CORRESPONDENCE Responsible Exchange of Ideas and Libel Law
450
RAYMOND S. FERSKO
Tanner Propp Fersko & Sterner 99ParkAve. New York, NY 10016
References (/) (2)
(3)
UZYCH L: Letter. Free speech, chimpanzees, and libel law. J Natl Cancer Inst 83:15891590, 1991 Immuno V. Moor-Jankowski, Appellate Division, Supreme Court, First Judicial Department in the County of New York, January 17, 1989 MCGREAL S: A project with potential to spread non-A, non-B hepatitis in West Africa. J Med Primatol 12:280-282, 1983
Response I welcome the opportunity to respond to the letter from Raymond Fersko. Attorney Fersko states that I was strongly critical of the libel lawsuit discussed in an earlier correspondence piece (/). Forthright criticism of this
lawsuit, I feel, is quite justified. The germane matter, pertaining generally to chimpanzees and biomedical research, has obvious deep roots in the soil of biomedicine. The matter, however, was uprooted from its academic setting and dragged into the adversarial world of lawyers and lawsuits. Mr. Fersko's letter discusses various factors which made it "necessary" for the pertinent company to take legal action. The letter states in part that the editor of JMP had "official" documents at the time of the publication that "confirmed" that various premises of the McGreal letter were "inaccurate." There is comment, as well, pertaining to the academic background of the letter's author. Regardless of how staunchly the affected company may have felt about the McGreal letter (2), the fact remains that an alternative option would have been for the pertinent company to submit a responsible letter to the editor, plainly stating its concerns. The extraction of some academic matter from its academic roots and pulling it into the realm of litigation may generally have rather drastic practical ramifications. As readers well know, biomedical research traditionally has been characterized by an uncompromising search for truth, with the overarching goal of advancing the frontiers of biomedical knowledge. The overarching goal of litigation, however, is to achieve "desirable" results for clients: This, in substance, is what lawyers are paid to do. One of the practical realities affecting the legal system is that a complaining party can sue virtually anyone for anything, regardless of the frivolousness of the underlying suit. For example, as noted in my earlier correspondence (/), it was the opinion of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York that, of the many statements cited by the complaining corporation in its "ill-focused" libel suit, there was "not one" that was actionable. It is hard to imagine how biomedical research can continue to move forward, in an uncompromising search for truth, if the frivolous-litigation mechanism proliferates in use. The barrel of protracted litigation held to the heads of researchers may seriously inhibit the professional work of scholars fearful in
Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Downloaded from http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/ at Cornell University Library on July 12, 2015
The letter by Leo Uzych in the November 6 issue of the Journal (7) was strongly critical of a libel lawsuit that he characterized as having the potential to stifle discussion of biomedical research. I was counsel to Immuno in that lawsuit (2). In reality, the case was filed after an animal rights activist's letter appeared in the Journal of Medical Phmatology (JMP) (3) because it made statements about Immuno AG, an Austrian-based leader in the development of biologies and diagnostic products, that were contradicted by official government documents prior to publication. The JMP letter is an example of how animal rights activists target institutions that use animals in biomedical research. It is unusual, however, to see a respected scientific journal used to support their efforts. The letter, written by Dr. Shirley McGreal (3), chairperson of the International Primate Protection League, charged, among other things, that Immuno planned to carry out a chimpanzee rehabilitation program that had the potential to spread non-A, non-B hepatitis to the chimpanzee and human populations of West Africa. Immuno believed this to be false at all times. In fact, as was revealed during the litigation process, JMP's editor had official documents in his possession at the time of publication that confirmed that several of the premises of the letter were inaccurate. Immuno works and collaborates within a scientific community that includes researchers, research laboratories, universities, and government agencies. As you know, these collaborators are influenced by publications such as JMP. Unlike the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, JMP traditionally peer-reviews its letters to the editor. McGreal's letter in JMP was
identified as a peer-reviewed letter written by a medical doctor, when, in fact, McGreal earned her Ph.D. in home economics. These combined factors gave the letter a very high degree of credibility. That is why Immuno considered it so important to clear its name and found it necessary to take legal action. Over the past 4 years, Immuno has worked closely with the National Institutes of Health and other leading research centers to develop an AIDS vaccine. Immuno and its research collaborators recognize that chimpanzees are a precious resource and should be used only when absolutely necessary for the development of potentially lifesaving biomedical research. Immuno is committed to the responsible and humane treatment of chimpanzees and all other animals involved in necessary biomedical research. In addition, Immuno strongly supports the responsible free exchange of ideas, which plays a central role in advancing science. We believe that tactics such as those used by some extremists in the animal rights movement are of great concern because they seriously threaten healthy debate within the scientific community. That's the crucial issue that needs to be addressed.
450
RAYMOND S. FERSKO
Tanner Propp Fersko & Sterner 99ParkAve. New York, NY 10016
References (/) (2)
(3)
UZYCH L: Letter. Free speech, chimpanzees, and libel law. J Natl Cancer Inst 83:15891590, 1991 Immuno V. Moor-Jankowski, Appellate Division, Supreme Court, First Judicial Department in the County of New York, January 17, 1989 MCGREAL S: A project with potential to spread non-A, non-B hepatitis in West Africa. J Med Primatol 12:280-282, 1983
Response I welcome the opportunity to respond to the letter from Raymond Fersko. Attorney Fersko states that I was strongly critical of the libel lawsuit discussed in an earlier correspondence piece (/). Forthright criticism of this
lawsuit, I feel, is quite justified. The germane matter, pertaining generally to chimpanzees and biomedical research, has obvious deep roots in the soil of biomedicine. The matter, however, was uprooted from its academic setting and dragged into the adversarial world of lawyers and lawsuits. Mr. Fersko's letter discusses various factors which made it "necessary" for the pertinent company to take legal action. The letter states in part that the editor of JMP had "official" documents at the time of the publication that "confirmed" that various premises of the McGreal letter were "inaccurate." There is comment, as well, pertaining to the academic background of the letter's author. Regardless of how staunchly the affected company may have felt about the McGreal letter (2), the fact remains that an alternative option would have been for the pertinent company to submit a responsible letter to the editor, plainly stating its concerns. The extraction of some academic matter from its academic roots and pulling it into the realm of litigation may generally have rather drastic practical ramifications. As readers well know, biomedical research traditionally has been characterized by an uncompromising search for truth, with the overarching goal of advancing the frontiers of biomedical knowledge. The overarching goal of litigation, however, is to achieve "desirable" results for clients: This, in substance, is what lawyers are paid to do. One of the practical realities affecting the legal system is that a complaining party can sue virtually anyone for anything, regardless of the frivolousness of the underlying suit. For example, as noted in my earlier correspondence (/), it was the opinion of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York that, of the many statements cited by the complaining corporation in its "ill-focused" libel suit, there was "not one" that was actionable. It is hard to imagine how biomedical research can continue to move forward, in an uncompromising search for truth, if the frivolous-litigation mechanism proliferates in use. The barrel of protracted litigation held to the heads of researchers may seriously inhibit the professional work of scholars fearful in
Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Downloaded from http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/ at Cornell University Library on July 12, 2015
The letter by Leo Uzych in the November 6 issue of the Journal (7) was strongly critical of a libel lawsuit that he characterized as having the potential to stifle discussion of biomedical research. I was counsel to Immuno in that lawsuit (2). In reality, the case was filed after an animal rights activist's letter appeared in the Journal of Medical Phmatology (JMP) (3) because it made statements about Immuno AG, an Austrian-based leader in the development of biologies and diagnostic products, that were contradicted by official government documents prior to publication. The JMP letter is an example of how animal rights activists target institutions that use animals in biomedical research. It is unusual, however, to see a respected scientific journal used to support their efforts. The letter, written by Dr. Shirley McGreal (3), chairperson of the International Primate Protection League, charged, among other things, that Immuno planned to carry out a chimpanzee rehabilitation program that had the potential to spread non-A, non-B hepatitis to the chimpanzee and human populations of West Africa. Immuno believed this to be false at all times. In fact, as was revealed during the litigation process, JMP's editor had official documents in his possession at the time of publication that confirmed that several of the premises of the letter were inaccurate. Immuno works and collaborates within a scientific community that includes researchers, research laboratories, universities, and government agencies. As you know, these collaborators are influenced by publications such as JMP. Unlike the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, JMP traditionally peer-reviews its letters to the editor. McGreal's letter in JMP was
identified as a peer-reviewed letter written by a medical doctor, when, in fact, McGreal earned her Ph.D. in home economics. These combined factors gave the letter a very high degree of credibility. That is why Immuno considered it so important to clear its name and found it necessary to take legal action. Over the past 4 years, Immuno has worked closely with the National Institutes of Health and other leading research centers to develop an AIDS vaccine. Immuno and its research collaborators recognize that chimpanzees are a precious resource and should be used only when absolutely necessary for the development of potentially lifesaving biomedical research. Immuno is committed to the responsible and humane treatment of chimpanzees and all other animals involved in necessary biomedical research. In addition, Immuno strongly supports the responsible free exchange of ideas, which plays a central role in advancing science. We believe that tactics such as those used by some extremists in the animal rights movement are of great concern because they seriously threaten healthy debate within the scientific community. That's the crucial issue that needs to be addressed.
