Simon Singh, the highly respected science writer (Fermat’s Last Theorem, etc), is being sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association. Chiropractic is an alternative/complementary therapy which purports to treat various ailments by manipulation of the spine.) The BCA are promoting Chiropractic as treatment for children with (potentially serious) ailments such as asthma and frequent ear infections. Simon Singh criticised this in a Guardian “comment” piece. In particular, he criticised the BCA for doing this without appropriate clinical evidence.
He is now being sued for libel.
The BCA want damages and an injunction against him saying such things in future. Fundamentally this is about free speech and the use of evidence. An informed and responsible science writer should be able to write about genuine concerns on an important public health issue (the correct treatment for children) without the threat and expense of High Court libel claims. Even if he was wrong, it would surely be enough for the BCA to simply show their supporting evidence. But they are suing him instead.
In the words of Frank Frizelle: “Let’s hear your evidence, not your legal muscle.”
I found out about this at a recent meeting of Skeptics in the Pub and there is good background from the excellent Jack of Kent blog, covering the BCA’s claim, Simon Singh’s defence and a very useful guide to English libel law. The original piece from the BCA is here, courtesy of the Internet Archive and Singh’s response that has precipitated all this is here. A good summary of things is over at the Quack-o-meter. A not so good summary follows below courtesy of, er, me.
The BCA’s claim specifically refers to Singh’s statement that there is “not a jot of evidence”for the eficacy of chiropractic interventions for colic; sleeping problems; feeding problems; frequent ear infections; asthma; and prolonged crying, mentioned in that original doc from the BCA. The upshot is that the case could revolve (as I understand it) around one of two things; whether an organisation like the BCA has a reputation in this case to be protected (which has all sorts of positive implications for free speech) and an actual look at the evidence for the said eficacy. In other words, the BCA may just have put chiropractic on trial.
Ho, ho, ho.
The preliminary hearing starts tomorrow, 7th May, at 1000 at the Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand.
xD.
Yet another disappointing example of quackery defending their position via libel laws rather than scientific discourse.
Its worrying to think how far this might actually put journalists and bloggers off from even raising genuine concerns because the inevitable heat it draws is not worth the hassle.
On a topical note I spotted this somewhat prominent advert for Chiropractic cures taking advantage of the recent fears regarding Swine Flu on The Huffington Post.
Jeeves’s last blog post..Top 10 ‘better’ Prime Ministers
I find this very odd- having just finished a research degree at Cambridge- robust criticism of your conclusions is part of the process behind any enquiry in arts or sciences. Its odd in another sense in that most of us know that we need criticism of our ideas because however good we are, we all make mistakes and someone else might see mistakes that we fail to see. Its like the Henry Lincoln case earlier this year where a group of conspiracy nuts took Dan Brown to court for using their ideas. Taking someone to court for using your ideas or critiquing your ideas seems to fundamentally misunderstand the root by which ideas and arguments become stronger- other people extend and criticise them in ways that their originators could not imagine.
Gracchi’s last blog post..Fathers and Sons
Tiberie,
That is a particularly eloquent demolition of the case mounted by the BCA.
xD.
Hmmm…what’s confusing about this whole story is that the BCA did send evidence. But when Simon Singh chose to ignore it and pressed on, rather than simply apologise for getting it wrong, they felt they had to defend the correctly carried out practices that do stand up to scrutiny. SS carried on but was actually advised by his legal team to settle out of court as the BCA had so much positive evidence. If it were simply a case of defending freedom of speech then SS’s outrage would be understandable. But telling lies isn’t really the done thing. It seems that the crux of the story has been somewhat changed to create a more media friendly story and for SS to gain followers. Rather like those well-meaning celebrities fooled into filming their anti ‘Cake’ videos for The Day Today…except that was for fun and this is not.
Kay,
If the BCA sent evidence, you will be able to provide, I presume, a list of entries in peer-reviewed journals that they submitted. The official ruling can be found here
If the evidence existed, why would the BCA feel the need to sue for libel in a scientific debate?
This is precisely a case of freedom of speech; it is about the BCA trying to stop Simon Singh because they didn’t like what he said.
xD.