[Controversial] Suing Seismologists - Responsibilities Of Scientists And Limits Of Science

[Asheekay]

Its not new and I'm not sure if this has not already been discussed here already.

It happens that there was a major earthquake in La Quila. The seismologists [scientists studying earthquakes] had assured that no major earthquake was LIKELY in the region. The people did not take sufficient safety measures and suffered very heavily when it fell.
Sometime after the incident, a citizen sued the seismologists for falsely reassuring the public that an earthquake was not expected.

Thing is, earthquakes cannot be predicted accurately and precisely with our technology so far. But if we cannot determine that an earthquake is likely, does it automatically mean that an earthquake is unlikely?

The court appears to have deemed its verdict on the side of the public, sentencing 6 years prison for the scientists involved.

Then there is the case of one Giampaolo Giuliani who predicted an earthquake but the basis for his prediction is widely believed to be inaccurate. But thats another story.

Complete story here:

Scientists on trial for failing to predict quake - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience | NBC News

Scientists Convicted of Manslaughter for Failing to Predict Italian Quake - ABC News

Jail Italian scientists over L'Aquila and what's next? Suing Michael Fish? | Martin Robbins | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Spoiler:

Six Italian scientists and one government official were set to go to trial in Italy on Tuesday on charges of manslaughter for not warning the public aggressively enough of an impending earthquake that
killed more than 300 people in 2009. While such a trial is unlikely on U.S. soil, experts say, American geologists and
seismologists are watching closely, surprised at a legal system that would attempt to criminalize something as
uncertain as earthquake prediction.

[Rikupsoni]

It depends on who they work for. If they're university academics, there is scientific freedom then. But if they work for some government seismologic center, and thus are civil servants, they have responsibilities. An university researcher is not required to monitor or study these things by contract.

These scientists were not university personnel and thus are liable for some responsibility, but they should not be prosecuted unless there is evidence that there was some reason to believe there was an earthquake coming after all and that they made an error.

A civil servant being responsible for damages caused by an error is a principle of good governance.

[Mr. Matt]

If their data is reviewed by those sufficiently qualified to understand it, and it is determined that the scientists involved had come to a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence that was available to them at the time (and they had collected as much evidence as it was possible for them to collect), then I don't think a jury in the world would convict them. Everybody knows that predicting earthquakes is not an exact science.

If, on the other hand, it was found that the scientists involved were negligent or incompetent in some way, then of course they should be punished. In their position, lives are literally at stake, and no soldier or fireman would be let off the hook if people were threatened because of their inadequacies.

I don't think it can or should be any more clear-cut than that.

[Commissar MercZ]

There was some discussion over that here too:

Italian court sentences seven people over 2009 earthquake deaths

I don't really know what to think of this issue. I can see why people were angry with the lack of warning on it, but at the same time it can also be seen as a way by the government to push blame off on other lower-ranking people.

[Adrian Ţepeş]

I just hope it's not a very long sentence.

[Asheekay]

Another thing is that none of the judges listening the case was a seismologist, not even a scientist.

So the seismologists in future might be taking this stand "According to our data, an earthquake is not likely, but lets put the people in preparation so that in case it comes anyway [because predicting earthquakes precisely is almost impossible] we don't get danged".

Yes, I now recall it was discussed before. I'd raise the same question here too: Do you think those scientists behaved honestly and responsibly according to their knowledge?

Thing is, when there are minor earthquakes in a region, it either means that the tension built up between the tectonic plates is being released and there would be no major earthquake. It can also mean that two plates are brushing on and a very bad earthquake is on the way. Its impossible so far to know exactly what it means. The history of the region SUGGESTED that in case of minor earthquakes a major one does not occur.

Should there not have been some senior seismologist in the judges? Any scientist at least?

[Crazy Wolf]

I would have other experts in their field be the only ones to try them/judge them. Basically, look at the data and see if their conclusions before the quake were reasonable. Punishing scientists for not having awesome enough science is for the most part bullshit.

[Nemmerle]

This entire issue arises because people want simple answers to complex questions. I know the feeling - I imagine many of us do. When you're talking to a manager who wants a recommendation on what do and they've got five minutes to hear a case you've been researching for two weeks, it would take a couple of hours to bring them up to speed on it, assuming they've even got the background to understand a concise explanation in the first place. You just don't have the time and generally they don't have the background anyway, even if you could be more concise with someone who did. So you simplify, you omit elements of the truth, you tell them what you think they should do - and from time to time that will be wrong.

