Features editor
Six seismologists have been convicted on manslaughter in Italy because their advice was misunderstood and miscommunicated. Experts who deal with governmental advice and public safety everywhere need to take note.
The conviction of six Italian seismologists for manslaughter over ‘false assurances’ about the risk of the L’Aquila earthquake in 2009 has been roundly condemned by scientists across Europe. It has called into question the whole practice of expert advice to government, and focused attention on earthquake prediction and risk.
It seems that what happened in Italy was, at best, an error in communication. After ‘swarms’ of small tremors were detected in the Abruzzo region, a group of seismology experts met in L’Aquila and advised the Civil Protection Agency that such swarms were not a sure predictor of an imminent large earthquake — which is quite true, because earthquakes are impossible to predict with any accuracy. They didn’t say that there was no risk of a major earthquake, for the same reason.
However, following the meeting, the head of the Civil Protection Agency, Bernardo de Bernadinis, told the press that the scientists had told him there was no danger — as a result of which, many L’Aquila residents stayed in their homes. When the quake hit, the following day, it destroyed 20,000 buildings and killed 300 people.
The court ruled that the scientists should have publicly corrected de Bernardinis’s statement, and therefore shared his culpability; all seven are now beginning six-year sentences, which is two years longer even than the prosecution requested. Perhaps they should have. But it’d be a brave Italian scientist who gave anything other than the absolute worst-case scenario if a similar situation were to arise again — which, in a country on the Ring of Fire where volcanic eruptions and earthquakes are a constant risk, is very likely. The level of scientific knowledge and understanding of the statistics of risk seem to be appallingly low in the Italian judiciary: unfortunately, they aren’t much better anywhere else.
There’s a warning lesson here. The deaths and injuries were caused by collapsing buildings, not suited to the unstable geology of L’Aquila. A mixture of inadquate building codes and poor engineering was to blame there; engineers could be forgiven for looking at the unfortunate seismologists and thinking ‘there but for the grace of God’. We know how to build safely in earthquake regions — The Engineer has reported on research on protecting historic buildings and making new buildings quake-resistant, for example. hopefully, the teams involved in rebuilding L’Aquila are taking note of the latest techniques in earhtquake resistance engineering and acting accordingly. Any engineers advising local government had better make sure they are giving their advice loudly and clearly, and going public if they their recommendations aren’t enacted.
It would be easy for us in the UK to look over to Italy, shake our heads and say that it couldn’t happen here. For one thing, we don’t have high-magnitude earthquakes; for another, nobody thought of suing Michael Fish 25 years ago, when he rubbished predictions of the ‘hurricane’ that caused such damage across Southern Britain. But think of what happens when scientists employed by the government make public their disagreements with policy; and how often politicians disregard expert advice in search of votes and approval.
It’s important that members of the science and technology community make their opposition to such travesties as the L’Aquila judgement known. But it’s equally important for anybody involved in advising governments, and any scientist or technologist who deals with risks to the public, to make sure their opinions are communicated clearly, well understood and acted upon. And to take action if they aren’t.
it is about time scientists and among them seismologists or whatever take full responsibility for their declarations. The group should have said “we do not know and you do what you think” but then of course where goes the paycheck?
This is an absolutely crazy judgement. How can a prediction from an advisory panel be construed as the basis for a manslaughter charge. I would imagine every weather forecaster in Itally will refuse to make a forecast in case someone dies in a weather related incident. We could take it further, what if an Italian citizen dies in a weather related incident in the UK that was not accurately forecast. Will the forecaster be extradited on a European arrest warrant on the charge of manslaughter?
Utter nonsense, if they had come forward and rubbished the claims inaccurately made by the CPA, which could have caused a panic in which lives may have been lost, and there was no earthquake, they would still be going to prison.
For me its simple. The CPA made the decision to give the all clear despite the fact the scientists gave no such assurances.
Scientists, Engineers, Meteorologists, Doctors etc etc cannot be blamed for the mistakes of a government.
The only thing the experts could have said was – there is no heightened risk, but the city is unsafe due to the poor quality buildings, you must not return.
Wonder how long they would have got in jail for that!
For a group -lawyers- who by definition in an adversarial process of juris prudence are wrong 50% of the time in every prediction…to bring charges against those trained and practising science to the best of their abilities is laughable.
But humour at their lunacies is about the only benefit I have ever found from lawyer’s opinions.
Those of us who deal with Nature’s Laws to the benefit of all mankind, as opposed to manipulating man’s to the benefit of the highest payer…at least can, I hope, look in our mirrors in the morning and know they are professionals
Best
Mike b
Very sad. I hope there will be some campaign to get this judgement reconsidered.
