9 ms·

L'Aquila quake: Italy scientists found guilty of manslaughter

237 points by The_Fox 14y ago

wololo 14y ago
previous discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2585962 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2585962
tisme 14y ago
Scapegoating at its best. Really, what a disgrace this is. Scientists are already loathe to communicate directly with the general public for fear of misunderstanding of carefully chosen words. This kind of farce will cause a rift that will take a long time to heal. If ever. What's next? Putting the Earth on trial for manslaughter?
jpwagner 14y ago
This is unbelievable. Is there anywhere to find all of the facts? This article doesn't give background info. It took some digging to find that indeed the scientists had given a reassuring statement, though it had an expected but-we-cant-be-sure admonition, beforehand.
- mturmon 14y ago
  Here is a story with a good background on the events. It's more complex than you would guess: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100622/full/465992a.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100622/full/465992a.html In particular, at least one member of the civil defense bureaucracy went out of his way to say there was a consensus that there was no danger (even though there was not such a strong consensus): "Immediately after that meeting, De Bernardinis and Barberi, acting president of the committee, held a press conference in L'Aquila, where De Bernardinis told reporters that "the scientific community tells us there is no danger, because there is an ongoing discharge of energy. The situation looks favorable". No other members of the committee were at the press conference." There should be consequences for such grave misrepresentations. I was surprised to see that the whole committee is being punished, though, and not just the official who misrepresented the state of knowledge. Maybe, as some other commenters have noted, this is part of a ritual of condemnation at the first judicial level and absolution upon appeal to the second or third level.
  - engtech 14y ago
    Does anyone understand the title of Nature article? "Italy puts seismology in the dock" ? is it meant to be "in the dark" ?
    - arscan 14y ago
      It means to put on trial.
    - mikeash 14y ago
      "In the dock" means "on trial". http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/in+the+dock.html http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/in+the+dock.htm...
    - kirian 14y ago
      "in the dock" is an idiom meaning to be put on trial.
    - michaelhoffman 14y ago
      Definition of DOCK : the place in a criminal court where a prisoner stands or sits during trial — in the dock : on trial http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dock http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dock Commonly used in British/Commonwealth English, and Nature is based in London. I don't think I've ever heard it used in American English.
      - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
        "On the stand" would be the equivalent US idiom.
        michaelhoffman 14y ago
        Not really, because any witness goes on the stand, whether they are a party to the case or not. Saying someone is "on the stand" does not mean they are a criminal defendant. Only criminal defendants are in the dock.
- lbolla 14y ago
  This is way more complex than it might appear. Italian speakers can watch this movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rROgB5QMgHs&feature=player_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rROgB5QMgHs&feature=playe... It shows a telephone conversation between the chief of "Protezione Civile" (responsible to react and intervene in case of catastrophes) Guido Bertolaso and a politician in the region where the earthquake happened, Daniela Stati. Bertolaso first tells Stati that they did badly by saying the media that they didn't expect more earthquakes (as they did the day before, after a small shake that did no damage). Bertolaso added that he would fix this error with the media and send the most important scientists he knows to "quiet down" the population, upset by the previous message and by the continuous shakes. The accusation is that scientists didn't actually report what they knew, but they went in front of the media to "quiet" down the population. Unfortunately, the day after the big earthquake happened and 309 people died.
alpatters 14y ago
presumably the result of the quake would have been the same if the scientists didn't give a reassuring message? And now they are in jail, if another quake strikes, the same will happen again. Surely it is better that scientists are at least trying to predict the quakes, even if they get it wrong sometimes?
- lbolla 14y ago
  They are not in jail, and I bet they will never go to jail. I say this because, as Italian, I've seen way too many processes ended in first degree with a condemnation, and later on, in the second and third grade, ended with an absolution.
- p0ckets 14y ago
  The result wouldn't have been same according to testimony from the article: some people that would've fled due to the tremors stayed due to the reassurances.
kitsune_ 14y ago
I can wholeheartedly recommend a documentary called Draquila – L'Italia che trema [1] about the L'Aquila earthquake. As many of my Italian friends tell me, Italy is an absolutely corrupt shit hole. I remember a scene where they showed recordings of civil protection officials gloating about the disaster on the phone, right after it happened. They talked about the opportunity to make money [2]. The head of the national civil protection service is / was notorious in his blatant abuse of emergency powers to give government contracts (construction) without oversight to his crooked friends. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draquila_%E2%80%93_LItalia_che_trema http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draquila_%E2%80%93_LItalia_che_... [2] At the end of the trailer: http://www.universalsubtitles.org/en/videos/lTyjwBhD9HOI/en/250371/ http://www.universalsubtitles.org/en/videos/lTyjwBhD9HOI/en/...
- Anon84 14y ago
  The italians on HN might find this interesting: http://evasori.info/ http://evasori.info/ it aims to crowd source tax evasion in Italy. Their mobile app has recently won an award: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=d4Yek0_xfM0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=... (Disclaimer: I've worked directly with several of the people involved.)
  - ninguem2 14y ago
    I gather from the website that this app is trying to discourage tax evasion by exposing evaders. Your sentence "it aims to crowd source tax evasion in Italy" gives the wrong impression.
    - Anon84 14y ago
      Sorry that's what I meant. It should be "crowd source tax evasion detection" :-)
- rmc 14y ago
  Italy is an absolutely corrupt shit hole. I remember a scene where they showed recordings of civil protection officials gloating about the disaster on the phone, right after it happened. They talked about the opportunity to make money Just as another data point, lots of countries have corrupt and self-centred politicians. A spin doctor the UK government, on September 11th 2001, between when the towers were hit and when the fell, wrote an email to their staff saying "It's now a very good day to get out anything we want to bury. Councillors' expenses?" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Moore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Moore ). You'll always get slimey politicians who will see oppertunity in tragedy.
ABS 14y ago
"It was not immediately known if they planned to appeal." of course they do, it's on many Italian media. And in Italy there is a 3-tier system, this was only the first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_Italy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_Italy
ChristianMarks 14y ago
That will teach those smug seismologists. </jk>
- krapp 14y ago
  let's burn down the observatory so this never happens again!
  - nazgulnarsil 14y ago
    this is the absolute best quote to sum up this situation.
ramses 14y ago
Unbelievable. At first I assumed that the scientists must have been out drinking, or must have made up the data ... but, no, they simply gave the best prediction they could, as they should. I guess that forecasters of quakes and weather in Italy now have two alternatives: always claim a disaster is upon them, or move to a country where judges understand statistics.
- at-fates-hands 14y ago
  Agreed. It's a no win situation. Where I live now, the local sports talk radio hosts always blast the weather guys when they forecast doom and gloom with an incoming snow storm, regardless of how much snow we get. Maybe it's just the "we're tough" Scandinavian culture, but they really make a mockery of the forecasts as always being overblown and sensationalist before anything happens.
- lbolla 14y ago
  Don't be so naive! Scientists are not bound by some force of Nature to tell the truth. The accusation is exactly that they didn't tell all they knew about the earthquake, but they hold back the information in order to "quiet down" the population. Obviously, I don't know if the accusations are true or false, but, knowing Italy, where "famous" scientists are usually very close to politicians, it would not surprise me at all.
headShrinker 14y ago
While it's up to scientist to use the best science available. No where to they say scientists are responsible for outcomes. If the failure is based on the best science then what is needed is better science. Ultimately, the failure is on the journalists and news organizations who choose to broadcast the words of the scientists. They have their rapport with the public and have responsibility to uphold their journalistic integrity. What is really at fault here is editorial review of the news organizations. Period. Anyone can say anything, but it is the news corporations that broadcast the message.
wisty 14y ago
Predicting an earthquake is predicting when a bent wooden ruler will snap. Sometimes it creaks before it snaps. Sometimes it creaks, and doesn't snap. Sometimes it just snaps. The way to prevent deaths from earthquakes is to ensure buildings can survive them. Modern buildings collapsed in the quake. I wonder if they were built to standard, or if a few corners were cut?
- eddanger 14y ago
  If the bender neglected to tell the observers to wear eye protection and the unthinkable happened, they should be held accountable. A ruler in the eye is no way to start a Monday.
  - lifeformed 14y ago
    The bender is nature; the scientists are the observers.
  - weaksauce 14y ago
    That is ridiculous. Any reasonably intelligent person knows that the science of predicting earthquakes is terrible. If you are smart you would take reasonable precautions to something like that. You live in an non-reinforced brick house from the 1500's and you feel a tremor; maybe it's time to get out of town for a while. The scientists didn't do the bending.
  - wisty 14y ago
    I bet the scientists were recommending appropriate building codes, which weren't being correctly implemented.
patio11 14y ago
This is crazy, but I'll note that it isn't a peculiarly Italian form of crazy. People rush to find scapegoats after every disaster. In the future, consider being as skeptical of those accusations as you were when people accused folks you identify with, like scientists.
- ecliptic 14y ago
  >People rush to find scapegoats after every disaster They have had ample time regain their composure, this happened in 2009.
  - mechanical_fish 14y ago
    The tragic fact about scapegoating is that once a community has chosen a scapegoat it is very hard for it to "regain its composure." Who will be the first to defend the scapegoat? There are big disincentives. You risk being grouped with the scapegoat and suffering the same fate. You risk becoming the new scapegoat. You risk reprisals from the folks who are hiding in shadows while the spotlight follows the scapegoat. And it probably won't even help. Once a person has chosen an opinion, they tend to defend it, and this applies tenfold to a group. (This plays out in social media every day.) Changing a mob's opinion is hard. Time doesn't necessarily help. There are scapegoats that are centuries old. The social dynamics favor letting the scapegoat take the fall. That's why scapegoating is so common that we have an ancient name for the practice, even though almost everyone would agree that it's immoral.
    - trhtrsh 14y ago
      Everything you say is politically true, but the reason we have judges and juries (in the US anyway, I don't know how Italy works) is that they are in a position to stop the BS.
