You may recall that last year Italy placed six seismologists and a government official on trial for providing inadequate advice prior to the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake that killed over 300 people. All seven defendants have been found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to an astonishing six years in prison.
As I discussed in in my blog last September and October , the basis of the charges was not the ability of the seismologists to predict the earthquake as is popularly reported but rather the failure to provide adequate warning to the population. After a swarm of small earthquakes, the deputy director of the Civil Protection Agency convened a meeting of the Major Risks Committee to review the earthquake risk. The seismologists, who were part of the committee, stated that there was no reason to believe that the swarm of small earthquakes were a precursor to a major earthquake. The seismologists also stated that in such an seismically active area there was always a significant earthquake risk. At no point did they say there was no risk.
The problem occurred when the official translated this into a message to the public that there was no danger of an earthquake. Six days later, the temblor struck.
During the trial, the defense argued that the seismologists had given appropriate scientific advice as demonstrated in the meeting minutes and were not present at the news conference. However, the judge ruled that their failure to speak out and correct the bad information made them responsible for the deaths that followed. The defendants are appealing the verdict.
From my perspective that case raises some interesting questions about responsibility. While there is no evidence that the seismologists gave anything but scientifically precise information, did they have a duty to speak out when the official garbled the message? Should the official who claimed to be acting in good faith on the scientific advice as he understood it bear responsibility for the inaccurate warning? How much responsibility should the individual citizen bear for living in a seismically active zone and not being prepared? What about local officials who haven't implemented mitigation? And just what actions would have been taken and how long would they have been sustained if the warning had been more accurate?
These are not easy questions to answer and similar ones are asked after each disaster. I agree that there must be accountability for failing to adequately warn the public but charging scientists and government officials with criminal offenses is not the answer, except possibly in extreme cases of negligence. As an emergency manager, I rely heavily on solid scientific advice. Anything that inhibits or prevents a scientist from offering his or her best professional opinion is something to be shunned. There is a big difference between accountability and vengeance.
Comments