Italian seismologists shouldn’t be punished for inaccurate predictions
Weather is defined as “the state of the atmosphere at a given time and place.” The dictionary goes on to say that said state of the atmosphere can be “adverse or destructive.” That’s basically a formal way to say anything can happen at any point in time. Historically, predicting the weather has been a running joke because it’s difficult to do with any certainty. However, in Italy last Monday, seven scientists were convicted of manslaughter for failing to do just that: predict the weather. It is hypocritical to expect perfection from weather prediction when such predictions are fraught with variables.
In March 2009, the scientists in Italy released an assessment that ruled the likelihood of a major earthquake to be low. A month later the L’Aquila region was rocked with a 6.3-magnitude earthquake, which killed upward of 300 people. The conviction is based on the belief that the scientists could have done more to warn citizens of the L’Aquila region.
Earthquake prediction is based on supposition. The most recent earthquake of comparable magnitude in the L’Aquila region occurred in 1703. Even if the scientists had alerted the public to the possibility, they would not have been able to give concrete details. There is no definite way to predict where exactly an earthquake will hit and how strong the tremors will be. Even if such information is released, there is still no way to ensure that the public, politicians and the rest of the scientific world would heed the information. Politicians are charged with deciding whether to evacuate a vulnerable area, and there’s no way to tell if they will agree with the prediction. Often, the release of a weather prediction will follow with opposing opinions.
If an earthquake hits and the scientists are proved to be correct, there is no problem. But if an assessment is released and no earthquake hits, rendering any evacuations and precautions unnecessary, the inconvenience can disgruntle the public. To convict scientists for manslaughter because they couldn’t predict the future and pinpoint a highly finicky fault line holds scientists to a double standard. It’s impossible to perfectly predict the weather, and therefore, it is ridiculous to accuse scientists of willfully harming others because Earth did not act according to plan.
This week in the U.S., Hurricane Sandy raged its way through the East Coast, after wreaking havoc in the Caribbean. Before it landed, there was a huge amount of concern as to if, where and when it would land. Hurricanes are perhaps slightly easier to predict than earthquakes, but when you turn on the news, there’s always the same tone of uncertainty.
Unless the scientists can take the responsibility for creating natural disasters, they shouldn’t have to take responsibility for their outcome.