- Journal Archives
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
As many of you have probably heard, this week an Italian court convicted six scientists for manslaughter based on a “falsely reassuring” evaluation regarding the risk of an earthquake in the town of L’Aquila. The sentence included 6 years in prison and payment of $10 million in court costs and damages.
The scientists were brought in to evaluate the risk following a string of small tremors that hit L’Aquila. In a very short meeting, the scientists stated that the risk was raised, but they were unable to offer a detailed prediction. The Civil Protection Department and local authorities then held a press conference where they reassured the population that there was no increased risk of an earthquake. One week later, a 6.3 magnitude earthquake struck the town, killing over 300 people. The prosecutor argued that 29 people that would have left decided to stay because of the press conference, and that the scientists’ “inadequate” risk assessment caused the authorities state false information in the press conference, and thus the scientists caused the deaths. This argument was apparently successful, though the judge has yet to state his reasoning for the conviction and sentence.
As one might imagine, scientists and level-headed people all around the world aren’t too thrilled with this outcome. Many scientists are concerned about the possible chilling effect on publication of research in Italy. Not only can a scientist be criminally liable for failing to predict a bad outcome, but there might even be chilling effects on predicting bad outcomes. An incorrect prediction of a bad outcome could result in unneeded expenditures and evacuations, and thus provoke similar wrath from the government.
Much of the outrage from this decision stems from incredulity. How could Italy convict for this? Don’t they understand science? Don’t they understand that earthquakes are unpredictable? In this author’s opinion, Italy knows very well how science works and why the seismologists couldn’t give a prediction. The essential problem in the conviction is causation: The scientists actually said that the risk was elevated, but the 29 people supposedly stayed because the Government said that the risk was not elevated. This case seems less like the government failing middle school geology, and more like a corrupt shifting of the blame for their mistake. The government faced additional heat after the earthquake due to supposedly muzzling a earthquake prediction.
Even the government has come out and agreed with the chorus from the world and said that earthquakes are unpredictable. There is, however, at least one counterexample to this contention. In 1975, China did the impossible: it predicted an earthquake, and acted upon that prediction successfully. After wide reports of peculiar animal behavior, a series of foreshocks led Chinese officials to evacuate the Haicheng region. A 7.0 magnitude quake then hit the region, killing roughly 2,000 people. It is estimated that without the evacuation, the number of total casualties might have exceeded 150,000. While this prediction is the most successful and important one so far, there have been a handful of other predictions where the magnitude, location, and time period were roughly correct.
However, each of these predictions have been made using decidedly unadvanced technological equipment. The successful earthquake predictions were largely made with basic seismographs and, in the case of the Haicheng earthquake, the basic realization that animals behave strangely during times of high seismic activity. Attempts to use modern technology to predict earthquakes have been met with little success.
If we do get to the point where correct earthquake prediction is commonplace, it is not far fetched to think that the kind case that happened in Italy would crop up in America. After all, at one point the weather was largely unpredictable. Now corporations are suing the government for failing to predict floods, with only sovereign immunity, rather than reason, standing in the way.
Recent Blog Posts
- Controlling the Uncontrollable: UK Taking the Driver’s Seat in Driverless Car Technology
- Obama’s Cybersecurity Executive Order: Private Sector Must Help Police the “Wild West”
- Qualcomm Settlement May Reconfigure the Smartphone Market in China
- Who Rightfully Owns the Village People’s YMCA?
- Internet Elections Regulation: Another Pie in the Partisan Food Fight?
- Great Artists Steal? A Music Theory Thought Experiment & a Worry about the Litigation of Popular Music
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution