On September 20th, seven scientists and seismologists went on trial for manslaughter in the wake of allegations that they provided “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information” before an earthquake on April 6th, 2009 in L’Aquila, Italy. The 6.3-magnitude earthquake rocked the region, killing over 300 people and destroying the homes of 65,000 others. The trail has sparked controversy around whether inexact science can be blamed for the devastation that shocked the unsuspecting region.
Warnings rang in for a major earthquake a month prior but conflicting evidence began to appear as the tremor failed to arrive. The initial reports by Italian lab technician, Giampaolo Giuliani, were blamed for being too extreme with evidence from tests considered to be unreliable. As time wore on signs in the days leading up to the quake, tremors were felt in the area. This prompted a meeting on March 31, 2009 by the Commission of High Risks where the seven men on trial presented reassuring evidence and a memo stating it was “improbable” that a major earthquake would occur. This information has been blamed for the lack of precautions taken before the quake and subsequently an increase in the death toll and impact on L’Aquila.
While it is evident that the seismologists incorrectly forecast the earthquake, a successful trial would imply up to 15 years in prison for each man. The scientific community in Italy has been enraged by the accusations, as the trial puts a black mark on their reputation as a global research centre. The trial also has potential to cause a huge shift in the attitude towards forecasting natural phenomena with such unrefined sciences. While predictions have made progress towards accuracy and advanced warning, new dangers would stem from wary scientists and inconclusive evidence. Putting responsibility for exactness on an unproven science would only hinder its development and sustainability. Heavy criticisms have come in from the global science community, condemning the trial based on something that is nearly impossible to predict.
The trial also exposes the possibility of shifting the blame from Italian authorities. With thousands of citizens impacted in L’Aquila, demands for answers as to why the earthquake had such devastation could expose ineffective government actions. Serious failures in disaster preparation and enforcement of building code would implicate the authorities with the heavy losses. Having received the brunt of the public backlash, the trial may redirect some of the accusations.
After a three hour hearing the case was adjourned until October 3, 2011. Until then, the global science community waits with bated breath to see whether they will become legally responsible for predicting the forces of nature. Every week the world witnesses new disasters, some predicted and others unexpected. To hinder the development of these sciences and quiet already unconfident warning systems is a step backwards from saving human lives in the face of nature’s fury.
Leave a Reply