      - rmc 14y ago
        the reason we have judges and juries (in the US anyway, I don't know how Italy works) I assure you that Italy has judges and juries and a modern judicial system. This isn't some teeny tribe of Amazonian warriers here, this is a large country.
nsxwolf 14y ago
Lesson learned: Don't be an Italian scientist.
- benmanns 14y ago
  Or, if you are, predict catastrophe 100% of the time.
louischatriot 14y ago
I can't find words strong enough to say how stupid this is. As wisty said, the good way is to build quake-proof buildings. Of course, that means fighting the Mafia which controls construction work in this part of the country, which takes more guts than judging 6 scientists.
kevinalexbrown 14y ago
This is an extremely important case, in that it underlies a central concern in scientific reporting, and it threatens to change the risks associated with scientific innovation and communication. For instance, if scientists at a pharmaceutical company issue unfounded assurances that a drug is safer than it is in truth, consumers might have a reasonable case. On the other hand, predicting earthquakes is so difficult, even if the scientists had mistakenly suggested that there was no reason to suspect an imminent quake, I find it hard to find justification for a 6 year prison sentence, in addition to damages. But beyond that, it seems the scientists offered no such assurances at the meeting in question. To quote the Nature article (perhaps biased in favor of the scientists): The minutes of the 31 March meeting, though, reveal that at no point did any of the scientists say that there was "no danger" of a big quake. "A major earthquake in the area is unlikely but cannot be ruled out," Boschi said. Selvaggi is quoted as saying that "in recent times some recent earthquakes have been preceded by minor shocks days or weeks beforehand, but on the other hand many seismic swarms did not result in a major event". Eva added that "because L'Aquila is in a high-risk zone it is impossible to say with certainty that there will be no large earthquake". Summing up the meeting, Barberi said, "there is no reason to believe that a swarm of minor events is a sure predictor of a major shock". All the participants agreed that buildings in the area should be monitored urgently, to assess their capacity to sustain a major shock. To continue the analogy with medicine, it seems similar to a group of scientists suggesting that a particular course of treatment is likely safe, then receiving blame when the treatment goes awry. But blaming medical researchers, or earthquake scientists, could discourage innovative new treatments. As one final point, I'd point out that the occurrence of an earthquake does not disprove the scientists: the likelihood of an earthquake given the data could still have been small, just non-zero. If medical researchers were held accountable for every death resulting from heart transplants gone wrong, we'd never have the overall benefit they provide.
- stmartin 14y ago
  What do you think is an appropriate punishment, if any, for a scientific/governmental body that exercises authority over people, particularly in instances of fear due to natural disasters, when it makes statements that have people stay in their homes even though the natural disaster happens anyway?
fatjokes 14y ago
I haven't been this scared of stupidity since I watched Here Comes Honey Boo Boo.
zerostar07 14y ago
As much as i'd like to keep the scientists accountable for their work, seriously, letting people live in medieval apartments in a city with such history of earthquake disasters was the real crime.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
nollidge 14y ago
Why weren't any psychics sued?
tgb 14y ago
Risk prediction is about minimizing expected risk, which does not exactly correspond to the eventual damage done. This means that there will be times when they are wrong. If we punish risk predictors this harshly for being wrong, no one will want to take this job up since it basically guarantees eventually being convicted of manslaughter. But without such people we have no hope of ever mitigating such disasters. This ruling scares me.
arjn 14y ago
I'm stunned. I hope other countries are not stupid enough to follow Italy down this ridiculous path. Can the EU intercede and do something here ?
ck2 14y ago
Why stop there - why not put "God" on trial and call in the church to do defense?
- autodidakto 14y ago
  Close enough: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- atopuzov 14y ago
  Or at least the Pope and the Vatican ;) They sure do have a lot of earthly possessions to be taken.
run4yourlives 14y ago
Sweet. Now I can sue the weatherman the next time I get caught in the rain. Personally, I'm not surprised at this stupidity. I also won't be surprised if from now on every single report offered suggests that an earthquake will occur tomorrow, making the entire exercise meaningless and probably costing lives in the future.
- conradfr 14y ago
  It happened two times against "Météo France" (French national meteorological service) by an insurance company in 1996 and winegrowers / farmers in 1999 but it has been dismissed in each cases.
purephase 14y ago
While I have to believe that this will die through appeals, the long-term implications are enormous. As nxswolf points out, it not only will scare off future scientists interested in working in Italy, but any official/expert tasked with preventing tragedies. The fallout is that, with each possibility, worst-case scenarios will be the norm to avoid culpability over reasoned approach. Not to say that worst-case should not be considered, but dialling up to 11 is never an appropriate public response. Finally, today it is seismologists, tomorrow it could easily be network security folks, application engineers, CTO/CSO's etc. Basically, any situation where the sum-total parts are so large and multi-faceted that no one person/agency could be seen as the expert. Terrible tragedy, terrible fallout. The optimist in me hopes that this is dropped at the next appeal.
mammalfriend 14y ago
The amazing Italian legal system strikes again...
HerrMonnezza 14y ago
A blog post [0] about a month ago explains better why they are on trial: The prosecution’s closing arguments [...] made it clear that the scientists are not accused of failing to predict the earthquake. “Even six-year old kids know that earthquakes can not be predicted,” he said. “The goal of the meeting was very different: the scientists were supposed to evaluate whether the seismic sequence could be considered a precursor event, to assess what damages had already happened at that point, to discuss how to mitigate risks.” Picuti said the panel members did not fulfill these commitments, and that their risk analysis was “flawed, inadequate, negligent and deceptive”, resulting in wrong information being given to citizens. [0]: http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/09/porsecution-asks-for-four-year-sentence-in-italian-seismology-trial.html http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/09/porsecution-asks-for-fo... So the whole thing looks more subtle (and sensible) than many news headlines report...
- rm999 14y ago
  Interesting. As I would expect, seismologists unrelated to the case disagree with the ruling: >"It's too easy to predict an earthquake after the fact and say everyone should have cleared out, but beforehand people, for good reason, thought the risk was low," said John Vidale, a University of Washington seismologist. In fact, Vidale said, the scientists' statements that the quake was unlikely were true. "There was a very small chance of that earthquake," Vidale told LiveScience. "It didn't make sense for people to evacuate." http://www.livescience.com/24173-laquila-earthquake-manslaughter-verdict-condemned.html http://www.livescience.com/24173-laquila-earthquake-manslaug...
- monochromatic 14y ago
  > the whole thing looks more subtle (and sensible) than many news headlines report This is so often the case...
- Uchikoma 14y ago
  What you quote says: 1. "They were not accused of failing to predict the earthquake" 2. "whether the seismic sequence could be considered a precursor event"
izietto 14y ago
The sentence is in "first grade" (in Italy there are 3 grades of sentence and the third is definitive), so things can change in the other grades, and probably will, because this sentence caused an uproar here in Italy.
alphadogg 14y ago
Part of the contributing evidence was that the Italian scientists individually weighed as much as a duck. It was pretty much a slam dunk for the prosecution after that.
mechnik 14y ago
I wish the convicted a speedy and successful appeal and hope they take comfort in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8yEnu9_SGc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8yEnu9_SGc
terraretta 14y ago
I, for one, applaud this ruling. There's no reason why scientists should be above the law. It's funny how often they complain of not being taken seriously enough, but then when they are, and something bad happens as a result, they're quick to deny responsibility. Are seismologists serious scientists? If they are, they must accept the consequences. If not, we don't need them. It's as simple as that.
napolux 14y ago
Well, the sentence is not really about "earthquake prediction", but about the fact that some hours before the big earthquake alarms from the INGV (the italian institute for earthquake monitoring, one of the best in the world) were ignored. Of course nobody can predict earthquakes, but in L'Aquila's quake there were strong evidence of "something happening", and they were ignored: that's why they were found guilty. P.s. I'm from Italy
- Uchikoma 14y ago
  Any sources for the "INGV" alarms and the "strong evidence" and that they "were ignored"? Because the other sources say that there were small shocks before and the scientists consciously decided based on what they know that this does not make an earthquake more likely.
smogzer 14y ago
If the data (plots, spectograms, etc) was made public on realtime the opinions/warnings would be issued by independent scientists or ordinary people or algorithms that would issue the chance of something happening and nobody would get punished. RAW DATA NOW.
Mordor 14y ago
I know this position disagrees with what everyone's saying but here it is: - scientists need to be held accountable in a court of law - safety must always come first - evacuation, while seemingly over the top, should be a way of life in an earthquake zone. Who survived 9/11? Those who evacuated regardless of the risks and advice given at the time.
mahesh_rm 14y ago
We live in a land where silence is king Whispers have all disappeared Cry for an echo, you won't hear a thing Silence is king around here Silence is king around here Desperate measures come from desperate times I don't regret what I have done If my actions made you speak your mind Angry words are better than none I am Italian. Sense does not understand how things work around here, Poetry does. Galileo could have been jailed 2 years ago. As a fledgling phd entrepreneur, at 28, I am leaving Italy.
hannes0x21 14y ago
Well, sure thing, noone can predict earthquakes. But the same is true for claiming that there won't be one. Prior to the earthquake on April 6th, 2009, there have been several smaller ones. On March 30th, there was a quake with a magnitude of 4.1. People were really concerned that something was about to happen shortly. So the day after these scientists claimed, that there won't be an earthquake in the near future. This was surely to calm the public. However, they were wrong. And according to the court, they didn't make their point clear enough, that they are basically unable to make such predictions. Although I don't follow the sentence, I somehow get the judge's point. More info here [german]: http://podcast-mp3.dradio.de/podcast/2012/10/22/dlf_20121022_1637_85aec7ff.mp3 http://podcast-mp3.dradio.de/podcast/2012/10/22/dlf_20121022...
89a 14y ago
> Specialists wrongly predict something > Charge them for manslaughter > Suddenly no one wants to be a specialist > Don't get any predictions good or bad at all anymore
godDLL 14y ago
Stakes are raised? > If the scientific community is to be penalised for making predictions that turn out to be incorrect, or for not accurately predicting an event that subsequently occurs, then scientific endeavour will be restricted to certainties only and the benefits that are associated with findings from medicine to physics will be stalled." May work as a fraud deterrent too. May.

