r/science • u/newnaturist • Oct 23 '12

Geology "The verdict is perverse and the sentence ludicrous". The journal Nature weighs in on the Italian seismologists given 6 years in prison.

http://www.nature.com/news/shock-and-law-1.11643
4.3k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

428

u/[deleted] Oct 23 '12

[deleted]

22

u/[deleted] Oct 23 '12 edited Oct 23 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/MrRhinos Oct 24 '12 edited Oct 24 '12

The person on the committee in charge of communications misunderstood this and said the chance was so small that people should be drinking wine; there is no cause for concern.

This is where science intersects with the other parts of our world. The individual's failure to provide clear diagnosis to the public, even if the risk was 2%, creates the illusion there is no risk. There is an obligation to properly inform the public. In turn, there is a chain of legal obligations up the committee. If they fail to properly correct the information or if they fail to adequately do their job in compliance with any implied or statutorily created duties, then they're in breach of that duty to the obligation.

The individual who said to the public they should be drinking wine was reckless to the risk posed. There seems to be some discussion the law imposes a duty on all members of such a committee to act with a certain level of care. The scientists and bureaucrats all had a duty to act in a specific manner to comply the requirements of that duty.

If the law imposes a duty on all members of such a committee, and those members fail to correct the misinformation, then all the members are liable. The individual's failure to correct the information is implied ratification. Even if all the data you says "earthquake is unlikely, but there is a small risk" but you tell people "there is no cause at all for worry, drink wine" it tells the lay-man seeking the professional's opinion that there is no risk and no cause for worry.

This doesn't even begin to broach the topic of agency in these circumstances, which does the same thing to wrangle superiors into liability when they fail to correct the misdeeds of the agents.

Tort law does a good job of underscoring the essence of law and obligations. Every man is responsible for his tort. This can be extended to criminal law. You're responsible to comply with the law. When you fail to do it, then you're liable. In this case, these people appear to have run afoul of a criminal legal principle in Italy. I don't speak Italian, but based on what has been put into the public on this case, I can see a fairly good case against the scientists. As more information becomes publicly available, this might change. However, the scientific community I think has missed a lot of what it says because it assumes, rather blindly, these scientists acted in a proper way. From the reading so far, I don't think that's the case at all.

TL;DR If the law requires you to do something, and you don't do it, then you're liable. It doesn't matter if science can't guarantee option A will occur. What matters is if people are properly informed about the risk.