Holy Inquisition v.2.0
L'Aquila quake: Italy scientists guilty of manslaughter
The prosecution argued that the scientists were "just too reassuring"
Jailing scientists for not giving sufficient warning of the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake is a spectacularly stupid idea
I agree with the Telegraph blog piece. This verdict is absolutely appalling in its stupidity. Obviously it'll be appealed, and I hope this time there'll be a judge with a half decent education to repeal it. Not only can't earthquakes be predicted, there are only a handful of countries around the world where the science of seismology is so advanced that they could at least sometimes read the signs preceding earthquakes and give warnings that are somewhat useful. And - surprise! - Italy has so far been among those countries, along with Japan and the US. These have some of the best seismologists in the world. Sadly, in Italy that's coupled with having some of the worst judges. If this verdict is upheld, I can see how a significant brain drain would happen there, as more scientists will quit the job or move elsewhere, to places where they won't have the threat of being jailed for simply being wrong hanging over their head. Or the prospect of spending time in jail for sounding "too reassuring".
The first scientists have started resigning already.
The thing that causes the most concern in this case is that some judges in Italy, and probably in other places around the so-called "developed" world, apparently have so little understanding of science they might as well present a donkey with scientific evidence and see where he'll waggle his tail to arrive upon a verdict. Meanwhile, we're supposed to be seeing more science being involved in criminal investigation, forensic science, DNA evidence, etc - so it's not like having at least a basic grasp of science doesn't matter in the judicial system. Let alone the world of politics, where decisions often rest upon scientific knowledge.
So they jail scientists for not predicting earthquakes now, but they don't prosecute bankers for mass fraud? And what about those mafia bosses who dominate the construction industry throughout vast regions of Italy - how about investigating how they built those residential buildings, did they meet the building standards, and why did so many buildings collapse during an earthquake that was weaker than the Chilean earthquake by orders of magnitude - that one where not a single person died?
I'm not sure those judges understand the implications of their decision, and how absurd it is. I'm not sure they realize that the specific nature of geology and seismology in particular is that you use lots of contradictory, often ambiguous evidence which makes it virtually impossible to give exact predictions at this stage of development of that branch of science. Seismology is mostly about studying more about what happened and reviewing the data after the event, to try to find patterns that could help with further predictions. Unless you'd like to investigate the way dogs howl a few minutes before quakes, and construct a scientific hypothesis based on that. And, like I said, a lot of that seismological work is being done in Italy, because they have lots of earthquakes and hence some of the best geologists, volcanologists and seismologists in the world. I'm sure the judge doesn't realize the idiocy of their decision, now that they're putting at risk much more than they could possibly anticipate.
Ultimately, the judge's sole job is to see to it that the law is being applied properly. Casting verdicts on the veracity of scientific hypotheses has never been their domain - that's the job of peer review. Which doesn't mean scientific data shouldn't be taken in consideration when making decisions in court; or at least acknowledging that the scientific process is way more complex than some people are trying to portray it. That said, if the judge had any amount of critical thinking in them, he'd have dropped the case a long time ago. But because there was immense pressure from the public (relatives of victims who perished in the earthquake demanding some scapegoat, any scapegoat), the judge ultimately budged.
It also reveals a blatant disregard for the way the whole process is supposed to work. The way I see it, the scientists reviewed the usual data and gave the usual caveats, trying to work out a hypothesis by using all the conflicting signals and having in mind their complexity. But the respective bureaucrat who convened them had an agenda of their own. Namely: to "calm the population down" and give assurances to concerned people that everything would be fine. Which has its reasons, because no administration wants to see a mass panic among the populace. The judge's mistake is that they're construing the citing of scientists as the ultimate authority in a situation that clearly had little to do with science and everything to do with public relations.
My rather un-scientific prediction is that there won't be that many efforts for seismological research, and certainly no earthquake predictions from scientists in Italy from now on. Not only because from a purely scientific standpoint it can't be done at this point, but because no one would want to serve on that commission any more, now that a precedent of such witch-hunt has been set.
By the way, the Pope forgave Galileo in 1992. A bit late, indeed. He stated that "the ruling in 1633 had been an error resulting from tragic mutual incomprehension". Yeah right. Well, at least that was an apology, although a half-assed one. Might we argue there's been yet another "tragic mutual incomprehension" in 2012 as well? And when will we see an apology? Here's another un-scientific prediction from me: don't be holding your breath.
