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.
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.
With medicine/drugs, there's a financial incentive to call it safe, so there actually does need to be some amount of scrutiny there with risks of enforcement.
With earthquakes, I'd hope that anyone who passed 9th grade science would have laughed this out of court.
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.