237 points by The_Fox 14y ago

previous discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2585962 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2585962

tisme 14y ago

Scapegoating at its best. Really, what a disgrace this is. Scientists are already loathe to communicate directly with the general public for fear of misunderstanding of carefully chosen words. This kind of farce will cause a rift that will take a long time to heal. If ever. What's next? Putting the Earth on trial for manslaughter?

jpwagner 14y ago

This is unbelievable. Is there anywhere to find all of the facts? This article doesn't give background info. It took some digging to find that indeed the scientists had given a reassuring statement, though it had an expected but-we-cant-be-sure admonition, beforehand.

mturmon 14y ago
Here is a story with a good background on the events. It's more complex than you would guess: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100622/full/465992a.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100622/full/465992a.html In particular, at least one member of the civil defense bureaucracy went out of his way to say there was a consensus that there was no danger (even though there was not such a strong consensus): "Immediately after that meeting, De Bernardinis and Barberi, acting president of the committee, held a press conference in L'Aquila, where De Bernardinis told reporters that "the scientific community tells us there is no danger, because there is an ongoing discharge of energy. The situation looks favorable". No other members of the committee were at the press conference." There should be consequences for such grave misrepresentations. I was surprised to see that the whole committee is being punished, though, and not just the official who misrepresented the state of knowledge. Maybe, as some other commenters have noted, this is part of a ritual of condemnation at the first judicial level and absolution upon appeal to the second or third level.
- engtech 14y ago
  Does anyone understand the title of Nature article? "Italy puts seismology in the dock" ? is it meant to be "in the dark" ?
  - arscan 14y ago
    It means to put on trial.
  - mikeash 14y ago
    "In the dock" means "on trial". http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/in+the+dock.html http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/in+the+dock.htm...
  - kirian 14y ago
    "in the dock" is an idiom meaning to be put on trial.
  - michaelhoffman 14y ago
    Definition of DOCK : the place in a criminal court where a prisoner stands or sits during trial — in the dock : on trial http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dock http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dock Commonly used in British/Commonwealth English, and Nature is based in London. I don't think I've ever heard it used in American English.
    - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
      "On the stand" would be the equivalent US idiom.
      - michaelhoffman 14y ago
        Not really, because any witness goes on the stand, whether they are a party to the case or not. Saying someone is "on the stand" does not mean they are a criminal defendant. Only criminal defendants are in the dock.
lbolla 14y ago
This is way more complex than it might appear. Italian speakers can watch this movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rROgB5QMgHs&feature=player_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rROgB5QMgHs&feature=playe... It shows a telephone conversation between the chief of "Protezione Civile" (responsible to react and intervene in case of catastrophes) Guido Bertolaso and a politician in the region where the earthquake happened, Daniela Stati. Bertolaso first tells Stati that they did badly by saying the media that they didn't expect more earthquakes (as they did the day before, after a small shake that did no damage). Bertolaso added that he would fix this error with the media and send the most important scientists he knows to "quiet down" the population, upset by the previous message and by the continuous shakes. The accusation is that scientists didn't actually report what they knew, but they went in front of the media to "quiet" down the population. Unfortunately, the day after the big earthquake happened and 309 people died.

alpatters 14y ago

presumably the result of the quake would have been the same if the scientists didn't give a reassuring message? And now they are in jail, if another quake strikes, the same will happen again. Surely it is better that scientists are at least trying to predict the quakes, even if they get it wrong sometimes?

lbolla 14y ago
They are not in jail, and I bet they will never go to jail. I say this because, as Italian, I've seen way too many processes ended in first degree with a condemnation, and later on, in the second and third grade, ended with an absolution.
p0ckets 14y ago
The result wouldn't have been same according to testimony from the article: some people that would've fled due to the tremors stayed due to the reassurances.

kitsune_ 14y ago

I can wholeheartedly recommend a documentary called Draquila – L'Italia che trema [1] about the L'Aquila earthquake. As many of my Italian friends tell me, Italy is an absolutely corrupt shit hole. I remember a scene where they showed recordings of civil protection officials gloating about the disaster on the phone, right after it happened. They talked about the opportunity to make money [2]. The head of the national civil protection service is / was notorious in his blatant abuse of emergency powers to give government contracts (construction) without oversight to his crooked friends. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draquila_%E2%80%93_LItalia_che_trema http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draquila_%E2%80%93_LItalia_che_... [2] At the end of the trailer: http://www.universalsubtitles.org/en/videos/lTyjwBhD9HOI/en/250371/ http://www.universalsubtitles.org/en/videos/lTyjwBhD9HOI/en/...

