On Trial For Manslaughter For Failing to Predict Earthquake

Pretty much.. From your link:

The seven were on a committee tasked with assessing the risks of increased seismic activity in the area. At a press conference following a committee meeting a week before the earthquake, some members assured the public that they were in no danger. After the quake, many of the victims' relatives said that because of these reassurances they did not take precautionary measures, such as leaving their homes.​

Ie.. Their role and the reason the committee was set up was to advise the public. They told the public there was no danger and instead of educating the public on what to do in the event of an earthquake, they pretty much told them they had nothing to worry about. In fact, one member of the committe came out and said something that even the scientists on the board later disagreed with:

L'Aquila's public prosecutor, Fabio Picuti, argued last week that although the committee members could not have predicted the earthquake, they had translated their scientific uncertainty into an overly optimistic message. The prosecution has focused on a statement made at the press conference by accused committee member Bernardo De Bernardinis, who was then deputy technical head of Italy's Civil Protection Agency. "The scientific community tells me there is no danger," he said at the time, "because there is an ongoing discharge of energy. The situation looks favourable."

Many seismologists — including one of the accused, Enzo Boschi, president of the National Institute of Geophysics and Vulcanology in Rome — have since criticized the statement as scientifically unfounded. The statement does not appear in the minutes of the committee meeting itself, and the accused seismologists say they cannot be blamed for it. De Bernardinis's advocate insists that his client merely summarized what the scientists had told him. The prosecutor claims that because none of the other committee members immediately corrected De Bernardinis, they are all equally culpable.​

It is the last sentence that is the biggest concern. That because the scientists on the committee did not come out and correct him in public, they are now being charged. Had they corrected him, they would not have been.

What it comes down to is whether they (the scientists) should be held responsible or liable for the words that come out of another person's mouth and whether their failure to denounce him in public is tantamount to being "equally culpable".

To cut the media sensationalist crap surrounding this, they are not being tried for not predicting an earthquake. The scientists are being tried for remaining silent when a member of their committee (the non-scientist being charged along with them) came out and made a very false and misleading statement not based on scientific fact.

 

It's all very well to point to the Nature article, and make the point that "It's not my intention to put science on the block" (I forget what the exact words were).

But what will the unintended consequences be?

 

That such committees should not come out and make statements of fact on something they cannot actually be sure of?

What they essentially did was to tell the population that there was no risk, when it was clear that they could not make such a prediction. It is worth noting that other seismologists also disputed the non-scientific member of the committee's comments that it was just a constant discharge of energy and that there was no danger of an earthquake. In other words, the science did not support such a public statement.

They are not being charged with 'not predicting an earthquake'. They are being charged for telling the public that there was no risk of an earthquake and that they should stay home and enjoy a glass of wine.

In a seismically active area, you don't come out and say 'there's no chance of an earthquake'. We know the area is active as it had been suffering from tremors for months prior.

The crux of the accusation centers on a meeting of the Major Risks Commission six days before the earthquake struck. The consultation had been convened the day after several smaller quakes on March 30, including one of magnitude 4.1.

Prosecutors say that the message passed on to the public in a news conference after the meeting was one of reassurance that a major quake was not on the horizon, a charge that the defendants reject. ​

So what they did was to come out and tell the public there was no need to feel concerned as there was not going to be a major earthquake, with one member of the committee saying that it was just normal constant discharges of energy, so there was no risk.

Their defense lawyers are saying their comments to the public is scientifically neutral. Telling the public there was not going to be a bigger quake is not scientifically neutral. It's akin to telling someone they will never have a heart attack, stroke, car accident or cancer in their lifetime. You cannot make such a prediction either way. What people are told is to not take risks. So telling the public they could stay home and not worry because there's not going to be an earthquake is not, to me, scientifically neutral. The area is known for its seismic activity.

Instead of telling people to remain on alert. The committee tasked with accessing risks to the country told them there was no risk of an earthquake. So people took them at their word and stayed home without designating safe places as they had done in the past...

 

Only the committee didn't make the statement, did they, a non-specialist made the statement on behalf of the commitee. I imagine the actual conversation went along the lines of "Well, there's no scientific evidence to support the idea that these are part of a foreshock sequence, however there is a small probability they may lead to a larger one, however the most likly scenario is a continuous release of energy." Which the non specialist took to mean whatever he took to mean, and the press (let's not forget their role in this) interpreted as "There is no risk of an earthquake, it's just a continual discharge of energy".

This right here is part of the problem. What the representative said was, as far as we know, the most probable outcome. Foreshock sequences are not reliable indicators of large earthquakes.

I live in a Seismically active area and have studied Geology and Statistics, Bells. Not only that, but we recently had a Magnitude 6.3 earthquake that killed 189 people that was an aftershock of a larger quake last year that somehow didn't kill anybody (I live close enough that I felt both events* - the first one strongly enough to wake me up.

Just because the area is suffering from a sequence of minor shocks doesn't neccessarily imply that a big one is imminent. There is precisely ZERO SCIENCE to support the assertion that this should have been predicted.

Do you understand that saying "The statement there won't be a big one is scientifically inaccurate" in no way implies that a big one was any more likely than any other day of the week?

And what that means, or should have meant is that there is no more risk than normal seismically active areas experience clusters of earthquakes like that all the time.

It is scientifically neutral. While there may have been one or two success stories (eg Haicheng 1975, and some recurrent patterns on the East Pacific Rise - however the EPR displays different behaviour form that generally observed in a continental setting) these are the exceptions rather than the rules. Foreshock sequences in general have zero predictive value when it comes to anticipating large events.

The Earthquake in Haicheng in 1975 is the ONLY earthquake in recorded history that has successfully been predicted. And the very next earthquake in the area (I think it was about a year later) struck without any warning whatsoever.

