"But since the affairs of men rest still uncertain, let's reason with the worst that may befall": Probability, risk, and the 2009 L'Aquila Earthquake

TL;DR

This paper discusses the controversial trial of scientists and officials after the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake, highlighting issues of risk assessment, scientific responsibility, and the impact on future expert advice in disaster situations.

Contribution

It critically analyzes the legal and scientific implications of holding scientists accountable for natural disasters, emphasizing the importance of understanding risk and uncertainty.

Findings

The trial sparked global debate on scientific responsibility.

It highlights the challenges of predicting natural disasters.

The case influences future risk communication and legal accountability.

Abstract

This article is a commentary on the verdict of the "L'Aquila Six", the group of bureaucrats and scientists tried by an Italian court as a result of their public statements in advance of the quake of 2009 Apr. 6 that left the city in ruins and cause more than 300 deaths. It was not the worst such catastrophic event in recent Italian history, but it was one of -- if not the -- worst failures of risk assessment and preventive action. The six were found guilty and condemned by a first level of the justice system to substantial prison terms. The outcry provoked by the verdict in the world press and the international scientific community has fueled the already fiery debate over whether the six should have been tried at all. They have been presented as martyrs to science being treated as scapegoats by a scientifically illiterate justice system and inflamed local population for not being able to perform the impossible (predict the event). Petitions of support have been drafted and signed by thousands of working scientists and technical experts in many fields excoriating the court and the country for such an outrage against the scientific community, often accompanied by ominous warnings about the chilling effect this will have on the availability of expert advice in times of need. My purpose in this essay is to explain why this view of the events of the trial is misguided, however well intentioned, and misinformed.