There is a simple
way to get jailed for six years. Just keep predicting that there is no risk of
an earthquake, particularly in earthquake prone regions like in the Himalayas,
and in short order you will be sent to jail. This is what happened to a group
of scientists who, according to Fox News and ABC (the American TV network),
failed to predict the April 6, 2009 earthquake in L’Aquila in Italy [1]. You
will be charged with and found guilty of manslaughter. A good 6 years behind
bars. Nice comeuppance for choosing science as your life calling, I will say.
How the
scientists assessed the risk and how it was diluted by the time it reached
popular press is an engrossing story. But that is irrelevant here. The relevant
points are what society demands of scientists and how it chooses to act or
otherwise on what the scientists say. A self-styled earthquake prediction
expert went around town saying that there will be a major earthquake on March
29, 2009. Groups carried his doomsday message “warning residents to leave their
homes, causing considerable panic, but no quake materialised.” A false
positive, but no punishment from the city elders. No punishment for crying
wolf.
But, the
scientists did not even venture deep into the opposite territory. It is their
spokesman (it is not clear whether Bernardo de Bernadinis of the Civil Protection
Agency – the outfit that asked the experts for their assessment – is a
scientist; probably not) who made the statement: “The scientific community
tells me there is no danger because there is an ongoing discharge of energy.” This
was for public consumption, whereas volcanologist Franco Barberi gave the
following, accurate summary sounding much more scientific: "There is no
reason to believe that a swarm of minor events is a sure predictor of a major
shock." Note that the more scientific statement, at least from my
perspective, avoided simplistic words/phrases like “discharge of energy”.
This was taken
to be a false negative message that gave an undeserved level of confidence to
the public. Presto, the scientists and also the spokesman were negligent and
therefore culpable. Hence, the six year term.
A false
positive got people scurrying, but only a misconstrued false negative got seven
people six year prison terms. This is why I said earlier that how society acts
upon advice from scientists, including self-styled ones, is the more
significant issue in this episode.
After the Bhuj
earthquake, civil and structural engineers studied the issues and recommended changes
in the design and detailing of reinforced concrete buildings. There was at
least one response to these changes that is quite instructive. It said that making
buildings safer will increase the cost of construction and to the disadvantage
of the builders who are truly professional and who care about their creations.
That is, the race to the bottom is profitable. Money trumps science every time.
Society is too
quick to blame scientists and let go pseudo-scientists. It is in these cases I
believe spending time behind bars is good for the soul of the scientists.
Raghuram
Ekambaram
P.S Isn’t it
time that we put astrologers through the same wringer that the scientists went
through here?
References
1. After jailing Italian scientists over
L'Aquila, what next? Sue Michael Fish?, Martin Robbins, The Guardian, October 23, 2012 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/23/italian-scientists-charged-laquila-earthquake)
7 comments:
If an astrologer says a lie and goes wrong he can always say you did not believe enough and not the same with a scientist because he bases his study on hard facts and not beliefs.
That is precisely the point I wanted to make Balu. Astrologers couch their "predictions" in a lot of escapist "ifs" which no scientist worth his salt would dare accommodate without at least giving a passing nod, many times by way of probabilities. This is merely the acknowledgment of limits of knowledge at any given time. Scientists are given 6 years prison term because they are honest.
RE
Falacy of science is in its non knowledge of frontiers yet to be discovered.They are good at explaining phenomena but as bad as astrologers wrt predictions.Knowing this they have to look at their absolutism. As to the role of pseudo-scientists-
They have no part to play when it comes to such predictions.Society should learn to ignore such people without scientific credibility to back them up..
Scientists should look at their absolutism. YES! YES!! YES!!! Indeed, I go beyond DS sir. An absolutist scientist is no scientist. Even on technical matters, I have nothing but scorn to heap on people, who fearing that they may be called to answer in the event of a failure, refuse to approve 0.001% deviation from the stipulated limits. And, I am not throwing numbers here; I have examples to prove.
RE
Money trumps not only science, but everything else.
It's quite absurd, however, that scientists are put behind the bars for the reason you've mentioned.
Matheikal, I seem to have scooped even Indian newspapers... The Hindu carried only a brief on that today, a good many hours after I posted that piece!
Read through the Guardian link to see an expanded criticism (though there is one sentence even that commentator would wish he had not written).
RE
Post a Comment