nature.

com

Publications A -Z index

Browse by subject

Search

go

A dvanced search

My account E-alert sign up RSS feed Subscribe

Login

nature news home

comments on this story

news archive

specials

opinion

features

news blog

nature journal
most recent Corrections
09 Novem ber 2011

Published online 22 June 2010 | Nature 465, 992 (2010) | doi:10.1038/465992a New s

commented

Stories by subject
Earth and Environment Policy

Italy puts seismology in the dock

Scientists who assessed earthquake risk at L'Aquila could be indicted on manslaughter charges.
Nicola Nosengo

Seth Stein: The quake killer

09 Novem ber 2011

Seven days: 410 November 2011

09 Novem ber 2011

Fresh dispute about MMR 'fraud'

09 Novem ber 2011

Stories by keywords
Italy LAquila Abruzzo Earthquake INGV Earthquake prediction Seismology

ROME The deadly earthquake that struck the central Italian city of L'Aquila on 6 April 2009, has had a bizarre aftershock: some of Italy's top seismologists could face charges of manslaughter for not alerting the population before the disaster. The indictment has outraged experts around the world, who note that earthquakes cannot be predicted and who say that the Italian government neglected to enforce building codes that could have reduced the toll. The indictments, issued on 3 June by the L'Aquila public prosecutor's office, name six scientists as being investigated for manslaughter in relation to the earthquake. In Italy, this step usually precedes a request for a court trial, and is meant to allow the accused time to prepare Citizens blame scientists for not their defence. The list w arning of the LAquila earthquake. comprises Enzo Boschi, A. TARANTINO/AP PHOTO president of the National Institute for Geophysics and Vulcanology (INGV) in Rome, the main institute in charge of seismic monitoring; Giulio Selvaggi, director of the National Earthquake Center based at INGV; Franco Barberi, a volcanologist at the University of 'Roma Tre'; Claudio Eva, a professor of earth physics at the University of Genoa; Mauro Dolce, head of the seismic risk office in the Italian government's Civil Protection Agency; and Gian Michele Calvi, director of the European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering in Pavia. A government official, Bernardo De Bernardinis, deputy technical head of the Civil Protection Agency, is also under investigation. Assigning blame On 31 March 2009, all seven were in L'Aquila at a meeting of the Major Risks Committee, an expert group that advises the Civil Protection Agency on the risks of natural disasters. Frequent tremors had been recorded in the surrounding Abruzzo region, culminating in a magnitude-4.0 earthquake on 30 March. The meeting was convened by the service to ask the scientists whether a major earthquake was on its way. Immediately after that meeting, De Bernardinis and Barberi, acting president of the committee, held a press conference in L'Aquila, where De Bernardinis told reporters that "the scientific community tells us there is no danger, because there is an ongoing discharge of energy. The situation looks favorable". No other members of the committee were at the press conference.

The pollinator crisis: W hat's best for bees

09 Novem ber 2011

Related stories Seismology: On shaky ground

14 April 2010

This article elsewhere

Blogs linking to this article Add to Connotea Add to Digg Add to Facebook Add to New svine Add to Del.icio.us Add to Tw itter

Research from rubble

20 May 2009

Naturejobs Director, Editorial Development

am erican institute of physics

Journal Manager
am erican institute of physics

More science jobs Post a job for free

Resources PDF Format Send to a Friend Reprints & Permissions RSS Feeds

elsewhere on nature.com Nature Geoscience

external links National Institute for Geophysics and Vulcanology Italys Civil Protection (Italian only)

