Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Who Failed to Warn of Quake Found Guilty of Manslaughter

An anonymous reader notes that the BBC reports "Six Italian scientists and an ex-government official have been sentenced to six years in prison over the 2009 deadly earthquake in L'Aquila. A regional court found them guilty of multiple manslaughter. Prosecutors said the defendants gave a falsely reassuring statement before the quake, while the defence maintained there was no way to predict major quakes. The 6.3 magnitude quake devastated the city and killed 309 people." The scientists were first charged more than two years ago.

23 of 459 comments (clear)

  1. Misleading summary by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Informative

    They were found guilty not primarily for failing to predict the earthquake, but for releasing a statement saying there was probably not going to be one. They are accused of giving people a false sense of security resulting in them not taking necessary precautions.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    1. Re:Misleading summary by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Informative

      I wondered if there was more to the story than the summary indicates. I find it hard to believe a country like Italy would convict based on not having the ability to predict an earthquake.

      I did some reading, and the charges have more to do with creating a perception that the earthquake risk was remote and being negligent in their duty to keep the people educated about earthquake preparation and vigilance.

      Whether you agree that the scientist were negligent or not, the article title and summary are misleading and flamebait.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:Misleading summary by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And if no earthquake had happened, they would have inevitably been accused of causin a panic. The lesson here is don't be a geologist in Italy.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Misleading summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      From Ars Technica: In the week before the earthquake struck, the group told the public that the high incidence of smaller earthquakes were not necessarily precursors of a larger quake. They did, however, also mention that earthquakes were unpredictable, and that building codes in the area needed to be adjusted to provide better seismic safety.

      That may be what they were found guilty of, but it doesn't sound like it's what they did.

    4. Re:Misleading summary by vlm · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And if no earthquake had happened, they would have inevitably been accused of causin a panic. The lesson here is don't be a geologist in Italy.

      Golly, guess what happened WRT THIS VERY SAME EARTHQUAKE?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_L'Aquila_earthquake#Prior_warning_controversy

      Basically A predicted a quake would strike based on multiple measurements, and got a judicial gag order and police breathing down his neck. Its bad for tourism, you know?
      B was used as a weapon against A
      Quake happens.
      A writes papers, makes presentations, gets his gag order lifted, turns out he was correct after all. Whoops.
      B gets a sound spanking today.

      The real crooks are the cops and civil defense people, not the peons they used as weapons against the guy who correctly predicted the quakes. But they're above the law, so the peons get jail time instead.

      In the end, too many people died, therefore either these guys were going to jail or Giuliani was going to jail. All things considered, they probably made the least wrong choice by sending these guys to jail.

      As that radio dude used to say "... and now you know the rest of the story"

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    5. Re:Misleading summary by tomhath · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are close to what actually happened. An amateur geologist decided for reasons of his own that an earthquake was imminent and had been spreading panic for several months before the quake. These geologists tried to calm people's fears by stating (correctly) that there was no scientific evidence that an earthquake was about to strike.

      I assume there have been many such predictions over the years and authorities have responded by assuring people that there was no reason to panic. As luck would have it, this time there was an earthquake that killed many people (actually not all that uncommon where it happened, so it wasn't pure luck that the guy predicted it). So now whenever anyone cries "wolf" in Italy everyone needs to take it seriously.

    6. Re:Misleading summary by saveferrousoxide · · Score: 5, Informative

      that radio dude

      Paul Harvey

    7. Re:Misleading summary by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I find it hard to believe a country like Italy would convict based on not having the ability to predict an earthquake.

      Really? You find it hard to believe that politicians would abuse the justice system for political points in Italy? In Italy? Really? That's hard to believe?

      I did some reading, and the charges have more to do with creating a perception that the earthquake risk was remote and being negligent in their duty to keep the people educated about earthquake preparation and vigilance.

      If the earthquake risk was in fact remote, then how does this amount to anything other than convicting them for not predicting the quake? Just because it happened doesn't mean it was likely to happen. Long shots do occur.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    8. Re:Misleading summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No you cannot prove a negative assertion. The burden of proof is on the original earthquake prediction. No scientific evidence came forward at the time, so the professional scientists announced their dismissal of the prediction.

      The failure here is the lack of basic science education in the basic population and in the legal system's utter ignorance. Justice is not only blind, but it's spastic as well.

    9. Re:Misleading summary by SlippyToad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I did some reading, and the charges have more to do with creating a perception that the earthquake risk was remote and being negligent in their duty to keep the people educated

      Oh, MY GOD. That isn't even a charge, or a crime.

      Here's what the folks in L'Aquila have just earned: a rapid defection of scientists on the public payroll because they are now afraid to say, or not say, anything. Because an event that can't actually be predicted under any interpretation happened when they didn't expect it.

      These IDIOTS have done a serious amount of damage to people who were trying to help them. FUCK EM ALL, seriously. Fucking MORONS.

      --
      One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
    10. Re:Misleading summary by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 5, Funny

      No you cannot prove a negative assertion.

      Why should I believe that you cannot prove a negative assertion?

