Seismologists on trial

The trial of six Italian scientists and a former government official began on Tuesday in the central Italian city of L'Aquila.

A devastating 6.3-magnitude earthquake hit the city in 2009, killing 309 people. In an unprecedented case, Italian prosecutors have charged the scientists with manslaughter and "negligence and imprudence," noting that the researchers "provided an approximate, generic and ineffective assessment of seismic activity risks as well as incomplete, imprecise and contradictory information."

Attorneys for the defendants say that there simply is no accurate way to predict earthquakes. The trial has been adjourned until October 1. Scientists worldwide say the case could set a very dangerous legal precedent.

To learn more about the trial and its potential impact on European and Italian seismology, Deutsche Welle turned to Warner Marzocchi, the chief scientist at the Seismology and Techno-physics Section at the National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology in Rome.

Deutsche Welle: What can you tell us about this trial?

Warner Marzocchi: I was one of the thousands of international scientists who signed a letter that was a reaction to a declaration by the prosecutors. It was their sense that it doesn't matter to raise or not raise an alert, because the alarm was already very clear due to the seismic sequence. The problem is that the [city council] has to push people to abandon their houses. To us, [their accusations] sound like: ‘You were unable to predict an earthquake.' From a seismological point of view, even now, I'm still not able to understand why this seismic sequence ended with an earthquake, and I don't see any difference with many other seismological sequences that didn't end with an earthquake.

Initially the prosecutors were charging the scientists with failing to predict the earthquake, and now they're saying that they failed to warn of what might happen. Isn't that splitting hairs?

The difference in the accusation was substantial. In the beginning, they said the scientists failed to predict the earthquake. This is a very strong statement. Of course, there is no way to predict an earthquake anywhere in the world. I read all 200 pages of the accusation and it's not yet clear to me what the point is. I've heard people talk about bad communication. But saying that I'm not able to predict an earthquake was taken like some sort of reassuring statement that an earthquake was not coming. But there is a big difference between saying I'm not able to predict an earthquake and an earthquake will not occur.

What impact do you think this impact will have on your seismological research? Do you think this will matter in the short-term?

Now, everyone is scared to say anything, to do anything, because we don't know what we can risk in terms of legal accusation. With the next earthquake, we can improve dramatically, with respect to L'Aquila, but maybe something else will be wrong and who will be responsible? What is the risk for the people that will take the decision? This formal accusation has complicated our situation a lot.

Coming back to the scientific aspect, of course, there are some European projects. For instance, right now, I'm in Naples for the kickoff meeting of REACT, a European project that is mostly focused on early warning system and earthquake forecasts. That is exactly what we have to do from a scientific point-of-view, to support decision makers to make the best decision. Therefore there is a lot of interest not only in Italy, but at the European level. This is very challenging for us.

How will this trial end? Is there any sense of how this trial is going to play out?

Years. We [may have up to] three rounds of [appeals] and maybe it will take years for it to be completed. I'm not a lawyer and I don't have any experience in such things, but to me, I think the final ruling will be positive for scientists. But maybe in the first legal rounds the result could be guilty. This trial will be hosted in L'Aquila and there is only one judge and there is an important emotional pressure from the city.

Interview: Cyrus Farivar
Editor: Sean Sinico