US Seismologist Testifies Against Scientists In Quake-Prediction Case 189
ananyo writes with this snippet from Nature (for which this earlier Nature article is also background): "'The courthouse in L'Aquila, Italy, yesterday hosted a highly anticipated hearing in the trial of six seismologists and one government official indicted for manslaughter over their reassurances to the public ahead of a deadly earthquake in 2009. .... During the hearing, the former head of the Italian Department of Civil Protection turned from key witness into defendant, and a seismologist from California criticized Italy's top earthquake experts.' Lalliana Mualchin, former chief seismologist for the Department of Transportation in California, criticized the Italian analysis, which he says was based on a poor model. If the court agrees with Mualchin, the defendants could face up to 12 years in jail."
Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic (Score:5, Insightful)
This trial is a farce.
Sounds Like Infighting (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is in part a scientific one, Mualchin said. The Italian scientists based their analysis on the frequency of earthquakes in the area. This is known as the probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis (PSHA), a method that is state of the art in many countries, but that, in Mualchin’s view, systematically underestimates seismic hazard because it does not consider extreme and rare events.
"Frequency is not important, what really matters is the largest earthquake we can expect, the strongest one that has happened in the past. Risk prevention should be based on that," he said. This is the philosophy behind deterministic seismic-hazard analysis, a method that Mualchin says has been mostly abandoned by the scientific community, to the point that younger seismologists do not even learn about it.
So they were using what is commonly considered a "state of the art" model? I'm guessing the prosecutors happened to find a guy in the United States that apparently even admits to adhering to models that are less commonly accepted than the model that the scientists used. I wonder if he's got an ax to grind now that his preferred model is no longer taught? I don't know anything about these two models but this sounds like infighting and I'm sure it's really easy for Mualchin to step in after the fact and show that his "abandoned" model would have worked better in this particular case. Any seismologists here that can speak to the current research in earthquake prediction and the actual effectiveness of these two models?
I sure am glad I'm not a seismologist, this would angry up my blood.
Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic (Score:0, Insightful)
Good Job, Italian Government (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, maybe they should lose their jobs, or government grants even, but PRISON!?
Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic (Score:5, Insightful)
In totally unrelated news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Students pursuing seismology as a profession saw a sharp decline.
Why would anyone pursue a career where it's so easy to make a simple mistake and be liable for penalties like this for something that is out of your control?
Re:Ob. Moe (Score:3, Insightful)
Or don't make broad statements that you can't guarantee are correct and when being wrong can cost lives?
There is no way to guarantee that it is safe. Unfortunately the only safe response for the scientists and seismologists would be "Yes, there is always a risk of a deadly earthquake", which would result in no one ever believing them when it was true.
Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic (Score:5, Insightful)
The flip side is telling everyone they're in danger and then be charged with inciting a panic!
Or being honest - "our models do not currently show a risk of significant earthquake, but our models may be wrong. You should always be prepared."
Sounds to me like they were dumbing it down for people who find science "too hard".
Re:Should've become business analysts (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody has even been tried for involvement in the 2008 crash.
Only because they're still in power.
Think about it; if Hitler had won WWII, would there have been Nuremberg Trials?
Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the end result of this is that there won't be anyone willing to work as a seismologist in Italy any more, so any more earthquakes (which do happen, they're in an active seismic zone there) will simply be a big surprise.
Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic (Score:5, Insightful)
So really, I guess it all comes down to the specific situation; if the seismologists had data that, as experts, they should have known was indicating that a major event was forthcoming, but decided to withhold said data from the public (or outright lie about it), then they should be held liable. If they had no such data and were caught as unawares as the rest of the populace, then they should be exonerated. Now if only there were some sort of legal setting in which guilt and innocence could be proven through the presentation of supporting evidence...
My problem is with the folks who claim these men should remain blameless without even going over the evidence.
I surmise those are the same people who vote along party lines.
Earthquakes don't kill people (Score:5, Insightful)
Things falling on people kill people. From the photos in TFA it looks like the're using unreinforced masonry. This is deadly in earthquake zones, but this situation has more to do with local building codes and enforcement than seismic potential.
In the current state of earthquake prediction, the actual prediction of *when* an earthquake will occur is not all that reliable. However the prediction of how much ground acceleration can be expected from potential seismic activity is reliable and building codes can be created accordingly.
Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic (Score:3, Insightful)
300 people did not die because of their improper assurances. If they did "properly" assure them, they would have been called quacks, or they would have been sued for causing a hype if nothing happened and still could have faced fines or jail time.
False dichotomy.
The problem is that they spoke with authority saying that there would not be a big quake, when they knew full well that their knowledge didn't go to those lengths. They weren't honest about it. Its really that simple.
This isnt an either/or situation. It wasn't just "no there wont" or "yes there will." The truth was neither, but they chose to say "no there wont."