select search filters
briefings
roundups & rapid reactions
before the headlines
Fiona fox's blog
Following the 2009 earthquake in l’Aquila, six scientists and a government official were sentenced to six years in jail for manslaughter for failing to warn the population of the risks in advance.
Prof Lord May of Oxford, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford and former Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government (1995-2000) and former President of the Royal Society (2000-2005), said:
“The sentence handed down to six Italian scientists is truly shocking, revealing appalling ignorance of the basic nature of scientific inquiry within the Italian legal system. The verdict might have been understandable in the Dark Ages, standing alongside the persecution of Galileo, but in today’s world it simply is an embarrassment to the Italian Government and anyone associated with it.”
Government Chief Scientific Adviser Professor Sir John Beddington said:
“The outcome of this trial is concerning. While I don’t know the details of this case, it is not possible to say that a natural hazard such as a volcanic eruption or earthquake will not happen. All experts can do is provide an assessment of the likelihood of an event based on the best scientific knowledge at the time.
“I do not think such an outcome would be possible in the UK, indeed the only possible risk of criminal prosecution would be if the advice was demonstrably grossly negligent or wilfully malicious. I am confident the advice provided to government by the hundreds of UK scientists and engineers does not fall into such a category. While in the case of civil not criminal proceedings all advisers are indemnified by Government.
“Government relies heavily on the network of advisory councils and committees to provide advice. I am glad to say that the Italian case does not present a threat to this activity.”
Prof Robert Holdsworth, Department of Earth Sciences, Durham University, said:
“The history shows that earthquakes in that region are a part of life but predicting where and when they will occur is extremely difficult.
“You cannot hold the scientists responsible for the forces of nature and I sincerely hope that the international community will put pressure on the Italian government to free the six scientists immediately.
“This action is unprecedented and drives a serious wedge between scientists and the wider community. Research and science can help society is so many positive ways and we should encourage scientists to communicate freely on issues of hazard and risk.”
Prof Ian Main, Professor of Seismology and Rock Physics, University of Edinburgh, said:
“I was the UK representative on the Italian Presidential commission for Earthquake Forecasting convened after this event. Our remit was to look at the subject world-wide. The findings and recommendations were presented to the Italian Civil Protection and at a press conference in L’Aquila itself, available publically at: http://www.protezionecivile.gov.it/cms/attach/ex_sum_finale_eng1.pdf
“The full, peer-reviewed report with the evidence base is at: http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/imain/igmpapers/LAquila.pdf
“The main points to get across are:
1. Earthquakes don’t kill people directly: buildings do. The front line of defence is therefore the proper planning, construction and regulation of buildings and infrastructure to withstand earthquakes. Everything else is tinkering at the edges.
2. We can’t predict earthquakes with any accuracy or reliability at present. No reliable precursors have been found, and we don’t expect any to emerge soon.
3. Research is ongoing into how the clustering properties of earthquakes can be used to identify periods of temporarily increased hazard. But the absolute probabilities of clustering based forecasting are likely to be very low (a fraction of 1%) and highly uncertain, leading to a very high false alarm rate (over 99%).
4. Deciding what to do with this new information is not straightforward, requiring interaction between scientists, social scientists, local authorities, community groups and Schools. It will require ongoing and experimental ‘real-time’ tests, not just looking at past data with the biases involved in hindsight.
5. Science-based disaster risk reduction is best conducted outside the highly-charged environment of a courtroom. There is no doubt it has been severely harmed by the court case and the judgement. Only time will tell by how much.”
Dr David Rothery, Senior Lecturer in Earth Sciences, Open University, said:
“I am glad that those found guilty will appeal. Earthquakes are inherently unpredictable, and prior to the magnitude 6.3 l’Aquila quake a ‘best estimate’ was given, which was that the current low level seismicity was not likely to herald a bigger earthquake. That turns out to have been wrong, but most of the time it would probably have been right. Maybe the message came across rather too complacently, but six years in jail for at worse poor communication skills seems to me totally disproportionate.
“If civil protection is to be effective, rather than having jail sentences hanging over them and having to battle the legal system, the Italian seismic experts should be spending time studying and advising on earthquakes.
“I am far less concerned about the scientists’ ‘failure’ to communicate the risks clearly enough, than I am about the likelihood that building codes for seismic resilience may have been flouted, with the result that buildings that should have withstood the shaking collapsed.”
