'Crime' of failing to predict an earthquake that sets a dangerous precedent for science
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A very sad business; a dangerous precedent; a sad end to a tragic series of events. These are just some of the comments today from experienced seismologists in Britain about the verdict in an Italian courtroom that has found six scientists and a former government official guilty of multiple manslaughter for the "crime" of failing to predict the notoriously unpredictable.
A travesty of justice is perhaps an even more apt description of what has now happened in the regional Italian court that sat in judgment on experts who are now condemned for being too relaxed about the possibility of an earthquake in L'Aquila. These scientists are facing lengthy prison sentences for failing, it seems, to warn people about the possibility of an impending natural event that even the best science in the world cannot predict with any meaningful exactitude.
Seismologists can estimate probabilities of an earthquake, but there is no way they can warn people to evacuate their homes, offices and schools at a specific time on a certain day.
Richard Walters of Oxford University's Department of Earth Sciences has read the translated minutes of Italy's Grand Commission on High Risks on 31 March 2009, six days before the earthquake hit L'Aquila, and believes the scientific information conveyed there was not inexact, incomplete or contradictory.
"It was clear, measured and scientifically accurate… To be prosecuted for other people's miscommunication of your scientific advice is a travesty," he said.
It is easy to say with hindsight that these experts could and should have warned the community of L'Aquila. But this judgment would be unfair, unjust and wrong. It would also be counterproductive because the one sure outcome of this verdict is that other scientists in Italy will now be wary of offering any advice on earthquake prediction knowing that they too could be prosecuted if they get it wrong.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments