
L'Aquila quake: Italy scientists found guilty of manslaughter - The_Fox
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20025626
======
kevinalexbrown
This is an extremely important case, in that it underlies a central concern in
scientific reporting, and it threatens to change the risks associated with
scientific innovation and communication. For instance, if scientists at a
pharmaceutical company issue unfounded assurances that a drug is safer than it
is in truth, consumers _might_ have a reasonable case. On the other hand,
predicting earthquakes is so difficult, even if the scientists had mistakenly
suggested that there was no reason to suspect an imminent quake, I find it
hard to find justification for a 6 year prison sentence, in addition to
damages.

But beyond that, it seems the scientists offered no such assurances at the
meeting in question. To quote the Nature article (perhaps biased in favor of
the scientists):

 _The minutes of the 31 March meeting, though, reveal that at no point did any
of the scientists say that there was "no danger" of a big quake. "A major
earthquake in the area is unlikely but cannot be ruled out," Boschi said.
Selvaggi is quoted as saying that "in recent times some recent earthquakes
have been preceded by minor shocks days or weeks beforehand, but on the other
hand many seismic swarms did not result in a major event". Eva added that
"because L'Aquila is in a high-risk zone it is impossible to say with
certainty that there will be no large earthquake". Summing up the meeting,
Barberi said, "there is no reason to believe that a swarm of minor events is a
sure predictor of a major shock". All the participants agreed that buildings
in the area should be monitored urgently, to assess their capacity to sustain
a major shock._

To continue the analogy with medicine, it seems similar to a group of
scientists suggesting that a particular course of treatment is likely safe,
then receiving blame when the treatment goes awry. But blaming medical
researchers, or earthquake scientists, could discourage innovative new
treatments.

As one final point, I'd point out that the occurrence of an earthquake does
not disprove the scientists: the likelihood of an earthquake given the data
could still have been small, just non-zero. If medical researchers were held
accountable for every death resulting from heart transplants gone wrong, we'd
never have the overall benefit they provide.

~~~
gioele
> The minutes of the 31 March meeting

Before that meeting, some of the scientists have been "used" by various
politicians and high-level civil servant in their public speeches and
interviews with the media. There are records of the director of the nation-
wide emergency task-force being being interviewed and saying things like
"After these afternoon quakes there is nothing to be feared, I can assure you.
My fellow colleague and quake researcher can tell you the same", and one of
the convicted scientists cues in "Sure, there is nothing to be feared. Indeed,
these small earthquakes have released a lot of energy, making a big earthquake
impossible". _Impossible_. That is not correct scientific communication, that
is being the wingman of a politician being interviewed by national TV.

The same board of scientists have been found legally responsible for other
similar statements, for example for not green-lighting the evacuation of the
student's campus. The engineering students noticed strange cracks on the walls
and notified the emergency task-force who replied: "First, the building is
safe, we have had it tested few month ago; second, they said on TV that there
are not going to be big earthquakes". The main building of campus collapsed.

The government imposed a "everything is safe, do not worry" view. This was a
political decision and the board members let the politicians use their
scientific credibility for their political agenda. This is what is being
punished here. It is their behaviour and the words they said on TV that is
being addressed, not the content of the technical minutes.

Anyway, there is a point of the sentence that is a bit scary. The whole board
is being punished, not just the head of the board and the others who spoke
before the meeting. The court considers the board a single body, and this is a
bit strange and worrisome.

------
kitsune_
I can wholeheartedly recommend a documentary called Draquila – L'Italia che
trema [1] about the L'Aquila earthquake.

As many of my Italian friends tell me, Italy is an absolutely corrupt shit
hole. I remember a scene where they showed recordings of civil protection
officials gloating about the disaster on the phone, right after it happened.
They talked about the opportunity to make money [2].

The head of the national civil protection service is / was notorious in his
blatant abuse of emergency powers to give government contracts (construction)
without oversight to his crooked friends.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draquila_%E2%80%93_LItalia_che_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draquila_%E2%80%93_LItalia_che_trema)

[2] At the end of the trailer:
[http://www.universalsubtitles.org/en/videos/lTyjwBhD9HOI/en/...](http://www.universalsubtitles.org/en/videos/lTyjwBhD9HOI/en/250371/)

