The Tremors from L’Aquila

I can’t resist a comment on news which broke yesterday that an Italian court has found six scientists and a former government official guilty of manslaughter in connection with the L’Aquila Earthquake of 2009. Scientific colleagues of mine are shocked by their conviction and by the severity of the sentences (six years’ imprisonment), the assumption being that they were convicted for having failed to predict the earthquake. However, as Nature News pointed out long before the trial when the scientists were indicted:

The view from L’Aquila, however, is quite different. Prosecutors and the families of victims alike say that the trial has nothing to do with the ability to predict earthquakes, and everything to do with the failure of government-appointed scientists serving on an advisory panel to adequately evaluate, and then communicate, the potential risk to the local population. The charges, detailed in a 224-page document filed by Picuti, allege that members of the National Commission for Forecasting and Predicting Great Risks, who held a special meeting in L’Aquila the week before the earthquake, provided “incomplete, imprecise, and contradictory information” to a public that had been unnerved by months of persistent, low-level tremors. Picuti says that the commission was more interested in pacifying the local population than in giving clear advice about earthquake preparedness.

“I’m not crazy,” Picuti says. “I know they can’t predict earthquakes. The basis of the charges is not that they didn’t predict the earthquake. As functionaries of the state, they had certain duties imposed by law: to evaluate and characterize the risks that were present in L’Aquila.” Part of that risk assessment, he says, should have included the density of the urban population and the known fragility of many ancient buildings in the city centre. “They were obligated to evaluate the degree of risk given all these factors,” he says, “and they did not.”

Many of my colleagues have interpreted the conviction of these scientists as an attack on science, but the above statement actually looks to me more like a demand that the scientists involved should have been more scientific. By that I mean not giving a simple “yes” or “no” answer (which in this case was “no”) but by give a proper scientific analysis of the probabilities involved. This comment goes straight to two issues that I feel very strongly about. One is the vital importance of probabilistic reasoning – in this case in connection with a risk assessment – and the other is the need for openness in science.

I thought I’d take this opportunity to repeat the reasons I think statistics and statistical reasoning are so important. Of course they are important in science. In fact, I think they lie at the very core of the scientific method, although I am still surprised how few practising scientists are comfortable even with statistical language. A more important problem is the popular impression that science is about facts and absolute truths. It isn’t. It’s a process. In order to advance, it has to question itself.

Statistical reasoning also applies outside science to many facets of everyday life, including business, commerce, transport, the media, and politics. It is a feature of everyday life that science and technology are deeply embedded in every aspect of what we do each day. Science has given us greater levels of comfort, better health care, and a plethora of labour-saving devices. It has also given us unprecedented ability to destroy the environment and each other, whether through accident or design. Probability even plays a role in personal relationships, though mostly at a subconscious level.

Civilized societies face severe challenges in this century. We must confront the threat of climate change and forthcoming energy crises. We must find better ways of resolving conflicts peacefully lest nuclear or conventional weapons lead us to global catastrophe. We must stop large-scale pollution or systematic destruction of the biosphere that nurtures us. And we must do all of these things without abandoning the many positive things that science has brought us. Abandoning science and rationality by retreating into religious or political fundamentalism would be a catastrophe for humanity.

Unfortunately, recent decades have seen a wholesale breakdown of trust between scientists and the public at large; the conviction of the scientists in the L’Aquila case is just one example. This breakdown is due partly to the deliberate abuse of science for immoral purposes, and partly to the sheer carelessness with which various agencies have exploited scientific discoveries without proper evaluation of the risks involved. The abuse of statistical arguments have undoubtedly contributed to the suspicion with which many individuals view science.

There is an increasing alienation between scientists and the general public. Many fewer students enrol for courses in physics and chemistry than a a few decades ago. Fewer graduates mean fewer qualified science teachers in schools. This is a vicious cycle that threatens our future. It must be broken.

The danger is that the decreasing level of understanding of science in society means that knowledge (as well as its consequent power) becomes concentrated in the minds of a few individuals. This could have dire consequences for the future of our democracy. Even as things stand now, very few Members of Parliament are scientifically literate. How can we expect to control the application of science when the necessary understanding rests with an unelected “priesthood” that is hardly understood by, or represented in, our democratic institutions?