Anon84 14y ago
The italians on HN might find this interesting: http://evasori.info/ http://evasori.info/ it aims to crowd source tax evasion in Italy. Their mobile app has recently won an award: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=d4Yek0_xfM0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=... (Disclaimer: I've worked directly with several of the people involved.)
- ninguem2 14y ago
  I gather from the website that this app is trying to discourage tax evasion by exposing evaders. Your sentence "it aims to crowd source tax evasion in Italy" gives the wrong impression.
  - Anon84 14y ago
    Sorry that's what I meant. It should be "crowd source tax evasion detection" :-)
rmc 14y ago
Italy is an absolutely corrupt shit hole. I remember a scene where they showed recordings of civil protection officials gloating about the disaster on the phone, right after it happened. They talked about the opportunity to make money Just as another data point, lots of countries have corrupt and self-centred politicians. A spin doctor the UK government, on September 11th 2001, between when the towers were hit and when the fell, wrote an email to their staff saying "It's now a very good day to get out anything we want to bury. Councillors' expenses?" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Moore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Moore ). You'll always get slimey politicians who will see oppertunity in tragedy.

ABS 14y ago

"It was not immediately known if they planned to appeal." of course they do, it's on many Italian media. And in Italy there is a 3-tier system, this was only the first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_Italy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_Italy

ChristianMarks 14y ago

That will teach those smug seismologists. </jk>

krapp 14y ago
let's burn down the observatory so this never happens again!
- nazgulnarsil 14y ago
  this is the absolute best quote to sum up this situation.

ramses 14y ago

Unbelievable. At first I assumed that the scientists must have been out drinking, or must have made up the data ... but, no, they simply gave the best prediction they could, as they should. I guess that forecasters of quakes and weather in Italy now have two alternatives: always claim a disaster is upon them, or move to a country where judges understand statistics.

at-fates-hands 14y ago
Agreed. It's a no win situation. Where I live now, the local sports talk radio hosts always blast the weather guys when they forecast doom and gloom with an incoming snow storm, regardless of how much snow we get. Maybe it's just the "we're tough" Scandinavian culture, but they really make a mockery of the forecasts as always being overblown and sensationalist before anything happens.
lbolla 14y ago
Don't be so naive! Scientists are not bound by some force of Nature to tell the truth. The accusation is exactly that they didn't tell all they knew about the earthquake, but they hold back the information in order to "quiet down" the population. Obviously, I don't know if the accusations are true or false, but, knowing Italy, where "famous" scientists are usually very close to politicians, it would not surprise me at all.

headShrinker 14y ago

While it's up to scientist to use the best science available. No where to they say scientists are responsible for outcomes. If the failure is based on the best science then what is needed is better science. Ultimately, the failure is on the journalists and news organizations who choose to broadcast the words of the scientists. They have their rapport with the public and have responsibility to uphold their journalistic integrity. What is really at fault here is editorial review of the news organizations. Period. Anyone can say anything, but it is the news corporations that broadcast the message.

wisty 14y ago

Predicting an earthquake is predicting when a bent wooden ruler will snap. Sometimes it creaks before it snaps. Sometimes it creaks, and doesn't snap. Sometimes it just snaps. The way to prevent deaths from earthquakes is to ensure buildings can survive them. Modern buildings collapsed in the quake. I wonder if they were built to standard, or if a few corners were cut?

eddanger 14y ago
If the bender neglected to tell the observers to wear eye protection and the unthinkable happened, they should be held accountable. A ruler in the eye is no way to start a Monday.
- lifeformed 14y ago
  The bender is nature; the scientists are the observers.
- weaksauce 14y ago
  That is ridiculous. Any reasonably intelligent person knows that the science of predicting earthquakes is terrible. If you are smart you would take reasonable precautions to something like that. You live in an non-reinforced brick house from the 1500's and you feel a tremor; maybe it's time to get out of town for a while. The scientists didn't do the bending.
- wisty 14y ago
  I bet the scientists were recommending appropriate building codes, which weren't being correctly implemented.

patio11 14y ago

This is crazy, but I'll note that it isn't a peculiarly Italian form of crazy. People rush to find scapegoats after every disaster. In the future, consider being as skeptical of those accusations as you were when people accused folks you identify with, like scientists.

ecliptic 14y ago
>People rush to find scapegoats after every disaster They have had ample time regain their composure, this happened in 2009.
- mechanical_fish 14y ago
  The tragic fact about scapegoating is that once a community has chosen a scapegoat it is very hard for it to "regain its composure." Who will be the first to defend the scapegoat? There are big disincentives. You risk being grouped with the scapegoat and suffering the same fate. You risk becoming the new scapegoat. You risk reprisals from the folks who are hiding in shadows while the spotlight follows the scapegoat. And it probably won't even help. Once a person has chosen an opinion, they tend to defend it, and this applies tenfold to a group. (This plays out in social media every day.) Changing a mob's opinion is hard. Time doesn't necessarily help. There are scapegoats that are centuries old. The social dynamics favor letting the scapegoat take the fall. That's why scapegoating is so common that we have an ancient name for the practice, even though almost everyone would agree that it's immoral.
  - trhtrsh 14y ago
    Everything you say is politically true, but the reason we have judges and juries (in the US anyway, I don't know how Italy works) is that they are in a position to stop the BS.
    - rmc 14y ago
      the reason we have judges and juries (in the US anyway, I don't know how Italy works) I assure you that Italy has judges and juries and a modern judicial system. This isn't some teeny tribe of Amazonian warriers here, this is a large country.