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

But on 6 April a magnitude-6.3 earthquake struck L'Aquila, killing 308 people, leaving about 1,600 injured and more than 65,000 homeless. A group of local citizens later said that many of the earthquake's victims had been planning to leave their homes but had changed their minds after the committee's statements. In August 2009 they filed a formal request asking a prosecutor to investigate. L'Aquila's chief prosecutor, Alfredo Rossini, told the Italian press on 3 June that this had left him no choice but to proceed with an investigation and that his office had now gathered enough information to indict the individuals named. The minutes of the 31 March meeting, though, reveal that at no point did any of the scientists say that there was "no danger" of a big quake. "A major earthquake in the area is unlikely but cannot be ruled out," Boschi said. Selvaggi is quoted as saying that "in recent times some recent earthquakes have been preceded by minor shocks days or weeks beforehand, but on the other hand many seismic swarms did not result in a major event". Eva added that "because L'Aquila is in a high-risk zone it is impossible to say with certainty that there will be no large earthquake". Summing up the meeting, Barberi said, "there is no reason to believe that a swarm of minor events is a sure predictor of a major shock". All the participants agreed that buildings in the area should be monitored urgently, to assess their capacity to sustain a major shock. "These are the only sensible statements any scientist could make at that point," says Susan Hough, a geophysicist at the US Geological Survey in Pasadena, California. But Hough does disagree with some of the things said at the press conference. "The idea that minor earthquakes release energy and thus make things better is a common misperception. But seismologists know it's not true," she says. "I doubt any scientist could have said that." De Bernardinis, Boschi and Selvaggi said that they were unable to comment on the case because of the ongoing investigation. Before the indictment, Boschi had criticized the Civil Protection Agency's handling of the 31 March meeting. "Such a meeting", he stated in a letter on 16 September 2009 to Guido Bertolaso, the head of the Civil Protection Agency, "should have lasted hours if the Civil Protection Agency really wanted to consider all the data. Instead it only lasted one hour, and it was not followed by a joint statement but by a press conference about which we were not informed." The Civil Protection Agency responded by asking Boschi why he waited six months before objecting to the nature of the meeting, and stated that Boschi "never explained what specific actions" the department should have taken to reduce the risks from a potential earthquake. Solidarity Staff at INGV have signed a letter of solidarity with Boschi and Selvaggi. Seismologists worldwide have also rallied to the defence of the scientists, with almost 4,000 researchers from 100 different countries signing a letter to Giorgio Napolitano, Italy's president, urging decision-makers to concentrate on "earthquake preparedness and risk mitigation rather than on prosecuting scientists for failing to do something they cannot do yet predict earthquakes".
ADVERTISEMENT Barry Parsons, at the department of earth sciences at the University of Oxford, who signed the letter, says that Italy's maps of seismic risk are of the highest possible standard, and clearly show that Abruzzo is a very high-risk area. "The proven and effective way of protecting populations is by enforcing strict building codes," he says. "Scientists are often asked the wrong question, which is 'when will the next earthquake hit?' The right question is 'how do we make

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

sure it won't kill so many people when it hits?'"

Comments
If you find something abusive or inappropriate or which does not otherwise comply with our Terms or Community Guidelines, please select the relevant 'Report this comment' link. Comments on this thread are vetted after posting.

If this is how scientists are treated, perhaps the governments #11348 are better off praying to god for help Report this comment Posted by: Jms rndll 2010-06-23 07:57:38 AM

Earthquakes can not be predicted. Right. How can a Scientist #11397 then predict that there w ill be no earthquake? This is criminal, especially w hen it is about an area that has had earthquakes and w ill have earthquakes although nobody could, can and w ill be able to predict w hen they w ill happen, w ith any useful precision. Report this comment 2010-06-24 11:45:28 PM Posted by: Otto Albrecht

#11418 As Sue Hough notes, from this article, the only inaccurate statement is that little quakes effectively release strain, and its author w as not indicted. The rest of the quoted scientific statements are accurate. The discussion of adding long-term building instrumentation for strong motion is irrelevant to the question of w hether to evacuate. Would the reporter please either give a plausible factual basis for the charges, or else draw the inescapable conclusion that the indictment is solely counterproductive political grandstanding? Report this comment 2010-06-26 01:45:34 PM Posted by: John Vidale

No doubt the indictment is politically motivated and the letter #11422 signed by the seismological community should be w idely diffused. Other organizations of scientists should send similar communications to Italian oficials. Earthquakes cannot be predicted but vulnerability could be reduced if preventive mesures are taken. These imply trainig experts, do exploration, making scenarios and finally, retrofitting of existing structures. If politicians do not allocate resources for all this, they should be indicted instead. Report this comment 2010-06-27 07:19:23 AM Posted by: Francisco J. Sanchez-Sesma

It seems similar to the Galileo Galilei's story, w ith some italian #11490 judges as new popes. Report this comment 2010-06-28 01:26:31 PM Posted by: Paolo Della Sala

#11503 This discussion conflates tw o issues - (1) it is nonsense to charge manslaughter in response to the correct earthquake prediction advice provided by the "Major Risks Committee", and (2) the right plan for zoning and retrofitting is a topic of lively debate, and one that must be decided by society as a w hole. The first is black and w hite and the second is not. Report this comment 2010-06-29 01:50:50 AM Posted by: John Vidale

