farmdoc's blog post number 419

What do Richard Dawkins, Karl Kruszelnicki, George Monbiot, Ricky Gervais and Martin Amis have in common? Ten days ago they and many others issued this statement insisting it’s inappropriate to use the English libel laws to silence critical discussion of medical practice and scientific evidence. On 19 April 2008 noted science writer Simon Singh wrote in the Guardian newspaper criticising claims by chiropractors that spinal manipulation was efficacious treatment for childhood conditions including asthma, colic, and ear infections. He suggested there was ‘not a jot’ of evidence to support such efficacy, and he asserted the British Chiropractic Association ‘happily promotes bogus treatments’. The Association sued Singh for libel. On 7 May 2009 in the UK High Court, Mr Justice Eady issued a preliminary ruling that Singh’s words meant the Association knowingly and therefore dishonestly promoted a treatment it knew to be a sham. Singh’s stated that given this interpretation, it’d be difficult for him to win the case. But he’s appealing Mr Justice Eady’s ruling anyway. In its 3 June 2009 Editorial the BMJ opines that the proper way for the Association to rebut Singh is to quote peer reviewed scientific literature – i.e. evidence – and not to resort to libel which is essentially playing the man and not the ball. Dawkins et alii assert that libel law has no place in scientific disputes about evidence. I agree.