"...the event was simultaneously informative, funny, heart-warming and energising."
The speakers were Prof Chris French, the comedian and bestselling author Dave Gorman, the journalist Nick Cohen, Dr Evan Harris MP, Prof Brian Cox, and Simon himself.
Dave Gorman has now written Chiro-Bullies, a great article about the evening and about what the British Chiropractic Association SHOULD be doing about the claims made in their now (seemingly) withdrawn Happy Families leaflet instead of suing Simon Singh for criticising it.
Nick Cohen has blogged about the evening here saying the "judge and I think the chiropractic association did not take account of the growth of science activism. Writers and scientists are furious at the attempt by the law to restrict debate, and a net-roots campaign for freedom of speech is building nicely".
Video highlights see here - many thanks to Michael Story for making this.
Twitter commentary: #singhbca
Graham Lawton of the New Scientist also attended and is emphatic in his concern about English libel law and its effect on science writing.
Another good review is at the New Humanist.
The following messages of support were read out:
Joint statement of Phil Plait and James Randi
"We at the JREF support Simon in his quest for justice. It's clear from his writing that his intent was not to claim that the BCA knowingly commits acts of fraud, but that the BCA is nonetheless incorrect in their claims of the efficacy of chiropractic.
“Simon is, of course, correct. Furthermore, the ruling, as it stands, would produce a chilling effect on the ability of journalists to question the claims of anyone, including pseudoscientists.
"Whatever path Simon chooses over this issue, the JREF will be there, and to the best of our ability we'll have his back."
Professor Richard Wiseman
"England’s strict libel laws can deter individuals from speaking out against bad science, even when they have strong evidence for their argument. Simon's campaign deserves the support of everyone who cares about fighting pseudoscience, and I wish it every success."
Dave Morris of the McLibel 2
[We] “should all be opposed to aspects of English libel law which unfairly protect public or corporate bodies from public scrutiny and fair criticism, especially around health and scientific issues."
Dr Ben Goldacre of Bad Science
“Ideas and practises improve when they are criticised, and that’s important, because medicine always has the potential to do great harm.
"Sadly the alternative medicine community has shown itself to be utterly intolerant of criticism: they refuse to disclose their university teaching materials, their university exams are closely guarded secrets, and rather than embracing and engaging with critics, they sue them, silence them, smear them, or stifle them.
"Brothers and sisters in nerdiness, we stand together!”
Indeed.
Many thanks for everyone who came along, and also to those who sent their best wishes.
(Particular thanks for helping making the event possible to Chris, Norman Hansen, Nick Pullar, Imran Khan, Gia Milinovich, and Padraig Reidy of Index on Censorship. And a great thank you to all the Penderel's Oak staff.)
Wednesday, 20 May 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
It was a great evening - well, as great as you could hope for in the circumstances. But it did confirm my opinion that Singh doesn't have much of a chance on appeal - the law is what it is, a travesty. I'd still be willing to contribute to his defence though. The evidence needs to be aired publicly.
It was also fun to have a drunken conversation with Brian Cox (apologies to Brian if he's reading this) about the BBC's approach to science programming.
Keep up the great work! Hopefully Monday night will lead to greater things. Have added my tuppence-worth by raising the issue on my own blog at Nature Network:
http://network.nature.com/people/scurry/blog/2009/05/19/in-my-opinion-the-british-chiropractic-association-is-being-unscientific
Well, you have one big problem. Singh has to defend the sentence
"This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments."
It is very reasonable to read this as meaning that the chiropractors promoted certain treatments, either knowing they were worthless or being absolutely negligent as to their efficacy.
If Singh didn't want to say anything like that, why did he write - and why does he defend - 'happily promote bogus treatments', which defames the chiropractors, when he could have confined himself to documenting the scientific fact that the treatments are worthless?
Under libel law you aren't allowed to insinuate that someone is dishonest or negligent in their job without some proof. If Singh didn't realise that his words amounted to that, he is not much of a writer.
Post a Comment