The prosecution cannot be politically motivated, as someone #11507 w rongly states. Unlike in the US and other countries w here prosecutors are under control of the government, in Italy they are a self-governing body w hose actions are controlled only by the Constitution. In fact, a group of private citizens filed a request of investigations and by Italian law s such a request must be taken into account by prosecutors (legal action by prosecutors in this cases is compulsory as stated by the Italian Constitution, article 112). So, the government surely can be blamed for not enforcing codes for construction (if they exist in Italy, w hich I w ouldn't be sure), but not for the prosecution of the scientist w hich has nothing to do w ith them. Report this comment 2010-06-29 09:56:05 AM Posted by: Stefano Angioletti-Uberti

The prosecution cannot be politically motivated, as someone #11509

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

w rongly states. Unlike in the US and other countries w here prosecutors are under control of the government, in Italy they are a self-governing body w hose actions are controlled only by the Constitution. In fact, a group of private citizens filed a request of investigations and by Italian law s such a request must be taken into account by prosecutors (legal action by prosecutors in this cases is compulsory as stated by the Italian Constitution, article 112). So, the government surely can be blamed for not enforcing codes for construction (if they exist in Italy, w hich I w ouldn't be sure), but not for the prosecution of the scientist w hich has nothing to do w ith them. Report this comment 2010-06-29 09:56:10 AM Posted by: Stefano Angioletti-Uberti

#11510 The indictment is NOT politically motivated. The people of L'Aquila asked the chief prosecutor Rossini to find out any responsibility. Nobody w ant the scientists in jail. Galilei? It is ridiculous! You are offending the intelligence of the L'Aquila people. Otto Albrecht w ith his previous comment, has hit the point very clearly. There is nothing else. The scientist did not exclude a strong earthquake. Somebody else did? Rossini has to find out. That's the point. Report this comment 2010-06-29 10:03:31 AM Posted by: VINCENZO FLATI #11512

Vincenzo and Stefano, I think w e are arguing over the definition of "political" rather than the facts here.

To US scientists, or at least to me, w hen some citizens and a prosecutor file nuisance complaints, w hich can be trivially debunked, and can hinder scientists from doing their jobs, it is political interference. W hen the scientists are the national leaders of a field in w hich Italy needs much w ork, it is serious misbehavior. You make a point I hadn't appreciated in saying (I think) that the indictment does not have the encouragement of the national government. I hope the national leaders can help edify the local prosecutor. Report this comment 2010-06-29 11:26:14 AM Posted by: John Vidale

#11521 The indictment does not have the encouragement of the national government, neither have the encouragement of political parties. This has to be clear because in Italy, most of the times, the action of the prosecutors has (or it is thought to have) some kind of political background. Report this comment 2010-06-30 04:20:44 AM Posted by: VINCENZO FLATI

@Stefano: in Italy w e do have codes for construction, they've #11523 been compiled back in 2005 in their most updated version. But governments (left- and right-w inged) alw ays procrastinated enactment of the codes so that, basically, private builders could do w hatever they w anted, even in seismic zones. Ironically, the last procrastination dates right before the Abruzzo events (decreto "Milleproroghe", 27th feb 2009, for non italian speakers "Milleproroghe" means "Thousand-prorogations"). On the other hand, public buildings (schools, hospitals and so on) should already stick to these codes, but governments never put money to control and secure existing buildings (see http://en.w ikipedia.org/w iki/2002_Molise_earthquake w here 26 pupils died in the school collapse) Report this comment 2010-06-30 07:21:29 AM Posted by: Gaetano Distefano

#11559 I think that the point raised by people backing the call for international subscription against judges and asking solidarity for scientists related to the problem of "failure to predict an earthquake in 2009" is misleading and incomplete. The scientists backing such call for international support are giving an information w hich is a "false problem": the prediction of an earthquake! Any scientist, in the w orld, in perfect good faith w ould support the fact that an "earthquake cannot be deterministically predicted". But this is not the case.... Nobody know s w hich technically are the reasons of the Judge to make a legal action against the scientists of Civil Protection in Italy. It is a standard procedure now in Italy to accuse the Judges... they are the bad guys, guilty people do not exist, the indicted people alw ays call for a "political persecution". In other w ords, they try to take aw ay the verdicts from the Tribunals to transfer them on media and political parties. The case of the action of the Judge for the earthquake of L'Aquila, is in that line of thought.

