

Italian seismologists to be tried for manslaughter - andrewcooke
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/05/italian_seismologists_to_be_tr.html

======
alexqgb
This isn't the first time Italy has reduced itself to the status of
reactionary backwater by attacking scientists, Galileo being a case in point.

In the wake of that travesty, Louis XIV didn't have a hard time convincing
Cassini to abandon his post in Bologna and emigrate to France, where he could
continue his work safely. Given the extraordinary military advantage conveyed
by Cassini's work in improving cartography through increasingly sophisticated
astronomical observation, the Netherlands and England were quick to join the
seventeenth-century's war for technical talent.

Not grasping the extent to which the world was passing it by, the Papacy kept
Galileo's works on the list of banned books until the mid-nineteenth century.
By the time they came off, Italy's once formidable lead had been squandered
permanently.

File this current fiasco under 'lessons not learned'.

~~~
kstenerud
Pope Urban VIII's beef with Cassini wasn't over his assertion that Copernicus
was right, but rather because Cassini was asserting that which he could not
prove. He was basically saying that he was right and everyone else was wrong
and they should just believe him because he was right.

The pope said (rightly so) that unless Cassini could offer proof as to the
cause of planets allegedly circling the sun, he should present both the
Copernicus and Ptolemy model and leave it up to the reader to make up his
mind. (He couldn't prove it because the theory of gravitation was not known at
the time)

Instead, Galileo tricked a priest into printing his book without a papal seal
of approval, after he had promised the pope that he would present the
Copernicus model as a hypothesis and not as proven fact.

So, in this case, the church was on the side of the scientific method. You
don't just assert something extraordinary without some extraordinary evidence
to back it up.

~~~
alexqgb
I think you mean "Pope Urban VIII's beef with Galileo...", not Cassini.

For what it's worth, Galileo made two critical observations with his telescope
- specifically, his discoveries of the Jovian moons and the phases of Venus.
The former demonstrated that the universe contained more than one center of
gravity. This served as a fundamental contradiction of the Aristotelian
metaphysics that anchored the Ptolemaic scheme, and which the Church had, by
then, adopted as canonical. The latter phenomena made no sense in the context
of a terracentric cosmos, but was perfectly consistent with a heliocentric
model.

In other words, Galileo was not "saying that he was right and everyone else
was wrong and they should just believe him because he was right." Rather, he
was offering observational proof of the Copernican theory. His own theories
about gravity, and specifically, WHY there could be multiple centers were - at
this stage - irrelevant. The mere fact of these other centers' existence was
enough to upset the intellectual status quo.

Indeed, the real bone of contention had nothing to do with the Church
insisting on evidence in support of theory. The evidence was right in front of
them. The problem was the inconsistency formed between the the revelation that
Earth is a orbiting planet, and the (repeated) Biblical assertions that it
wasn't. For instance, “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.” (1 Chronicles
16:30), “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...” (Psalm 93:1), “He
has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...” (Psalm 96:10), “...who made the earth
and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...” (Isaiah 45:18), etc. The
obvious solution - a concession that the Bible made heavy use of metaphor, and
should not be taken literally - presented intractable political problems for
an institution that had amassed formidable power around interpretations that
treated large amounts of the Bible as actual history.

Really, the notion that "the church was on the side of the scientific method"
could not be further from the truth - not least of all because the scientific
method depends on the freedom of consciousness, and the ability to change
one's mind based on observable reality - regardless of contrary views based on
scripture, fiat, or tradition. This degree of liberty was - quite literally -
anathema to an institution that claimed something approaching a property right
in the laity's souls. To say they were supporting it is flatly absurd.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
You're telling this as if the rules for knowledge and deduction had already
been worked out -- you're telling it in a way where we are invited to take our
current understanding of how science works and drop it willy-nilly into a time
many hundreds of years ago. It doesn't work like that. To them, holy writ
_was_ another form of valid observational data. The struggle religion is
having is an internal one -- how literally to take the holy words. Offenses to
science are just collateral damage in that larger debate. There was also a
personal thing going on between Galileo and the Pope.

I don't say that as an apologist. I really feel like there is nothing to
defend here. Mankind's belief system impeded and advanced the acquisition of
scientific knowledge in various ways. For instance, I'd argue that the
reformation was the biggest thing to happen to science, encouraging
individuals to see and prove things for themselves.

