Sharing the blame !

The news that six Italian seismologists have been sentenced to a six year prison term - for not accurately predicting an earthquake in 2009 - will throw the scientific community into turmoil.   This creates a new definition of legal responsibility which could be applied to many avenues of science.

It has been argued that earthquakes are not predictable.  Seismologists have developed an understanding of the many factors that sometimes precede an earthquake, but it has been impossible to predict the time it will occur, nor the magnitude that will be involved.    Now a court has decided otherwise, and the seismologists have been declared responsible for not issuing sufficient warnings to avoid the death and destruction that occurred in the Italian village of Onna in 2009.    As well as a prison term, they have been fined $ 11 million to compensate residents for the damage caused.

Of course, this only applies to the court system in Italy, but scientists in other parts of the world will wonder if this style of thinking will apply to other aspects of science.  Will the people who man SETI be held responsible if space aliens attack earth ?    Will those who search the skies with radio telescopes be gaoled if they miss an incoming asteroid - and it hits this planet ?

Closer to home, will those who watch for a Tsunami forming after an earthquake in Asia be saddled with the blame if their predictions prove wrong - and a tidal wave engulfs thousands ?

There is an obvious safeguard that will occur to the many people who stand guard over our safety.   The wisest course of action will be to err on the side of caution, and that applies to everybody from the people who calculate the daily bush fire danger to the lifesavers who decide whether the surf is too dangerous for swimming.

That will certainly be the case in Italy, given this indication of how the courts are seeking to share the blame. Unfortunately, events of this nature seem to have influence on people's thinking wherever responsibility is involved.   If danger could be more - or less ?   Opt for the worst case scenario because that provides the safety factor.    Of course, that also means constant false alarms !

There will be a degree of consternation amongst the people at the weather bureau.   Those predicting dangerous thunderstorms, gale force winds and events like damaging hail will wonder what personal responsibility applies - and the same will occur to those who determine if a fire danger day is " high " - or perhaps " extreme ".

Hopefully, this Italian verdict is just an aberration by a judge with a peculiar mindset and it will be quickly nullified in the appeals courts.   If it is allowed to stand, it will be the case of ignoring science and apportioning blame according to principles that last applied in the dark ages.

Galileo was an Italian - and he spent the rest of his life in prison for inventing the telescope !