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

Personally, I, as ALL the people w hich are subscribing the call, do not know w hat is the content of the Judge request trial... so w hat are these people subscribing? I believe that the scientists are personally innocent, because I think in the innocence of a person, unless demonstrated to be guilty in a trial; so the scientists should prove their innocence in the trial not on the media or asking the support of a scientific community launching misleading informations. Thank you Benedetto De Vivo Report this comment 2010-06-30 04:42:59 PM Posted by: Benedetto De Vivo #11615

I do not know how to say,as I am in China.Our country encountered too much disaster. Report this comment Posted by: may qi

2010-07-01 09:39:24 PM

The members of INGV are not being prosecuted because they #11671 w ere not able to predict the earthquake. The meeting of Commissione Grandi Rischi (CGR) w as hold because the population w as scared and a lot of Aquila citizens w ere already sleeping in cars or friends houses. The CGR w as follow ed by a press conference during w hich it w as stated that there w as no risk for the population because the small earthquakes that w ere happening since w eeks w ere actually releasing the energy, thus they w ere making a big earthquake less likely. After that many people came back to their homes. This statement had no scientific basis and caused the death of a lot of people. The investigation is aimed to asses if the responsibility of such declarations relies on the speaker w ho hold the press conference or on the members of the CGR w ho, supposedly, provided such information. One of the facts being investigated is that this report w as w ritten and signed AFTER the earthquake (declaration of geologist Boschi head of the INGV). Therefore, the letter in defense of INGV is an intolerable intimidation on the Aquila Prosecutors office. Report this comment 2010-07-04 05:39:51 AM Posted by: Umberto Lombardo #11691

Umberto,

Your comment makes sense, but tiny earthquakes release practically no tectonic stress, and I'm confident Italian seismologists know this very w ell. Unless there is concrete evidence to the contrary, the prosecutor is w asting everyone's time. Perhaps it is just how Italian justice w orks, and perhaps it w ill lead to more direct reporting at press conferences from the scientists w ho know the details, w hich w ould have been beneficial in this case. Report this comment 2010-07-05 07:56:38 PM Posted by: John Vidale

#15469 This discussion conflates so many issues that one hardly know s w here to begin, but clearly if the reports are accurate, and some people in the area did plan to stay out of their homes for a few days, but did not do so because they heard that government officials said it w as safe to go back, then they w ere very badly served by the government officials in question. The reality is that in a high risk seismic area, an extended sw arm of felt events does raise the risk of a larger event, but unfortunately, by an unknow n amount. And this apparently w as in this case a matter of real concern to the people in the area, as it should have been to anyone in such a situation w ho lives in a building that may not w ithstand a large earthquake. Under these circumstances, for a government scientist charged w ith the responsibility to help alleviate seismic hazards, to respond to peoples concerns simply by saying "Scientists can't predict earthquakes," or "We should consider enforcing building codes in your area," is, in my humble opinion, a grossly inadequate response. W ith the benefit of hindsight, I suspect almost all of us could agree that a better response w ould be, "You are in a high risk area, and the occurrence of this sw arm does increase the chance of a large event by some small, but unknow n amount. If you live in a building that may collapse in a large event, you should take w hatever action you think prudent to protect the lives of your family. Staying out of unsafe buildings for a few days might w ell be a prudent response. We are sorry that w e cannot give you more specific guidance, but w e simply don't have the know ledge to say more than this." There is a simple rule for scientists and/or public officials to follow in such a case. "If it w ere my family living in an unsafe masonry building in L'Aquila, and such a sw arm occurred, w ould I consider moving them

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

outside?" If the answ er is yes, then it is my opinion that the public has the right to that information in such a case. It is true that such a forthright statement might result in personal, professional or even legal consequences, but if people cannot expect such forthright honesty from public officials and scientists w ho are being paid w ith their tax dollars, precisely w hat are they paying them for? Report this comment 2010-11-04 05:17:11 AM Posted by: allan lindh #28162 2011-10-18 07:53:28 AM Posted by: hedeya net

very nice article: shopping center Report this comment

Add your own comment

This is a public forum. Please keep to our Community Guidelines. You can be controversial, but please don't get personal or offensive and do keep it brief. Remember our threads are for feedback and discussion - not for publishing papers, press releases or advertisements. You need to be registered w ith Nature to leave a comment. Please log in or register as a new user. You w ill be re-directed back to this page. Log in / register

Nature

ISSN 0028-0836

EISSN 1476-4687 Privacy policy Use of cook ies Legal notice Term s Naturejobs Nature Asia Nature Education RSS web feeds About Nature News Nature News Sitem ap Search: go

About NPG Contact NPG Accessibility statem ent Help

2012 Nature Publishing Group, a division of Macm illan Publishers Lim ited. All Rights Reserved. partner of AGO RA, HINARI, O ARE, INASP, O RCID, CrossRef and CO UNTER

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com