I located a gem in Italian jurisprudence: under Italian law, a judge has to publish an explanation – why she sentenced the way she did – within 90 days of sentencing [1]. But then, the gem is not flawless as the law does not hold the judge responsible for clarity in or the quality of the mandatory explanation. Yet, something is better than nothing.
Regarding the earthquake that struck the Italian town of L’Aquila in April 2009, the judge, Mr. Marco Billi said that the “assertions made concerning the assessment of risks connected to the seismic activity in the area around L’Aquila turned out to be completely vague, generic and ineffective [my emphasis].” The judge was quite magnanimous in admitting that, “Science is not being put on trial for not having succeeded in predicting the earthquake of April 6th of 2009.” Rather, the scientists failed in “prevention of risk”.
The prosecutor’s argument was that people reposed faith in what the scientist’s said and hence they slept indoors. Normally, when a series of tremors hits the area, fearing an imminent earthquake, people sleep outdoors. But during this catastrophe they believed what they thought the scientists were saying and slept indoors. The houses collapsed and 309 people died, many crushed by crumbling houses and collapsing ceilings. Hence the scientists were culpable.
As far as I am concerned, the expalnation offered by the judge is laughable. To sentence six scientists and a bureaucrat to six years imprisonment on such grounds itself is vague and generic. About, whether it was ineffective will be discussed later in this post. Of course, it will also be judged as the case goes for appeal.
The argument assumes that people would have understood deeper, scientifically more valid advice from the scientists. This is the point I wish to explore. Indeed, I want to be more specific.
Let me start with the weather. You have planned a picnic for Saturday. On Tuesday, the weather bulleting forecast is for clear skies on Saturday. But, by Thursday, it has turned into 30% chance of showers Saturday evening. What will you do? Do you understand what that 30% means? I definitely do not. I may at best guess that if the same conditions existed on 100 days, on 30 of those days we will have rain. This is wrong, and it is not as simple as that. The “30% chance of showers” means no more than that it may rain. So, you decide to go ahead with the program.
But, just suppose on Saturday morning you see bright sunshine but the weather forecast says that the chance of showers in the evening is 55%. What will you do? Do you understand the increase of 25% upgrade in the chance of rain, particularly when, as Karen Carpenter sings, there is “not a cloud in the sky”?
In all likelihood, nothing changes because rescheduling a picnic is not all that easy to do. You may not even want to send an advisory for people to carry an umbrella, just in case as there is still only an iffy chance of rain. At 70%, I would tend to think that you will send out an advisory.
Well, how will you explain these to the picnickers? Even if you were a forecaster, seeing what the group is made of – probably not a bunch of statisticians, probability experts – you would only say, “I suggest we take umbrellas!” But, if by chance there was no rain, there will be some grumbles that umbrellas were unnecessary, and a few, “I told you so!”s, but you will not be sent to prison.
Your message carried the context. 25%, 55%, 75% do not make any sense in that context. The six scientists must have used the same logic while assessing the risk of the earthquake. After all, they were talking to non-scientists. How much more scientific information could anyone cram in a few seconds? I will admit that the spokesman for the group may have overstepped his brief from the scientists. But, six years in prison for that? Where is the proportionality? He was not responsible for the death of the 309 people.
Indeed, in the article, Mr Enzo Boschi, former president of Italy’s National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology asserts that he is absolutely not guilty. “Does the judge think that, after having spent years exposing the seismic nature of Italy, I would have suddenly said that there was no (my emphasis) risk of earthquakes in L’Aquila? It is all senseless.” This is the argument for tagging the clarification given by the judge as ineffective, because he did not take the context of the conversation between the scientists and society into account.
I will add one more observation, this on the article itself. It says that tens of thousands were made homeless. A fact, I am ready to concede. But, the sentence came right after the other fact of 309 people having been killed. In the reader’s mind, the connection is made – 309 people dead and tens of thousands rendered homeless. But, where is the connection? No matter where people slept – indoors or outdoors – tens of thousands of people would have been rendered homeless. The houses do not care where people sleep, after all! They just collapse. The conflated scenario – people dying and houses collapsing – adds to the guilt load on the scientists. Thank you media, even one as sober as The Guardian.
Translating science into layman language carries a lot of risk. The scientists have to be careful and society has to be more open in receiving not just the words in the message but also its tone. The scientists did not falter but society did. It did not understand how to interpret science. It did not understand science. But the price is being paid by scientists. Not fair.
Raghuram Ekambaram
References
1. L’Aquila quake: Italian judge explains why he jailed scientists over disaster, Lizzy Davies, The Guardian, January 18, 2013 [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/18/italian-scientists-jailed-laquila-quake?INTCMP=SRCH]
Regarding the earthquake that struck the Italian town of L’Aquila in April 2009, the judge, Mr. Marco Billi said that the “assertions made concerning the assessment of risks connected to the seismic activity in the area around L’Aquila turned out to be completely vague, generic and ineffective [my emphasis].” The judge was quite magnanimous in admitting that, “Science is not being put on trial for not having succeeded in predicting the earthquake of April 6th of 2009.” Rather, the scientists failed in “prevention of risk”.
The prosecutor’s argument was that people reposed faith in what the scientist’s said and hence they slept indoors. Normally, when a series of tremors hits the area, fearing an imminent earthquake, people sleep outdoors. But during this catastrophe they believed what they thought the scientists were saying and slept indoors. The houses collapsed and 309 people died, many crushed by crumbling houses and collapsing ceilings. Hence the scientists were culpable.
As far as I am concerned, the expalnation offered by the judge is laughable. To sentence six scientists and a bureaucrat to six years imprisonment on such grounds itself is vague and generic. About, whether it was ineffective will be discussed later in this post. Of course, it will also be judged as the case goes for appeal.
The argument assumes that people would have understood deeper, scientifically more valid advice from the scientists. This is the point I wish to explore. Indeed, I want to be more specific.
Let me start with the weather. You have planned a picnic for Saturday. On Tuesday, the weather bulleting forecast is for clear skies on Saturday. But, by Thursday, it has turned into 30% chance of showers Saturday evening. What will you do? Do you understand what that 30% means? I definitely do not. I may at best guess that if the same conditions existed on 100 days, on 30 of those days we will have rain. This is wrong, and it is not as simple as that. The “30% chance of showers” means no more than that it may rain. So, you decide to go ahead with the program.
But, just suppose on Saturday morning you see bright sunshine but the weather forecast says that the chance of showers in the evening is 55%. What will you do? Do you understand the increase of 25% upgrade in the chance of rain, particularly when, as Karen Carpenter sings, there is “not a cloud in the sky”?
In all likelihood, nothing changes because rescheduling a picnic is not all that easy to do. You may not even want to send an advisory for people to carry an umbrella, just in case as there is still only an iffy chance of rain. At 70%, I would tend to think that you will send out an advisory.
Well, how will you explain these to the picnickers? Even if you were a forecaster, seeing what the group is made of – probably not a bunch of statisticians, probability experts – you would only say, “I suggest we take umbrellas!” But, if by chance there was no rain, there will be some grumbles that umbrellas were unnecessary, and a few, “I told you so!”s, but you will not be sent to prison.
Your message carried the context. 25%, 55%, 75% do not make any sense in that context. The six scientists must have used the same logic while assessing the risk of the earthquake. After all, they were talking to non-scientists. How much more scientific information could anyone cram in a few seconds? I will admit that the spokesman for the group may have overstepped his brief from the scientists. But, six years in prison for that? Where is the proportionality? He was not responsible for the death of the 309 people.
Indeed, in the article, Mr Enzo Boschi, former president of Italy’s National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology asserts that he is absolutely not guilty. “Does the judge think that, after having spent years exposing the seismic nature of Italy, I would have suddenly said that there was no (my emphasis) risk of earthquakes in L’Aquila? It is all senseless.” This is the argument for tagging the clarification given by the judge as ineffective, because he did not take the context of the conversation between the scientists and society into account.
I will add one more observation, this on the article itself. It says that tens of thousands were made homeless. A fact, I am ready to concede. But, the sentence came right after the other fact of 309 people having been killed. In the reader’s mind, the connection is made – 309 people dead and tens of thousands rendered homeless. But, where is the connection? No matter where people slept – indoors or outdoors – tens of thousands of people would have been rendered homeless. The houses do not care where people sleep, after all! They just collapse. The conflated scenario – people dying and houses collapsing – adds to the guilt load on the scientists. Thank you media, even one as sober as The Guardian.
Translating science into layman language carries a lot of risk. The scientists have to be careful and society has to be more open in receiving not just the words in the message but also its tone. The scientists did not falter but society did. It did not understand how to interpret science. It did not understand science. But the price is being paid by scientists. Not fair.
Raghuram Ekambaram
References
1. L’Aquila quake: Italian judge explains why he jailed scientists over disaster, Lizzy Davies, The Guardian, January 18, 2013 [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/18/italian-scientists-jailed-laquila-quake?INTCMP=SRCH]
2 comments:
Indeed the judgment is not only unfair but also absurd.
The only redeeming aspect is the judgment is being appealed in a higher court. Being from the profession of engineering and science, it really cut me too close to my heart and mind. Who do you hold responsible for what, there does not seem to be any logic when a society goes down the path of legality.
RE
Post a Comment