Italian seismologists convicted of multiple manslaughter.

[turbo]

Looks like a good field to avoid in Italy. Especially in areas where mud-brick walls abound.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20025626

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/italian-court-begins-deliberations-over-scientists-accused-of-failing-to-warn-of-earthquake/2012/10/22/8c4886bc-1c3d-11e2-8817-41b9a7aaabc7_story.html

 

[Ken Natton]

Unbelievable. Perverse in the extreme. This from a nation where endemic corruption means people routinely escape genuine responsibility.

 

[BobG]

More background on why this occurred:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=536593

Doesn't make it right, but at least easier to understand the point behind the trial.

 

[Andre]

More background on why this occurred:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=536593

Doesn't make it right, but at least easier to understand the point behind the trial.

Absolutely and I would repeat what I said in that thread:

An Italian collegue/friend told me once, discussing a trial following an accident, about the Italian legislation. In principle, he told me, that if somebody dies not from natural causes, then somebody must be guilty of that and should be trialed.

I have not been able to verify that but it seems just to be the legal culture. So in Italy this is likely just the normal course of action.

 

[arildno]

Scientists' culpability for disasters is not necessarily beyond the pale, but cannot be assigned to practitioners within "uncertain" sciences.
There is a huge difference between the culpability of a structural engineer OKaying the building of a house he knows will fall down, and the culpability of a seismologist OKaying continued residence in a seismically active region.
In the latter case, they cannot be regarded as culpable, even if it can be proven that at least one other expert advocated evacuation.

 

[Ken Natton]

Doesn't make it right, but at least easier to understand the point behind the trial.

Cultural perception is all very well, but these men have been sentenced to six years in prison. That is no longer a matter of culture, it is simply a matter of human rights.

...the culpability of a structural engineer OKaying the building of a house he knows will fall down...

It doesn’t have to be that the engineer knows that the building will fall down. If he has simply been negligent about the possibility that the building might fall down, and it does fall down resulting in loss of life, then it is reasonable to hold the engineer responsible. Always the difficult one has to be the medical profession, but if a medical practitioner has been careless about the administering of treatment, and the treatment administered actually made the patient’s situation worse, then the medical practitioner is responsible and must face the consequences. I find no evidence that these men were in any way negligent. What happened was not caused by their carelessness, it was caused by the impossibility of anticipating the outcome with any certainty. As much as the possibility of it existed, you didn’t need to be an expert to anticipate it. In terms of any certainties, the experts were in no better position than the laymen. That is not negligence. What it is, is an appalling injustice.

 

[Jack21222]

This is completely insane. I hope Italy realizes that no scientist in their right mind will ever join any committee tasked with making predictions from now on. If any do, they will have to be so overly-cautious as to cry wolf at every little thing for fear of getting it wrong. This may also discourage students from getting into science. Who wants to be arrested for something they had no control over?

 

[Borek]

I guess all Italian seismologists from now on should proclaim an Italian strike and all the time claim there will be an earthquake tomorrow.

And no, it wasn't intended as a joke, even if it may sound like one.

Makes me think about Linate Airport disaster, where one of the people convicted was the air traffic controller who have followed the procedure to the letter - but the procedure was full of dangerous holes.

 

[arildno]

It doesn’t have to be that the engineer knows that the building will fall down. If he has simply been negligent about the possibility that the building might fall down, and it does fall down resulting in loss of life, then it is reasonable to hold the engineer responsible. Always the difficult one has to be the medical profession, but if a medical practitioner has been careless about the administering of treatment, and the treatment administered actually made the patient’s situation worse, then the medical practitioner is responsible and must face the consequences. I find no evidence that these men were in any way negligent. What happened was not caused by their carelessness, it was caused by the impossibility of anticipating the outcome with any certainty. As much as the possibility of it existed, you didn’t need to be an expert to anticipate it. In terms of any certainties, the experts were in no better position than the laymen. That is not negligence. What it is, is an appalling injustice.

Very important.
They need to be proven criminally negligent relative to what we could call "standard science".
A medical practitioner, for example, cannot be regarded as criminally negligent if NOT implementing a still highly experimental therapy.
If that therapy has infiltrated itself WITHIN "standard science", and the practitioner still don't implement it, THEN he can be regarded as negligent.

 

[Mentalist]

This is a dumb sentencing:

A regional court found them guilty of multiple manslaughter.

The seven - all members of the National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks - were accused of having provided "inexact, incomplete and contradictory" information about the danger of the tremors felt ahead of 6 April 2009 quake, Italian media report.

One of the lawyers for the defence, Marcello Petrelli, described the sentences as "hasty" and "incomprehensible".

I definitely agree.

After the verdict was announced, David Rothery, of the UK's Open University, said earthquakes were "inherently unpredictable".

Hence, "contradictory information".

"If the scientific community is to be penalised for making predictions that turn out to be incorrect, or for not accurately predicting an event that subsequently occurs, then scientific endeavour will be restricted to certainties only and the benefits that are associated with findings from medicine to physics will be stalled."

 

[rootX]

Scientists' culpability for disasters is not necessarily beyond the pale, but cannot be assigned to practitioners within "uncertain" sciences.
There is a huge difference between the culpability of a structural engineer OKaying the building of a house he knows will fall down, and the culpability of a seismologist OKaying continued residence in a seismically active region.
In the latter case, they cannot be regarded as culpable, even if it can be proven that at least one other expert advocated evacuation.

A seismologist should never be OKaying anything IMO.

 

[PhizKid]

So the next time the weather man says it's not going to rain and it does, and I get into a car accident because of the slippery road, I guess I'll sue the weatherman for lying to me

 

[Borek]

So the next time the weather man says it's not going to rain and it does, and I get into a car accident because of the slippery road, I guess I'll sue the weatherman for lying to me

Only if you are Italian.

