Earthquake science put on trial, quake experts accused of manslaughter

and officials from advising their government or even working in the field of seismology and seismic risk.”

In contrast, some scientists believe that while predicting earthquakes an inaccurate art, the seven Italian earthquake experts should have more thoroughly explained the risks that the people of L’Aquila faced.

Some seismologists argue that the Italian experts failed because they did not effectively communicate that the occurrence of roughly 400 small tremors increases the chances of a major quake in the next few days by as much as a factor of 1,000. The likelihood is still relatively low – an estimated one in 1,000.

Dr. McSharry was careful to note that the chances of an earthquake were still very low even after the series of small tremors.

“The risk of an earthquake would have been extremely low to start with,” he said. “After the tremors, this risk would have been increased but this is still unlikely to have been sufficient to take action. The decision about whether or not to take action hinges on an accurate real-time risk assessment and an appropriate cost-benefits analysis.”

David Spiegelhalter, the Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at Cambridge University, said explaining the “risk” and the” cost-benefits analysis” to the public was absolutely critical.

“The public has a right to know about this kind of information,” Spiegelhalter said. “To suggest otherwise is patronizing.”

“I don’t believe that the public is too stupid to understand the difference between absolute and increased risk. And this could and should have been explained to locals who, as veterans of an earthquake zone, would have been a sophisticated audience,” Spiegelhalter added. “Given all the information, they would have been in the position to decide whether or not it was worth sleeping in the town square for a few nights.”

“Coming clean with what you know is now being demanded by the public,” echoed Tom Jordan, the director of the Southern California Earthquake Center.

Professor Jordan agreed with other scientists that the manslaughter charges held “no merit,” but believes that the trial will “force seismologists worldwide to rethink the way they describe low-probability, high-risk events.”

In particular some risk management experts believe that all scientists like those monitoring tsunamis, hurricanes, and other natural disasters as well as doctors must do a better job of communicating risk and explaining the dangers of a situation.

In a study completed earlier this year, Zurich University’s Horten-Center for patient-oriented research and knowledge transfer found that general practitioners were largely unable to explain cardiac risk data to patients or the critical need for medication as a result.

“Emotional and psychological factors heavily influence the way people interpret risk – and how they react,” David Ropeik, a professor of risk management at Harvard University said. “It’s vital that these factors are considered and that people with expertise in these fields help inform the way authorities communicate risk to the public.”