Two chilling reminders of the urgent need for #LibelReform

Just hours after bloggers united to urge their readers to sign up to the Libel Reform Campaign's petition*, news reaches us via Sense about Science of yet another chilling deployment of libel law to silence the discussion of evidence in the public interest - and as I write this post, I've learned of another libel case attempting to settle matters of scientific interest through the High Court.

More on that story later - first, boobies.

It appears that Dr. Dalia Nield, a consultant plastic surgeon at The London Clinic, has been threatened with legal action by the cosmetics manufacturer Rodial; this action follows Dr. Nield expressing doubts over the efficacy of 'Boob Job,' a £125 cream made by Rodial - Dr. Nield was quoted in a Daily Mail article on October 1st (published online September 30th), and in taking exception to her comments Rodial chose to sue her and not the Mail.

In sharing her doubts over the claims Rodial make for their cream (that two months topical application would lead to a larger, firmer bust), Dr. Nield said

The manufacturers are not giving us any information on tests they have carried out. They are not telling us the exact ingredients in the product and how they increase the size of the breast.’

The doctor even claimed the gel could be ‘potentially dangerous’.

‘It may even harm the skin and the breasts – we need a full analysis

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/beauty/article-1316454/Rodial-Boob-Job-gel-Cream-increases-bust-size-goes-sale-125.html#ixzz14xqLQG5S

This is the latest in a long line of cases where apparently legitimate concerns over a product or treatment are treated as libellous, with comments made in the public interest being shut down by threatening heavy-handed legal action; as Sense about Science said,

Dr Simon Singh was sued for criticising the lack of evidence for chiropractic in the treatment of some infant disorders; consultant cardiologist Dr Peter Wilmshurst is being sued by NMT Medical for speaking about data from a clinical trial of a medical device; Dr Ben Goldacre was sued by a vitamin manufacturer for questioning claims to treat HIV/AIDS with vitamins.

Adding to this growing list of libel victims, you can read a moving and sobering account of the chilling effects of libel law on one of the most respected bloggers around - Andy Lewis of the Quackometer blog recalls his libel troubles and shares a never-before-talked-about case, demonstrating just how pernicious the current law and its use in silencing critical debate are.

This list of defendants, to which Dr. Nield is now to be added, share in common their desire to debate evidence surrounding medical practices or products that they believe could cause harm. Their accusers, those who bully them with libel threats, are just as united in their conviction that critical commentary is to be silenced via the courts and ruinously expensive legal battles.

In chosing to sue Dr. Nield and not her publishers, Rodial follow the tactics of the British Chiropractic Association in targeting Simon Singh for his article criticising the claims made by their practitioners and not the Guardian who published it - and that of NMT, who chose to sue Peter Wilmshurst and not the American magazine who published his comments. And yet as Andy Lewis says, in his case(s) it was his internet service providers who were threatened. The pattern if there is one appears to be one of targeting the weak, those least likely to defend themselves and most likely to cave in to bullying.

In a further development, Simon Singh has just tweeted about another case where a dispute over the scientific validity of a study has spilled over into the High Court. Respected charity the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) is being sued for libel by a Cheshire couple who claim that when the RSPB criticised their methodology in a study on black grouse, they libelled them. In defending the RSPB and calling for the case to be struck out, Adam Wolanski made a succinct argument that I for one find compelling:

scientific disputes are not for the courts.

Whether boob jobs or birds, miracle cures or medical devices, it is vital that scientists and writers are free to discuss the merits of the evidence before them without the chilling threat of libel action. Whilst the libel laws exist in their current form, companies and individuals will continue to deploy them as a reputation management tool, attempting to silence those who dare to criticise them in public - both Dr. Nield and the RSPB stand accused of libel for doing nothing more than discussing scientific evidence (or lack thereof) in the interests of the public, and if we don't want to add to their number we must fight for the libel laws to be changed.

*I took part in this 'mass blog event', as did so many other bloggists. Apart from the Quackometer's brilliant blog linked to above, you can find other excellent contributions from Jack of Kent, Dr*T at Thinking is Dangerous, Dr Aust's Spleen, the Lunchtime Legend (who has a list of other contributors too), Apathy Sketchpad, and Dr. Stephen Curry. Please read these blogs, please sign the libel reform petition if you haven't already done so, and please please resolve to get at least one other person to sign today - now more than ever we need to emphasise the need to make our libel laws fairer and more liberal.

[NB this post was edited to correct a spelling error that meant I got Dr. Dalia Nield's name wrong - and for an HTML fail - apologies, and thanks to @zeno001 for spotting the errors! Serves me write for rushing this post out in about ten minutes so early in the morning!]