Nature‘s news section reports on the trial of six Italian seismologists and one government official for manslaughter. They face charges based on statements made by the committee the accused were members of in the days leading up to an earthquake in 2009 which killed over 300 people.
The story is a complex one, but it appears that in the wake of a series of tremors in the city of L’Aquila, a retired lab technician and amateur seismologist named Giampaolo Giuliani attracted media attention by claiming that increased radon gas levels he had detected, predicted an earthquake. According to the Nature news article, no peer-reviewed science supports a connection between radon emissions and earthquakes. However, in the wake of a particularly strong tremor, Guiliani’s claims started attracting the attention of an increasingly nervous public. The “National Committee for Forecasting and Predicting Great Risks” – the scientists and official – held a special meeting in L’Aquila (rather than its normal location in Rome), to discuss the issue.
The mainstream science in the area also suggested an elevated risk of a serious earthquake. But “elevated” means rather than a 1-in-10,000 chance, it’s maybe 1 in 100 chance of a damaging earthquake. The estimated risks of an earthquake the seriousness of the actual quake, on the science available, were maybe 1 in 10,000.
This was discussed in the meeting; no recommendations were made to take any concrete preparations.
However, before the meeting, the government official concerned gave a press conference where he apparently claimed that the tremors reduced the risk of a major quake. The accused scientists claim that this was not their view; they also pointed out that this claim was made in a press conference before the meeting.
If the Nature News article is broadly accurate, it is hard not to agree with the various scientific bodies like the AAAS who have condemned the charging of the scientists and official. I’m not a lawyer, still less an expert on Italian criminal law, but the chain of causality between the incorrect comments of the government official – still less the scientists – and the actual deaths seems so tenuous a manslaughter charge could not possibly be sustained. Nevertheless, it does appear that the government official – by commission – and the scientists – by omission – screwed up, by not describing the science to the broader public as best it is presently understood.
I can’t help draw parallels between this case and the hounding of Christine Nixon. In both situations, public officials who made mistakes (though those of these Italian officials were of more substance than Nixon’s) proximate to disasters are held responsible for them, even if their actions made negligible difference to the outcome. In both cases, proximate actions were almost irrelevant to the outcome; the key decisions that ultimately could have prevented many deaths occurred years or decades earlier.
So when are they charging the economists who failed to predict the GFC? Obviously that’s the next logical step.
When I heard about this I also thought a criminal charge was a bit of a stretch. I can see where a civil action for negligence might get up, perhaps the insurers might want to offset some of the compensation.
More quality scapegoating from Berlusconi and team. Clearly it’s everyone’s fault except the officials who allowed building codes to slip. We learnt that in seismology 101 – earthquakes rarely kill people, but buildings do all the time.
I think it’s a scandal Jess that these scientists weren’t able to pinpoint the exact day and location strength and focal of a killer seismic event in a place where seismic events were historically common. It’s outrageous that they didn’t feel entitled to suggest mass evacuations based on the mere possibility that some such thing might occur and not feel no guilt if they started a panic for nothing. How could anyone object.
It’s also scandalous that in their modelling they didn’t allow for dodgy construction and corrupt payoffs to state officials. Shame on them.
{/pfft}
oops, word salad:
{weren’t able to pinpoint the exact day, location, magnitude and focal depth of a killer seismic event …}
@3 – I agree this is a stupid case but is it really Berlusconi leading the charge on it?
Manslaughter charges seem way too far, but sacking the official for making claims about a decreased risk would seem appropriate.
Jess @ 3 – if officials have intentionally let buildings through that did not meet the building codes then I think there’s a good argument that they should be facing manslaughter charges (as should the builders).
Chris: It’s a long standing problem in volcanic hazard prediction – if you predict something and nothing happens then people are much less likely to believe you next time. And that’s with volcanoes where we have a number of early warning systems in place.
But we have pretty much zero warning for earthquakes (even the most advanced tsunami warning system in Japan only picks up the earthquake as it happens).
Having heard the official’s recorded remarks, they did seem to go far further than he was entitled.
He should merely have said what was known and added that as things stood, people were entitled to be concerned, as they always should have been in that vicinity, of earthquake risks.
So I’d have been in favour of sacking him.