Very few journalists or television producers know enough about science to report sensibly on the latest discoveries or controversies. As a result, important matters that the public needs to know about do not appear at all in the media, or if they do it is in such a garbled fashion that they do more harm than good.

Years ago I used to listen to radio interviews with scientists on the Today programme on BBC Radio 4. I even did such an interview once. It is a deeply frustrating experience. The scientist usually starts by explaining what the discovery is about in the way a scientist should, with careful statements of what is assumed, how the data is interpreted, and what other possible interpretations might be and the likely sources of error. The interviewer then loses patience and asks for a yes or no answer. The scientist tries to continue, but is badgered. Either the interview ends as a row, or the scientist ends up stating a grossly oversimplified version of the story.

Some scientists offer the oversimplified version at the outset, of course, and these are the ones that contribute to the image of scientists as priests. Such individuals often believe in their theories in exactly the same way that some people believe religiously. Not with the conditional and possibly temporary belief that characterizes the scientific method, but with the unquestioning fervour of an unthinking zealot. This approach may pay off for the individual in the short term, in popular esteem and media recognition – but when it goes wrong it is science as a whole that suffers. When a result that has been proclaimed certain is later shown to be false, the result is widespread disillusionment. And the more secretive the behaviour of the scientific community, the less reason the public has to trust its pronouncements.

I don’t have any easy answers to the question of how to cure this malaise, but do have a few suggestions. It would be easy for a scientist such as myself to blame everything on the media and the education system, but in fact I think the responsibility lies mainly with ourselves. We are usually so obsessed with our own research, and the need to publish specialist papers by the lorry-load in order to advance our own careers that we usually spend very little time explaining what we do to the public or why we do it.

I think every working scientist in the country should be required to spend at least 10% of their time working in schools or with the general media on “outreach”, including writing blogs like this. People in my field – astronomers and cosmologists – do this quite a lot, but these are areas where the public has some empathy with what we do. If only biologists, chemists, nuclear physicists and the rest were viewed in such a friendly light. Doing this sort of thing is not easy, especially when it comes to saying something on the radio that the interviewer does not want to hear. Media training for scientists has been a welcome recent innovation for some branches of science, but most of my colleagues have never had any help at all in this direction.

The second thing that must be done is to improve the dire state of science education in schools. Over the last two decades the national curriculum for British schools has been dumbed down to the point of absurdity. Pupils that leave school at 18 having taken “Advanced Level” physics do so with no useful knowledge of physics at all, even if they have obtained the highest grade. I do not at all blame the students for this; they can only do what they are asked to do. It’s all the fault of the educationalists, who have done the best they can for a long time to convince our young people that science is too hard for them. Science can be difficult, of course, and not everyone will be able to make a career out of it. But that doesn’t mean that it should not be taught properly to those that can take it in. If some students find it is not for them, then so be it. I always wanted to be a musician, but never had the talent for it.

The third thing that has to be done is for scientists to be far more open. Publicly-funded scientists have a duty not only to publish their conclusions in such a way that the public can access them freely, but also to publish their data, their methodology and the intermediate steps. Most members of the public will struggle to make sense of the information, but at least there will be able to see that nothing is being deliberately concealed.

Everyone knows that earthquake prediction is practically impossible to do accurately. The danger of the judgement in the L’Aquila Earthquake trial (apart from discouraging scientists from ever becoming seismologists) is that the alarm will be sounded every time there is the smallest tremor. The potential for panic is enormous. But the science in this field,as in any other, does not actually tell one how to act on evidence of risk, merely to assess it. It’s up to others to decide whether and when to act, when the threshold of danger has been crossed. There is no scientific answer to the question “how risky is too risky?”.

So instead of bland reassurances or needless panic-mongering, the scientific community should refrain from public statements about what will happen and what won’t and instead busy itself with the collection, analysis and interpretation of data and publish its studies as openly as possible. The public will find it very difficult to handle this information overload, but so they should. Difficult questions don’t have simple answers. Scientists aren’t priests.

About these ads

13 Responses to “The Tremors from L’Aquila”

  1. Juliana Venning M.A. (Hons) Canterbury, NZ Says:

    Scientists (Seismologists agree the Italians got it wrong and should take responsibility (from NZ) as we lost lives in our Canterbury quakes and people have been held to account by the Commission. Our seismologists have warned of the type of ongoing quakes and that has meant more restrictions around areas of risk, so lives saved.