~~~
jivatmanx
Not all of Italy, only the South. That's why the biggest party in the north is
a secessionist party. A lot of cool stuff comes out of the North, like
Arduino.

~~~
tomelders
I lived in the Veneto for 4 years, and I would say the north is definitely
corrupt. I've seen business people turning up at the commune to hand over bags
full of cash without uttering a single word. Places of business burnt down
because they the owners didn't have "approval" from the right people. Council
officials just blatantly asking for money to make something happen. Try buying
a house in the Veneto, you have to do it illegally.

Also, I bumped into a lot of Lega Nord people (the secessionist party) while I
lived there and generally found them to be little more than racists and
fascists. When I had to obtain my Permesso di Soggiorno, a group of us, all
english turned up on the same day. We were all given 2 year stamps, except my
black friend. They would only give him 6 months. I found the north of Italy to
be jaw dropingly racist across the board.

At least, that was my experience. Don't get me wrong, I love Italy, but it's
only because I let myself be blissfully ignorant of it's fundamental flaws
when I'm there.

~~~
klez
Unfortunately you are right.

I was born and still live in Veneto and the amount of racism against
immigrants (lately it's common to blame the Chinese, North Africans and
Romanian for everything wrong in society or economics) is depressing.

------
patio11
This is crazy, but I'll note that it isn't a peculiarly Italian form of crazy.
People rush to find scapegoats after every disaster. In the future, consider
being as skeptical of those accusations as you were when people accused folks
you identify with, like scientists.

~~~
ecliptic
>People rush to find scapegoats after every disaster

They have had ample time regain their composure, this happened in 2009.

~~~
mechanical_fish
The tragic fact about scapegoating is that once a community has chosen a
scapegoat it is very hard for it to "regain its composure."

Who will be the first to defend the scapegoat? There are big disincentives.
You risk being grouped with the scapegoat and suffering the same fate. You
risk becoming the _new_ scapegoat. You risk reprisals from the folks who are
hiding in shadows while the spotlight follows the scapegoat.

And it probably won't even help. Once a person has chosen an opinion, they
tend to defend it, and this applies tenfold to a group. (This plays out in
social media every day.) Changing a mob's opinion is hard. Time doesn't
necessarily help. There are scapegoats that are centuries old.

The social dynamics favor letting the scapegoat take the fall. That's why
scapegoating is so common that we have an ancient name for the practice, even
though almost everyone would agree that it's immoral.

~~~
trhtrsh
Everything you say is politically true, but the reason we have judges and
juries (in the US anyway, I don't know how Italy works) is that they are in a
position to stop the BS.

~~~
rmc
_the reason we have judges and juries (in the US anyway, I don't know how
Italy works)_

I assure you that Italy has judges and juries and a modern judicial system.
This isn't some teeny tribe of Amazonian warriers here, this is a large
country.

------
HerrMonnezza
A blog post [0] about a month ago explains better why they are on trial:

    
    
      The prosecution’s closing arguments [...] made it clear that
      the scientists are not accused of failing to predict the
      earthquake. “Even six-year old kids know that earthquakes can not be
      predicted,” he said. “The goal of the meeting was very different:
      the scientists were supposed to evaluate whether the seismic
      sequence could be considered a precursor event, to assess what
      damages had already happened at that point, to discuss how to
      mitigate risks.” Picuti said the panel members did not fulfill these
      commitments, and that their risk analysis was “flawed, inadequate,
      negligent and deceptive”, resulting in wrong information being given
      to citizens.
    

