Professor Neil Turok, Director of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, has described in court how he had been harassed by Professor Mohammed El Naschie in the run up to the libel trial brought against the journal Nature.
Professor El Nashie, an Egyptian mathematician, engineer and physicist, launched a libel claim against the Nature Publishing Group, following an article published about him in their journal Nature in November 2008. The article titled “Self –publishing editor set to retire” criticised the number and quality of scientific articles published by Professor El Nashie in the journal he edited Chaos, Solicitons and Fractals.
Freedom of scientific expression
The case opened in the High Court in London on 11 November. Andrew Caldecott, QC, who is acting on behalf of Nature, said during the opening of the trial, that the article was honest, true and a matter of public interest. He said that defending the case “is a fundamental issue of freedom of scientific expression.”
Professor Turok, an expert witness for Nature gave his evidence on 18 November. Professor Turok said that he had agreed to be a witness “out of a social obligation…and commitment to scientific responsibility” but “didn’t expect to be harassed after agreeing to give evidence.” He said that the claimant had e-mailed and written to him directly on several occasions, and that one of the e-mail correspondences “sounded like a veiled threat.” The claimant had also requested to visit his institute in Canada. Professor Turok passed on all correspondence to Nature’s legal team.
Professor Turok had been asked by Nature’s legal team to comment on the quality of scientific research in some of the papers published by Professor El Naschie.
Professor Turok said, “like most of his other papers [it is] full of numerical coincidences and assertions…[that] leave me none the wiser…he makes a wild claim and an illusion to authority that lends evidence to [the] claim of the paper.”Professor El Nashie, representing himself in court, had the opportunity to cross-examine, during which he said to Professor Turok, “90% of what you said is wrong…I am qualified and do not need to be assessed by people like you”. He then referred to Einstein as being “a most sloppy scientist.”
Professor El Nashie then began to test Professor Turok on his knowledge of physics theories and whom had won various Nobel prizes. The Judge had to intervene on several occasions in the proceedings cautioning Professor El Nashie that he should stick to asking questions that would help in collecting evidence, keeping to points of law, rather than making comments.
Threat of libel law
The case has drawn a lot of attention because there is concern in the scientific publishing community that the threat posed by English libel law prevents them publishing issues of scientific public interest.
There are increasing numbers of libel cases that some reformers believe are suppressing important scientific debate that is in the public interest. Last year the British Chiropractor Association (BCA) dropped its libel case against Simon Singh. Singh had written that the BCA supported chiropractors who practiced on children where there was little evidence of benefit.
There are concerns that because of current libel laws in England and the high costs associated with defending libel claims, journalists will steer clear of writing critical articles that are in the public interest.
The Libel Reform Campaign is calling for a reform of libel laws to address such concerns. At a recent meeting with parliamentarians at the House of Commons, Dr Peter Wilmhurst, who was sued by a medical devices company when he questioned the findings of a clinical trial, said, “defamation laws were used to silence doctors with legitimate concerns about medical safety”.
The trial continues and a verdict is expected early next year.
Image courtesy of englishpen.