Interpreting the bogus
The legal battle between the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) and the science writer Simon Singh slogs on. The BCA brought the libel case against Singh for his article in the Guardian which referred to certain chiropractic treatments as bogus (see Science misjudged).
It looks like a David and Goliath fight between the freelance journalist seeking the truth and the menacing power of an entire organisation with a lot of self interests to protect. One wouldn’t have blamed Singh if he had bowed out of the fight as soon as his mighty opponent entered the ring; this legal farce has probably cost him dearly and it is still ongoing. But the crowd is definitely on his side, cheering him on at every hook and jab, many of whom have given their support in a petition to see the English libel laws changed. One high-profile advocate is Richard Dawkins, who recently spoke at the Liberal Party conference in England calling for reforms to the law.
The latest turn of events came on the 14th of October at the Royal Courts of Justice, where Lord Justice Laws rejected the interpretation of Singh’s article by Mr Justice Eady. Eady’s interpretation was that Singh had alleged the chiropractors were knowingly practising treatments for which they knew there was no proof of efficacy. The new interpretation is that the article was fair and in the public interest, which now grants Simon Singh the right to appeal the earlier ruling.
It’s not over yet, but there is reason to be optimistic, not only for the diminutive science writer as he stands in the shadow of a mightier adversary, but for all who see this as a fight that should be fought in open debate, with good evidence as the gentlemanly weapons of choice.
Further reading:
[Times Online] Simon Singh legal victory
Jack of Kent’s blog
[The Guardian] Science writer Simon Singh wins ruling in chiropractic libel battle
[...] knew to be ineffective. That would have been a difficult position to defend, but the ruling was appealed and overturned, and the article was deemed to be fair comment and in the public [...]