English researchers are warning that the country’s libel laws are hindering science and potentially costing lives.

“England’s libel laws mean that even for people striving to be even handed, for instance in discussing the scientific evidence backing a medical therapy, there’s a chilling atmosphere of fear and uncertainty because of the extraordinary expense of having to defend an action. The biggest losers are the public interest, and most importantly, people’s health,” says Roger Highfield, the editor of New Scientist and one of those supporting the newly launched National Campaign for Libel Reform.

British libel laws are widely seen as favouring those making claims at the expense of those defending them and there have been a number libel actions in the UK recently involving science. Perhaps the most high profile is the ongoing case involving the British Chiropractic Association suing science-writer Simon Singh.

Publishers are now warning that libel laws are actually preventing science getting published. Fiona Godlee, editor of the British Medical Journal, says one of the BMJ’s sister journals has rejected case reports due to legal worries (Times).

Edzard Ernst, a professor of complementary medicine who has worked with Singh, warned that the impact of suppressing information mean that libel laws have the “potential to caused deaths” (Press Gazette).

Yesterday Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris proposed a motion in the House of Commons stating: “human rights activists, scientists, writers and journalists are prevented from publishing, and the public prevented from reading, matters of strong public interest due to the chilling effect of English libel law”. The motion – which is more of a statement of belief than an attempt at legislation – demands reform to ensure that “lawful free expression is not chilled and there is a fully effective public interest defence for both scholarship and responsible journalism”.

(Full disclosure: Nature has previously come out in support of a reform of British libel law.)