The L'Aquila Earthquake
A minor disturbance hit L'Aquila in Abruzzo, central Italy, at about 11 pm on 5 April 2009. At 3.32 am on the following day, an earthquake measuring 6.3 on the Richter scale struck the city, killing 309 people, and injuring 1500. Some 20,000 buildings were destroyed and 65,000 people were temporarily affected.
Scientists on Trial
Reminiscent of the trial of Galileo, six scientists (Drs. E. Boschi, F. Barberi, M. Dolce, C. Eva, G. Selvaggi, and G.M. Calvi) and one government official (B. De Bernardinis) are accused of negligence leading to manslaughter related to the earthquake warnings. The seven individuals will go on trial on 19 September 2011. The trial is expected to last several months.
Reasons For the Trial
Following the minor quakes prior to 6 April 2009, assurances were issued that there was no need for action. In the early hours of 6 April, the officials were proved wrong. The legal argument, however, is not so much that the major earthquake was not predicted.
Rather, the scientists failed to convey the uncertainties regarding future quakes following the smaller ones. This appears to be a somewhat contrived argument and it appears that the seven individuals are being made scapegoats.
Earthquake Prediction
Prediction of Earthquakes is notoriously difficult, even impossible, so it is not clear how the scientists could possibly give reliable advice. According to the understanding of most geophysicists, the probability of a large quake is considerably reduced (to about 2%, see Grandori et al.) by the occurrence of small multiple quakes.
This was the argument of the scientists at the time. A complicating issue is that an ex-laboratory technician, G. Giuliani predicted a major quake on the basis of Radon emissions. That prediction tended to create conflict and conveying the uncertainty was left as a casualty.
Risk Assessment
The dispute between Mr. Giuliani and the scientists on trial is a frequent problem in disaster prediction. A maverick such as Giuliani can safely predict disaster, knowing that if his prediction is not realised, he will return to obscurity with his reputation undamaged.
In comparison, those charged with the formal duty of warning the public have a greater responsibility for getting it right. If they get it wrong, their reputations are ruined. Hence the scientists on trial chose the cautious ("nothing serious will happen") approach, asuming a 98% chance of being correct.
The Future for Science and Scientists
All science has areas of uncertainty and it is a human trait that we always want to know more about issues which are often the most difficult to predict. The only way that predictions can be improved in the future is for scientists to have full access to data and for them to be given the opportunity to investigate phenomena without fear of persecution.
Will this legal action lead to the marginalization of scientists, either in Italy or in other countries if this legal practice spreads? It is to be hoped not, and in particular both the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have come out in strong support of the scientists on trial.
Join the Conversation