Science journalism and libel laws – ABSW annual lecture

This year's ABSW annual lecture, on 15the October, will be a debate about science journalism and the libel laws. The event is being produced in association with City University, to celebrate the launch of City's MA course in Science Journalism.

ABSW members have up to 100 guaranteed places at this event on October 15th, but they must book their places by the end of the month (September 30th). After this, unused places will be released to the public.

Booking is through City University's website, entry is free.

To ensure that you reserve one of the guaranteed places, when you are filling in the booking form please provide the information "I am an ABSW member" in the drop down box which asks "Where did you hear about this event".

Science Fact – science journalism and libel law

• Simon Singh, freelance science journalist and author of Trick or Treatment?

• Ben Goldacre, columnist, doctor and author of Bad Science

• John Kampfner, Chief Executive, Index on Censorship

• Duncan Lamont, libel lawyer and Head of Media & Entertainment at Charles Russell

• Tracey Brown, Managing Director, Sense About Science

Science journalists Simon Singh and Ben Goldacre have both been sued in the past year for libel. They challenged the scientific method and evidence behind the use of chiropractic treatment for children (Singh) and the role of multivitamins to combat HIV/AIDS in South Africa (Goldacre).

After long court battles, Goldacre won his case, with the financial support of the Guardian, but Singh lost and faces the prospect of mounting an expensive appeal.

Should scientific debate be silenced by the use of English libel laws, thereby keeping the public in the dark? What are the wider implications for journalism and is there a pressing need for reform of the English libel laws?

Date:
Thursday October 15 2009 Time:7:00 PM

Location:
Oliver Thompson Lecture Theatre, City University London, Northampton Square, London, EC1V 0HB

Google Map

Ben Goldacre between soft covers

The man who has spent the past few years dismembering medical quacks in his weekly column in The Guardian, Ben Goldacre, has made it into paperback. While the "Bad Science" title of his new book might provoke some to complain that it should really be "Bad Medicine," there's no doubt that Dr Goldacre, a fellow member of the ABSW, has done a service to medical journalism, even though the fake remedies, and some journalists' willingness to puff them, shows little sign of going away.

Saturday's Guardian has an extract from the book, The media’s MMR hoax. In this, Goldacre excoriates the newspapers that did much to fuel the hysteria around MMR. His line is that it isn't just, or even primarily, Dr Andrew Wakefield who deserves the blame for this descent into scientific lunacy, but the media.

Given the tradition that dog does not eat dog – that journalists do not pick holes in each others stories – we have to rely on Goldacre for this sort of thing. Journalists happily pick holes in stories over a pint, but they won't do it in print.

One area where Goldacre's account may be slightly divorced from reality is his observation that "While stories on GM food, or cloning, stood a good chance of being written by specialist science reporters, with stories on MMR their knowledge was deliberately sidelined, and 80% of the coverage was by generalist reporters." Plenty of the coverage of GM came from hacks with little understanding of the science.

This really just confirms his thesis that science goes out of the window when medical, or even science, stories get into the hands of columnists, pundits and others not versed in how science works.

Another quibble is the reference to "didactic statements from authority figures on either side of the debate". Didactic is the wrong word. Dogmatic maybe.

Still, anyone who takes potshots at The Daily Mail has to be on the right side. It will be interesting to see how many of the publications in Goldacre's sights find room to review his book.