Science Defamation

Defamation laws cover intentional, malicious falsehoods spread against an individual or institution. I would like to see this concept widened to include scientific consensuses (where there is a well established one, of course). I frequently run across intentional misrepresentations of the degree of debate in the scientific community on many issues, such as global warming, evolution, vaccination, alternative medicine, and abstinence only. The malicious requirement would protect those bringing up valid new hypotheses and instead target attempts to warp the very meaning of scientific evidence. That sort of behavior should be unacceptable from a public figure. A celebrity or lawmaker spouting disproven theories about vaccines should hold the same place in free speech law as shouting fire in a crowded theatre; it's leading to entirely preventable deaths.