I’m glad to have found an update on the UK science libel cases that I have mentioned here (El Naschie in my Nov. 18, 2011 posting and Simon Singh in my Nov. 12, 2010 posting).

Niri Shanmuganathan and Timothy Pinto have co-posted the update  and an analysis of the current defamation bill being considered before the UK Parliament. First, the updates, from the July 9, 2012 co-posting on the Guardian Science blogs,

On Friday, the eminent scientific journal Nature successfully defended an article it had published in 2008. The article had criticised Professor El Naschie for, among other things, publishing an excessive number of articles written by him in the very journal in which he was the editor and not submitting them through an adequate independent peer-review process. It took Nature more than three years to prove its article was accurate, included matters of honest opinion, and was the result of responsible journalism on a matter of public interest.

The science writer Simon Singh was sued by the British Chiropractic Association [BCA] for criticising chiropractic therapy in an article he wrote in the Guardian in 2008. He appears to have been faced with a choice of apologising or instructing (ie paying) libel lawyers to defend him. Singh chose the courageous path and took the financial risk. Fortunately for him, in 2010 the court of appeal (reversing the judge) found that Singh’s comments were statements of opinion, rather than fact. The BCA then dropped its case against Singh.

Shanmuganathan and Pinto note that libel laws currently in place are adequate  once applied in court but the problem lies with the ease that an aggrieved party can file suit. When the burden of proof lies on the defendant to prove that their comments are in the public interest (which is difficult), it’s very, very expensive and time-consuming to fight a court case. One of the consequences is that free speech is likely to become constrained as individual and institutions without the resources avoid making comments that might offend. Here’s what Pinto and Shanmuganathan have to say about the current bill before Parliament,

This problem has not gone unnoticed by politicians, and libel law is currently undergoing reform to try to swing the balance more in favour of free speech. The defamation bill recently had its first reading in the House of Commons. It has two specific provisions to help protect freedom of expression in the field of science. First, independently peer-reviewed articles in a scientific or academic journal, and reports of such articles, would be privileged. Second, fair and accurate reports of scientific or academic conferences would also be privileged. …

However, these worthy libel law reformers are missing the point when it comes to science. Scientists do not usually get sued for writing peer-reviewed articles. Similarly, scientific publishers do not usually get sued for reporting on what happened at a scientific conference.

I recommend reading their comments in full not only for the valuable insight but because the writers have a special relationship to one of the cases. Niri Shanmuganathan and Timothy Pinto are media lawyers at international law firm Taylor Wessing which represented Nature in the libel case brought by Professor El Naschie.