over this issue, the JREF will be there, and to the best of our ability we'll have his back."
Professor Sir David King, FRS, former Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government (2000-2007), Director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment (University of Oxford): "It is ridiculous that a legal and outdated definition of a word has been used to hinder and discourage scientific debate. We must be able to fairly and reasonably challenge ideas without the fear of legal intimidation. This sort of thing only brings the law into disrepute."
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Journalist and columnist: "Freedom to write is said to be precious and protected in western democracies. That fundamental principle and the right to disagree with people and institutions is being compromised and threatened by those who use the law not for redress but as a warning to those whose views they resent. Many conscientious journalists and authors are finding their hands and tongues are tied. Simon Singh is one of them."
Professor Chris French, Head of the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit, Goldsmiths, and Editor of the Skeptic Magazine: "The use of the English libel laws to silence critical discussion of medical practice and scientific evidence brings shame upon English traditions of free speech, free enquiry and fairness. The British Chiropractic Association's legal action against Simon Singh is a clear indication that the organisation is unable to respond to the substantive aspect of Simon's challenge. There appears to be no substantive evidence in support of the effectiveness of chiropractic in treating a number of specific ailments, contrary to the BCA's publicly issued advice. If such evidence does exist, the BCA should present it. Instead, they have opted to use the perverse English libel laws to silence any criticism. Such action appears to indicate that they do not actually have the evidence to back up their claims."
Dara O'Briain, Comedian: "We have to avoid a precedent that puts anyone who writes about these matters from a scientific perspective onto the back foot in the battle against peddlers of misinformation, whether they are knowing or not. The preliminary ruling is a worrying development for comedians as well, a number of whom have been ridiculing the world of dubious medicinal and scientific practices for some time. For example, I may now have to reconsider my routine about homeopathy being a 300 year old con trick."
Caspar Melville, Editor, New Humanist magazine and Chief Executive, The Rationalist Association: "What has happened to Simon Singh was all but inevitable given the anachronistic and patently unfair UK libel laws. Reform of British libel law is, or should be, the highest priority for all those who value freedom of expression. The tradition of rigorous debate that has done so much to enrich our public and scientific culture is ill served by a legal framework which favours those with the deepest pockets, and discourages full and frank public debate. With the spirit of reform in the air, free thinkers of all political stripe now have the opportunity to rally round and tackle this unfortunate hangover from Britain's deferential gentleman's club culture."
Marcus Chown, Author, Journalist and cosmology consultant to New Scientist: "It is depressing and deeply worrying to see the UK libel laws used to gag legitimate scientific debate. If nothing is done to rectify this situation, in the long run all of us, whose lives have been improved by the advances of medicine and science, will suffer."
Professor Armand Leroi, Professor of Evolutionary Developmental Biology, Imperial College London: "If the English laws of libel can be used to stifle Singh, then the outlook for public discussion of the science that matters to us most, is bleak indeed."
Professor Jim Al-Khalili OBE, Professor of Physics and of the Public Engagement in Science at the University of Surrey: "It is bad enough that so many dubious therapies still thrive in the 21st century without proper scientific evidence to back them, but to try to gag scientists who quite rightly speak out against them is outrageous."
Michael Shermer, Publisher of Skeptic magazine, Scientific American columnist, author of Why People Believe Weird Things: "This case is critical for all science writers and investigative journalists, for if our skeptical investigations and subsequent opinions can be squelched through the threat of a ruinously expensive lawsuit, then the result will be that misguided quacks and dishonest frauds can simply say and do what they like without recourse, with disastrous results for the public. There is no place for the law to stop critically important investigations into possible fraudulent or unfounded claims. Without the freedom to perform such important investigations, science and journalism take a back seat to anyone with the legal clout to stop us for their own nefarious reasons."
Ariane Sherine, Comedy writer and journalist: "Freedom of expression is essential to democracy. The British Chiropractic Association should be willing to engage in open scientific debate like any reputable medical body - instead, they're being truly spineless."