Take a moment to think about what you're saying.

You're saying that in a seismically active area that experiences clusters of earthquakes all the time, that the politicians should tell people to 'Duck and Cover' every time there is a cluster of earthquakes.

Once again we come back to the point that fore shock sequences have zero value in predicting large earthquakes in continental settings, it's been tried dozens of times, and so far there has only been one success.

To suggest that they could have said anything other than "There is no greater risk of a large event now than at any other time" is, generally speaking, pseudoscientific bullshit, and anyone who lives in a seismically active region and interprets "There is no chance of a large event" as meaning anything other than "There is no more chance than usual of a large event" should probably find somewhere safer to live.

This is what I mean about 'unintended consequences'. It may not have been the intention to bring the science to trial, but it is precisely the science that will be on the stand.

*Just as a footnote to this point, and to put it in further perspective, one of my closest and dearest friends was in Christchurch at the the time of the February aftershock, and had to protect her Two year old son from shards of flying glass (she was in a foodshop at the time) as she made her way out of the shop which literally collapsed right behind her, we (Mrs Trippy and I) also have other friends and family in the area.

 

I should also hasten to add that there is no difference between failing to predict the earthquake itself, and failing to predict the risk of the earthquake, they are, in every meaningful way, the same thing.

 

I'll try and dig up some meaningful links when I get home that may be more helpful, but the current state of the science is that an earthquake prediction amounts to a forecast.

As an example, the bar that the USGS holds for a successful earthquake prediction basically consist of a time frame, a location, magnitude, and a probability. So, for example, if I was to say "I predict that there is a 95% risk of an M8-M8.8 earthquake between Sept 21 and Sept 30 nucleating in the southern most portion and propogating along its entire length", as long as I have some repeatable methodology that relies on more than astrology, I would be considered to have successfully the earthquake.

In seismology, as it stands, there is no meaningful difference between predicting the risk of an earthquake, and predicting an earthquake.

Here we go - this might be more useful in illustrating what I mean:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

From: Geonet Aftershock Forecast
This is the sort of 'prediction' that seismologists and geologists make when forecasting earthquakes.

They predict the risk of the shaking (or in some places/cases peak ground acceleration) exceeding a certain value (in this case VI on the modified mercalli scale).

In every meaningful way, failing to predict the risk of the earthquake is the same as failing to predict the earthquake.

 

No, I'm explicitly arguing that there is no reasonable grounds for trial, that the indictment is pseudoscientific and nonsensical, and even contradicts itself.

I'm also suggesting that the statement in question may have been perfectly reasonable in the context of living in a seismicaly active zone, and I'm also suggesting that it may have been a slip of the tongue in the same nature as Neil Armstrongs famous gaff.

 

Yes, they are - see my response to Pete for further details.

 

No, he actually was a member of the committee. After the committee meeting, he came out and made that public statement to the media and the general public.

He came out and said directly that there was no threat or risk... As a committee member. And then he commented that the scientists assured him of this.

The issue that I think is most important here is whether his fellow committee members should be held responsible for not speaking out against him. In effect, they are being tried with manslaughter for not having denounced his comments as being false or misleading. Apparently other seismologists disagreed with him, but the ones on the committee said nothing at all, and they have been charged.

Again, he was not a reprepresentative but a member of the committee. He was at that time, deputy technical head of Italy's Civil Protection Agency, as well as a member of that committee. So when he spoke, he was not just a reprentative.

Had he commented that "foreshock sequences are not a reliable indicator of large earthquakes", he would not have been charged. What he said was that there was no risk or chance of a bigger earthquake and then distinctly advised residents to remain in their home and have a glass of wine..

So as a person who has studied geology and statistics, and living in an area known for its seismic activity, would you ever support a colleague if he came out and said that there was no chance of an earthquake in that area?

Would you ever make such a statement which amounted to 'there is no chance of an earthquake' to the general public?

No, you would not. Because you cannot predict if there is or is not. What he, as a committee member, said was that there was not going to be a bigger earthquake and reassured people they had no reason to worry that there would be one.. Other seismologists at the time protested against his public assurance, because one could not make such predictions accurately.

That is why he is being charged.

But that is not what he said, was it? He assured the public that there was no risk and told them to go home and enjoy some local wine.

So you are saying that a member of a committee, designed to assess risk to the public, coming out and saying there was no risk or chance of a big earthquake in a region known for its seismic activity, is scientifically neutral?

Something you are not considering is that seismologists disagreed with his statement and one of the committee members did come out and disagree with him after the earthquake because his statement was scientifically unfounded:

"Many seismologists — including one of the accused, Enzo Boschi, president of the National Institute of Geophysics and Vulcanology in Rome — have since criticized the statement as scientifically unfounded."​

But you think his statement was scientifically neutral?

No. I am saying that the Government should not be assuring people that there is no chance of a bigger earthquake.

It would be akin to the Government of NZ telling residents of Christchurch that there is no risk of an earthquake in the area.

They would not and scientists would discount it if they did. What happened in Italy is that scientists did discount his comment. However those on the committee remained silent when he made the statement and that is why they have been charged, which I think is the worrying part. Does their silence make them culpable?

They also have zero value in predicting there will not be an earthquake. So why did the committee member come out and say it did?

So you think his saying that to the public is wrong?

It is very simple. He came out and said that the scientists on the committee told him that there was no chance and that the seismic activity was a small release of energy.. And then he told the public and the media that there would not be a big one and he was assured by the scientists on the committee of this. Other scientists disagreed with his statements. The scientists on the committee did not speak up and only one spoke up after the earthquake. The actual issue here is whether their remaining silent after he made the statement makes them equally culpable.

Because that is how the media is portraying it.

The issue here is whether silence and not publically correcting him or disagreeing with him in public amounts to equal culpability.