The prosecution argued that the scientists were "just too reassuring"
Jailing scientists for not giving sufficient warning of the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake is a spectacularly stupid idea
I agree with the Telegraph blog piece. This verdict is absolutely appalling in its stupidity. Obviously it'll be appealed, and I hope this time there'll be a judge with a half decent education to repeal it. Not only can't earthquakes be predicted, there are only a handful of countries around the world where the science of seismology is so advanced that they could at least sometimes read the signs preceding earthquakes and give warnings that are somewhat useful. And - surprise! - Italy has so far been among those countries, along with Japan and the US. These have some of the best seismologists in the world. Sadly, in Italy that's coupled with having some of the worst judges. If this verdict is upheld, I can see how a significant brain drain would happen there, as more scientists will quit the job or move elsewhere, to places where they won't have the threat of being jailed for simply being wrong hanging over their head. Or the prospect of spending time in jail for sounding "too reassuring".
The first scientists have started resigning already.
The thing that causes the most concern in this case is that some judges in Italy, and probably in other places around the so-called "developed" world, apparently have so little understanding of science they might as well present a donkey with scientific evidence and see where he'll waggle his tail to arrive upon a verdict. Meanwhile, we're supposed to be seeing more science being involved in criminal investigation, forensic science, DNA evidence, etc - so it's not like having at least a basic grasp of science doesn't matter in the judicial system. Let alone the world of politics, where decisions often rest upon scientific knowledge.
So they jail scientists for not predicting earthquakes now, but they don't prosecute bankers for mass fraud? And what about those mafia bosses who dominate the construction industry throughout vast regions of Italy - how about investigating how they built those residential buildings, did they meet the building standards, and why did so many buildings collapse during an earthquake that was weaker than the Chilean earthquake by orders of magnitude - that one where not a single person died?
I'm not sure those judges understand the implications of their decision, and how absurd it is. I'm not sure they realize that the specific nature of geology and seismology in particular is that you use lots of contradictory, often ambiguous evidence which makes it virtually impossible to give exact predictions at this stage of development of that branch of science. Seismology is mostly about studying more about what happened and reviewing the data after the event, to try to find patterns that could help with further predictions. Unless you'd like to investigate the way dogs howl a few minutes before quakes, and construct a scientific hypothesis based on that. And, like I said, a lot of that seismological work is being done in Italy, because they have lots of earthquakes and hence some of the best geologists, volcanologists and seismologists in the world. I'm sure the judge doesn't realize the idiocy of their decision, now that they're putting at risk much more than they could possibly anticipate.
Ultimately, the judge's sole job is to see to it that the law is being applied properly. Casting verdicts on the veracity of scientific hypotheses has never been their domain - that's the job of peer review. Which doesn't mean scientific data shouldn't be taken in consideration when making decisions in court; or at least acknowledging that the scientific process is way more complex than some people are trying to portray it. That said, if the judge had any amount of critical thinking in them, he'd have dropped the case a long time ago. But because there was immense pressure from the public (relatives of victims who perished in the earthquake demanding some scapegoat, any scapegoat), the judge ultimately budged.
It also reveals a blatant disregard for the way the whole process is supposed to work. The way I see it, the scientists reviewed the usual data and gave the usual caveats, trying to work out a hypothesis by using all the conflicting signals and having in mind their complexity. But the respective bureaucrat who convened them had an agenda of their own. Namely: to "calm the population down" and give assurances to concerned people that everything would be fine. Which has its reasons, because no administration wants to see a mass panic among the populace. The judge's mistake is that they're construing the citing of scientists as the ultimate authority in a situation that clearly had little to do with science and everything to do with public relations.
My rather un-scientific prediction is that there won't be that many efforts for seismological research, and certainly no earthquake predictions from scientists in Italy from now on. Not only because from a purely scientific standpoint it can't be done at this point, but because no one would want to serve on that commission any more, now that a precedent of such witch-hunt has been set.
By the way, the Pope forgave Galileo in 1992. A bit late, indeed. He stated that "the ruling in 1633 had been an error resulting from tragic mutual incomprehension". Yeah right. Well, at least that was an apology, although a half-assed one. Might we argue there's been yet another "tragic mutual incomprehension" in 2012 as well? And when will we see an apology? Here's another un-scientific prediction from me: don't be holding your breath.