nsxwolf 14y ago

Lesson learned: Don't be an Italian scientist.

benmanns 14y ago
Or, if you are, predict catastrophe 100% of the time.

louischatriot 14y ago

I can't find words strong enough to say how stupid this is. As wisty said, the good way is to build quake-proof buildings. Of course, that means fighting the Mafia which controls construction work in this part of the country, which takes more guts than judging 6 scientists.

kevinalexbrown 14y ago

This is an extremely important case, in that it underlies a central concern in scientific reporting, and it threatens to change the risks associated with scientific innovation and communication. For instance, if scientists at a pharmaceutical company issue unfounded assurances that a drug is safer than it is in truth, consumers might have a reasonable case. On the other hand, predicting earthquakes is so difficult, even if the scientists had mistakenly suggested that there was no reason to suspect an imminent quake, I find it hard to find justification for a 6 year prison sentence, in addition to damages. But beyond that, it seems the scientists offered no such assurances at the meeting in question. To quote the Nature article (perhaps biased in favor of the scientists): The minutes of the 31 March meeting, though, reveal that at no point did any of the scientists say that there was "no danger" of a big quake. "A major earthquake in the area is unlikely but cannot be ruled out," Boschi said. Selvaggi is quoted as saying that "in recent times some recent earthquakes have been preceded by minor shocks days or weeks beforehand, but on the other hand many seismic swarms did not result in a major event". Eva added that "because L'Aquila is in a high-risk zone it is impossible to say with certainty that there will be no large earthquake". Summing up the meeting, Barberi said, "there is no reason to believe that a swarm of minor events is a sure predictor of a major shock". All the participants agreed that buildings in the area should be monitored urgently, to assess their capacity to sustain a major shock. To continue the analogy with medicine, it seems similar to a group of scientists suggesting that a particular course of treatment is likely safe, then receiving blame when the treatment goes awry. But blaming medical researchers, or earthquake scientists, could discourage innovative new treatments. As one final point, I'd point out that the occurrence of an earthquake does not disprove the scientists: the likelihood of an earthquake given the data could still have been small, just non-zero. If medical researchers were held accountable for every death resulting from heart transplants gone wrong, we'd never have the overall benefit they provide.

stmartin 14y ago
What do you think is an appropriate punishment, if any, for a scientific/governmental body that exercises authority over people, particularly in instances of fear due to natural disasters, when it makes statements that have people stay in their homes even though the natural disaster happens anyway?

fatjokes 14y ago

I haven't been this scared of stupidity since I watched Here Comes Honey Boo Boo.

zerostar07 14y ago

As much as i'd like to keep the scientists accountable for their work, seriously, letting people live in medieval apartments in a city with such history of earthquake disasters was the real crime.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

nollidge 14y ago

Why weren't any psychics sued?

tgb 14y ago

Risk prediction is about minimizing expected risk, which does not exactly correspond to the eventual damage done. This means that there will be times when they are wrong. If we punish risk predictors this harshly for being wrong, no one will want to take this job up since it basically guarantees eventually being convicted of manslaughter. But without such people we have no hope of ever mitigating such disasters. This ruling scares me.

arjn 14y ago

I'm stunned. I hope other countries are not stupid enough to follow Italy down this ridiculous path. Can the EU intercede and do something here ?

ck2 14y ago

Why stop there - why not put "God" on trial and call in the church to do defense?

autodidakto 14y ago
Close enough: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
atopuzov 14y ago
Or at least the Pope and the Vatican ;) They sure do have a lot of earthly possessions to be taken.

run4yourlives 14y ago

Sweet. Now I can sue the weatherman the next time I get caught in the rain. Personally, I'm not surprised at this stupidity. I also won't be surprised if from now on every single report offered suggests that an earthquake will occur tomorrow, making the entire exercise meaningless and probably costing lives in the future.

conradfr 14y ago
It happened two times against "Météo France" (French national meteorological service) by an insurance company in 1996 and winegrowers / farmers in 1999 but it has been dismissed in each cases.

purephase 14y ago

While I have to believe that this will die through appeals, the long-term implications are enormous. As nxswolf points out, it not only will scare off future scientists interested in working in Italy, but any official/expert tasked with preventing tragedies. The fallout is that, with each possibility, worst-case scenarios will be the norm to avoid culpability over reasoned approach. Not to say that worst-case should not be considered, but dialling up to 11 is never an appropriate public response. Finally, today it is seismologists, tomorrow it could easily be network security folks, application engineers, CTO/CSO's etc. Basically, any situation where the sum-total parts are so large and multi-faceted that no one person/agency could be seen as the expert. Terrible tragedy, terrible fallout. The optimist in me hopes that this is dropped at the next appeal.

mammalfriend 14y ago

The amazing Italian legal system strikes again...

