The first stage of the trial in L’Aquila (Italy) ended with a conviction of seven experts, convened by the head of Civil Protection on 31 March 2009, for multiple manslaughter and serious injuries. They were sentenced to six years in jail, perpetual interdiction from public office and a fine of several million euros to be paid to the victims of the earthquake of 6 April 2009 (moment magnitude 6.3) for having caused, by their negligent conduct, the death of 29 persons and the injury of several others. The verdict had a tremendous impact on the scientific community and on the way scientists deliver their expert opinions to decision makers and society. This paper analyses the scientific argumentations reported in the Verdict Motivations, where scientific data and results were largely debated and misused to demonstrate that they should have been considered as a tool to predict an impending large earthquake. Moreover, we show that the supposed message of reassurance was not generated at the experts’ meeting or by the official Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia reports. The media had a key role in conveying information during the seismic swarm, contributing to the risk perception. We stress that prevention actions based on seismic hazard knowledge are the best defence against earthquakes.

The l’Aquila trial / Cocco, Massimo; Cultrera, Giovanna; Amato, Alessandro; Braun, Thomas; Cerase, Andrea; Margheriti, Lucia; Bonaccorso, Alessandro; Demartin, Martina; Marco De Martini, Paolo; Galadini, Fabrizio; Meletti, Carlo; Nostro, Concetta; Pacor, Francesca; Pantosti, Daniela; Pondrelli, Silvia; Quareni, Francesca; Todesco, Micol. - (2015), pp. 43-55. [10.1144/SP419.13].

The l’Aquila trial

Andrea Cerase;
2015

Abstract

The first stage of the trial in L’Aquila (Italy) ended with a conviction of seven experts, convened by the head of Civil Protection on 31 March 2009, for multiple manslaughter and serious injuries. They were sentenced to six years in jail, perpetual interdiction from public office and a fine of several million euros to be paid to the victims of the earthquake of 6 April 2009 (moment magnitude 6.3) for having caused, by their negligent conduct, the death of 29 persons and the injury of several others. The verdict had a tremendous impact on the scientific community and on the way scientists deliver their expert opinions to decision makers and society. This paper analyses the scientific argumentations reported in the Verdict Motivations, where scientific data and results were largely debated and misused to demonstrate that they should have been considered as a tool to predict an impending large earthquake. Moreover, we show that the supposed message of reassurance was not generated at the experts’ meeting or by the official Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia reports. The media had a key role in conveying information during the seismic swarm, contributing to the risk perception. We stress that prevention actions based on seismic hazard knowledge are the best defence against earthquakes.
2015
Geoethics: The Role and Responsibility of Geoscientists
978-1862397262
Risk communication; L'Aquila Trial; legal liability; science communication; science misunderstanding
02 Pubblicazione su volume::02a Capitolo o Articolo
The l’Aquila trial / Cocco, Massimo; Cultrera, Giovanna; Amato, Alessandro; Braun, Thomas; Cerase, Andrea; Margheriti, Lucia; Bonaccorso, Alessandro; Demartin, Martina; Marco De Martini, Paolo; Galadini, Fabrizio; Meletti, Carlo; Nostro, Concetta; Pacor, Francesca; Pantosti, Daniela; Pondrelli, Silvia; Quareni, Francesca; Todesco, Micol. - (2015), pp. 43-55. [10.1144/SP419.13].
File allegati a questo prodotto
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/1291474
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 20
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact