Ah bugger, I thought I published this post before I left for a holiday in Europe in December. Oh well, here it is now... obviously.
My friend Katie, sent me a link to a news article about three months ago about the start of a manslaughter trial brought against a bunch of Italian scientists and a government official.
These people were part of an official panel responsible for advising on and communicating the risk of a major earthquake to the town of L'Aquila. On 6 April 2009 a 6.3 magnitude earthquake caused the deaths of 181 people. The predicted likelihood of an earthquake had gone from a 1 in 200,000 chance to a 1 in 1,000 chance the day before the earthquake occurred. Six days prior to this the government official on the panel rather extravagantly told everyone that there is no need worry and to go and have a glass of red wine.
The trial is brought by the local government on behalf of the townspeople. They allege that imprecise and conflicting advice was provided and that more would/could have been done had the advice been better and/or better communicated. The case was preceded by a large petition being submitted to the judge from geoscientists from around the world. Some commentators have made out that this is science on trial and other such hysteria. If the trial was that the scientists did not correctly predict the earthquake then, yes, this would be science on trial. However, the trial is specifically related to the methods of delivery of the scientific advice.
Now my knowledge of law in general and Italian law specifically is fraction less than zero (I avoid it like the plague), so I am in no position to comment on the merits of the trial in that context. But I am almost holding a "piece-of-paper-that-says-I'm-a-scientist" so I feel I can comment on it from this frame with some level of legitimacy.
Firstly, no-one can predict earthquakes with certainty. Except maybe animals, who often seem to bail out in the lead up to an earthquake. Barring the invention of an animal-human telepathy/translation device, that 1 in 1,000 chance prediction is pretty good. The fact that the odds shortened by 200 a day before the quake would be as good an indication to me that something nasty was going to happen. If I was a betting man that would look like a good horse to back (or may be not, I don't know shit about betting -- please feel free to correct me). However, if the significance of this information wasn't known in the town or made known to the town then we have a big problem.
This brings up my second point, this trial highlights the gulf between science/scientific process and the communication of said science to people without a scientific background (verbose I know, but I hate the phrase "general public"). If proper communication had occurred, people in the town would have known that when the chance of an earthquake is revised that severely, then more than likely something will happen in the near future.
No-one sues the weather man when he stuffs up the weather and we get caught in rain and our blue suede shoes are ruined. We understand that predicting weather is a complex thing and that the reported chance of rain is just that -- a chance. I think the failing in the case of the earthquake advice is that caution was not the default stance advised by the panel (or at least the government representative on the panel). If there is a less than 50:50 chance of rain I usually play the odds and bank on there not being any rain. If the chance of rain increased by a factor of 200 overnight it would suggest to me that rain was coming sometime soon and if I want to avoid ruining my suede shoes, I'd better not wear them for the next couple of days. I am being cautious. But earthquakes are not rain, they are not often just a minor inconvenience that I can get through by not wearing suede shoes. The panel should have employed a much greater Caution Quotient TM when talking to the public. That is, may be suggesting that all we need is a glass of red to kick back with and forget about the earthquake nonsense isn't the best approach.
My final point is the idea of separation between the scientific advice and the official response of governments. A scientist is generally not qualified to make official decisions regarding emergency situations/natural disasters -- that is the domain of a different set of experts. In Australia, this separation is carried out reasonably well for natural disasters (e.g. bushfires, tsunamis, cyclones, storms, etc.). The advice from the scientists is utilised by relevant authorities to make decisions about evacuations and whatnot. When scientists are the majority of an advice panel then it gives a false impression to people about the authority of the panel in forming irrefutable scientific advice ("There is a whole room full of scientists they must know what they are talking about...").
So what is there left to do but sit and wait for the results of the trial. If there is a resolution in the next five years or so I'll make sure I follow it up on the blog!
If you want to read more the link below is a long article that gives a blow-by-blow of the events and has an interesting collection of comments at the bottom. Be warned it is very long.
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110914/full/477264a.html
This link below is a far more readable distillation of the above. I can recommend 'the conversation' as a really good example of generally excellent communication of science (and research in general). Wow, that was far less convoluted a sentence in my head. Apologies.
http://theconversation.edu.au/manslaughter-trial-of-laquila-earthquake-scientists-will-cause-serious-aftershocks-3477
Note: I don't actually own any suede shoes, blue or otherwise. But I did pick up some awesome fleece lined leather boots in Berlin recently. Take that Elvis.
My friend Katie, sent me a link to a news article about three months ago about the start of a manslaughter trial brought against a bunch of Italian scientists and a government official.
These people were part of an official panel responsible for advising on and communicating the risk of a major earthquake to the town of L'Aquila. On 6 April 2009 a 6.3 magnitude earthquake caused the deaths of 181 people. The predicted likelihood of an earthquake had gone from a 1 in 200,000 chance to a 1 in 1,000 chance the day before the earthquake occurred. Six days prior to this the government official on the panel rather extravagantly told everyone that there is no need worry and to go and have a glass of red wine.
The trial is brought by the local government on behalf of the townspeople. They allege that imprecise and conflicting advice was provided and that more would/could have been done had the advice been better and/or better communicated. The case was preceded by a large petition being submitted to the judge from geoscientists from around the world. Some commentators have made out that this is science on trial and other such hysteria. If the trial was that the scientists did not correctly predict the earthquake then, yes, this would be science on trial. However, the trial is specifically related to the methods of delivery of the scientific advice.
