An American medical company has threatened to step up its libel action against a consultant cardiologist at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital who criticised its clinical trials.
NMT Medical is suing Peter Wilmshurst over remarks he made on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. The company says he has accused it of research fraud, which it denies.
Mr Wilmshurst says he was engaging in scientific argument and court is not the place to settle these issues.
Campaigners for libel reform have condemned the action and say it is the latest example of large organisations using English libel laws to suppress legitimate scientific discussion.
NMT’s dispute with Mr Wilmshurst began three years ago when he made remarks about the conduct of clinical trials of one of its products, a device to treat migraine, at a medical conference held in the USA. His comments were reported on an American website.
NMT is suing Mr Wilmshurst for libel in the London courts on the basis of the article.
An NMT spokesman said: “This is not a case where libel laws are being used to stifle scientific debate.
“Mr Wilmshurst is not being sued because of any scientific views that he holds, but because he has accused NMT, of research fraud, an allegation which we contend is untrue.”
The latest dispute is in relation to statements made last year by Mr Wilmshurst on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
NMT alleges that they were “to the effect that NMT sought to conceal his review of data (which is not the case). NMT intends to seek to add this as a further instance of alleged serious defamation.
“Mr Wilmshurst used the occasion to publish his accusations on a prime time radio broadcast.
NMT argues that he did this, knowing that his allegations of concealment were untrue,” said the spokesman.
Mr Wilmshurst said he was engaging in a scientific argument: “We’re discussing the science, the experiments that are being done, the procedures that were done, and these can be verified. They are a matter of fact. So I don’t see why the courts should be involved, really, dealing with scientific arguments.”