The UK's libel laws, which place the burden of proof onto those who have published inflammatory statements, have had a chilling effect on journalism in that nation, and have led to a closet industry in "libel tourism." As such, there have been repeated efforts to reform the laws, often led by professional organizations of writers and journalists. A 2008 case, however, brought a new community into the fight: science communicators, drawn in when the British Chiropractic Association sued a journalist for calling some of its medical claims "bogus." Although the legal fight has continued, the journalist in question, Simon Singh, has now been forced to quit his job at The Guardian in order to defend himself.

Many of our readers who follow science news carefully are probably already aware of Singh's plight, but we've not covered it at Ars previously, so a recap seems in order. Singh, who was working on a book on alternative medicine, took a look at some of the claims promoted by BCA members, which suggest that chiropractic treatments are effective for diseases for which there is no apparent spinal involvement, like asthma. In an article The Guardian has since removed from its website, Singh wrote:

The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.

That was enough to trigger a libel suit from the BCA. Instead of targeting The Guardian, which has substantial legal resources, however, the BCA went after Singh. In May of last year, the judge in the case issued a preliminary ruling that laid out the requirements for Singh's defense: because of his use of the term "bogus," he would have to demonstrate that the BCA was knowingly and dishonestly promoting quackery, a very difficult standard to meet.

Figuring he had little chance of succeeding, Singh has chosen to appeal that initial ruling. The appeal is currently in progress, but Singh has found that he has spent most of his time organizing his defense, and little time pursuing his actual career as a science writer. As a result, he has now resigned his position with The Guardian.

Singh's troubles may not be going well for him personally, but they've had an interesting impact on public debate in the UK at a time when the Parliament is conducting an inquiry into public payments for a truly bogus "treatment"—homeopathy.

For starters, the public outcry caused the BCA to support its claim that there is "substantial evidence" in favor of chiropractic treatments for childhood conditions. The BMJ (British Medical Journal) quickly responded with an evaluation of the chiropractor's claims. Of the 19 studies cited, four didn't even address chiropracty, and only seven involved actual clinical trials. Most of the remainder failed to find any significant effects; the BCA also ignored more substantial studies with negative findings.

Meanwhile, Singh's supporters have apparently turned the tables on the chiropractors. A blogger apparently noticed that the UK's Advertising Standards Authority has issued standards for what could and could not be claimed in advertisements for chiropractic services.

In a case of crowdsourcing at its finest, interested parties compared BCA members' ads and websites to the rules, and filed complaints against a full quarter of the chiropractors in Britain.

Meanwhile, the UK's Sense About Science, a charitable trust that focuses on providing the public with accurate, evidence-based information, has joined existing writers' groups to attempt to reform the UK's libel laws.

In the end, the public good may ultimately be served by what appears to have been a series of bad decisions. It's unfortunate that Singh's writing career may have been sacrificed for this to happen.