Uproar over Italy quake warning convictions

23 Oct 2012, 7:57 pm   -   Source: Darren Mara, SBS Radio
Share This
0 
+ Comment
4

The international science community has reacted angrily to the conviction in Italy of six scientists and a government official over a deadly earthquake that hit the central town of L'Aquila three years ago.

SBS Radio: Uproar over earthquake warning convictions

The SBS MP3 Player requires the Adobe Flash 8 Plugin. You can get Flash from here...

RELATED

The international science community has reacted angrily to the conviction in Italy of six scientists and a government official over a deadly earthquake that hit the central town of L'Aquila three years ago.

The seismologists were found guilty of manslaughter for underestimating the severity of the earthquake, which claimed over 300 lives and left thousands homeless.

Scientists say it's almost impossible to predict when and where an earthquake will hit and how severe it will be.

And they say the verdict in Italy could force scientists to shy away from making predictions for fear of the legal implications.

Darren Mara reports.

The seven Italians had been tasked with assessing the likelihood of minor tremors heralding a major quake in central Italy.

They were accused of giving "inexact, incomplete and contradictory" information about the danger posed by the tremors, which culminated in a large earthquake in April 2009 that killed 309 people and destroyed thousands of homes.

They were sentenced to six years in prison and ordered to pay almost 12 million dollars in damages to earthquake survivors.

The first-of-its kind verdict has outraged the global scientific community, who say it's a ruling against scientists' right to speak honestly and independently.

The secretary of science policy at the Australian Academy of Science, Professor Bob Williamson, says it could prompt many scientists to hide their research from public view for fear of potential prosecution if it turned out wrong.

"I think one of the worst things about what's happened in Italy is that scientists throughout the world are going to say, 'hey look, do you really want to take this risk? Do I really want to put myself in a position where, if I try my best, if I'm honest, and I still get it wrong, I'm going to find myself in prison?' I think that's a real worry."

Professor Williamson points out is that it's simply not possible to accurately predict when and where an earthquake will occur.

"The scientific ability is just not with us yet to offer those predictions. If there ever was anything that's going to put absolute terror in the hearts of scientists who were asked to advise government this is it. I can understand that people at L'Aquila will be very angry. They will be very upset. People were killed. Property was destroyed. But to blame the scientists is really quite ridiculous.

Associate professor at the Australian National University College of Law, Andrew Macintosh, says the quality of scientific work could deteriorate as many scientists try to avoid legal responsibility for their forecasts.

"We've seen an instance of that in Australia in relation to some bushfire risks and coastal climate hazards where policymakers have been taking decisions on the basis of trying to avoid legal liability as opposed to trying to make judgements about firstly what, in science, is a reasonable judgement about what the risk is. And, secondly, from a policy perspective, what is the most efficient way of responding to those hazards."

Scientists say they're already under pressure to give clear-cut answers when studying natural disasters.

But Professor Clive Collins, who's a senior seismologist with the government earthquake research agency, Geoscience Australia, says that's not always possible.

He says Geoscience Australia avoids making earthquake predictions because of the uncertainty of seismology and to prevent any finger-pointing if the predictions turn out wrong.

Professor Collins says, however, there could be improvements in the way earthquake forecasts are explained to the public.

"The language is very difficult when you're trying to convey something like this, because people have an expectation of black and white answers. How you improve that to convey that to the layman, it's a difficult question. I think people have been trying to struggle with for a long time."

This is one reason the verdict in Italy has been so closely watched around the world.

The Macquarie University natural disaster research centre, Risk Frontiers, says it will be examining the case for any possible knock-on effects it may have in Australia.

Professor Paul Somerville from Risk Frontiers draws a comparison with recent earthquake activity in Victoria's Latrobe Valley.

He says a recent series of minor earthquakes in Victoria indicate an increased likelihood of a bigger earthquake.

But, he says, the chances of this large quake still remain quite small - only around one or two percent.

Professor Somerville says the challenge is communicating to the public that there is a possibility of an earthquake, without causing a panic.

"And I think that's the situation that the scientists in Italy should have made clear in their statements to the public - that there was a possibility of something worse happening. It was a low probability, but it could happen and the best way to handle that uncertainty is to be prepared."

Lawyers for the seven Italians convicted say they'll appeal against the sentence.

As convictions are not definitive until after at least one level of appeal in Italy, it is unlikely any of the defendants will immediately face prison.

Italy

  • Follow us: 
  • Follow us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Twitter
  • Follow us on Youtube

Your Comments

DR

Steve - from Redfern, 7 months ago

Can we now convict all the economists who didn't predict the GFC?

Dr

- from Sydney, 7 months ago

So foolish, if a weatherman says it will be a fine and sunny day, then there are storms that result in loss of life and property damage, do you hold the weatherman accountable? What a joke

Mr.

Neetesh - from sydney, 7 months ago

These scientist should have, if they didn't, advised people of possibility of danger. As in science or any other filed we are never 100% sure, but we should always foresee the consequences of our prediction, especially when the lives are involved. You can't test a bad medicine on humans.

ms

kathleen Jackson - from melbourne, 7 months ago

Professionals in this area of responsibility can not always predict outcomes of Nature. Just the same as certain outcomes of medical conditions cannot always be assessed.The general population of the world has to accept self responsibility for their lives and cannot blame others for their demise sad as it is. We all have a destiny and your soul agreed before birth when and how you would die.

Join the Discussion

Name
City / Suburb E.g. Artarmon, Sydney
Title
Comment
You have characters remaining.
Validation
What's this?
This is a captcha-picture. It is used to prevent mass-access by robots.
All submitted comments become the property of SBS. They are moderated, so we reserve the right to edit comments and remove HTML tags. Not all submitted comments will be published. Publication does not mean we endorse the opinions expressed. Please read our terms and conditions for more information.