New earthquake risks
Earthquake forecasting (for everyone except Ken Ring) is difficult, and the accuracy of forecasts (for everyone, including Ken Ring) is low. Even for relatively predictable faults such as NZ’s Alpine Fault, the margin of error is in decades.
The Italian government has just taken steps to make earthquake forecasting even less accurate. Six scientists and a government official who failed to forecast that a set of small tremors near Aquila were forerunners of a big, deadly, quake have been sentenced to six years in prison for manslaughter. (Herald, Stuff). They are still planning an appeal (and the Stuff headline is wrong) but the courts do not appear to be friendly to the concept of uncertainty.
Thomas Lumley (@tslumley) is Professor of Biostatistics at the University of Auckland. His research interests include semiparametric models, survey sampling, statistical computing, foundations of statistics, and whatever methodological problems his medical collaborators come up with. He also blogs at Biased and Inefficient See all posts by Thomas Lumley »
A quick look at the Italian Wikipedia article on the earthquake suggests that the situation is a bit more complex than “scientists failed to predict quake” or “courts do not understand uncertainty”.
11 years ago
Some of the reporting has certainly suggested that the scientists predicted that an earthquake wouldn’t occur, which is less justifiable than if they had failed to forecast it.
For instance, the Guardian reports: But after an extraordinary meeting of the commission [National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks, of which the scientists were membeers] in L’Aquila, one of the experts told a press conference that the situation [400 tremors over four months] was “normal” and even “favourable” because potentially destructive energy was being released through the tremors. The prosecution, which brought charges of multiple manslaughter, maintained that lives could have been saved had people not been persuaded by the assurances to remain in the area
Whether or not that justifies a conviction is another matter.
11 years ago
This post in Scientific American describes the problem as “a judgment not against science, but against a failure of science communication”.
11 years ago
I’m not saying the scientists were blameless, but manslaughter seems to be a completely inappropriate conviction. Unless it’s very different from the definition in English-speaking countries (and it does have a similar set of penalties) it implies at least reckless disregard for the risks: not just that they should have known and said there was a risk, but that they basically didn’t care whether there was a risk.
Malpractice, I could see.
11 years ago
The Scientists were in a squabble with a man who predicted an earthquake was going to come. They didn’t like his methods. So, rather than report the science, they attempted to discredit their opponent.
They weren’t prosecuted for making a wrong scientific opinion. They were prosecuted for pretending to make one, when they were in fact engaging in a petty squabble of precedence.
If a person tells people that something is safe when they know it is not — say a mechanic with a car — they pretty much open themselves up for prosecution.
11 years ago
I’m not aware of any case of a car mechanic being prosecuted for manslaughter in that sort of situation. It certainly isn’t common practice.
I did say that I didn’t think they were blameless, but that I thought manslaughter was an inappropriate charge.
11 years ago