 

[Galteeth]

Absolutely and I would repeat what I said in that thread:

Interesting. Was the press conference attempting to justify the arrest of the man who made the predictions based on radon gas, and if so did the scientists in question support his arrest?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Always the difficult one has to be the medical profession, but if a medical practitioner has been careless about the administering of treatment, and the treatment administered actually made the patient’s situation worse, then the medical practitioner is responsible and must face the consequences.

It comes down to the established standards of the profession concerned as well as intent. In the US, physicians can be found negligent in a civil trial and subject to monetary payment for damages. It's rare however for physicians to be subject to criminal prosecution for malpractice unless there was "gross negligence" (like being intoxicated when performing a procedure and causing injury or death). To win a malpractice case in the US (at least in theory) one has to show that 1) the practitioner violated professional standards 2) the patient suffered a demonstrable injury or death 3) the practitioner's violation of standards was the proximate cause of, or significantly contributed to the injury or death.

As far as I know, there are no professional standards anywhere for predicting earthquakes, so there is no basis for comparison with the medical profession.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Top Italy scientists resign in protest at quake ruling
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hgHYMt0RlaWTj9auQhUgx4ibC5wQ?docId=CNG.bffad396104a93be5f736ad6dfe206e9.5e1

 

[Andre]

That's sad, but probably the only way to address a fundamental flaw in the Italian legislation.

 

[logically]

Very important.
They need to be proven criminally negligent relative to what we could call "standard science".
A medical practitioner, for example, cannot be regarded as criminally negligent if NOT implementing a still highly experimental therapy.
If that therapy has infiltrated itself WITHIN "standard science", and the practitioner still don't implement it, THEN he can be regarded as negligent.

Don't forget that if the patient failed to disclose a medical condition or allergy that the practicing physician did nothing wrong.

So the next time the weather man says it's not going to rain and it does, and I get into a car accident because of the slippery road, I guess I'll sue the weatherman for lying to me

I guess this means a lot of Meteorologist are going to be convicted of manslaughter for Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Irene... While were at it let's throw in Hurricane Andrew.

 

[Evo]

A modern day witch hunt.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Top Italy scientists resign in protest at quake ruling
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hgHYMt0RlaWTj9auQhUgx4ibC5wQ?docId=CNG.bffad396104a93be5f736ad6dfe206e9.5e1

Pity they couldn't spell Maiani's name right. And technically, he's not Italian: he's San Marinian.

 

[rootX]

Top Italy scientists resign in protest at quake ruling
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hgHYMt0RlaWTj9auQhUgx4ibC5wQ?docId=CNG.bffad396104a93be5f736ad6dfe206e9.5e1

"Major Risks Committee" , a scapegoat committee?

 

[arildno]

Don't forget that if the patient failed to disclose a medical condition or allergy that the practicing physician did nothing wrong.

Certainly.
And in some critical cases, I would assume that an emergency team MUST act quickly, even though they know that in some cases, the procedure might be fatal (say, they would have proceeded differently if they knew about a patient's aneurism, for example).

 

[zonde]

More background on why this occurred:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=536593

Doesn't make it right, but at least easier to understand the point behind the trial.

So they gambled human lives just to silence some crackpot? Judging by the fact that they got 6 years instead of requested 4 this is the way how it seems to judge.

 

[Evo]

It doesn't matter if someone says the chance for a damaging quake is unlikely. If a quake happens, you don't pretend that it's not happening, you use common sense and do what you would normally do. I don't see anywhere that a scientist told anyone that if a quake hits to disregard it.

 

[zonde]

There is what official said and how population responded to what that official said i.e. people relaxed when normally they would stay alert. One might claim that population responded in some unpredictable way but considering that they intention was to calm population it does not really hold water.

 

[rootX]

It doesn't matter if someone says the chance for a damaging quake is unlikely. If a quake happens, you don't pretend that it's not happening, you use common sense and do what you would normally do. I don't see anywhere that a scientist told anyone that if a quake hits to disregard it.

It's very important how they communicated to public e.g. "chance for a damaging quake is unlikely" is not same as "nothing to worry about". It's just too silly of them if they actually said "nothing to worry about".

 

[Evo]

It's very important how they communicated to public e.g. "chance for a damaging quake is unlikely" is not same as "nothing to worry about". It's just too silly of them if they actually said "nothing to worry about".

But still it wasn't "if an earthquake hits, don't worry". It was "there doesn't seem to be another quake coming, don't worry". Stupid yes, but when an unexpected quake DOES happen, you don't ignore it. Which is what some people said they did. Like that lawyer that said normally they would run outside if a quake hit, but since they were told that a quake wasn't likely, when the quake struck, they decided to stay inside. WHAT? They didn't say to ignore earthquakes!

I live in an area prone to tornadoes, if a scientist came on tv and told me there were no tornadoes forecasted for my area and I see a tornado, do you think I'm going to ignore it or seek shelter? And they are wrong all of the time.

 

[arildno]

"I live in an area prone to tornadoes, if a scientist came on tv and told me there were no tornadoes forecasted for my area and I see a tornado, do you think I'm going to ignore it or seek shelter? "

Are all tornadoes bad, or are some suitable as a substitute dancing partner?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

In the aftermath of the Italian case, I don't know whether to take precautions or this is just a forecast of an extremely cloudy day.
http://news.yahoo.com/noaa-east-beware-coming-frankenstorm-171317994.html

 

[Antiphon]

A modern day witch hunt.

Yes. And a secular one at that.

I expected more from Italian culture. The home of Galileo and Copernicus. A lot more.