[0]: [http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/09/porsecution-asks-for-
fo...](http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/09/porsecution-asks-for-four-year-
sentence-in-italian-seismology-trial.html)

So the whole thing looks more subtle (and sensible) than many news headlines
report...

~~~
Uchikoma
What you quote says:

1\. "They were not accused of failing to predict the earthquake" 2\. "whether
the seismic sequence could be considered a precursor event"

~~~
HerrMonnezza
My understanding is that "precursor event" has a specific meaning in
seismology, i.e., sentence 2. is more restrictive than 1.

But I'm no expert, so I'll be grateful if someone with the knowledge could
clarify.

------
ABS
"It was not immediately known if they planned to appeal." of course they do,
it's on many Italian media.

And in Italy there is a 3-tier system, this was only the first:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_Italy>

------
ramses
Unbelievable.

At first I assumed that the scientists must have been out drinking, or must
have made up the data ... but, no, they simply gave the best prediction they
could, as they should.

I guess that forecasters of quakes and weather in Italy now have two
alternatives: always claim a disaster is upon them, or move to a country where
judges understand statistics.

~~~
lbolla
Don't be so naive! Scientists are not bound by some force of Nature to tell
the truth. The accusation is exactly that they didn't tell all they knew about
the earthquake, but they hold back the information in order to "quiet down"
the population.

Obviously, I don't know if the accusations are true or false, but, knowing
Italy, where "famous" scientists are usually very close to politicians, it
would not surprise me at all.

------
jpwagner
This is unbelievable.

Is there anywhere to find all of the facts? This article doesn't give
background info.

It took some digging to find that indeed the scientists had given a reassuring
statement, though it had an expected but-we-cant-be-sure admonition,
beforehand.

~~~
mturmon
Here is a story with a good background on the events. It's more complex than
you would guess:

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

In particular, at least one member of the civil defense bureaucracy went out
of his way to say there was a consensus that there was no danger (even though
there was not such a strong consensus):

"Immediately after that meeting, De Bernardinis and Barberi, acting president
of the committee, held a press conference in L'Aquila, where De Bernardinis
told reporters that "the scientific community tells us there is no danger,
because there is an ongoing discharge of energy. The situation looks
favorable". No other members of the committee were at the press conference."

There should be consequences for such grave misrepresentations. I was
surprised to see that the whole committee is being punished, though, and not
just the official who misrepresented the state of knowledge.

Maybe, as some other commenters have noted, this is part of a ritual of
condemnation at the first judicial level and absolution upon appeal to the
second or third level.

~~~
engtech
Does anyone understand the title of Nature article?

"Italy puts seismology in the dock" ?

is it meant to be "in the dark" ?

~~~
michaelhoffman

      Definition of DOCK
      : the place in a criminal court where a prisoner stands or sits during trial
      — in the dock
      : on trial
    

<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dock>

Commonly used in British/Commonwealth English, and _Nature_ is based in
London. I don't think I've ever heard it used in American English.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
"On the stand" would be the equivalent US idiom.

~~~
michaelhoffman
Not really, because any witness goes on the stand, whether they are a party to
the case or not. Saying someone is "on the stand" does not mean they are a
criminal defendant.

Only criminal defendants are in the dock.

------
wisty
Predicting an earthquake is predicting when a bent wooden ruler will snap.
Sometimes it creaks before it snaps. Sometimes it creaks, and doesn't snap.
Sometimes it just snaps.

The way to prevent deaths from earthquakes is to ensure buildings can survive
them. Modern buildings collapsed in the quake. I wonder if they were built to
standard, or if a few corners were cut?

~~~
eddanger
If the bender neglected to tell the observers to wear eye protection and the
unthinkable happened, they should be held accountable. A ruler in the eye is
no way to start a Monday.

~~~
weaksauce
That is ridiculous. Any reasonably intelligent person knows that the science
of predicting earthquakes is terrible. If you are smart you would take
reasonable precautions to something like that. You live in an non-reinforced
brick house from the 1500's and you feel a tremor; maybe it's time to get out
of town for a while. The scientists didn't do the bending.

------
nsxwolf
Lesson learned: Don't be an Italian scientist.

