Slashdot Mirror
Geologists Might Be Charged For Not Predicting Quake
mmmscience writes "In 2009, a series of small earthquakes shook the region of L'Aquila, Italy. Seismologists investigated the tremors, but concluded that there was no direct indication of a big quake on the horizon. Less than a month later, a magnitude 6.3 earthquake killed more than 300 people. Now, the chief prosecutor of L'Aquila is
looking to charge the scientists with gross negligent manslaughter for not predicting the quake."
This is science, you never know for sure. In science you never have a complete answer, just a series of partial, half wrong answers. Hopefully you get better answers over time, but you never know the exact, complete answer. In this case we have a complicated system, one we have very little success in predicting its behavior. And they didn't say there will be no earthquake, just that the minor ones don't imply an imminent major one. I see no problem with this claim (as long as it is reasonable by modern seismology).
"It's hard to make predictions - especially about the future." --Robert Storm Petersen
Fuck 'em. I wouldn't "predict" a damn thing, but would seek ways to enrich myself from predicted outcomes.
If people will fuck you for trying to do good, abandon that and fuck THEM instead.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Best snippet from the Time article linked to in the first of your WSJ articles:
The researcher had said that a "disastrous" earthquake would strike on March 29, but when it didn't, Guido Bertolaso, head of Italy's Civil Protection Agency, officially denounced Giuliani in court last week for "false alarm." "These imbeciles enjoy spreading false news," Bertolaso was quoted as saying. "Everyone knows that you can't predict earthquakes."
Priceless.
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
Were these geologists negligent? Given our current understanding of earthquakes, we can off-handedly state, "probably not", but we aren't sure. Is it unreasonable for somebody to want a court to investigate further, given the scale and scope of the damage? Not really.
Not only that. People should understand some basics of the Italian law system before jumping to conclusions, making comparisons and pretending everyone is an idiot (I'm not referring to you).
When authorities are notified or simply become aware of crimes, they are obliged to investigate. In this case there were several accusations made by people and prosecutors were obliged to investigate. Just to give some more perspective, charges are for homicide and other related crimes. The researcher that was investigated in the past for saying there would have been an earthquake, was charged (if I remember correctly) for procured alarm to authorities (still a crime).
Beside the obligation to investigate, I also agree with you that is not necessarily unreasonable to investigate further. I'm pretty sure these guys will be discharged and the outcome of the trial may be helpful in future to prevent similar things to happen (both geologist trying to be less conservative and people being discouraged to make criminal accusations for nothing).
This helps to understand the technical part of it, but of course there's more: the political part.
Lately the civil protection department has gone through several scandals related to rebuilding activities of the area and it's close to the current government. Part of the population is pissed off because: they lost relatives, rebuilding is happening slowly and lot of promises remained just promises. The judiciary bench is often accused by the right wing (current government) to have the majority of judges being close to the left wing and to try to overcome the government.
So, depending on the political orientation, people think either that prosecutors are just doing their jobs, or that they are trying to put pressure on the government accusing the civil protection. You may feel a bit puzzled at this point asking yourself what's the problem if, after all, they are simply following the law that obliges them to investigate. A common argument by right wing people is that there are simply too many notifications of crimes and accusations to investigate on all of them and the judiciary bench selects them (or better give priorities) based on a political agenda.
So, don't think this is only a matter that has to do with science. It has more to do with the judiciary system and politics.
Now people can feel free to think everyone here is an idiot :)
Corollary 1:
When any doctor can pad his wallet by ordering tests, you can bet there will be plenty of unneeded medical tests prescribed for everyone and costs will skyrocket.
Corollary 2:
When any patient can request test at no cost to them, you can bet there will be plenty of unneeded medical tests prescribed for everyone and costs will skyrocket.
It's a difference in language (and/or translation) between civil and common law countries. To be 'indicted' in most civil law countries means that you are being formally investigated. Charges are provided at a later stage (traditionally called assizes). In common law countries on the other hand, it is not necessary to declare that an investigation is being undertaken. But any formal charges require an indictment, which means a grand jury has to find there is probable cause, reasonable suspicion or prima facie evidence to indict.
(Not a lawyer, but did major in world history)