Prof Bill McGuire, Professor of Geophysical & Climate Hazards, UCL, said:
“This is an extremely alarming verdict. If this sets a precedent then national governments will find it impossible to persuade any scientist to sit on a natural hazard risk evaluation panel. In the longer term, then, this decision will cost lives not save them.
“We don’t have the ability to predict earthquakes, but what national governments need to do is spend time and money ensuring that the buildings in areas of potential earthquake risk are able to withstand expected earthquakes.”
Professor Bruce Malamud, King’s College London said:
“The scientists involved in the trial conveyed to the public the uncertainty and small probability of an earthquake occurring in L’Aquila based on accepted knowledge we as a community have accumulated over many years. The words ‘improbable’ and ‘unlikely to occur’ are often unfortunate translations from scientists of these small probabilities, as they convey to some in the public that a large magnitude event will never occur, when the scientists are trying to convey that there IS a possibility, just small and finite. But, that any year, there is a given chance of an earthquake of a given size or larger occurring. It would certainly benefit society if instead of prosecuting individual scientists for a perceived failure to communicate, it rather works on educating the average citizen, through the schools and examples, as to what is meant by uncertainty and low probability.”
Professor David Spiegelhalter, University of Cambridge, said:
“This bizarre verdict will chill anyone who gives scientific advice, and I hope they are freed on appeal. The lesson for me is that scientific advisors must try and retain control over how their work is communicated, and are properly trained to engage with the public.”
Sandy Steacy, Professor of Earthquake Physics, University of Ulster, said:
“If it stands, this verdict will have a chilling effect on earthquake science in Italy and throughout Europe. For instance, who would now be willing to serve on an earthquake hazard evaluation panel when getting it wrong could mean a conviction for manslaughter?
“And what will be the effect on the “impact” agenda? Here in the UK scientists are being challenged to ensure that their research has influence outside academia; this case suggests that such engagement can be very dangerous.”
Dr Roger Musson, British Geological Survey, said:
“This is a very sad business indeed, these are people I know, who were doing their best to give an accurate account of large earthquakes. It seems to be wrong that they should be prosecuted for offering scientific advice to the best of their ability. It will certainly make scientists less free in speaking out where perhaps their expertise are really needed.
“It’s not about them failing to predict earthquakes, it’s not about anything those 6 scientists said at the forum which they were asked to give their opinion, what those 6 scientists said was correct and any seismologists would support it.”
Richard Walters of Oxford University’s Department of Earth Sciences said:
“I am very saddened to hear about the verdict. The issue here is about miscommunication of science, and we should not be putting responsible scientists who gave measured, scientifically accurate information in prison. This sets a very dangerous precedent and I fear it will discourage other scientists from offering their advice on natural hazards and trying to help society in this way.
“I have read the translated minutes of the meeting of the Grand Commission of High Risks on the 31st March, and the scientific information that was conveyed within that meeting was not inexact, incomplete or contradictory. It was clear, measured and scientifically accurate.
“The prosecution have not distinguished between the different defendant’s actions or words. To be prosecuted for other people’s miscommunication of your scientific advice is a travesty.”
Dr John Elliott of Oxford University’s Department of Earth Sciences said:
“This verdict is a sad end to a tragic series of events in L’Aquila. Earthquakes cannot be predicted, and these scientists should not even have been on trial accused of providing incomplete information, because it is unfair to have expected them to have provided an exact and complete warning of an earthquake in the first place – this is something which is not yet credibly possible for earthquake science.
“This potentially sets back scientists’ desire and ability to engage openly with the public and authorities on the risks faced by society from natural hazards, particularly those involving seismic activity.”
Dr David Rothery, Senior Lecturer in Earth Sciences, Open University, said:
“I hope they will appeal. Earthquakes are inherently unpredictable. The best estimate at the time was that the low level seismicity was not likely to herald a bigger quake, but there are no certainties in this game.”
Prof Malcolm Sperrin, Director of Medical Physics, Royal Berkshire Hospital, Reading, said:
“Assuming that negligence and malpractice are not factors here then the prosecution, and now sentences, of the Italian seismologists comes as a considerable surprise. In seismology, as with many other branches of the pure and applied sciences, opinions are derived from observables and the application of experience and training. It is never the case that predictions are completely without uncertainty and any scientist will make this clear as well as an estimation of how accurate such predictions are.
“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. It is worth pointing out that many of the valuable contributions made by scientists such as penicillin, radiobiology etc have stemmed from the enquiring mind rather than absolute certainty of success.”