~~~
benmanns
Or, if you are, predict catastrophe 100% of the time.

------
louischatriot
I can't find words strong enough to say how stupid this is. As wisty said, the
good way is to build quake-proof buildings. Of course, that means fighting the
Mafia which controls construction work in this part of the country, which
takes more guts than judging 6 scientists.

------
run4yourlives
Sweet. Now I can sue the weatherman the next time I get caught in the rain.

Personally, I'm not surprised at this stupidity. I also won't be surprised if
from now on every single report offered suggests that an earthquake will occur
tomorrow, making the entire exercise meaningless and probably costing lives in
the future.

~~~
conradfr
It happened two times against "Météo France" (French national meteorological
service) by an insurance company in 1996 and winegrowers / farmers in 1999 but
it has been dismissed in each cases.

------
purephase
While I have to believe that this will die through appeals, the long-term
implications are enormous.

As nxswolf points out, it not only will scare off future scientists interested
in working in Italy, but any official/expert tasked with preventing tragedies.

The fallout is that, with each possibility, worst-case scenarios will be the
norm to avoid culpability over reasoned approach. Not to say that worst-case
should not be considered, but dialling up to 11 is never an appropriate public
response.

Finally, today it is seismologists, tomorrow it could easily be network
security folks, application engineers, CTO/CSO's etc. Basically, any situation
where the sum-total parts are so large and multi-faceted that no one
person/agency could be seen as the expert.

Terrible tragedy, terrible fallout. The optimist in me hopes that this is
dropped at the next appeal.

------
headShrinker
While it's up to scientist to use the best science available. No where to they
say scientists are responsible for outcomes. If the failure is based on the
best science then what is needed is better science.

Ultimately, the failure is on the journalists and news organizations who
choose to broadcast the words of the scientists. They have their rapport with
the public and have responsibility to uphold their journalistic integrity.
What is really at fault here is editorial review of the news organizations.
Period. Anyone can say anything, but it is the news corporations that
broadcast the message.

------
ck2
Why stop there - why not put "God" on trial and call in the church to do
defense?

~~~
atopuzov
Or at least the Pope and the Vatican ;) They sure do have a lot of earthly
possessions to be taken.

------
tisme
Scapegoating at its best. Really, what a disgrace this is.

Scientists are already loathe to communicate directly with the general public
for fear of misunderstanding of carefully chosen words. This kind of farce
will cause a rift that will take a long time to heal. If ever.

What's next? Putting the Earth on trial for manslaughter?

------
tgb
Risk prediction is about minimizing expected risk, which does not exactly
correspond to the eventual damage done. This means that there will be times
when they are wrong. If we punish risk predictors this harshly for being
wrong, no one will want to take this job up since it basically guarantees
eventually being convicted of manslaughter. But without such people we have no
hope of ever mitigating such disasters.

This ruling scares me.

------
ChristianMarks
That will teach those smug seismologists. </jk>

~~~
krapp
let's burn down the observatory so this never happens again!

~~~
nazgulnarsil
this is the absolute best quote to sum up this situation.

------
arjn
I'm stunned. I hope other countries are not stupid enough to follow Italy down
this ridiculous path. Can the EU intercede and do something here ?

------
hannes0x21
Well, sure thing, noone can predict earthquakes. But the same is true for
claiming that there won't be one.

Prior to the earthquake on April 6th, 2009, there have been several smaller
ones. On March 30th, there was a quake with a magnitude of 4.1. People were
really concerned that something was about to happen shortly. So the day after
these scientists claimed, that there won't be an earthquake in the near
future. This was surely to calm the public. However, they were wrong. And
according to the court, they didn't make their point clear enough, that they
are basically unable to make such predictions.

