{"title":"利贝尔与实验室:科学家与诽谤","authors":"Karen M. Markin","doi":"10.1080/10811680.2021.1856601","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Scientists are increasingly involved in defamation claims. Sometimes they are defendants in disputes over the accuracy of articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In other instances, scientists are plaintiffs, filing suits against those who have attacked them in the popular media, harming their reputations. Both situations represent efforts to quell scientists’ speech, generally because their research threatens established commercial interests, and they pose a threat to scientific inquiry. This article examines these two trends. It recommends that, for journal articles, courts recognize a scientific debate privilege, which is emerging in some jurisdictions. It presents evidence that reputational attacks are intimidating scientists, causing them to pursue fewer controversial lines of research. It notes that, in their efforts to maintain vigorous debate on matters of public concern, courts are allowing brutal criticism of scientists that is having the opposite effect by driving researchers’ voices out of the public sphere.","PeriodicalId":42622,"journal":{"name":"Communication Law and Policy","volume":"26 1","pages":"1 - 31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10811680.2021.1856601","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Libel and the Lab: Scientists and Defamation\",\"authors\":\"Karen M. Markin\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10811680.2021.1856601\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Scientists are increasingly involved in defamation claims. Sometimes they are defendants in disputes over the accuracy of articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In other instances, scientists are plaintiffs, filing suits against those who have attacked them in the popular media, harming their reputations. Both situations represent efforts to quell scientists’ speech, generally because their research threatens established commercial interests, and they pose a threat to scientific inquiry. This article examines these two trends. It recommends that, for journal articles, courts recognize a scientific debate privilege, which is emerging in some jurisdictions. It presents evidence that reputational attacks are intimidating scientists, causing them to pursue fewer controversial lines of research. It notes that, in their efforts to maintain vigorous debate on matters of public concern, courts are allowing brutal criticism of scientists that is having the opposite effect by driving researchers’ voices out of the public sphere.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42622,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Communication Law and Policy\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"1 - 31\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10811680.2021.1856601\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Communication Law and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2021.1856601\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communication Law and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2021.1856601","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
Scientists are increasingly involved in defamation claims. Sometimes they are defendants in disputes over the accuracy of articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In other instances, scientists are plaintiffs, filing suits against those who have attacked them in the popular media, harming their reputations. Both situations represent efforts to quell scientists’ speech, generally because their research threatens established commercial interests, and they pose a threat to scientific inquiry. This article examines these two trends. It recommends that, for journal articles, courts recognize a scientific debate privilege, which is emerging in some jurisdictions. It presents evidence that reputational attacks are intimidating scientists, causing them to pursue fewer controversial lines of research. It notes that, in their efforts to maintain vigorous debate on matters of public concern, courts are allowing brutal criticism of scientists that is having the opposite effect by driving researchers’ voices out of the public sphere.
期刊介绍:
The societal, cultural, economic and political dimensions of communication, including the freedoms of speech and press, are undergoing dramatic global changes. The convergence of the mass media, telecommunications, and computers has raised important questions reflected in analyses of modern communication law, policy, and regulation. Serving as a forum for discussions of these continuing and emerging questions, Communication Law and Policy considers traditional and contemporary problems of freedom of expression and dissemination, including theoretical, conceptual and methodological issues inherent in the special conditions presented by new media and information technologies.