      ~Loyal

      --
      I aim to misbehave.
    11. Re:Misleading summary by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Funny

      Whoa whoa whoa, are you actually insinuating that the Italian goverment is corrupt? How dare you sir

      For a nominal fee to a certain benevolent society, the insinuation could be overlooked.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    12. Re:Misleading summary by Jiro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's not the whole story either. If you read your own link carefully, it points out that Giuliani predicted the quakes using a method that has never been proven scientifically and has had no peer reviewed papers published. In other words, he's a crackpot who just happened to get lucky; there was no actual reason to believe that there would be a risk of earthquakes greater than normal. The scientists who said that this guy is wrong were basically correct; they just got unlucky.

      To use a car analogy, a guy is sitting at an intersection reading tea leaves. At one point his tea leaves tell him that if you go through the intersection you'll crash. The scientists say that this is nonsense and that you shouldn't worry about crashing. You go through the intersection and you crash into a car going 100 mph through a red light. that neither you, the scientists, nor the tea leaf reader could have seen or predicted. You die.

      And then the scientists are put in jail for manslaughter for telling you to ignore the tea leaf reader.

      At worst, the scientists didn't properly communicate "the chance of crashing/earthquakes isn't greater than normal" as opposed to "the chance is zero", and given how the media and politicians ignore such nuances, the scientists shouldn't be held responsible for that.

    13. Re:Misleading summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      They have a judicial system that produces results that are clearly insane.

      But they also make insanely great coffee, and have really nice shoes. It's not as simple as you make it out to be. You might end up in jail, but have you seen those uniforms? Fabulous.

    14. Re:Misleading summary by tompaulco · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Now scientists studying earthquakes will become like the various environuts who say the world is going to end at midnight, every night
      No, we just wont have scientists studying earthquakes anymore because they don't want the liability. This is something we call "shooting the messenger".

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  2. Next up: Meteorologists, Astrologers, by Lieutenant_Dan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Palm readers, Farmer's Almanac, anyone who publishes a book about Nostradamus, etc ...

    This is beyond ridiculous. It's just stupid.

    --
    Wearing pants should always be optional.
  3. Same difference by pavon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The government asked for their assessment, and they gave the best prediction they could given the data they had. Nearly every other seismologist in the world would have given the same assessment. They are being sentenced to prison because they did not predict the quake, pure and simple. The lesson here is that if the Italian government ever asks your assessment on anything, the only valid response is "fuck off and die".

  4. Editors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    Is it really too hard to include the link to an actual article where this NEWS is being stated?

    Quick google result here

    See? Now you got me karmawhoring!
    *ticks 'Post Anonymously'*

  5. Accountability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Where does it start and end?

    As a professional engineer, accountability starts the moment you have a license number in your state.

    Any opinion you give on any project makes you liable.

    The problem is that too many people are giving opinions on subjects that affect other people's lives and have zero accountability. this trial is a precursor to what may eventually become the norm.

    Picture these so-called experts on TV talking about this and that and if they are found wrong and someone was affected by it, then they can be held accountable.

    The same will be applied to lawyers and politicians and before you know it, people will be better off if we hold people with some sort of power (over other people) accountable.

  6. Re:Bad Precedent by jasper160 · · Score: 5, Funny

    All the doctors in Italy will have to tell their patients they are going to die and then all the priests will tell them they are going to hell to avoid prosecution.

    --
    No good deed goes unpunished.
  7. A look into the future by Daetrin · · Score: 5, Funny

    How will this ruling affect earthquake predictions from this point on?

    "Scientists predicted that sometime this week a massive earthquake will cause all of Italy to break off and fall into the ocean, killing everyone. This marks the 27th week in a row that scientists have made that prediction. When asked about the failure of the previous 26 predictions to come true a lead scientist replied 'It's always possible we're in error and the earthquake might be a little smaller, and might not kill everyone, and possibly might not happen at all. But better safe than sorry. We're sticking with our prediction, so don't say we didn't warn you.'"

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  8. Re:Moral of the Story by hde226868 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Well, I know that this is flamebait, but still...

    I work quite a lot with scientists from Italy in my area (astrophysics). They are among the most dedicated scientists I know and are doing world leading science. They are also among the least well paid - which shows their dedication to science.

    The former Italian government (under Berlusconi) tried for years to marginalize science and research in Italy and this is yet another blow to the scientific system in Italy. The result will be disastrous and lead to an even larger brain drain of highly qualified people from Italy than what Italy has already experienced in the past 10-20 years. Everybody can imagine what this means for the long-term future of Italy as a place of innovation and science, which has already been damaged badly.

  9. Italians did not use current methodology by peter303 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I heard the Italian Court consultant Thomas Jordan head of the Southern Calfornia Earthquake Center talk on this topic. Look at slides 15 & 16 about the difference between prediction and forecasting. The current methodology is to give a probabalistic forecast, like in weather, and not a yes/no prediction. The Italian scientists did not follow current methodology and gave a less useful prediction. The court convicted these scientists of negligence for not being current enough and might have cost some lives. Nearly the entire seismologic community including Dr. Jordan thinks the court decision was wrong.