Italian Scientists face trial in Italy after major earthquake

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110914/ful...=TWT_NatureNews

An earthquake devastated the city of L'Aquila in April 2009. Charges have now been laid against a number of scientists and public officials. Despite the attempt to portray this as an idiotic move against them for failing to perform the impossible (ie. predict an earthquake) I am rather pleased to see this action. It is time someone challenged the whole concept of "risk assessment" as it is currently used in a wide variety of fields. I will watch this with interest and I hope it brings home to those involved that if you use such pseudo scientific terms as "risk assessment"; which do convey the idea of more precision than can be legitimately claim, then you will be accountable when things go wrong. That is true in social work and it is true in seismology. Perhaps this case will help to get us out of this nonsense. I hope so

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/02/new-t...-+Blog+Posts%29

Small follow up to this.

I was interested in the distinction between the different ways of approaching the problem of prediction. It seems to mirror my concern about the approach to nuclear safety as well: a focus on risk with little regard to hazard

But not yet used in economics. I wonder if economists will get the same treatment for preforming actions similar to the scientists. Probably not.

I still find the scenario really stupid however. I personally don't put all my faith in scientific reasoning just like any other form of reasoning, as... well... to put it bluntly, possibiltys a bitch. Better to take things with a pinch of salt, than rely on them completely.

What would you have done, ex nihilo? There were a series of tremors, and camping out in the square is hardly convenient You would have done that over an extended period on the precautionary principle? You would have been wise: but not "evidence based".

It is difficult to say what I would have done. If we were to accurately predict an earth quake more test would have needed to be done. Good science is done over and over again after all to see what the results are. But I suppouse time was short, and you can only rely on the evidance you have at the time.

But with earthquakes, they are difficult to predict. Tremors could occur and have no serious effects, but they could also have serious effects and have unforseen consequences (like 'fukishima', though it was stupid to build a nuclear power plant where so many plates meet up. But I think that was more for political reasons, than scientific).

In my view, you can only make your best attempt and move on using the evidance you have with you. If there is any room for improvment in your calculations, it is better to do it. But we can't always be sure we'll come out with the right out come.

Meh, forget it. I probably don't know what I'm talking about.

Well the trial is over. 6 scientists and a public safety official have been convicted of manslaughter. They will appeal and it is likely the sentences will be reduced from the current 6 years in prison which has been imposed

I do not wish anyone to think that I consider the charge to be the correct one: nor the jail sentences to be appropriate. Nevertheless I stand by my original view that these scientists were culpable and for the reasons I outlined in the OP

This article takes the same view, and expresses it more fully.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/20...sts_saying.html

An Australian judge has found against Standard and Poor, in a case involving their culpability in awarding a triple A credit rating to a derivative product produced by ABN-Amro.

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012...y-cpdo-edition/

Y0u may wonder what this is doing in this thread. The link I see is this: both S&P and the Italian scientists laid claim to a crystal ball. The professed an expertise and objectivity such that they could put a figure on risk which should be relied on by those who have no such expertise themselves. In both cases the were wrong: in the case of the earthquake they were wrong because they would not say "nobody knows". In the case of S&P they were either wrong for the same reason; or they were wrong because they were not independent and not objective. Either way they put themselves out there as experts and they took the status (and the money) which attached to that expertise. It is therefore right that they should be held responsible for the consequences. For too long we have behaved as if "risk assessment" was possible when it suited the powers that be: and as if it was not reasonable to rely on it when something goes wrong. As always it is heads they win and tails they don't lose.

I wonder if there is beginning to be a change in this which will affect this pernicious nonsense as it appears across a wide range of things: I certainly hope so

A further update. 4 people who were involved in building work on a student residence which collapsed at Aquila have been convicted of multiple manslaughter. 3 for substandard work, which attracted sentences of 4 and a half years, and the fourth for failing to carry out proper checks on that work: that is less serious apparently and he was sentenced to two and a half years. Oddly, it is also reported that they are all banned from working on public contracts for 5 years, which seems a little short to me

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21487385