  2. “One is the vital importance of probabilistic reasoning – in this case in connection with a risk assessment”

    Indeed. And once science provides the proper information, the public still must interpret it correctly:

  3. So who do you propose should translate the research into actions? If I employ a technician, I want a technical recommendation, not a description of how a piece of equipment works., and an engineering degree shouldn’t be required to make sense of the answer. If people ask scientists for advice, they don’t want complex data analysis, but an answer. For probabilities they place a bet or buy insurance. Hiding behind uncertainties may be fine in cosmology (the dark force may be sinister, but it won’t threaten our lives) (may threaten our budgets though). But it is making a virtue out of irrelevance.

    • telescoper Says:

      Scientists should not pretend to be able to do what they can’t. Those that do are duping the public.

    • We should make our data available. But just giving your data to someone else and let them make decisions isn’t a solution. We all sit on panels that make recommendations. Should we just provide our arguments and leave the recommendations up to the secretary? Who else can deal with uncertainties? What is the difference between what you are advocating and what the poor Italian scientists are supposed to have done? With the task comes the responsibility.

      I should say that I find the verdict outrageous. As far as I know, there is no good short-term earthquake predictor. And long-term predictions have always been ignored – otherwise Istanbul would have been evacuated ten years ago.

      • telescoper Says:

        Albert

        (a) They were not convicted for failing to predict the earthquake! They were convicted for failing in their duty to present a proper risk assessment. Read the statement from the prosecutor.

        (b) I never said just handing the data over was the solution. Scientists should hand over their data, the analysis, modelling and interpretation along with a realistic assessment of the probabilities involved in the risk, not just give bland assurances that everything will be OK.

        Peter

  4. Anton Garrett Says:

    Big post! My first reaction to the conviction of the Italian seismologists was horror, and I am still far short of the information needed to reach an informed conclusion; but they presumably chose to accept payment to sit on an advisory committee, and one does have to take responsibility for one’s advice all the way so far as I am concerned. If the truth is “we don’t know” then the advice should be “we’re not sure.” I know that building regulations in San Francisco and Israel are pretty stringent because of the known risk of earthquakes, and ancient buildings in Italy are presumably those that have successfully survived previous quakes, but there is always the risk of the big one.

    I think that the public lessening of confidence in science has several causes. The media are part of it – not by demanding impossible over-simplification in interviews, but by telling the public that science could solve all our problems, which today’s scientists at least never claim. (Did a previous generation of scientists?) This loss of confidence has deep cultural roots, correlating with the shift from modernism to postmodernism, and in popular lit from scifi to sword-and-sorcery – basically, from secular materialism to New Age outlooks.

    Catastrophic anthropic global warming is not on my worry list, and forthcoming energy crises are, I believe, of our own making. We’ve got enough on our plate with other crises.

    I beg to differ with your comment “If only biologists, chemists, nuclear physicists and the rest were viewed in such a friendly light.” Biological research quite rapidly finds its way into medicine that helps people, and the public knows it. I’ve recently been educating myself on the types of mutation that can occur at genetic level, and there is genuine public interest in this stuff as it’s a field that can both help people and tell them about human origins.

    “Difficult questions don’t have simple answers. Scientists aren’t priests.”

    It’s one thing to believe you know the answer to a hard question, but it’s another to live it. Life isn’t simple for us who are religious, it’s just different (although really I can speak only for those of my own faith). More glibly, Lemaitre!

  5. […] C’è anche questo pezzo interessante che merita risposta – devo farlo entro oggi spero […]

  6. This is Italy, you can be damn sure they’ve been accepting sizable payments, considerable perks and sweet back-handers to sit on this and other advisory committees and do little more than discusss what they going to have for lunch on Sunday.
    Equally guilty is the global press for suggesting that they were convicted for having failed to predict the earthquake rather than actually read Picuti’s document and explain to their readership what the charges were and why they were convicted.
    Great post, thanks for clarifying.

  7. […] Ropeik did an excellent job at summarizing just what happened and the blog post by Peter Coles (The Tremors From L’Aquila) shed more light on the event – but this is all seen from the […]

  8. Reblogged this on Sangwon (Justin) Hyun and commented:
    convicted scientists

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,806 other followers

%d bloggers like this: