Reciprocal Space

Today it is my signal honour to have a guest post on @JackofKent‘s most excellent blog. It examines the understanding of the nature of scientific evidence set out in the Court of Appeal’s recent ruling on the libel case brought by the British Chiropractic Association against science writer, Dr Simon Singh.
In my opinion, the stance taken by the Court is pleasingly scientific.

I was in Court 4 at the Royal Courts of Justice at 9.30 this morning, the Court of the Lord Chief Justice. This one was a ‘real’ court room, all oak panel, wall-to-wall shelves of legal tomes and even a dock caged with cast-iron bars for the defendant (empty on this occasion).

It was a brief affair. The buzz of conversation stopped abruptly with the words “Court Rise” and in came the Lord Chief Justice himself. His first concern seemed to be if there would be enough copies of the judgement to hand out to those present. “Are all the ladies and gentlemen over there interested?” he inquired, looking in our direction. We nodded.

And then–at first I thought I had missed it–he announced “This appeal is allowed” and copies of the judgement were handed out. There were smiles, mixed with looks of bafflement (“Does that mean..?” “Yes?”). The smiles on Simon’s solicitor’s face confirmed the truth of the matter. Justice Eady’s judgement–that Simon Singh’s article could be taken to be an assertion that the BCA had acted dishonestly–is overturned. His Comment is Free article in the Guardian can now be defended (in the still ongoing libel trial) as fair comment.

Simon Singh speaks to reporters after this morning’s ruling

I managed to snag a copy of the judgement and have been trying to digest it on my way back to the office. I am not qualified to articulate its meaning in any great depth but will highlight a couple of the more scientific aspects that struck me.

The justices first note the impact of the case brought by the BCA against the science writer:

“It is now two years since the publication of the offending article. It seems unlikely that anyone would have dared to repeat the opinions expressed by Dr Singh for fear of a writ. Accordingly, this litigation has almost certainly had a chilling effect on public debate about the possible use of chiropractic.”

Quite. (Though given the eruption of material on chiropractic in the blogosphere and elsewhere since this case started, I’m not sure their lordships are quite on the money there).

They move on to consider the consequences of this case. In their submissions both sides have argued about the evidence for the claims of chiropractors. The justices are concerned where this will lead.

“Ms Rogers (counsel for the BCA) has told us that… the trial can be expected to involve expert evidence on both sides and a judicial conclusion as to whether there is any evidence for the BCA’s claims.
One has only to contemplate this prospect to conclude that something is amiss.”

They then get to what I think is the nub of the matter and take the view (if I have understood correctly) that scientific evidence is a matter for debate between scientists rather than in court, mainly because it is not easy to define what are the ‘facts’ in many complex scientific issues. Singh’s comments about the BCA claims are held to be expressions of opinion.

“The opinion may be mistaken, but to allow the party which has been denounced on the basis of it to compel the author to prove in court what he has asserted by way of argument is to invite the court to become an Orwellian ministry of truth. Milton, recalling in the Areopagitica his visit to Italy in 1638-9, wrote:

This is a pass to which we ought not to come again”

Wonderful stuff. They do give good value for money these justices!

And finally, in what is perhaps a marker of the way their Lordships would like to see such cases treated in future, they quote a ruling by Judge Easterbrook from the USA:

“[Plaintiffs] cannot, by simply filing suit and crying ‘character assassination!’, silence those who hold divergent views, no matter how adverse those views may be to plaintiffs’ interests. Scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation. … More papers, more discussion, better data, and more satisfactory models – not larger awards of damages – mark the path towards superior understanding of the world around us.”

A good day for Simon Singh, for freedom of speech and for science.

But Simon’s case is not over yet. According to their statement, posted by The LayScientist, the BCA are disappointed and considering their position.

And the campaign for libel reform must continue. Tell your friends. Sign the petition.

Here’s another report on the outcome from the Index on Censorship (with twitter feed) and one from Austin, who was very quick off the mark!

Follow developments on Twitter via the #singhbca hashtag. The full ruling (definitely worth a read) should be available on Jack of Kent’s Blog later today.

Update: Judgement now available as a pdf thanks to Index on Censorship.

Sunday evening saw the Curry clan heading into central London for the Big Libel Gig in support of the ongoing campaign for Libel Reform. There was a great line-up of comedy talent in prospect, inter-mixed with more serious contributions about the issue of reform from the likes of journalist Nick Cohen, cardiologist Peter Wilmshurst (himself the defendant in a current action), Evan Harris MP (and some of his cross-party chums) and Simon Singh himself.

Let there be no mistake, the big draw for us were the comedians who had agreed to perform, including Dara O’Briain, Ed Byrne, Marcus Brigstocke, Tim Minchin, Shappi Khorsandi and Robin Ince (brain-father of the Gig).

And we were not disappointed. A packed house cheered as Robin Ince, our breathless and hard-working compere for the night, walked onto the stage. He set things going and set the intellectual tone by reflecting on Descartes’ “I think therefore I am” pronouncement and then wondering aloud about all the people “who don’t think and yet still are…!”.

Ince did a great job of joining up the diverse acts. He’s a fantastic comedian himself but one who takes his science seriously (I was delighted to learn that he’s just been given a telescope for his birthday).

There was a wonderful succession of great performers. I particularly enjoyed Brigstocke’s angry rant about the British Gyrocoptic Chiropodists (“or whatever they’re called”). I laughed at that almost as much as the rest of my family did at his anti-iPhone-user diatribe (all the while casting sidelong glances at me).

Another moment of sheer genius was Ariane Sherine’s epically quirky ballad The Simon Singh Song, which even had me singing along (a cue for yet more sidelong disapproving looks).

And then, late into the evening, onto the stage came Ben Goldacre. I’ve seen him talk a couple of times before. He does a good line in sciencey quippery and, sure enough, started out apologising because he was a nerd and not a comedian. That got a round of tittering and gentle applause but then he started to speak. Seriously.

He talked about his own libel case after he had been sued by Matthias Rath for criticising Rath’s peddling of vitamin pills as a cure for AIDS. He told us about Rath’s newspaper adverts in South Africa, denigrating anti-retroviral therapy and promoting vitamin supplements as a superior alternative. He told us about how Rath’s anti-antiretroviral views chimed with those of the then president, Thabo Mbeki. He told us about the gay campaigner, Zackie Achmet, who fought his government to make antiretroviral therapy available to every HIV-positive person in South Africa, who refused this therapy himself (despite the pleas of Nelson Mandela) until the government reversed its appalling and reckless policy. He told us about Rath’s former employee, Anthony Brink, who filed a complaint against Achmat with the International Criminal Court at The Hague, accusing him of genocide for campaigning to allow South Africans access to antiretroviral drugs. The paperwork submitted in support of the accusation was utterly shocking.

But don’t take my word for it. Read the chapter from Goldacre’s book (available as a free pdf download). It’s an astonishing, revolting story of what some people will do to silence their critics. Rath didn’t care for Goldacre’s criticism of his vitamin sales in South Africa and so he sued for libel. Fortunately, Rath eventually lost.

Unlike the comedians before him, Goldacre failed completely to bring the house down. But on this topic he brought it to an absolute standstill. We’d had a good laugh earlier at the expense of chiropractic and homeopathic nutcases. But this was deadly serious. The point was, the point is: libel can be seriously deadly.

After the hush, Dara O’Briain, the last act of the night bounded onto the stage. He paid homage to Goldacre’s spot, deftly thanking him for cleansing the audience’s palate between comedy courses and then, consummate professional that he is, launched into a blisteringly funny set — the most hilarious of the night — that bounced from infants bleating about their back problems to accounts of his and his wife’s recent experiences at NCT ante-natal classes. He had the crowd aching with laughter and ensured that the night ended on a high.

Show over, we smiled and buzzed our way down the stairs and out into the surprisingly mild West-End night. But behind the smiles, there was something more serious.

If you haven’t done so already, please go to the libel reform website and show your support.