Forecasting change
Early in the morning of April 6, 2009, a magnitude 6.3 earthquake, the strongest one to hit Italy in decades, struck the central portion of the country. It killed 308 people in the city of L’Aquila, located within 100 kilometers from Rome, and left tens of thousands homeless.
Come September, several Italian geologists, including the president of the National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology will go on trial for manslaughter because of the 2009 deaths in L’Aquila.
News of the trial concerns scientists around the world, particularly those who are often called on as experts to discuss natural disasters such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. While it’s not uncommon to hear people complain that the weather forecaster on their favorite news program or radio show has failed to predict the rain or sun currently making its presence felt, the Italian decision to go beyond simply badmouthing a forecast to blaming a death on an unpredicted natural event and taking legal action is a step rarely taken.
“Of course it is frightful if watchers of natural calamities, which is not yet predictable, will be charged in court if a disaster will happen i.e. with casualties (e.g. dead, injured), property, infrastructure damage,” noted Ed Laguerta, resident volcanologist at the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (Phivolcs) Mayon Observatory, in an e-mail.
Scientists on trial
According to the roster published in reports, the scientists on trial in Italy include the directors of the national earthquake center, an institute focused on earthquake engineering, and the department of seismic risk at the Italian Civil Protection National Service. One of the primary charges is that the scientists, who were all part of the major hazards committee in 2009, failed to provide adequate warning about the earthquake following a committee meeting held less than a week before the event.
As quoted from the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera (translated with the help of technology), the scientists’ culpability stems from the fact that they provided “inaccurate, incomplete and contradictory [information] about the danger of seismic activity, undermining the protection of the population.”
On the website of the US Geological Survey, which monitors earthquake activity all over the world and has been telling people in northern California for years to prepare for a major quake due roughly every 140 years, one of the most frequently asked questions is “Can you predict earthquakes?” As the agency put it in a May 31 message on the official USGS Twitter account: “USGS position on #earthquake #prediction is we’re not there yet. Italy manslaughter charges are unfortunate.”
The L’Aquila earthquake trial that starts in three months could go on for years, and geologists, seismologists and other scientists will no doubt be following the proceedings with a vested interest. For example, if the court finds that the members of the natural hazards committee did fail to provide adequate warning –and defining these terms will be key – to the L’Aquila population, there will likely be changes on a national scientific and policy level.
Scientists may have to decide if their reputations and potentially their freedom are at risk when asked to serve on expert scientific committees and or develop disaster management policies, and the science talent pool may impact the information provided to the public. Laguerta emphasized the importance of assessments “made through factual/scientific proofs which the local governments could use in their action plans.” These are the kinds of reports, he added, that Phivolcs currently offers regarding volcanic activity in the country.
E-mail the author at [email protected].
