A new parliamentary session began in Britain last month, amid the pomp and ceremony of the State Opening of Parliament. Wearing the Imperial State Crown, Queen Elizabeth II ascended the throne before the gathered House of Lords and House of Commons (the upper and lower houses of parliament, respectively) and delivered the traditional Queen's Speech, setting out the government's legislative plans for the coming year. For British scientists, there were two particular points of interest in this year's speech: a defamation bill, introducing major reform of the country's libel laws; and a controversial move to reform the composition of the House of Lords.

The flaws in the UK's libel laws became starkly apparent in 2008, when science writer Simon Singh was sued by the British Chiropractic Association over an article in The Guardian newspaper. In the article, Singh had criticized the association for claiming chiropractic to be an effective treatment for not only back problems but other complaints such as ear infections and infant colic. A preliminary hearing went against Singh, with the judge deeming that Singh's words were intended as a statement of fact (that the association was acting dishonestly) rather than personal opinion.

An outcry followed, as the significance of the ruling for the public discussion of scientific evidence and ideas was realized. Indeed, such suppression of debate could impact on freedom of speech, in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ramifications were serious, not least for Singh, who, as a private individual, was likely to face legal bills of devastating proportions, as well as being weighed down, as the law stood, with the burden of proof — any defamatory statement is presumed false unless the defendant can prove it is true.

Credit: © PAUL ROGERS/WPA POOL/GETTY IMAGES

Scientists led the charge, and the charitable organization Sense About Science collected 20,000 signatures on an online petition entitled 'The English law of libel has no place in scientific disputes about evidence'. In 2009 Singh won leave to appeal, and in April 2010 the previous ruling was overturned: the Court of Appeal decided Singh's article was legally permissible fair comment. Days later, the British Chiropractic Association dropped its action.

But the genie was out of the bottle for libel-law reform, and the ongoing campaign has resulted in the presentation now of the new parliamentary bill, which is likely to be passed (and will apply to England and Wales; Scotland has its own legal system). The new legislation may well offer explicit protection to peer-reviewed publications in scientific or academic journals, where statements have been reviewed independently by a journal editor and one or more experts. Scientific conference proceedings will also be protected, as well as reports of press conferences.

The bill also introduces the possibility of a public-interest defence, and would shift the burden of proof in requiring that the plaintiff demonstrate that 'serious harm' has been done to them. Moreover, there is the intention to clamp down on the libel 'tourism' that allows plaintiffs elsewhere in the world to take advantage of the current law's shortcomings.

“The bill is good news for science,” UK Science Minister David Willetts has said. Indeed it is. And may it pass into law speedily. Less good news for science, however, might be the proposal for reform of the House of Lords. Traditionally constituted of hereditary peers and senior clergy, the Lords today has a majority of appointed peers and scrutinizes all legislation devised by the elected House of Commons. The proposed reform, if passed, will be a major development in British constitutional history: the membership of the House of Lords would be roughly halved, and 80% of it would be elected.

There is a striking difference between the elected Commons and the appointed Lords: representation of scientists in the upper house is much higher. Although many of the 'great and good' in the Lords have built careers in science, only one of the 650 members of the House of Commons has done so. A lack of scientists in politics is not unique to Britain, but contrast it with the situation in China, where nearly all of those in the nine top political posts are engineers.

Scientists are not going unnoticed in British politics — witness the lobbying success of the libel-reform campaign, and the establishment of a scheme of scientific advisers across government departments by the current government chief scientific adviser John Beddington (a model that is being, or is set to be, imitated in other countries and in organizations such as the European Commission and the United Nations). But if an elected upper house is decided on, more scientists would do well to consider getting themselves elected — in both houses.