Simon Singh is the author of several mathematical and scientific works, including Fermat’s Last Theorem, The Code Book, and, most recently, The Simpsons and Their Mathematical Secrets. Additionally, Singh is also a documentarian and a journalist, and has recently won a libel suit against the British Chiropractic Association.
Harvard Political Review: What do you see as a solution to a fundamental problem of scientific reporting, when journalists who don’t necessarily understand the phenomena or research they’re reporting on are asked to write articles about major discoveries or advancements for the public?
Simon Singh: There are two different kinds of stories. One type is about scientific discoveries like that of the Higgs Boson, and while these stories are technically difficult to report on, when people get those stories wrong, literally nobody is going to die. But in other areas, when journalists get stories wrong, people will suffer. These are stories relating to health, vaccination, and climate change, and when those subjects are misreported, the public either makes bad decisions about their own lives or bad decisions about whom they might vote for.
In either case, the only way to improve the situation is to complain. I don’t think scientists complain enough. They’re focused on research and don’t really know what’s going on, but even if they know what’s going on, they’ll complain about it over coffee. But I would like to see academics—anybody who knows about a subject—pointing out that their subject is badly reported. Maybe they could call the journalist, who might just need an explanation. I’ve done that in the past. Some journalists appreciate it and will correct your remark, because most journalists want to get things right. In other cases, when journalists are unwilling to change their stories, you need to talk to the editor and make a formal complaint. That’s the only way the system will change: with pressure.
HPR: Do you think this type of reporting might be due to shoddy work, or perhaps something more sinister?
SS: I don’t think sinister is the right word. Newspapers want to sell a product. The newspaper wants to do everything it can to sell more newspapers, and that doesn’t always mean balanced, accurate reporting. It’s sensationalist and scaremongering. Newspapers also like to have an argument in their articles, so one might often find situations where, in a story about vaccination, the article will quote an expert on vaccinations with a scientific argument, but will have to also quote an anti-vaccination group. And on one hand, you’re quoting an expert in their field who’s done research in the area, and on the other, you’re quoting a lobbying group with no or little scientific background or evidence, purely just to have that confrontation—and that’s a big problem.
Steve Jones, a British biologist, was commissioned to write a report about the BBC’s science reporting, and his main concern was the issue of “false balance,” whereby all parties always want to have a dichotomy where Person A says this, while Person B says this, even if Person A represents 99% of scientific figures, the viewer doesn’t know that. And Steve Jones is trying to highlight that problem in the BBC. And the BBC doesn’t even try to sell newspapers—they have no commercial gain—and even the BBC falls prey to this desire to stir up controversy.
So again, we have to complain. I work for the BBC and I love the BBC, but I have submitted complaints, because that’s the only way the BBC will react to move forward and fix its mistakes.
HPR: Can you speak to your experience with the libel suit?
SS: That was a different issue; that was not my complaining about a broadcast or newspaper, but rather was my writing an article about chiropractors in a newspaper and somebody complaining about me. But they weren’t just complaining; they were suing me for libel.
In America, the right to free speech is highly valued. In Britain, we weigh our right to free speech against our right to reputation. In Britain, for a long time, reputation came first. English libel law has been very hostile to journalists, very hostile to people who want to criticize, very hostile to writers. And we have suffered this for 100 years—200 years.
And when I was sued for libel—and I’m a writer—it was an uphill battle, and the judge needed all the evidence. And so I defended myself, and I almost lost. It took two years, and if I had lost the case, I would have lost a million dollars. It was a fantastically dangerous case. But I eventually won. It took two years, and I lost year’s income, but I did win the case.
The even better thing was that that other scientists came forward and said they have been sued for libel. I got emails every month. Nature had been sued for libel; a British medical journal had been sued for libel, and even mothers on the Internet were being threatened for libel. And we were being gagged. And suddenly this campaign started. Even President Obama, about two years ago now, brought out a law that protected American journalists by American law. Americans had so little respect for our laws that they were writing their own laws to thwart our libel laws.
There was a campaign for libel reform, due to my case and many other cases, which led to the Defamation Act of 2013. One of the results was that anything published in academic journals is pretty much protected from libel. For me, as a science writer, law and politics were a completely new area for me. It was fascinating for me to get involved in this area and get involved in this campaign.
HPR: Do you think that experience has affected what you choose to write about?
SS: I want to get back to criticizing bad science. I see my career as having two halves. One is celebrating good science, like what I’ve done with The Simpsons and Their Mathematical Secrets and the joy of math, but I also want to attack bad science and expose it and criticize it. So basically my next project will go more towards criticizing the bad science—and not just bad science, but fake science, like psychics, clairvoyants, and medical quacks.
I’m very interested in climate change. It’s an issue that there is a lot of bad reporting of climate change. My understanding is that the overwhelming majority of experts have reached a consensus which is that the climate change is happening, we know the rate of climate change, we know it’s caused by man-made greenhouse gases, we know in the future temperatures will rise two degrees or so, but we need to confront this issue and cut back on carbon emissions to avoid a deteriorating environment. That’s an area I’m willing to look into more. There’s a lot to do in that area, but it’s badly reported and badly understood, while still being incredibly important.
This interview has been edited and condensed.
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.