For the past few years, English libel laws have caused considerable controversy both here and abroad. To some, the laws (which prevent published statements defaming an identifiable individual or individuals) are an important element of our right to a good name and reputation. To others, however, they represent an illiberal attack on the fundamental bulwark of our democracy, the right to free speech.

Simon Singh is very much in the latter category of commentators. He articulates to me “the chilling effect” which he feels libel laws currently have on both the media and science. Worryingly, he believes “self-censorship as a result of the threat of legal action” is impacting scientists from “cosmologists to cardiologists”.

Singh, a British author and scientist, is currently engaged in a protracted libel battle with the British Chiropractic Association (BCA). The action initially arose from an article written by Singh in the Guardian questioning the claim that chiropractors are able to treat infant ailments such as colic. To date, the case has personally cost him more than £100,000. This extortionate sum is all the more unpalatable given the fact that even Singh’s early appeal against a preliminary High Court finding – prior to the actual trial – has yet to be heard by the Court of Appeal.

His libel case has turned Singh into a hero for human rights activists, journalists and the broader scientific community. An online petition for reform of the libel laws (www.libelreform.org) has attracted nearly 13,000 signatories including the likes of Dara O’Briain and Stephen Fry. Singh’s campaign has also reached into the political realm, with Nick Clegg, Leader of the Liberal Democrats, last week announcing that reforming libel law will become an element of his party’s General Election Manifesto so as to stop “libel tourism” from damaging Britain’s reputation globally.

Nevertheless, the libel case is merely the background to Singh’s broader attack on alternative medicine. In the course of our conversation, he is vehement in his opposition to homeopathy and a number of other medical therapies. He accepts these are difficult things to regulate, but says that  “people should make judgments about alternative medicine based on accurate information”. To this end, he believes that “the Advertising Standards Authority can play an important role.”

Speaking about the challenges faced by British scientists in light of recent recessionary cuts, Singh demands that we continue to provide funding for fundamental research. He points to the “industrial successes of the last decade – such as Google and Microsoft – which were built by people with a strong scientific background.”

“For the financial and cultural health of the nation, this Government and the next Government should maintain the funding of science,” he concludes.

On an international level, Singh also defends the expense of major projects, such as the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. He argues persuasively that “the spin-offs of pure research are incalculable” citing “the world wide web and medical imaging technology.”

“The average cost [of these initiatives] per European citizen is one pint of beer a year. In effect, the cost of a pint to understand the secrets of the universe.”