I said I wouldn’t blog but...
I said I wouldn’t blog but...
... I’ve changed my mind - and this is going to be a long one, but please stick with it. It’s important.
I have said I didn’t see the point of blogging because I felt it devalued the work that I expected editors to pay me for. But today I found out about something that I’m pretty sure I won’t get the opportunity to get paid to write about, but that has huge implications for the work that I do, and, more importantly, from a far wider perspective, is too important not to publicise.
Today I discovered from Sense About Science (a charity I’ve worked with in the past who do a lot to promote exactly that, sense about science) that a surgeon who questioned the efficacy of a cosmetic cream in print is being threatened with libel action by the cream’s manufacturers.
In an article in the Daily Mail - which you can see here - Dr Dalia Nield of The London Clinic was quoted as saying that Rodial’s £125 Boob Job cream was ‘highly unlikely’ to increase a woman’s breast size, and also went on to say that the company had not provided information on the ingredients, the tests they had carried out, or the mechanism by which the product worked, and that if the claims that fat cells moved around the body were actually true, the product could be ‘potentially dangerous.’
Dr Nield stands by what she says.
I found out about this story at 12.45 today but was aware that it was embargoed until 00.01 on Thursday 11 November. At 10pm this evening, I received a further email from Sense About Science telling me:
‘We have been contacted by Rodial Limited’s solicitors, Hegarty LLP, requesting that we do not release this story. Having attempted to silence the criticism of the ‘Boob Job’ product by Dr Dalia Nield they are now attempting to silence publicity about that. We will not agree to this. We have taken legal advice throughout. Threats against scientific comment are worthy of public attention and we won’t be silenced by a lawyer’s letter.’
If I was any doubt about whether I should blog about this, that decided me.
Because, of course this isn’t the first time that people within the medical community have been threatened with libel action for expressing opinions and demanding evidence. Simon Singh and Ben Goldacre have both had to fight well-publicised cases of their own, and huge numbers of people have already been campaigning to reform the libel laws in this country which currently make it very difficult for anyone who wants to speak out about science, evidence and healthcare to do so without fear of legal recrimination. However, this is the first time - to my knowledge - that a cosmetic company has taken action in this way, and this really worries me.
For a start, it suggests that this is spreading beyond medicine and health, and the implications of that should concern everyone. But, as I mentioned above, there’s also a self-interest angle and I can’t pretend otherwise. This is an area that I write about a lot and, I could very well have been the one being threatened with a law suit.
I’m not a surgeon, or medically trained, but because I concentrate on this area, I’m frequently asked to comment on products for news stories - such as this one - and I’m often sceptical. Because all too often, there simply isn’t the information to back up the claims that the manufacturers are making, or if there is, they don’t make it available.
I spend a lot of my time defending the beauty industry against accusations that it’s pseudoscience. I firmly believe that there are some brilliant scientists doing very exciting and credible work in R&D, but that all too often, this work is undermined by science being used as a marketing tool. That’s why whenever I’m presented with a product, I ask to see their tests, their clinical studies, the protocol behind the studies, the research behind what they’re claiming. And, if they can’t show it to me, then yes, I’m sceptical and no, I don’t think I should be afraid of saying so.
A case in point was a piece I wrote for the Daily Mail in February last year that made exactly these points and concentrated on a particular product that was making outlandish claims. That piece is no longer on the Daily Mail website because the brand behind the product made an official complaint and, to avoid getting involved in a drawn out battle, the Mail decided it was easier to remove it. (However, a pdf is available here.) I understand why the Mail made that decision, but this all adds to what is being called the creeping libel chill - the suppressing of information which I think the public have a right to have access to, and the attempt to stop people asking questions that should be asked, and demanding evidence that should be available.
I could go on, but I hope I’ve made my point. This isn’t just about one doctor, one cream, and one litigious company, it’s about big brands trying to control what you hear about them, and it’s worryingly Orwellian.
If you want to do something, sign here: www.libelreform.org/sign and spread the word
PS In one of those utterly revolting ironies, on the page of the Rodial website where you can buy the ‘Boob Job’ cream, the company say CHECK OUT THE FABULOUS PRESS FOR BOOB JOB ON THE DAILY MAIL - the hyperlink goes to, yes, the very Daily Mail article that includes the Dr Nield quotes that they’re threatening to bring action against.
Updated at 00.33 11/11/10 with link to story on Sense About Science website and a link to the Rodial website mentioned
Updated at 13.40 13/11/10 The Rodial website has now taken down the link to the Mail article and in its place put a link to the details of the ingredient upon which their claims are based. Fortunately I took a screenshot of the original page, and hovered over the link so, in the bottom left hand corner, you can see the details of the Daily Mail page that the copy used to link to. Unfortunately, I’m not sure the image below is big enough, so there are some close ups too...
Wednesday, 10 November 2010