Steven Novella, Director of General Neurology, Yale University School of Medicine, Editor of Science-Based Medicine and author: "The BCA's lawsuit is not only anti-free speech, it is anti-scientific, as science requires open and transparent examination and criticism of all claims."
Ben Goldacre, Bad Science: "Last year I was sued personally, alongside The Guardian, by a German vitamin pill salesman called Matthias Rath. He had moved into South Africa, a country headed by an HIV denialist president, taking out full-page newspaper adverts claiming that antiretroviral medication was a conspiracy from the pharmaceutical industry to kill africans, and vitamin pills were the answer to the Aids epidemic. I was highly critical of these activities. The libel case brought by Rath dragged on for 17 months and ultimately cost £535,000 to defend. This is not an isolated case, and my thoughts are with Simon Singh. It is vitally important that we are able to criticise ideas and practices in medicine: this is how ideas improve, and it is how foolish, dangerous practices are eradicated. The law is wrong."
Ronald A. Lindsay President & CEO, Center for Inquiry: "The Center for Inquiry fully supports Simon Singh in his defense of a libel lawsuit brought by the British Chiropractic Association. Those who believe in chiropractic therapies have ample opportunity to present their views to the public; as a matter of public interest, the BCA should allow critics of chiropractic the right of free speech as well."
Marcus Brigstocke, Writer and performer: "I fully support the request that the BCA should drop it's case against Simon Singh and that we urgently need a full review of the way that English libel law affects discussions about evidence. The notion that a scientist with legitimate questions to ask about the veracity of claims made by any practitioner or organisation claiming to serve the public and improve it's health, should be intimidated into keeping silent for fear that the British legal system will find against him is abhorrent. This case does nothing but stifle much needed debate that both sides of this argument should welcome with open arms. The terms upon which the case will be decided are nonsense."
Professor Elizabeth Fisher FMedSci, Professor of Molecular Genetics, University College College, Institute of Neurology: "The British Libel Laws are being abused at home and abroad - they badly need revising to stop us silencing honest debate at home and in the rest of the world."
Professor Michael Baum MB, FRCS, ChM, MD, FRCR, Professor Emeritus of surgery and visiting professor of medical humanities, University College London: "The whole scientific community and all those who support evidence and compassion in the care of the sick and all those who think that the search for truth is a laudable activity, must stand shoulder to shoulder with Simon Singh in his fight against a legal system that encourages the propagation of arcane voodoo belief systems whilst inhibiting free speech."
Professor Raymond Tallis, Emeritus Professor of Geriatric Medicine, University of Manchester: "The use of libel laws to pre-empt questions about the efficacy of treatments that should be subject to scientific evaluation is potentially catastrophic. It represents a regression to a pre-scientific era when 'truth' was established on the basis of personal authority of individuals. This trend towards an increasing use of libel laws makes the world less safe for patients who deserve properly evaluated treatments; that is to say for all of us."
Dr Richard Vranch, Ex-physicist and performer: "The law should be rigorous, fair and unambiguous in protecting writers who tell the truth about science and pseudo-science."
Professor Doctor Beda Stadler, Immunologist, University of Bern, Switzerland: "From abroad this looks like a rebirth of inquisitory methods. Welcome back to medieval times beloved Great Britain!"
Rohit Jaggi, Aviation and Motorcycle Columnist, Financial Times: "We need to encourage informed debate on this, and any, subject. The current legislation serves to stifle debate - it needs to be reformed as a matter of urgency."
Bill Thompson, Technology Journalist: "All English journalists work under the oppressive shadow of our libel laws, and fear of a costly lawsuit has limited the scope of investigation into matters of public interest on too many occasions."
Russ Swan, Editor of Laboratorytalk: "Simon Singh should be able to offer a defence of 'fair comment', but it seems he can only do this by proving that chiropractic does not work - in other words, he is forced to prove a negative. The onus should be on the BCA to prove that it does work, with repeatable trials providing proper evidence for independent scrutiny. Singh is in the same position as one accused of witchcraft in the middle ages: drown, or be guilty. Ironically, it is the chiropractors whose therapies seem more akin to medieaval practices."
Last updated: October 07 2009