Although I don't follow the sentence, I somehow get the judge's point.

More info here [german]: [http://podcast-
mp3.dradio.de/podcast/2012/10/22/dlf_20121022...](http://podcast-
mp3.dradio.de/podcast/2012/10/22/dlf_20121022_1637_85aec7ff.mp3)

------
mahesh_rm
We live in a land where silence is king Whispers have all disappeared Cry for
an echo, you won't hear a thing Silence is king around here Silence is king
around here Desperate measures come from desperate times I don't regret what I
have done If my actions made you speak your mind Angry words are better than
none

I am Italian. Sense does not understand how things work around here, Poetry
does. Galileo could have been jailed 2 years ago. As a fledgling phd
entrepreneur, at 28, I am leaving Italy.

------
napolux
Well, the sentence is not really about "earthquake prediction", but about the
fact that some hours before the big earthquake alarms from the INGV (the
italian institute for earthquake monitoring, one of the best in the world)
were ignored. Of course nobody can predict earthquakes, but in L'Aquila's
quake there were strong evidence of "something happening", and they were
ignored: that's why they were found guilty. P.s. I'm from Italy

~~~
Uchikoma
Any sources for the "INGV" alarms and the "strong evidence" and that they
"were ignored"?

Because the other sources say that there were small shocks before and the
scientists consciously decided based on what they know that this does not make
an earthquake more likely.

------
nollidge
Why weren't any psychics sued?

------
godDLL
Stakes are raised?

> If the scientific community is to be penalised for making predictions that
> turn out to be incorrect, or for not accurately predicting an event that
> subsequently occurs, then scientific endeavour will be restricted to
> certainties only and the benefits that are associated with findings from
> medicine to physics will be stalled."

May work as a fraud deterrent too. May.

------
alpatters
presumably the result of the quake would have been the same if the scientists
didn't give a reassuring message? And now they are in jail, if another quake
strikes, the same will happen again. Surely it is better that scientists are
at least trying to predict the quakes, even if they get it wrong sometimes?

~~~
p0ckets
The result wouldn't have been same according to testimony from the article:
some people that would've fled due to the tremors stayed due to the
reassurances.

------
Mordor
I know this position disagrees with what everyone's saying but here it is:

\- scientists need to be held accountable in a court of law

\- safety must always come first

\- evacuation, while seemingly over the top, should be a way of life in an
earthquake zone.

Who survived 9/11? Those who evacuated regardless of the risks and advice
given at the time.

------
smogzer
If the data (plots, spectograms, etc) was made public on realtime the
opinions/warnings would be issued by independent scientists or ordinary people
or algorithms that would issue the chance of something happening and nobody
would get punished.

RAW DATA NOW.

------
izietto
The sentence is in "first grade" (in Italy there are 3 grades of sentence and
the third is definitive), so things can change in the other grades, and
probably will, because this sentence caused an uproar here in Italy.

------
mechnik
I wish the convicted a speedy and successful appeal and hope they take comfort
in <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8yEnu9_SGc>

------
zerostar07
As much as i'd like to keep the scientists accountable for their work,
seriously, letting people live in medieval apartments in a city with such
history of earthquake disasters was the real crime.

------
fatjokes
I haven't been this scared of stupidity since I watched Here Comes Honey Boo
Boo.

------
wololo
previous discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2585962>

------
mammalfriend
The amazing Italian legal system strikes again...

------
89a
> Specialists wrongly predict something

> Charge them for manslaughter

> Suddenly no one wants to be a specialist

> Don't get any predictions good or bad at all anymore

------
terraretta
I, for one, applaud this ruling. There's no reason why scientists should be
above the law. It's funny how often they complain of not being taken seriously
enough, but then when they are, and something bad happens as a result, they're
quick to deny responsibility. Are seismologists serious scientists? If they
are, they must accept the consequences. If not, we don't need them. It's as
simple as that.