HerrMonnezza 14y ago

A blog post [0] about a month ago explains better why they are on trial: The prosecution’s closing arguments [...] made it clear that the scientists are not accused of failing to predict the earthquake. “Even six-year old kids know that earthquakes can not be predicted,” he said. “The goal of the meeting was very different: the scientists were supposed to evaluate whether the seismic sequence could be considered a precursor event, to assess what damages had already happened at that point, to discuss how to mitigate risks.” Picuti said the panel members did not fulfill these commitments, and that their risk analysis was “flawed, inadequate, negligent and deceptive”, resulting in wrong information being given to citizens. [0]: http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/09/porsecution-asks-for-four-year-sentence-in-italian-seismology-trial.html http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/09/porsecution-asks-for-fo... So the whole thing looks more subtle (and sensible) than many news headlines report...

rm999 14y ago
Interesting. As I would expect, seismologists unrelated to the case disagree with the ruling: >"It's too easy to predict an earthquake after the fact and say everyone should have cleared out, but beforehand people, for good reason, thought the risk was low," said John Vidale, a University of Washington seismologist. In fact, Vidale said, the scientists' statements that the quake was unlikely were true. "There was a very small chance of that earthquake," Vidale told LiveScience. "It didn't make sense for people to evacuate." http://www.livescience.com/24173-laquila-earthquake-manslaughter-verdict-condemned.html http://www.livescience.com/24173-laquila-earthquake-manslaug...
monochromatic 14y ago
> the whole thing looks more subtle (and sensible) than many news headlines report This is so often the case...
Uchikoma 14y ago
What you quote says: 1. "They were not accused of failing to predict the earthquake" 2. "whether the seismic sequence could be considered a precursor event"

izietto 14y ago

The sentence is in "first grade" (in Italy there are 3 grades of sentence and the third is definitive), so things can change in the other grades, and probably will, because this sentence caused an uproar here in Italy.

alphadogg 14y ago

Part of the contributing evidence was that the Italian scientists individually weighed as much as a duck. It was pretty much a slam dunk for the prosecution after that.

mechnik 14y ago

I wish the convicted a speedy and successful appeal and hope they take comfort in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8yEnu9_SGc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8yEnu9_SGc

terraretta 14y ago

I, for one, applaud this ruling. There's no reason why scientists should be above the law. It's funny how often they complain of not being taken seriously enough, but then when they are, and something bad happens as a result, they're quick to deny responsibility. Are seismologists serious scientists? If they are, they must accept the consequences. If not, we don't need them. It's as simple as that.

napolux 14y ago

Well, the sentence is not really about "earthquake prediction", but about the fact that some hours before the big earthquake alarms from the INGV (the italian institute for earthquake monitoring, one of the best in the world) were ignored. Of course nobody can predict earthquakes, but in L'Aquila's quake there were strong evidence of "something happening", and they were ignored: that's why they were found guilty. P.s. I'm from Italy

Uchikoma 14y ago
Any sources for the "INGV" alarms and the "strong evidence" and that they "were ignored"? Because the other sources say that there were small shocks before and the scientists consciously decided based on what they know that this does not make an earthquake more likely.

smogzer 14y ago

If the data (plots, spectograms, etc) was made public on realtime the opinions/warnings would be issued by independent scientists or ordinary people or algorithms that would issue the chance of something happening and nobody would get punished. RAW DATA NOW.

Mordor 14y ago

I know this position disagrees with what everyone's saying but here it is: - scientists need to be held accountable in a court of law - safety must always come first - evacuation, while seemingly over the top, should be a way of life in an earthquake zone. Who survived 9/11? Those who evacuated regardless of the risks and advice given at the time.

mahesh_rm 14y ago

We live in a land where silence is king Whispers have all disappeared Cry for an echo, you won't hear a thing Silence is king around here Silence is king around here Desperate measures come from desperate times I don't regret what I have done If my actions made you speak your mind Angry words are better than none I am Italian. Sense does not understand how things work around here, Poetry does. Galileo could have been jailed 2 years ago. As a fledgling phd entrepreneur, at 28, I am leaving Italy.

hannes0x21 14y ago

Well, sure thing, noone can predict earthquakes. But the same is true for claiming that there won't be one. Prior to the earthquake on April 6th, 2009, there have been several smaller ones. On March 30th, there was a quake with a magnitude of 4.1. People were really concerned that something was about to happen shortly. So the day after these scientists claimed, that there won't be an earthquake in the near future. This was surely to calm the public. However, they were wrong. And according to the court, they didn't make their point clear enough, that they are basically unable to make such predictions. Although I don't follow the sentence, I somehow get the judge's point. More info here [german]: http://podcast-mp3.dradio.de/podcast/2012/10/22/dlf_20121022_1637_85aec7ff.mp3 http://podcast-mp3.dradio.de/podcast/2012/10/22/dlf_20121022...

89a 14y ago

> Specialists wrongly predict something > Charge them for manslaughter > Suddenly no one wants to be a specialist > Don't get any predictions good or bad at all anymore

godDLL 14y ago

Stakes are raised? > If the scientific community is to be penalised for making predictions that turn out to be incorrect, or for not accurately predicting an event that subsequently occurs, then scientific endeavour will be restricted to certainties only and the benefits that are associated with findings from medicine to physics will be stalled." May work as a fraud deterrent too. May.