I was just taking issue with not having enough context. Yes, the big picture
is Galileo had a hard time of it. But all the little details -- the
personality issues, the issues of evidence, the way his work was constructed,
the way knowledge was generally gathered and advancements made at the time,
etc. -- to me those are the juiciest parts of the story. Gives it a wonderful
3-D feel. To tell it like a comic book from the 21st century where the church
is evil and Galileo was some kind of uber-hero is to commit a crime against
the joy of history, in my opinion. It's a much more enjoyable story than that,
and I'm not sure the listener of the comic book version really understands
what was going on from this version of the telling. To be more blunt, and
speaking as an agnostic and non-religious person, it sounds a bit more like
anti-church propaganda instead of an honest look at how people lived.
Listening to the apologist doesn't put me on the church's side by any means,
but it sure makes the whole thing into a hell of a better story.

~~~
alexqgb
@Daniel - I hope you weren't expecting Galileo's full biography, a
comprehensive survey of 16th century intellectual life, along with a
dissection of approaches to the accumulation of knowledge that had developed
over the previous, say, 2,000 years - all packed into a single HN comment.
Context - remember?

------
gacba
As a former science major, this kind of stuff is scary...

1) Scientists, with a crapton of data, interpret results to the best of their
ability.

2) Scientists report results, with caveats, to Country.

3) Country reported results to Public, (possibly without caveats) in an effort
to "look good".

4) Public ignored caveats (if given), took Scientists words as absolute proof.

5) Public ignored Common Sense during what must have been a major seismic
event, and instead of blaming themselves, blame the Scientists.

Oh, what a demon Science hath wrought.

~~~
hartror
Assuming the court has any sense they will agree with: Low probability of X
doesn't mean X isn't going to happen.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
I've seen so little evidence of common sense _anywhere_ in the last 10 years
that I wouldn't hold my breath. My guess (based on zero evidence and being
fairly cynical) is that they will be found guilty.

~~~
stretchwithme
You better be right about this common sense deficit or I will have to drag you
into court.

~~~
epochwolf
Drag him anyway, he'll probably settle. It's what all the latest patent
companies are doing. I see no reason why it can't work on a smaller scale.

~~~
stretchwithme
And if he doesn't settle, I can always sue you for saying so. :-)

------
barrkel
That's phenomenally stupid. Rather than getting best estimates, they are
explicitly requesting that scientists over-estimate the probability of
disaster and cry wolf. That in turn will mean they will have even less warning
should something genuine turn up.

~~~
zdw
Ever hear of "defensive medicine" where doctors will prescribe extra courses
of care and tests, just to validate what they already know to be true in order
to avoid possible litigation in the rare case that they might be wrong?

Asking for certainty in areas where it can't be mathematically guaranteed is
extremely expensive.

~~~
ckuehne
"just to validate what they already know to be true"

Not to forget, making money from it, or, at least, bringing money to the
associated laboratories or doctors.

------
sks
As someone working in the field of earthquake engineering this is very scary
for me. Earthquakes are caused due to buildup of stress between two giant
pieces of rocks trying to slide past each other. A swarm of small earthquakes
can sometime release the stress thus lowering the probability of a big
earthquake, so the scientists were not entirely wrong in their statements.

Also earthquake predictions are discouraged since false positives can have
huge adverse economic impact (people and businesses fleeing the region) the
best way to prepare for an earthquake for a community is to build good safe
earthquake resistant houses rather than blaming scientists for not predicting
some inherently random phenomenon.

~~~
SlipperySlope
Taking your argument one step further ... At what point are the number of
earthquake deaths more economically costly than repeated unnecessary
evacuations? Perhaps 300 deaths is worth keeping hundreds of thousands at
their workplaces over an extended period of time.

Consider that millions of Americans use public roadways every year at the cost
of 30K fatalities.

I wonder if the politicians made the correct economic decision but the wrong
ethical decision?

------
marshray
Aside from the question of whether or not these seismologists gave truly
criminally bad advice in this case, it's a good bet that after this
prosecution Italy is going to have a very hard time getting anyone with a clue
about seismology to go on record with their objective scientific opinion.

------
crocowhile
I am Italian (although I don't live in Italy). Those seismologists are being
accused to have made statements and claims of "no worry" without bearing
sufficient scientific support. The trial will likely end in a mediatic bubble
(hopefully).

It may also help you knowing that the main man behind this accusations is
Guido Bertolaso. He is very close to Berlusconi's government and got his own,
more serious, legal troubles having to do with bribes after constructions in
disastered area and prostitution. As usual, things in Italy are more
complicated than what it may look.

Edit: adding this link
[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article70...](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7025719.ece)

~~~
dan_c
It may be helpful to remember that they were not 'scientists' at a meeting.
They were members of a committee (Grandi Rischi), part of a government agency
(Protezione Civile). They are accused because of their public 'role'. The
title is somewhat misleading, it should be: "Italian Major Risks Committee to
be tried etc.", if you search in italian press the trial is called "Processo
grandi rischi", "Major Risks trial".

(My opinion is that the congress was just a 'public relations' thing to
'reassure' people. The words "the scientific community tells me there is no
danger", served, very likely, as an excuse for the 'politicians' to do nothing
in order to prevent risks [because of the typical italian cynicism, I can't
assure they were not aware of the misuse of their words.]

Please note that after the earthquake the public debate was focused on the
stupid problem of 'prediction of earthquakes'. Yes we can't predict
earthquakes, but we can predict the effect and take measures in order to
prevent risks. And it is clear that nothing was done.)

[Excuse me for my bad english.]

