Scientists like me are not trained in legal warfare. So when the notice arrived that I was being sued for defamation, it just did not compute.

The backstory: The manufacturer of a fertility thermometer — a device that attempts to predict when a woman is most fertile — had been advertising that their thermometer could be used to prevent pregnancy, saying it was as effective as an intrauterine device (IUD). A flawed paper they published wrongly claimed 99.4% contraceptive efficacy.

When I first discovered these misleading claims, as a reproductive health epidemiologist, I felt morally obligated to raise concerns to the manufacturer. Getting no satisfaction, I went on to publish a commentary describing the flaws in their paper and calling for retraction. 

The journal agreed with me and retracted the misleading paper. I also submitted an allegation of regulatory misconduct to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The FDA investigated, which led to the company being made to change their marketing language.

In other words, independent experts at both the FDA and a scientific journal had determined that my scientific and regulatory concerns were valid. Seems pretty black and white, right? 

But that didn’t prevent the company from suing me for $1 million in a classic SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) after I called their retracted study “junk science.”

In scholarship, we live like the truth will set us free. And maybe it will. But in my case — in which lower and upper courts both found in my favor — freedom from the threat of financial ruin came only after a nearly two-year battle and the labor of many brilliant lawyers. 

Scientific truth shouldn’t be determined in a courtroom. I’m now an advocate for passing state and federal anti-SLAPP legislation, the kind that could better protect people who speak out to protect the public from those with weak cases but deep pockets. Anti-SLAPP laws give courts the authority to quickly (before court costs mount) toss frivolous lawsuits intended to harass people into silence. I also recommend that scholars who are wary of legal harassment seek out pro bono pre-publication reviews and get to know organizations like the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund. Scholarly integrity and the public good mean we can’t afford to self-censor.