Your decision to tell them only what you thought would happen, or think will, without the qualifiers and so on that would make it more complex, is not solely your fault. They asked for it to be that way. Maybe not in as many words - no-one ever says can you dumb it down for me, but can you summarise, can you give me the elevator pitch, can you produce a briefing... in all honesty the idea that someone's going to understand the explanation of any technical person unless they've been involved in the work before themselves, have a background in similar work, or have spent a large amount of time learning about the issue is... crazy. It's insane. Managers, government or otherwise, rarely make any real decisions other than to sign off on the work of more qualified individuals who've already made the call - who, if they're not morons, actually run the department between them.

That's the only way they can possibly interface with your work quickly without putting themselves out to learn a lot about the issue. That's their share of it. They promoted a culture in which the scientists' response was the only choice that could flourish.

The price that may potentially be paid here, though I don't know whether it will be or whether the government realises it, is that they're now penalising that culture they've been promoting without growing the skills to change it on their part. Who's going to sit on any boards for that government knowing that if they call it the wrong way they're gonna get fucked? Who's going to put something in terms that a government can understand knowing that the government can't understand the truth - not having the education - and that if they do it anyway they're going to be held responsible? Where's the government going to get the skills from now to interpret the data?

[Asheekay]

Is that limited to organisations and governments only? Do the public not want straight answers? Quake or no quake? Plain answer! No "if" and no "whether"! And then in case your educated guess [it infuriates so many people to know that much in science it educated guesswork] goes wrong ... be ready to get dragged in the court.

At least they should have some senior seismologist in the panel. But guess what! Their best seismologists were the ones convicted!

But well ... if you know a quake isn't likely ... does it mean you assure the public its not coming and tell them not to prepare for it beforehand?

[Nemmerle]

Well, telling people what they ought to do is a policy decision. My response to that question is that I'm not paid to make policy decisions / talk to the public on such issues, and consequently you can all go hang. Let some other poor schmuck take on that risk and take the fall if it all goes wrong.

But I understand that some people are more altruistic than myself. In the more general sense of how liability ought to wrest with people when they make statements about what other people ought to do...

One extreme response to this, and that which the gov in question seems to be leaning towards, is just to say that you should never tell anyone what they ought to do without taking on vicarious liability for the consequence of choices they make on the basis of that advice.

Personally I think that's an unworkable answer. All you'll get is a bunch of people going 'Well, I can't make any recommendations, but all I'm saying is that if I were in that position... I'd do X. But I'm not advising you to do anything remember.' In which case, you've functionally accomplished the same as nothing at all. You've gone so far to one extreme that you've come back around the other side.

The other extreme is to say that you're never liable, regardless of how good or bad the advice you give out is. That when someone tells you to do something, and they're not operating under some legal authority to make you go along with it, it's only and ever advice - and if you take that advice that's all down to you.

I view that as equally foolhardy. If someone in a position of authority tells you that you should do something that they know will kill you, then they're certainly liable. If a doctor gives you bad advice, for instance, then there should be some recourse.

And then there's the middle-ground between the two answers: was the advice you gave a reasonable thing to say in terms of what you believed the risk/rewards of the situation to be, taking into account what you knew at the time and what you considered to be the interests of those likely to be affected by the advice.

The drawback of that is where you draw the boundaries of reasonable risk and where you intend to get a jury that's not going to have hysterics just because something went wrong. There are going to be miscarriages of justice in this system because there's a mismatch between what people consider acceptable risk and how sore they're going to be when it goes wrong - which will change what they consider an acceptable risk in that regard. You're potentially attempting to administer a system for smart people with the judgement of stupid people.

My response to that last point is roughly the same as your own, though more extreme in some ways and less so in others. I wouldn't make it senior seismologists necessarily. (It strikes me that other seismologists could make the call on whether it was a reasonable recommendation easily enough - it's unlikely that all the accused are going to be significant outliers in that respect.) However, I'd definitely interpret the old idea of 'a jury of your peers' somewhat more rigidly. As a reasonably smart man I don't want twelve retarded scumbags deciding whether I go to jail or not, I want people at least as smart as I am – and I can certainly understand if scientists or policemen or what have you want people at least as smart and familiar with the area of enquiry as they are making the call on their behalf.

But now we're building castles in the sky. The fact is that we're probably never going to get a better system, at least not as long as the current one doesn't fall apart, because it would have to get past the people who are running the current one and doing well off it. And in its absence this sort of stupid thing's going to turn up. The best we can hope for is that we can have a fairly permissive system in regards to the consequences of advice, to compensate for the fact that people judging it after the fact are likely to be somewhat irrational.