Now my knowledge of law in general and Italian law specifically is fraction less than zero (I avoid it like the plague), so I am in no position to comment on the merits of the trial in that context. But I am almost holding a "piece-of-paper-that-says-I'm-a-scientist" so I feel I can comment on it from this frame with some level of legitimacy.
Firstly, no-one can predict earthquakes with certainty. Except maybe animals, who often seem to bail out in the lead up to an earthquake. Barring the invention of an animal-human telepathy/translation device, that 1 in 1,000 chance prediction is pretty good. The fact that the odds shortened by 200 a day before the quake would be as good an indication to me that something nasty was going to happen. If I was a betting man that would look like a good horse to back (or may be not, I don't know shit about betting -- please feel free to correct me). However, if the significance of this information wasn't known in the town or made known to the town then we have a big problem.
This brings up my second point, this trial highlights the gulf between science/scientific process and the communication of said science to people without a scientific background (verbose I know, but I hate the phrase "general public"). If proper communication had occurred, people in the town would have known that when the chance of an earthquake is revised that severely, then more than likely something will happen in the near future.
No-one sues the weather man when he stuffs up the weather and we get caught in rain and our blue suede shoes are ruined. We understand that predicting weather is a complex thing and that the reported chance of rain is just that -- a chance. I think the failing in the case of the earthquake advice is that caution was not the default stance advised by the panel (or at least the government representative on the panel). If there is a less than 50:50 chance of rain I usually play the odds and bank on there not being any rain. If the chance of rain increased by a factor of 200 overnight it would suggest to me that rain was coming sometime soon and if I want to avoid ruining my suede shoes, I'd better not wear them for the next couple of days. I am being cautious. But earthquakes are not rain, they are not often just a minor inconvenience that I can get through by not wearing suede shoes. The panel should have employed a much greater Caution Quotient TM when talking to the public. That is, may be suggesting that all we need is a glass of red to kick back with and forget about the earthquake nonsense isn't the best approach.
My final point is the idea of separation between the scientific advice and the official response of governments. A scientist is generally not qualified to make official decisions regarding emergency situations/natural disasters -- that is the domain of a different set of experts. In Australia, this separation is carried out reasonably well for natural disasters (e.g. bushfires, tsunamis, cyclones, storms, etc.). The advice from the scientists is utilised by relevant authorities to make decisions about evacuations and whatnot. When scientists are the majority of an advice panel then it gives a false impression to people about the authority of the panel in forming irrefutable scientific advice ("There is a whole room full of scientists they must know what they are talking about...").
So what is there left to do but sit and wait for the results of the trial. If there is a resolution in the next five years or so I'll make sure I follow it up on the blog!
If you want to read more the link below is a long article that gives a blow-by-blow of the events and has an interesting collection of comments at the bottom. Be warned it is very long.
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110914/full/477264a.html
This link below is a far more readable distillation of the above. I can recommend 'the conversation' as a really good example of generally excellent communication of science (and research in general). Wow, that was far less convoluted a sentence in my head. Apologies.
http://theconversation.edu.au/manslaughter-trial-of-laquila-earthquake-scientists-will-cause-serious-aftershocks-3477
Note: I don't actually own any suede shoes, blue or otherwise. But I did pick up some awesome fleece lined leather boots in Berlin recently. Take that Elvis.
I'll hold you to that - following up when the results from the trial come in :-)
ReplyDeletehmm well the other problem with earthquakes is that it isn't really a solvable problem a) because you predict that a fault will "go soon" does not mean you indication of magnitude (it could be really small and not effect anything) and b) because you can not predict with any certainty the timing or the area that will be affected. You can't exactly evacuate a whole city because there may be a big earthquake in the next 20-30yrs. I think that perhaps the solution is to have a glass of red wine because the alternative is to tell everyone who lives on or near fault lines that they should move to somewhere more stable which is simply not feasible. Alternatively governments could provide more funding for earthquake research to improve the accuracy of predictions. But I personally vote for the glass of red wine solution - especially if you have insurance and have built your dwelling according to the relevant codes.
ReplyDeleteOk, I have thought about this, and I know EXACTLY what should be done in these situations: 1) These scientists should figure out how to trigger the earthquake intentionally, (I recomend a giant sonic boom of uber-low frequency sound waves, preferably from a band made entirely of expendible bass players), 2) They evacuate all of the people and worthy animals from the area (apart from this shit band of bass players) and then 3) just let them rock out and think that they are awsome. Inevitably the earthquake will be triggered by the disturbance of the sound waves while all of the innocent civilians are safely out of harms way. The world will also will be relieved of some of its excessive numbers of mediocre bass players (which in reality is probably a bigger problem than earthquakes) and everyone will rejoice and return home to their now tectonicly stable homes to drink celebratory red wine, which it seems was the purpose of the whole exercise in the first place. Everybody wins. (Because I am anonymous I do not suffer any of the repercussions of my rediculous and potentially offensive crap.) HA!
ReplyDeleteHa! Well anonymous, that is true you do avoid any potential repercussions. Though if I may be facetious about a very sensitive topic; I think your idea could work, but only if we can get Bono and Geldof on board. I think we would need a catchy name to brand the whole initiative. Something like BASS Rock (geology pun very much intended).
ReplyDeleteAnd Gaz, haven't heard anything more about the trial yet (in the English speaking media anyway), but I will update when I hear more.