I can think of very few professions where there is no judegment of risk, a doctor faces the risk that the treatment they have chosen won't work; an economist may judge some investments to be better than others, but there is a risk that they may be wrong; an archtiect risks the possibility that although their design works on the small scale, when its actually built it may not work at all.
There are ways of mitigating these risks. Personal experience and data help, modelling helps, using everything available to you to ensure you make the most informed decision you can possibly make lessens any risk. But it does not eliminate risk entirely. There are always wells that don't discover anything, drugs that don't work and markets that crash.
So, please tell me, why has the Italian government deemed it appropriate to sentence 6 Italian scientists and an ex-government employee to six years in prison accused of multiple manslaughter after failing to predict a major earthquake in L'Aquila, Italy?
It has been proved, time and time again that you can not accurately predict the exact location, timing or magnitude of any earthquake. You know that there are earthquake zones related to plate tectonic boundaries, we know that some of these boundaries are more active than others, but that's about it.
The above map shows the position of the plate boundaries as we know them to exist today, We know it is somewhat more complicated than this and that there are small plates attached to the bigger plates and associated faults on each of these boundaries, but in essence you get the picture. It explains why Western Europe, Central Asia and Central North America don't have the large earthquakes that effect the Western US, Central Europe, and the Pacific Rim (also known as the Ring of Fire due to the number of associated volcanoes and earthquakes). A correlation between the plate boundaries and preliminary determined earthquake epicentres can be illustrated by the below diagram.
Anyway, this isn't supposed to be a geology lesson, and earthquake predicition really isn't my field. But as you can see we have data, we have observations, we know when these earthquakes occurred and where, but not one single earthquake was predicted beforehand, and in L'Aquila there was no way of knowing that the small tremors that had already affected the area for years would one day mean that a large, >5 on the Richter scale, earthquake would happen and cause the death of 309 people and cause massive damage to the area.
But the authorities who pursued the seven defendants stressed that the case was never about the power of prediction - it was about what was interpreted to be an inadequate characterisation of the risks; of being misleadingly reassuring about the dangers that faced their city (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20025626)
I don't want to point fingers, but common sense to me says that if you live in an earthquake prone zone, even if they are small earthquakes, you should be properly informed in what to do should one occur. Get outside, go to the safest place in the house (under a table, in the bath, stand in a solid door frame). Isn't this down to the government, the schools, to educate their population to ensure their safety? To ensure that buildings weakened by years of small tremors don't crumble, to make sure that buildings in an earthquake zone are to a standard?
So although they weren't tried for not predicting the earthquake, they were tried and convicted for not allowing for adequate risk, despite saying that although a large earthquake was not likely, it was not impossible. And that's the crux, as a scientist you usually make statements that allow for the unexpected, nature is not predictable.
Life is full of risks, it is impossible to account for every risk. Every time we cross the road we run the risk that there is some idiot not paying attention as they've dropped coffee on themselves or have answered their phone. If we wanted to avoid all risks we may not leave the house, but even then 2.7 million people a year in the UK go to A&E due to an accident in the home.
This trial may set a dangerous precedent, most scientific professionals err on the side of caution with any statement they make, this may stop them from releasing any statement. And that may be the biggest risk of all.
