A recent toast to James Watson highlights a tolerance for bigotry many want excised from the scientific community.
New libel laws for England and Wales should help protect scientific debate, but campaigners worry that legal costs remain a threat.
April 29, 2013|
WIKIMEDIA, STEVE TRIGGA campaign driven largely by the UK science community to reform libel law in England and Wales was rewarded last week (April 24) when Parliament passed a new Defamation Bill designed to make it harder for claimants to suppress free speech, including scientific debate, reported ScienceInsider.
The law will please many scientists because it provides special protection for statements made in peer-reviewed journals. Evan Harris, parliamentary adviser to the Libel Reform Campaign, told ScienceInsider under the new libel rules, “academic journals will have fewer worries . . . about allowing vigorous debate, including commentary on peer-reviewed work.”
Under the current laws, a claimant alleging defamation or libel need only demonstrate that a public statement might inflict reputational damage to take a case to court. Critics argued that the system is skewed in favor of claimants, and that the threat of expensive court cases can force people to keep quiet and deter publishers from putting out critical or controversial statements. After a several high-profile cases drew attention to such problems—including a 2008 incident in which science writer Simon Singh was unsuccessfully sued by the British Chiropractic Association over a column he wrote for The Guardian—several organizations mounted the Libel Reform Campaign.
In addition to special protection for statements made in peer-reviewed journals, the new law requires claimants to show “serious financial damage” before a case can move to court. It also introduces a stronger defense of “responsible publication on matters of public interest” to provide more protection for newspapers or magazines publishing controversial articles on scientific and other matters, reported Nature.
Campaigners remain concerned that the government has not clarified how it plans to reduce the costs of libel trials, however, which is crucial because the threat of crippling financial costs for defendants is what leads many people who are sued or threatened with legal action to capitulate rather than mount a defense.
Despite such reservations, Singh welcomed the new law. “Now that academic publishers have additional protection, it wll be much harder to sue an academic journal for libel, and that's a really firm step forward,” he told ScienceInsider.
May 3, 2013
The law might provide a semblance of protection to publishing houses and their staff like editors. Even that appears to be illusory. But that illusion is absent in respect of individuals, like scientists, especially whistleblowers.
For affording real protection, laws have to go beyond "libel". Institutions have a thousand ways of persecuting and destroying dissidents, and these may not show a direct link to the topic of dissent or whistle-blowing. The dissenters or whistleblowers will be subjected to extreme harassment at their place of work, or even outside it. Some examples of the tactics are as follows. Co-workers or subordinates will be encouraged to insult them or physically assault them, and file false complaints against them. The administration will delay or refuse payment of their salaries or other dues. Their workplace will be shifted to the dirtiest, noisiest location in the building. Or they may be "transferred" suddenly to a remote god-forsaken place in the country (or outside), where even drinking water will not be available. Every institution, at least in India, has a "dirty tricks" department, including lawyers, for such stratagems. Some organizations send their senior staff, to be placed in management positions, to undergo "management training" where they learn such stratagems among other things such as how to get around government rules on financial transactions.
The only rule of the game is that the institutions' reputations, as also those of its top bosses, have to be protected at all costs. Truth in science is not a relevant consideration.
In a nutshell, dissent and whistle blowing are always hazardous activities, and no law can protect the practitioners unless the ministers in the government have an ardent desire and a missionary zeal.