This is a medieval city guys – a main reason why so many buildings were not up to desirable earthquake standards (as Nature points out, for those who read the article). It is a little difficult to seek out and prosecute those officials responsible for the inadequate bulding codes and dodgy construction of the time, or indeed, if you think about it, actually to use such characterisations of medieval building practices in any meaningful way.
The article doesn’t actually suggest any failings on the part of current building standards and their enforcement. Perhaps others have seen evidence that there are such, but without that evidence being provided I would have to say that some of the comments look like no more than rather unpleasant racial stereotyping – Italians as corrupt and dodgy by nature.
One might of course speculate about the role of heritage legislation in preventing modernising buildings if one were fired up to prosecute somebody, anybody, to lay some blame, but I have no idea whether Italian heritage legislation is as ludicrous as Australia’s. Almost certainly not – very few countries’ is.
In any case, the current prosecution I agree is stupid, tempting as it is for me to regard it as a good potential precedent for dragging some other scientists to court – could we start with Mann and Hansen perhaps? – for their role in disaster prediction and misleading the public. (Sorry, Robert, but you know, don’t you, that a post on scientific responsibility must lead to climate change sooner rather than later. Just trying to kick start it for you.)
Woz:
Yeah, but you agree that there should have been updated and enforced building codes, especially when those heritage buildings get renovated. They do it in NZ, California, and many other places around the world where earthquakes are a problem.
I’m not sure that the collapses were confined to old buildings though. This is from Wikipedia (not the most reputable source but it will do for a start):
I also note that the families of people killed have launched a class action seeking $67 million in compensation from the seven Italian experts on trial. How much do they think seismologists get paid?
Anyway, I think the point is that no one should be being charged or sacked over an ‘act of God’ like this – no lessons will be learnt by stringing someone up as a scapegoat.
Yeah, I’m not really disagreeing with you or anyone else Jess. Bit of a pointless post really. Perhaps the fact that my partner is Italian caused me to bridle a bit about assumptions of Italian dodginess (though God knows why, many of her relatives can certainly be classified as a bit that way!).
Actually if I have to confess I only weighed in at all to get in the line about climate scientists’ responsibilities, but no bugger seems to want to take the bait.
Maybe Jess, “God” should be called to account …
Woz: I agree that there isn’t really anything to be gained by typecasting Italians. My knowledge of their government system is based entirely on what I hear from Italian friends and colleagues. Hate the game not the playa perhaps?
And speaking as someone who has experienced more than a moment or two of abuse based on Italian ethnicity, I don’t see this as so much about Italians as the rather shoddy regimes we have had in place over the years.
Rob, how do you somehow manage to see a parallel with Nixon and the bushfires??
It’s news to me that Nixon was ever charged with manslaughter, or anything else.
Wozza, I’ll take a nibble by pointing out that many climate scientists have been subjected to politically motivated inquiries following media beatups and false accusations by their critics.
Mann, in particular, has already been dragged through several inquiries, and exonerated every time.
It’s a little ironic that so many denialists are keen to compare themselves with Galileo, when it’s actually the scientists who are being subjected to political witch hunts. Fortunately, the inquiries themselves tend to focus on seeking the truth, so the scientists under investigation keep getting their findings confirmed.
No, she wasn’t. But she’s been convicted in the court of public opinion for having her hair done and having a meal at the Metropolitan Hotel on the night of the fires.
She also spent half at least half an hour or more with her biographer that afternoon, despite being in charge of bushfire response in extremely threatening weather conditions. She then said she would be contactable when she went home, but turned her mobile off and went to the pub instead.
At a subsequent Royal Commission she conveniently failed to recall all of the above in her sworn testimony.
Lucky she’s not Italian, eh?
Thank you Tim @17. A much more courteous and reasoned response than I often get around here. Let me try to answer in like vein.
On the specific “Mann has been exonerated” line, and even leaving aside the quality and objectiveness of inquiries to date, this is still in the pending tray. There is a current legal case involving Mann and UVA about his refusal to release information. His defence inter alia is that “release of documents will damage the reputations of dozens of scientists around the world”. How do you suppose he imagines reputations will be damaged if the documents show only scientists acting in accord with good scientific practice and ethics? See eg:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/9/21/time-to-mann-up.html?currentPage=2#comments
As for the more general, “it’s actually the scientists who are being subjected to political witch hunts”, this goes to some of the recent stuff on the climate clippings 44 thread, and Roger Jones’ venting about questioning of science being highly desirable as long as the questioners recognise their place and don’t make their intellectual superiors feel uncomfortable. The real issue is whether the problem is political browbeating of scientists, or scientists choosing political sides. No doubt a bit of both, of course, but which is more prevalent?
Whatever the answer to that is, your “the scientists under investigation keep getting their findings confirmed”, is self-evidently untrue, since all the inquiries have been part of the political/legal process, and have not addressed the actual scientific “findings”. As of course they could not do, or be expected to do – my point is only you cannot enlist them in support of your view of where the science stands.
FFS Wozza,
I left your comments alone because they were so far off the mark and I have work to do. If you’re going to verbal me, there will have to be response.
Given the trainwreck on Climate Clippings 44 and my efforts to explain matters (somewhat derailed by my one cheap shot), I’m not sure an explanation would have any effect.
I might say one thing – you clearly have no idea how science works.
Well, that’s a devastating and fact-filled response Roger.
Colour me really impressed with your command of logic and evidence.
Wozza@20:
Wozza, I’m not familiar with this particular issue involving Mann, but I know from experience that it’s impossible to get a clear idea about the facts underlying a legal dispute and the relative culpability of the parties without closely examining the material. Second and third hand , and media, reports are all unreliable. You’ve linked to a comments thread on a blog post by a blogger who appears knowledgeable about the relevant legal context, on a blog which appears to take the view that all climate scientists are dishonest. I’m not going to comment on it because, as I said, I regard such sources to be completely unreliable when it comes to legal disputes. But thanks for drawing it to my attention, I’ll try to familiarise myself with the issue.
To be honest, I only read the first few posts on that thread, ‘cos it looked like it was going downhill fast. As for political “browbeating” of scientists, critical comments by politicians from time to time might be described as “browbeating”, and I’m sure we can all live with that. But politically motiviated inquiries and quasi-judicial hearings aren’t “browbeating”, they’re witch hunts. I don’t think anyone except Stalinists really think political witch hunts against scientists are a good idea – I’m sure you don’t.
I’d also note that I made that comment in the context of skeptics comparing themselves ot Galileo. No climate change skeptic or denialist has been subjected to any kind of inquiry or legal process to date, let alone the sort of parliamentary inquiries and academic dishonesty investigations the scientists have been subjected to.
As for scientists “choosing political sides”, presumably they are entitled to their political opinions just like everyone else. I don’t know the partisan preferences of any climate scientists who make public statements on the issue – they seem to very professionally keep it to themselves. if you’re talking about the idea of scientists letting some kind of political opinion influence their research, none of the various inquiries so far have turned up any evidence of it.
OK, I should have said something like “the scientists under investigation keep getting their work evaluated as having been honest and conducted according to proper scientific standards”, which was what I meant. A poor choice of words on my part – I was trying to keep the reply to a reasonable length.
I’d already posted my comment when I remembered that Bjorn Lomborg (who can be regarded as a skeptic for our purposes, although he has never AFAIK denied that global warming is occurring or accused scientists of lying) was the subject of an inquiry by the Danish Committees for Scientific Dishonesty, into allegations that his book The Skeptical Environmentalist. So he stands as the exception. For the record, I found the fact that there are “Danish Committees for Scientific Dishonesty” pretty disturbing, and the inquiry bizarre, particularly since Lomborg’s book wasn’t scientific, but was intended for general readership, notwithstanding that it may have used data selectively to support a particular point of view.
…allegations that his book The Skeptical Environmentalist was scientifically dishonest…
blurgh.
@22 Actually, Roger does have a devastating and fact-filled response. Not in a blog. In a journal…
He’s linked it here.
People who go looking for answers to scientific questions in scientific journals have some hope of finding something useful. People who go looking for answers to scientific questions in blogs, parliamentary inquiries, newspapers or criminal trials are basically acting like…ninnies.
I’ve heard a bit about the earthquake issue on the BBC. From that and your post, Robert, I can’t see that the scientists have a case to answer. I gather that they were called together by the official as the relevant experts, not as members of the “National Committee for Forecasting and Predicting Great Risks”. As such, I imagine they would have had no role in communicating their advice.
The official, OTOH, may have some sort of case to answer, but that’s where you’d need to know something about Italian law.