Tag Archives: Mohamed El Naschie

Free speech—update on defamation & science in the UK

Leave a reply

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.

Scientific spat and libel case in UK has Canadian connection

17 Replies

Neil Turok, Director of the Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics located in Waterloo, Canada, has been described as being insufficiently qualified to assess a fellow scientist’s work. Alok Jha, science correspondent for the UK’s Guardian newspaper, writes about the situation which includes a libel suit against Nature magazine in his Nov. 18, 2011 article,

A scientist who is suing one of the world’s most prominent scientific journals for libel compared himself to Albert Einstein in the high court on Friday [Nov. 18, 2011] as part of his evidence against the journal. Professor Mohamed El Naschie, also claimed that an eminent physicist brought in by the journal as an expert witness to analyse the value of his work was not sufficiently qualified to do so.

El Naschie is suing Nature as a result of a news article published in 2008, after the scientist’s retirement as editor-in-chief of the journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals. The article alleged that El Naschie had self-published several research papers, some of which did not seem to have been peer reviewed to an expected standard and also said that El Naschie claimed affiliations and honorary professorships with international institutions that could not be confirmed by Nature. El Naschie claims the allegations in the article were false and had damaged his reputation.

On Friday, Nature called Professor Neil Turok, a cosmologist and director of the Perimeter Institute in Canada, as an expert witness to assess some of the work published by El Naschie.

…

In his evidence, Turok said he found it difficult to understand the logic in some of El Naschie’s papers. The clear presentation of scientific ideas was an important step in getting an idea accepted, he said. “There are two questions – one is whether the work is clearly presented and readers would be able to understand it. It would be difficult for a trained theoretical physicist to understand [some of El Naschie’s papers]. …  The second question is about the correctness of the theory and that will be decided by whether it agrees with experiments. Most theories in theoretical physics are speculative – we form a logical set of rules and deductions and we try, ultimately, to test the deductions in experiments.

There’s more at stake here than whether or not Turok is qualified or El Naschie’s work is up to the standards in his field, this is also about libel and libel laws in England. There have been some intended consequences from the current set of laws. Here’s an excerpt from the Wikipedia essay,

Libel tourism is a term first coined by Geoffrey Robertson to describe forum shopping for libel suits. It particularly refers to the practice of pursuing a case in England and Wales, in preference to other jurisdictions, such as the United States, which provide more extensive defences for those accused of making derogatory statements. According to the English publishing house Sweet & Maxwell, the number of libel cases brought by people alleged to be involved with terrorism almost tripled in England between 2006 and 2007.

Jha goes on to finish his first article on El Naschie’s libel case with this,

Sile Lane, a spokesperson for the Libel Reform campaign said: “Scientists expect publications like Nature to investigate and write about controversies within the scientific community. The threat of libel action is preventing scientific journals from discussing what is good and bad science. This case is another example of why we need libel law that has a clear strong public interest defence and a high threshold for bringing a case. The government has promised to reform the libel laws and this can’t come soon enough.”

I last wrote about the libel situation in the UK in my Nov. 12, 2010 posting, International call to action on libel laws in the UK.