The Abruzzi village of Onna, Italy, seven months after the L'Áquila earthquake of April 2009.
Image: Flickr/Darkroom Daze
Six Italian scientists and a government official have been sentenced to six years in prison over statements they made prior to a 2009 earthquake that killed 309 in the town of L'Aquila.
A year-long trial came to a close today (Oct. 22) with the verdict, which alarmed earth scientists worldwide.
"I hope the Italians realize how backwards they are in this L'Aquila trial and its verdict," Erik Klemetti, an assistant professor of geosciences at Denison University in Ohio, wrote on Twitter, adding that the verdict was a "terrible precedent."
According to prosecutors, the scientists and official downplayed the risks of a large quake in L'Aquila, Italy, after a series of tremors shook the city in early 2009. On April 6, 2009, a magnitude-6.3 quake hit, killing 309 people. L'Aquila's medieval architecture led to numerous building collapses during the quake. [See Photos of L'Aquila Earthquake Destruction]
It took Judge Marco Billi just more than four hours to reach a verdict, according to the BBC. The scientists were found guilty of multiple manslaughter.
At the controversial March 31 meeting in L'Aquila, earth scientist Enzo Boschi, a defendant in the case, acknowledged the uncertainty, calling a large earthquake "unlikely," but saying that the possibility could not be excluded. In a post-meeting press conference, however, Department of Civil Protection official Bernardo De Bernardinis, also a defendant, told citizens there was "no danger."
At the beginning of the trial in September 2011, U.S. earthquake scientists conveyed alarm at the idea of subjecting earthquake risk assessment to the criminal justice system.
"Our ability to predict earthquake hazards is, frankly, lousy," Seth Stein, a professor of Earth sciences at Northwestern University in Illinois, told LiveScience then. "Criminalizing something would only make sense if we really knew how to do this and someone did it wrong."
Knowing whether small quakes are foreshocks for a larger temblor is impossible, according to seismologists. A 1988 study of other quake-prone Italian regions found, for example, that about half of large quakes were preceded by weaker foreshocks. But only 2 percent of small quake swarms heralded a larger rupture.
- Image Gallery: Deadly Earthquakes
- Image Gallery: This Millennium's Destructive Earthquakes
- Top 10 Ways to Destroy Earth
Copyright 2012 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
See what we're tweeting about
20 Comments
Add CommentIt should not be expected that scientists are able to precisely decide with certitude matters outside the calculable reach of extant technology. Its as if scientists were made to blame for technology not yet existing. A virtual, erroneous and opinionated, magic crystal ball.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe specialists of our species will only be able to more accurately determine the occurrence of earthquakes when we evolve better technology. Care should be measured in not instilling unbridled panic which might incur danger, and rather, ensure organised reallocation of a population to safe grounds. In the case of official uncertainty, without it having to be terminal in options, an individual ought to be able to decide for itself which coarse of action to take.
Laws enacted to allow citizens individual choice relative to the possibility of looming impending doom is free from legal responsibility to any other, as long as effected in a coordinated fashion . Nature on the geologically larger scale is more powerful than our species to deal with when a stable state destabilises.
Next the Italians should convict all the politicians that created the economic earthquake currently devastating the country.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, I'm wondering who will go to prison when 1 million plus people die when Mt. Vesuvius buries Naples. If I were a geo-anything, I would start telling the people of Naples to get out now why they can.
So if the scientists that predict global warming and the effects of it such as melting glaciers in the Himalayas, sea level rises and specific temperature changes turn out to be wrong, will we prosecute them too?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow I see why Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit tried to quietly release the latest data that shows no warming in the last sixteen years.
This should be a warning to scientists to stay out of public policy and/or advocating specific policies based on their research or personal beliefs (or both).
Science depends on scientists being wrong a lot of the time. It's how they end up being right, at least eventually. If being wrong is against the law, science stops. End of story.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow would be a great time for all of Italy's earth scientists to emigrate.
Dr. Iben Browning predicted a 7.0 earthquake along the New Madrid (MO) Fault for 12-1992, and the NSEP (National Security and Emergency Preparedness) Community went on alert, including yours truly. We are still waiting while its energy continues to build, but the history of the 1812 quake there is a very interesting read (for starters see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1812_New_Madrid_earthquake). Putting meteorologists and cosmologists in jail when their predictions cause loss of life OR millions of dollars would be a dream come true for most of us, but equally wrong. Meanwhile, I will continue to balance their weather warnings with my meteorology and fluids classes. Lastly, there is no figuring for entropy and chaos theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting judgement. Are they guilty of not predicting or guilty of downplaying the risks. It reminds me of court cases against tobacco companies. Some scientists were blamed for downplaying the risks in those. Is precautionary principle relevant here?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“So if the scientists that predict global warming and the effects of it such as melting glaciers in the Himalayas, sea level rises and specific temperature changes turn out to be wrong, will we prosecute them too?”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe glaciers are melting in the Himalayas. Scientists have warned of this and if the populations who depend on them for water find that they can no longer support their villages I would imagine they will have to move. Flooding from outflow of ice dammed lakes that cause loss of property and life will have to be taken up by local governments. In this case the warnings have been made.