Well said Mike, one of my friends (an engineer, of course) says lawyers are akin to parasites of the society, always living on making trouble bigger and bigger. And politicians are close to that too. Amclaussen.
Now this is really a case for the European Courts to decide (if they can). The Defendents should quickly appeal and trust that common sense will prevail (but do not hold your breath)!
High time for a budget to earthquake-proof buildings in that zone of Italy (well established technology elsewhere in such zones) and retro-fit valuable ancient buildings. That should be interesting. Plenty of skill and capacity in Italy. I seem to remember, one of the buildings that caused a lot of deaths was a relatively new student hostel.
This is not about scientists being able or unable to exactly predict earthquakes. That is a no-brainer. It is not science on trial here but the behaviour of scientists.
Please check the facts about the events in L’Aquila prior to the quake. A local (amature) whose claim to fame was to predict earthquakes claimed that a major earthquake is immanent. The tremors were happening. They called a town hall meeting, in which the Graet Risk Commission members, more notably its head, told the people that it was ‘improbable’ that the tremors will be followed by a major earthquake. Furthermore, they told the people in that meeting that when a tremor happens, there is no need to leave their homes, and/or rigorously comply with other standard safety procedures.
Precisely because with the current scientific tools it is impossible to exactly predict when an earthquake is going to happen, it is also impossible to predict when it is not going to happen. Therefore, to tell people that, (to contradict the amateur’s claim), it is “improbable” that there will be an earthquake despite the tremors, they basically told people not to worry, there will not be an earthquake, and there is no need for the people to rush out when they feel the tremors. And that is what happened. Many people claim, that if they had kept to standard safety procedures, some of their relatives would not have died.
The fact is that the Commission members screwed up. They simply should have said, in response to the armature’s claim, that “we don’t exactly know, whether there will be an earthquake or not,” but people should remain alert and ready, and take every safety measure necessary. But they did not do this. That would have meant that they, the top scientists of the country, cannot refute the amateur, it would have meant losing face in front of people in a town hall meeting. So, the commission members acted irresponsibly: appealing to their authority as scientists, they gave assurances to people that cannot be supported by science. They acted like charlatans.
Having said all this, do I think that the members of the Great Risk Commission deserve lengthy prison sentences? No, I don’t think so. Should they be held accountable in some ways for their actions? Certainly, yes.
The Civil Protection Agency who misrepresented the Engineers are surely more culpable
The devil may well be in the detail of this judgement but from the information publicised it is difficult to understand how they came to that conclusion.
If the best scientific advice (presumably based on historical information) was that the rumblings cannot be considered a precursor to a major event, either that advice was right or wrong (I am aware that the italians continuously collect and analyse scientific data on local seismic activity). If right, then the fact that a major event followed it was unpredictable so the messengers should not be shot. If there were modern buildings which failed it may be that structural engineers had some responsibility for the collapse of their buildings though.
I understand the Italian legal system is such that CEO’s bear culpability for their company’s actions and face prosecution and possibly jail if they or any person employed by their company breaks the law. Maybe the same holds true for persons in authoritative positions like these seismologists. It does seem that despite the possibilty of miscommunication, the seismologists concerned may have provided either false or misleading information. So, it is entirely possible that if they were found culpable of an error, then jail may be inevitable under Italian law.
This article and some of the response have made me think…..If Earthquakes and/or aftershocks cannot be predicted, what is the point of earthquake focused seismology. What practical purpose does it serve other than soaking up grant monies. Perhaps merge it with Vulcanology as a useful science. At least they have demonstrably saved lives and seismological measurement is one of their tools.
Question: Should scientists ever be held responsible for their actions.
JohnK – surely, we are all responsible for our actions? Indeed, under H&SW legislation I’m not just responsible for what I do, but also for what I know my colleague is doing also.
GrahamF
Thank you. I completely agree.
Some seem to think scientists only concern is with science, not the effects or dangers potentially produced. History clearly shows the danger inherent in such thinking.
An admirable article by Stuart Nathan about the plight of the unfortunate Italian Seismologists spoiled by the stupid reference to what Michael Fish is alleged to have said. Next time, be less lazy and check what he actually did say so you don’t perpetuate a myth. It’s ironic Nathan said “The level of scientific knowledge and understanding of the statistics of risk seem to be appallingly low in the Italian judiciary: unfortunately, they aren’t much better anywhere else”. Parallel with what Fish is alleged to have said ?