~~~
andrewcooke
yeah, someone at work just reminded me that the context was that someone was
going round warning about a major earthquake (based on argon release? which i
think hasn't been found a reliable predictor) and this was all in response to
that.

while the scientists were probably correct that the earthquake warnings were
not justified, it turns out that the prediction was vaguely correct (iirc the
time was off by long enough that evacuations would have been impractical).

[edit: radon, not argon - [http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/07/local/me-
quake-predi...](http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/07/local/me-quake-
predict7) \- and he didn't have the correct location or time, but was close]

------
noonespecial
Next week's news: Italy suffers severe shortage of qualified seismologists.
Government officials are baffled.

~~~
wisty
On the upside, government officials don't have to explain why a small city
that's plagued by earthquakes had such poor building practices that a 6.3
earthquake killed 0.4% of the population.

~~~
BasDirks
I've been to L'Aquila twice before the quake. Many buildings consisted (at
least in part) of old structures. The city was founded in 1258.

~~~
davidw
> The city was founded in 1258.

For an Italian city, that's fairly recent, actually!

------
blue1
contrarily to what I'm reading here, I think that it is a good idea that the
trial goes on. The point is not that a best estimate was wrong, but rather
that the conclusions could have been steered by political pressures, which is
actually not unlikely, considered the history of man-made or man-facilitated
disasters in Italy (e.g. the Vajont dam).

I believe that the purely scientific advisors will be cleared at the end, but
bringing everyone to trial is inevitable as the firt step. ("inevitable" in
standard italian judiciary practice, that is).

------
Bud
What's next, jailing doctors who fail to predict the common cold?

I bet there won't be very many seismological press conferences in the near
future.

~~~
marshray
Sure doctors in the US get sued for malpractice all the time. If they were
advising a large population (e.g., they were on TV) and gave bad advice which
led to many people's deaths, you can darn well bet there'd be consequences.

~~~
pyre
In this case, it seems like like the difference between

    
    
      <scientist> There is a low probability of a
      major quake
    

and

    
    
      <politician> Scientists assure me that you
      are all completely safe
    

That and a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics by the general
population (e.g. low probability == no going to happen).

~~~
epochwolf
So they should be hanging the politician...

~~~
mturmon
Yes, and leave the scientists out.

------
victoro
Reason #347 the Italian justice system should be used as a Model of what NOT
to do...

------
andrewcooke
playing devil's advocate here (from what i've read, i don't think this is a
good idea at all), my limited understanding (i develop software related to
seismic detection, but was not educated as a geophysicist) is that we really
have no clue about earthquake prediction. so the "best" scientific advice may
well have been "we don't know"; perhaps they were guilty of being too
confident?

~~~
saulrh
It looks like they gave some politician a detailed, comprehensive explanation
that boiled down to "We don't know, but if we really had to give a definite
answer we'd guess that a major earthquake is comparatively unlikely,
because...". That politician turned around and told the public "Definitely no
earthquake, everything is completely safe, go back to work." It's like a game
of telephone where everybody in the middle is drunk or stupid and one side is
getting sued for what came out the other end.

------
fmarz
Be wary in drawing clear distinctions between scientists and bureaucrats,
because figures such as presidents or directors of scientific institutions,
here in Italy, are usually more bureaucrats or politicians than scientists,
and their actions or statements might not be motivated by science alone.

So while it might be fun to imagine us italians running with our pitchforks
after a bunch of lab-rats to burn them at the stake for their failure at
quake-prediction, what's really happening is that a prosecutor has doubts
about the “quality” of work of some people paid lotsa public money to be part
of a committee whose task was to assess seismic risks for that area at that
time. Was the risk assessed correctly or not?

And if not, why?

Note how (<http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100622/full/465992a.html>) nobody
is willing to take responsibility for the reassuring statements that in the
end convinced the otherwise alarmed population to stay at home. The scientists
say that the meeting was too short to consider all the data, while the civil
protection agency responds to them that they should have not waited six months
to object to that.

An aside: back in 2009, before and after the quake, there was one guy claiming
to be able to foresee when and where earthquakes would strike with a certain
precision by measuring radon emissions. Except the quake he foresaw a week
earlier nearby L'Aquila never happened, and after the big one caused 300
deaths, he went on record saying to have foreseen it by something like 6 to 24
hours, depending on which interview. He became somewhat popular at the time,
and probably still is, to the point that the public opinion might be left with
the notion that quakes can indeed be foreseen - this trial might not be that
bad thing for science after all.