Sea level rise. The Virginia government has taken it out of the hands of the scientists by issuing there own interpretations of what to expect. The warnings have been made.
Temperature rise. Again the warnings have been made. Heat waves, droughts and wildfires have become much more common.
Insurance companies are already adjusting to the changes. You might want to check out what Munich RE had to say on 10/17: http://www.munichre.com/en/media_relations/press_releases/2012/2012_10_17_press_release.aspx
The Italian geologists are taking the fall for the abysmal and appalling Italian building standards and government inaction to enforce safe building codes that resulted in loss of life. But they are not alone. Everyone knows Seattle is poised to suffer severe damage and loss of life when the big one hits and even though Los Angeles has made improvements we all know millions will suffer when their overdue earthquake shows up. But, the Italians are alone in putting geologists on trial for earthquake damage.
RDH says: "So if the scientists that predict global warming and the effects of it such as melting glaciers in the Himalayas, sea level rises and specific temperature changes turn out to be wrong, will we prosecute them too?" - Perhaps RDH is eying the Italian judges job! LOL
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow is this possible in the modern world? If a scientist or engineer can go to jail because their best opinion turned out to be wrong, Italy will have great difficulty keeping scientists and engineers in almost any field.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is, of course, legal precedent. Galileo spent the last part of his life under arrest in Italy, for saying the earth orbited the sun, Copernicus had said it before. Copernicus studied in Italy, but had the good sense to leave long before publishing his theory.
Italy, don't become the next America in anti-science now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author perfectly reports that scientists having main responsibilities told citizens there was no danger. It happened that after those notice people decided to stay home or college dormitory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSix days later the area recorded a monster earthquake that killed 309.
The judge had to decide on these facts. It's not about science scope.
You can listen to Civil Protection official De Bernardinis in Italian:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLIMHe0NnW8
THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisForce all the financial ratings agencies, S & P, Moody's, Fitch, etc to relocate to Italy.
In fact the entire financial advice industry should be forced to relocate to Italy!
;-)
As a geologist I wouldn't touch seismology in Italy with a ten meter pole.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is like out of a bad movie. Unfortunately scientists may now give earthquake warnings on the slightest hint of anything and all credibility will be lost.
sparcboy: "Also, I'm wondering who will go to prison when 1 million plus people die when Mt. Vesuvius buries Naples. If I were a geo-anything, I would start telling the people of Naples to get out now why they can."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat was also my first thought. In the USA, LA and San Francisco should be evacuated immediately
AOtta
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou seem to be the only commenter so far that actually understands the issue of trial.
The issue: The scientists made definitive statements that the public should not worry about a major quake in the area after there were a series of lesser quakes. They reported that the lesser quakes definatly reduced the danger and that people need not worry or take precautions.
As a result of the scientists statements people suffered harms.
It would be similar to if a scientist in the US made public statements before an approaching storm telling people that they need not worry about the storm causing damage because the sciensist is an expert on storms and that there will be no damage. If the storm turned into a major hurricane that damaged property extensively in a way that could have been prevented with proper preparations, then the scientists would be potentially liable for damages.
Thank you Sisko, you perfectly expanded and transposed to the US scenario my comment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis Italian special board (literally Huge Risks Commission) issued reassurances to the population about the risks of a disastrous quake.
It was like giving the green light on a crossing having no idea of the other lights on it (or can they foretell quakes?).
That is worst than giving a fixed red light (forcing precaution) or leave the crossing without the traffic light (inducing prudence)
P.S. I live not far from the place that was ruined by the earthquake.
The scientists and official have been found guilty of downplaying the risks of a large earthquake in L'Aquila. The verdict is not about wrong forecasting, it is about bad prevention. Judge's opinion is still to be published. Anyway, if at that time both the scientists and the official had said the risks were high, it would have been evident that most prevention measures which had been taken in L'Aquila so far were inadequate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, since the last part of my comment was missing, I've eventually decided to post it again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe scientists and official have been found guilty of downplaying the risks of a large earthquake in L'Aquila. The verdict is not about wrong forecasting, it is about bad prevention. Judge's opinion is still to be published. Anyway, if at that time both the scientists and the official had said the risks were high, it would have been evident that most prevention measures which had been taken in L'Aquila so far were inadequate. Hence a good question is whether the scientists and official made people think the risks were low on purpose or not.
