Seven seismologists have gone on trial in Italy for manslaughter, for failing to predict a devastating earthquake that killed more than 300 people in 2009.
They are accused of giving "inexact, incomplete and contradictory information" about a series of smaller quakes that took place beforehand, and of telling people that a larger quake would not occur.
The outcome of the case will be keenly observed by scientists around the world.
The case is of course absurd. Even if it could be established that scientists knew or should have known that a strong quake was likely, how would the prosecution then be able to establish that many of the victims would still not have perished? The quake was still going to happen.
But if scientists are to be put on trial for failing to predict harmful future events, what precedent might this set?
Could figures of authority who continue to publicly deny the existence of global warming be put on trial in the future after the oceans have risen and engulfed entire communities?
And will leaders of the Catholic Church who continue to claim that condom use is a sin face genocide charges in future years?
My guess is no. This is science on trial. Our sluggish reaction towards the reality of global warming demonstrates that few people listen when scientists predict doom and disaster. But should those scientists fail to give us the warnings we so readily ignore then they risk being prosecuted, at least in some parts of the world.
Who would be a scientist?
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
2 comments:
I welcome comments, but I ask commenters to follow a few simple rules:
1. I delete anonymous comments. Please use either a name or moniker. I am not asking anyone to reveal their secret identity. Just don't call yourself "Anonymous".
2. Please don't abuse or defame others.
3. Moronic or nonsensical comments may be deleted.
4. I don't often exercise the heavy hand of censorship, but I do reserve the right to delete any comment I don't like, for any reason.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Note that they are on for the reassurances that were given, that the EQ were releasing energy and therefore reducing the risk of a big EQ. This apparently had an effect on the population. It is quite scary to see, though.
ReplyDeleteSee also
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110914/full/477264a.html
There was also a long series of small quakes leading up to the Japan megathrust earthquake; I noticed the series on the USGS M>5.0 feed, then I think the following day or two there was the big one there.
ReplyDeleteOf course without a tested scientific theory to make use of observations like this, they can't make any statements other than "we don't know".