Register for an account

X

Enter your name and email address below.

Your email address is used to log in and will not be shared or sold. Read our privacy policy.

X

Website access code

Enter your access code into the form field below.

If you are a Zinio, Nook, Kindle, Apple, or Google Play subscriber, you can enter your website access code to gain subscriber access. Your website access code is located in the upper right corner of the Table of Contents page of your digital edition.

Environment

#73: Quake Science on Trial in Italy 


Can scientists be held accountable for deaths in a quake they didn't predict?

By Elizabeth SvobodaJanuary 3, 2012 6:00 AM
laquilaquake.jpg
Aftermath of the 2009 earthquake. | <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:L%27Aquila_eathquake_prefettura.jpg">TheWiz83</a> via Wikipedia

Newsletter

Sign up for our email newsletter for the latest science news

Last September six Italian scientists and a government official were served with manslaughter charges for failing to issue sufficient warnings in advance of a magnitude 6.3 earthquake that killed more than 300 people around the town of L’Aquila in 2009. Few scientists have ever been brought to court for making inaccurate risk assessments, and the case has seismologists worldwide wondering how to communicate potential dangers to the public without facing liability or raising undue alarm.

In the months before the big quake, a series of smaller tremors jostled central Italy. The case against the defendants alleges that they delivered confusing and contradictory information about the risks associated with that seismic activity. But many seismologists contend that earthquake prediction is far too inexact a science to justify the manslaughter charge, especially since the odds of a subsequent major quake were in fact very low. “The chances were under 2 percent, historically, that those small earthquakes would turn into a bigger one,” says Seth Stein, an Earth scientist at Northwestern University.

Stein hopes the trial will spur his colleagues to reflect on how to convey their knowledge to the public judiciously. He stresses the importance of being honest about the incompleteness of this knowledge, because “seismologists have often made statements that are much too definitive.”

    2 Free Articles Left

    Want it all? Get unlimited access when you subscribe.

    Subscribe

    Already a subscriber? Register or Log In

    Want unlimited access?

    Subscribe today and save 70%

    Subscribe

    Already a subscriber? Register or Log In