One thing is claiming that people can safely stay home, because the risks are low and, in case a large quake occurs, the prevention measures are adequate. Another one is saying so, although if a large quake occurs the prevention measures are inadequate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"A new scientific truth does not succeed by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die,and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.". (Max Plank).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI write this as an Earth Scientist with a higher degree, although I am not a geophysicist or tectonicist: I simply took the time some years ago to do some basic research which any other educated and intelligent person is capable of doing. The idea that major earthquakes are not predictable is a myth which is so deeply entrenched in the popular and "scientific " mind that it is going to take a great deal to shift - not least because there are so many vested interests in preventing the truth from coming out.
C. Blot developed a means to accurately predict large earthquakes and volcanic eruptions over 50 years ago, but because this upset his masters (political and scientific), he was removed from his post and sent elsewhere and told to do other work. Fortunately he carried on with his pioneering research and presented his Ph. D. thesis (which some academics refused even to read), to the French organisation ORSTOM (Office of Scientific and Technical Research Overseas) in Paris: this was published as Monograph13: Volcanism and Seismicity in the Island Arcs - Prediction of These Phenomena (1976, in French). On 30 December 1977 he predicted that Mount Etna would experience a major eruption in 340 days+/-15 days: it actually erupted 353 days later. A second prediction of an eruption on Etna was made on 6 December 1982: this would produce a major lava flow in 115+/- 15 days. Etna erupted 112 days later and produced one of its largest lava flows of the 20th century. He predicted many other major earthquakes up to three years before they occurred, and although he was not always able to give their precise locations, precursory phenomena indicated where the hypocentres were likely to be. In short, by using a multi-disciplinary approach it is possible to predict major earthquakes for up to three years before they occur, and on shorter time scales the locations of hypocentres with sufficient accuracy to be able to warn people living in large urban centres or densely populated and vulnerable rural areas of an impending disaster. The details of his method are given in full in the reference cited above, or readers may wish to consult Volcanic Eruptions and Great Earthquakes by the late J. C. Grover, 1998, available through CopyRight Publishing Co. (You will probably need to buy a copy from the publisher because it is very unlikely that your local university geophysics department will even know of its existence, let alone have a copy). Grover also worked on earthquake and volcano prediction for nearly 40 years and co-operated with Blot until the former died. Further information on current earthquake prediction (including a > M7.0 predicted off the south coast of Kamchatka which is expected in the next few days), can be found in the open access journal New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter: www.ncgt.org/newsletter. The International Earthquake and Volcano Prediction Centre (IVEPC) based in Florida has made the prediction for the Kamchatka earthquake and is monitoring outgoing longwave radiation, total electron content, electromagnetic phenomena, clouds, earthquakes, etc. all of which are known precursors of major shocks. Details of these precursory signals that have occurred prior to other major events in many parts of the world are given in papers in the journal cited. I await with interest the response from the academic geophysical community when the Kamchatka earthquake happens - I am actually expecting no response at all of course for the reasons quoted by Plank above.
So before anyone else repeats this falsehood let us remember some key features of science:
1. There are no authorities in science. There is evidence in the form of observed data and predictions which can be verified. Those who claim to be authoritative are usually those who know the least about a subject but do their best to prevent others from finding the evidence that contradicts them. This is especially true of those who have power and influence and want to keep it to themselves, be they politicians, bankers or scientists.
2. Science is not a democracy. It does not matter how may people believe something, because science is not supposed to be based on belief. When the facts show that people are wrong, then they are wrong, whoever they may be.
3. Scientists are human beings and have all of the faults and strengths that the rest of humanity has. They are as susceptible to social and political pressure as anyone else, and they are equally capable of exerting pressure on others to conform. There is ample evidence of cheating and other malpractice in science as there in any other human activity so scientists should stop claiming to be a special group who only objective is to persue objective knowledge. Most scientists most of the time do an honest job and work to the best of their ability with what they have, but they can be and are influenced by the politics of science, the desire to get on, or even keep their jobs, and we all know what pressure that can put on them to conform - including ignoring or denying evidence that upsets their superiors. It is well known that those who dare to challenge scientific orthodoxy cannot get papers published, grants are terminated or not awarded, results are suppressed and they are black-balled from conferences and symposia. Why did Lovelock stay independent of mainstream science? Read his biography and you will find out. Also read about the problems that he and L. Margulis encountered in trying to get their ideas on Gaia published and accepted - this is but one well known example, there are plenty more.
Should the Italian scientists have been put on trial? Earthquakes do not kill people, poor buildings do. I am not conversant with the details of the charges or the grounds for conviction but a lack of building regulation enforcement almost certainly contributed to this disaster. So too did the the academic geophysical community who need to put their house in order with regard to major earthquake and volcano prediction and Blot's thermal energy transmigration concept. Before they put any more feet in their mouths, and worse, fail to give proper and timely warnings where appropriate they might also like to consider what could happen when this information becomes more widely known by general public. For how much longer do we have to wait, and how many more lives will have to be lost before some "scientists" are prepared to recognise and own up to their mistakes?