An update on the campaign for libel reform

Reform to the UK's defamation laws is needed now more than ever, as cases built on antiquated libel laws make a mockery of the scientific method and stifle the debate and discussion necessary for advancement of science and medicine.

Significant events of late have included the case of Dr Dalia Nield, a plastic surgeon at The London Clinic, who is currently being threatened with libel action over comments she made in a Daily Mail article questioning the lack of supporting evidence and purported mode of action of "Boob job" cream, a topical application that is claimed to increase breast volume by up to half a cup size on frequent use.

Also of note is the case of Dr Peter Wilmshurst, who is defending a libel suit for alleging that the sponsors of a clinical trial he was leading were complicit in research fraud. Whilst this is a serious allegation that should not be made lightly, a libel case is far from an appropriate way to conduct an academic debate. The judge presiding over the case recently ruled that the claimant, NMT Medical, should pay £200,000 into the court in case Dr Wilmshurst wins his case, as he can no longer afford to defend himself and is in danger of losing his house.

These cases highlight some of the issues that have prompted the Libel Reform Campaign. The sheer cost of a libel case allows large companies to bully academics and journals into witholding scientifically valid statements and papers. The laws are flawed in more ways than this and reform is therefore urgently needed. You can find out more, and sign the petition, by following the link below.

The Libel Reform Campaign