Skip to main content

Manslaughter conviction overturned for Italian geologists, but other scientists are still fearful

Manslaughter conviction overturned for Italian geologists, but other scientists are still fearful

/

Scientists failed to predict an earthquake in 2009, and the case will continue to affect scientists for years to come

Share this story

Oli Scarff/Getty Images

Six Italian geologists were cleared yesterday of manslaughter charges in the deaths of 29 people, who perished in a major earthquake in 2009. Any joy these scientists felt at having their conviction overturned was short-lived; as they left the courthouse, angry citizens were shouting, "For shame!" The scientists had initially been convicted of manslaughter for failing to predict the earthquake that ravaged the Italian town of L'Aquila. But in the wake of their successful appeal, some questions remain, including whether scientists will be willing to continue dispensing advice to laypeople, now that they know they can be threatened with prosecution for doing so.

Scientists involved in disaster assessment everywhere anxiously watched the 13-month-long trial that led to the geologists' original conviction. Many felt it was unfair to hold the geologists accountable for not predicting the earthquake. So when the verdict finally arrived, for these scientists, it felt like an attack on science as a whole. Meanwhile, other scientists like Lalliana Mualchin, former chief seismologist for the Department of Transportation in California, expressed skepticism about whether the group convened to discuss the risks to L'Aquila had done enough to evaluate the seismic tremors that preceded the earthquake. He testified against them in 2012.

Scientists often struggle to quantify their uncertainty for laypeople. In the time following the trial, many wondered whether it was possible to work with the government to accurately relay their findings — and include their uncertainty. Some wondered whether it was worth trying to communicate with the public at all.

"This verdict seemed to indicate that scientists could be punished for information that they had gathered and their interpretations," says Göran Ekström, an earthquake seismologist at Columbia University. "There is no doubt that this has had a very negative effect on the willingness of scientists to communicate their insights into natural phenomena to the press and politicians."

Tremors before the quake

The town of L’Aquila suffered a devastating loss on April 6th, 2009, when a magnitude 6.3 earthquake lasting 28 seconds killed about 300 of its residents and injured thousands more. In the months prior to the 'quake, the residents had felt numerous low-magnitude tremors, called "seismic swarms," and a local amateur earthquake buff named Giampaolo Giuliani had predicted that a major earthquake would soon follow. Spurred by the amateur’s forecast, made using a homemade device, the citizens of L’Aquila grew increasingly worried, so much so that a commission of earthquake experts was called on March 31st to assess the evidence and advise the Italian government on how it should proceed. By then, thousands of tremors had occurred and some had even reached 3.5 on the Richter scale, reports Medium.

"The possibility [of an earthquake] cannot definitively be excluded."

"A large earthquake along the lines of the 1703 event is improbable in the short term," said Enzo Boschi a member of the Italian Serious Risks Commission, during the meeting. "But the possibility cannot definitively be excluded."

After the meeting, the government held a press conference in which it told Italians that a major earthquake in the region of L’Aquila was improbable. And in a television interview, government official and hydrologist Bernardo De Bernardinis said that "the scientific community tells me there is no danger because there is an ongoing discharge of energy" during the seismic disturbances. That interview, however, was actually taped before the meeting on March 31st, and the statements made by De Bernardinis were false — tremors don’t release energy that would otherwise be implicated in an earthquake. But given its airtime and De Bernadinis’ authority, residents of L’Aquila who saw the interview were given the distinct impression that his comments were representative of the scientific meeting.

TheWiz83 / Wikimedia Commons

In the aftermath of the quake, ordinary Italians were devastated and outraged. For them, the scientists had failed to adequately evaluate the risk to the town’s residents. They believed that the government scientists were more preoccupied with calming the local population than engaging in a clear discussion about the risks posed by the tremors. While these accusations mounted, scientists around the world signed letters to the Italian president in support of the committee members. That didn't stop the citizens' outrage — or the trial. In 2012, De Bernadinis and the six geologists who took part in the meeting were convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to six years in prison.

"I believe myself to be innocent before God and men."

The prosecution argued that the geologists had caused nearly 30 people to stay inside their homes and die instead of going outside, as they usually did during earthquakes. In fact, most scientists suggest staying inside during earthquakes and moving as little as possible. L'Aquila is a medieval town with old buildings, and its citizens usually go outside during 'quakes — even though research has shown that the least safe buildings in L'Aquila only pose a one in 100,000 risk of death for its residents, reports Livescience. Still, when the judge read the final verdict, he told the scientists that their superficial risk assessment had contributed to the high death toll in L’Aquila.

"The original conviction clearly represented a misunderstanding of what scientists can and cannot do in terms of saying anything about when earthquakes will occur," Ekström says. In addition to the prison sentence, the geologists were banned from public service and were ordered to pay financial compensation to the city of L’Aquila, as well as to the families of the 29 people named in the indictment. The total sum amounted to about $10.2 million. The defendants vowed to appeal the judgment.

"I believe myself to be innocent before God and men," De Bernardinis said in reaction to the verdict, "but, if I am judged by all stages of the judicial process to be guilty, I will accept my responsibility."

Vulnerable scientists

"There is no accepted scientific method for earthquake prediction that can be used reliably to warn citizens of an impending disaster," wrote Alan Leshner, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in a letter to the Italian president, in 2010. "To expect more of science at this time is unreasonable." Leshner also went on to warn the president of the dangers of a conviction. "We worry that subjecting scientists to criminal charges for adhering to accepted scientific practices may have a chilling effect on researchers, thereby… discouraging them from participating in matters of great public importance."

"There is no accepted scientific method for earthquake prediction."

One of the accused, Enzo Boschi, actually started warning other researchers to stay away from risk assessment inquiries altogether. "When people, when journalists, asked my opinion about things, I used to tell them, but no more," he told Nature in 2011. "Scientists have to shut up."

The conversation surrounding scientists’ willingness to share their expertise continued well beyond the geologists’ conviction. "To arrest and convict scientists because they cannot forecast earthquakes and to blame them for the earthquakes happening sets a pretty dangerous precedent," says Aubreya Adams, a seismologist at Washington University in St. Louis, "and [it] might discourage people from actually trying to address that problem in the future."

But while others discussed the risk to researchers in Italy and elsewhere, the accused worked on their appeal. In October of this year, they returned to the courtroom.

Defending the accused, not the science

Science is uncertain. It's based on statistics, probabilities, and error margins. Numbers produced in studies look precise, but there's always room for interference. The most rigorous results tend to be in very controlled environments, which look nothing like the world in which we live; discussion over interpretation of results is often heated. To most researchers, this uncertainty is normal, and maybe even reassuring — the world still has the power to surprise us. But in 2009, the uncertainty of scientific research backfired for six geologists and one hydrologist in Italy. While many saw the defense of science as the best way to appeal their manslaughter convictions, their lawyers decided against arguing that case. Instead, their lawyers argued that the defendants were right all along.

their lawyers argued that the defendants were right all along

"The only useful thing that can protect us from earthquakes is the seismic hazard map of a country," said Giulio Selvaggi, one of the accused and the former director of the National Earthquake Center in Rome, at the final hearing. "We showed a map where L'Aquila is purple, which means the highest hazard. That is what I said on March 31st 2009, and I would say the same thing today." Thus, the defendants’ attorneys stated that the scientists could not be held responsible for the statements made by De Bernadinis in 2009.

The prosecution, on the other hand, said that if the people in L’Aquila had known that De Bernadinis' energy-discharge argument was incorrect — meaning had the scientists corrected his statements — "we would not be doing this trial." The defense answered that there was no clear link between the scientific meeting on March 31st and the behavior of the people who decided to stay in their homes during the earthquake. And so, on October 10th, 2014, the six geologists were acquitted of manslaughter, and De Bernadinis obtained a reduced sentence of two years in prison. But for Selvaggi, being cleared of manslaughter was not a happy occasion. "There is nothing to celebrate," he told Nature on Monday. "The pain of the people of L’Aquila remains."

Now, researchers everywhere must ask themselves what to take away from the events in Italy. Overturning the conviction is a victory for many, but it might also be temporary, as the families of the dead have promised to challenge the ruling in the Supreme Court of Cassation, in Rome.

"There are no winners in a such a tragic case," says Ian Main, a seismologist at The University of Edinburgh, but "for scientists working in this challenging, complex, and uncertain field, the success of the appeal means we can continue to give expert advice without fear of prosecution." Others are less optimistic, however, as many have hinted that the trial will have a strong effect on how scientists communicate with government officials and with the media.

The appeal may give scientists their courage back

"I think for me the Italian case has emphasized the importance for seismologists to be very careful in communications with the press and public," John Anderson, geophysics professor and former director of the Nevada Seismology Laboratory at the University of Nevada, told The Verge yesterday. "I think we also have a responsibility to quickly correct any misstatements we hear on the news, or through any other influential media." Likewise, seismologist Mrinal Sen, at The University of Texas at Austin, thinks that scientists "have to be a lot more careful about what we say" because people sometimes alter their message. "I'm particularly concerned that young people might refrain from specializing in seismology [because of the trial]."

Ekström expressed similar levels of concern. "I think the verdicts have introduced a level of uncertainty in terms of what scientists can and cannot say that I think will take some time to resolve," he says. But "maybe this new development in Italy will give them back their courage to actually speak up about the risks and hazards that they sense with regard to natural phenomena."