Dr Peter Wilmshurst is a consultant cardiologist. He is a leader in his field, and also a whistleblower, drawing attention to that which he believes to be wrong. He was presented with the HealthWatch Award 2003. Peter Wilmshurst has clashed with universities, editors, the medical establishment, and – perhaps inevitably – with the pharmaceutical industry. It is this last encounter that has taken him to court and that has made explicit and very public the relevance of the UK’s libel laws to scientific research.
PAGES
67 – 71
DOI
All content is freely available without charge to users or their institutions. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission of the publisher or the author. Articles published in the journal are distributed under a http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Issues
Also in this issue:
-
Agnes Horvath, Magic and the Will to Science: A Political Anthropology of Liminal Technicality
-
Gibson Burrell, Ronald Hartz, David Harvie, Geoff Lightfoot, Simon Lilley and Friends, Shaping for Mediocrity: The Cancellation of Critical Thinking at our Universities
-
Bas de Boer, How Scientific Instruments Speak: Postphenomenology and Technological Mediations in Neuroscientific Practice
-
Bjørn Lomborg, False Alarm
-
How does innovation arise in the bicycle sector? The users’ role and their betrayal in the case of the ‘gravel bike’
The effects of the English libel laws on medicine and research – a personal view
Proposition