The Libel Reform Campaign

If you have any interest in maintaining the freedom of speech, the openness of scientific debate and the ability of people to question the actions of corporations, the Libel Reform Campaign needs your help. The extent to which the UK’s woeful libel laws are harming not just the individuals being sued but the public at large is frightening. Defendants are presumed guilty until they can prove their innocence, injunctions are rushed out to block any reporting of cases, and lawyer’s bills quickly mount up to millions of pounds. It doesn't matter whether the alleged slur took place in the UK either; cases can be dragged into London from pretty much anywhere in the world in what is known as 'libel tourism'.

People certainly need a means of recourse if something false and reputation-damaging has been said about them, and so the campaign is not suggesting that the libel laws are abolished altogether. However, it does question whether large companies should be treated in the same way as individuals, whether comments made on Internet chat forums should be treated in the same way as the formal articles in the national press, and whether payouts should be so huge that making a libel claim is seen as a valid way of earning money. With the laws as they are, the only real winners seem to be lawyers and those rich enough to afford their exorbitant fees.

A lawyer, the only sort of person who really benefits from the law as it stands.

There have been three recent cases involving scientists which highlight quite how dangerous the current situation is. Firstly, there is Simon Singh, a mathematician and author of many popular science books. His problems started when he wrote a comment piece in the Guardian newspaper in which he accused the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) of promoting bogus treatments. Following the piece’s publication, the BCA sued for libel.

Now, if Singh had been rubbishing the whole of chiropractics with no supporting evidence, the BCA may have had a point. However, all he was pointing out was that no evidence exists for chiropractors’ claims that they can cure things like infant colic and asthma with their back manipulations. If anyone was at fault then surely it was the BCA for promising results from treatments that have been shown to be ineffective? Not according to Mr Justice Eady, who ruled against Singh. Aware of what a damaging precedent this could set for freedom of speech, Singh decided to risk his money on an appeal, which has yet to take place.

Another example is the case of Henrik Thomsen from the University of Copenhagen. Thomsen, a radiologist, had long been concerned about the safety of a gadolinium-containing contrast agent (something given to patients before they have an MRI scan to help things show up better) called Omniscan. Worrying numbers of patients suffering from kidney problems who had taken Omniscan ended up developing a very serious medical condition known as nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. As any responsible scientist would, Thomsen spoke about his fears at a conference in Oxford.

Rather than looking at Thomsen’s research and considering whether they should act to stop Omniscan from being used on vulnerable patients, its manufacturer General Electric Healthcare instead decided to sue Thomsen for libel. It claimed for damages and legal costs (probably more than £380,000) and attempted to gag the radiologist, preventing him from spreading his message further. Luckily, GE Healthcare have now dropped their suit, but what if similar companies are doing similar things? What if deaths are being caused by companies hiding evidence in this manner? In this light, the need for libel reform seems really rather urgent.

Peter Wilmshurst, a consultant cardiologist at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital, has been sued for libel by NMT Medical over comments he made about their product STARFlex, a device that is designed to close holes in the heart. Wilmshurst was involved with research that was investigating whether STARFlex helped to reduce the incidence of migraine in some patients. The result of the trial was negative; the device didn't seem help with what it had been designed for. Wilmshurst came up with some ideas as to why this was so, but NMT Medical disagreed. When the cardiologist spoke about the trial at a conference, criticising the company, they sued.

Science will just stop working if things carry on in this way, with scientists at risk of being sued for libel if they say anything, however justified, that criticises a company or its products. This is not a system designed to let the truth win out; rather it allows the people or entities with the most money to stifle debate. Singh and Wilmshurst are risking everything they own in order to fight the charges against them. Not every scientist is in a position to do this, nor would every scientist be willing to, believing the risks to themselves and their families to be just too great.

And it's not just science that is the issue here. Journalists, comedians, broadcasters, anyone who writes or says something potentially controversial is at risk. Things need to be changed.

Please go to www.libelreform.org and sign the petition there.