------
ordinary
This is just the latest demonstration of the precautionary principle[1] at
work. People in authority act as if the worst-case scenario will happen
(regardless of the actual risk of that) because it's self-preservative.

We're so focused on always looking for a scapegoat when something goes wrong
that the only way to pre-empt potential persecution (either by the mob or the
press or the justice system or whoever) is to always cover your ass,
regardless of what the actual risk analysis tells you. Warning against events
like terrorist attacks and earthquakes is a win/win: if they do occur, you're
the heroic prophet who saw it all coming. If they don't, no one will call you
out on needlessly spending large amounts of money on their prevention.

There is quite a bit of precedent for this kind of reasoning. For examples,
see Blair's role in the invasion of Iraq (45 minutes, remember?) and the
United States' Homeland Security Advisory System (never lower than
"Elevated"). And did anyone get nailed to the metaphorical cross for the
enormous sums of money flushed down the toilet to protect against Y2K?

To dismiss this as a uniquely Italian issue, as many of my fellow HN'ers seem
to be doing, is a failure to see the wider picture. Don't kid yourself, this
happens everywhere.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle>

------
Lucadg
I am not sure what to think of it but when De Bernardinis said “the scientific
community tells me there is no danger, because there is an ongoing discharge
of energy. The situation looks favorable”, it occurs to me that "there is no
danger" is incorrect. And dangerous. A more precise statement would have been
"there is danger, but we have no way to know the probabilities of an
earthquake". Am I right or missing something here?

------
stretchwithme
The possibility of going to jail for interpreting data will certainly deter
scientist from interpreting data.

Which is great, because the average person can just look at the seismic data
each morning and decide for themselves. Right after they sift through the
weather data to see if any tornados might have swung by while they were
sleeping.

------
VladRussian
like in the good old times when court astrologist would be rewarded until the
day of disaster when he would be beheaded. It was just a professional risk of
being an astrologist, and i don't see any difference between an astrologist
and seismologist making any definitive predictions - both ride the chance
presenting it as scientific result and harvest benefits until the chance is in
their favor.

------
daniel-cussen
Is that lawsuit against Google over that one Youtube video still going on
there?

------
sliverstorm
_there is no danger_

Was that a misquote, or what the seismologists actually said? Their position
is a little more shaky (ha, ha) if they said _there is NO danger_

~~~
mturmon
Here's a more complete article:

<http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100622/full/465992a.html>

It seems like the committee contained 6 geophysicists who reported to a civil
defense bureaucrat (who has a PhD in Fluid Mechanics - think Civil
Engineering). The geophysicists said the standard things ("we can't rule it
out").

Then these deliberations were summarized by the bureaucrat for the press
conference, which the geophysicists did not attend, as (presumably in Italian
;-):

"The scientific community tells us there is no danger, because there is an
ongoing discharge of energy. The situation looks favorable."

And there's your trouble spot.

It is wrong to misrepresent appropriately-hedged claims where life and limb
are at stake. It should be a scandal.

And incidentally, this is why it's _really hard_ to be the technical person
who stands in front of the press conference. Doing it well is a gift.

------
InclinedPlane
The old world seems to be eager to dig themselves into a luddite grave. They
want to live in a world with a "safe" internet and predictable, politically
malleable science. We've been down such roads before, they're not good roads
(the result is oppression; intolerance; corruption; stagnation of society,
political thought, science, technology, and commerce).

~~~
Anti-Ratfish
Not sure that the new world is any better. All those specified areas have
direct new world examples. Can everyone be going backwards? We are where I
am...

------
saulrh
Old news (May 2010), but worth revisiting.

~~~
tedunangst
?? The article is dated May 2011.

~~~
saulrh
<http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100622/full/465992a.html>

The charges were originally filed over a year ago. The news now is that, after
procedural delays, the judge succumbed to idiocy and actually let them go to
court.

~~~
trafficlight
Then it's not old news, is it?

------
simonh
26 May - Scientists fail to predict earthquake, internet rallies to defend
scientists. 21 May - Harold Camping fails in rapture prediction. Internet
piles in on Camping as a fraud.

Just saying ;)

~~~
saulrh
Scientists make best prediction they can based on three hundred years of
observation, experimentation, and careful, systematic application of the
scientific method; politician makes idiotic statement based on fundamental
misunderstanding of scientists' report; scientists end up in court for
politician's idiocy; internet rallies, along with every other person with a
brain. Harold Camping makes prediction based on no observation, no
experimentation, no method, only madness; Camping is fractally wrong, refuses
to admit that he made a mistake; internet attacks, along with every other
person with an unimpaired brain.

I suspect you're trollan, but I figure there's no such thing as "too safe".

