n Tuesday, six Italian scientists and one former government official went on trial for manslaughter for failing to adequately warn the citizens of L'Aquila before a 6.3-magnitude earthquake struck on April 6, 2009. Though a series of smaller quakes preceded the fatal temblor, which razed much of the medieval city and killed 309 people, the seven defendants decided at a meeting held a week before it hit that the region was safe. The civil defense official told the public that there was "no danger." Do the scientists really have blood on their hands?
No. This is a "travesty of justice": Charging these scientists with manslaughter is a "deeply shameful" scandal, says Arab News in an editorial. Given our poor understanding of seismic activity, "there is no way that any scientist, however eminent, could have predicted the scale and date" of that earthquake. If anyone should be punished here, it's the prosecutor, or the "notoriously lax" construction industry that flouted building codes.
"Travesty of justice"
Hold on. The case has some merit: The prosecutor recognizes that predicting "exactly when, where, and with what force the earthquake would have struck" is still "beyond the bounds of science," says The Economist. But he insists that these seven defendants were negligent for failing to adequately communicate, or even understand, the risks. Local experts who have examined the same data the defendants consulted in 2009 say that "the increased danger in the run-up to the quake was clear."
"Scientists in the dock"
And scientists shouldn't be untouchable: It seems unfair to blame seismologists for not predicting when the big one hits, says Will Harvie in New Zealand's Stuff. But scientists need to be transparent with the public so people can judge the risks for themselves. At least one survivor says that if the scientists had accurately relayed what they knew, his wife and child would be alive today. Given the lives at stake, "these officials can't have immunity from prosecution. They must be prosecutable if they fall below an acceptable standard." And it's up to the legal system to judge if that's the case here.
"Should we prosecute quake scientists?"
- WATCH: Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly spar over the Obama scandals
- Could the Cleveland kidnapping victims have been rescued sooner?
- WATCH: LeBron James' unbelievable, last-second, game-winning shot
- WATCH: Suspect defends brutal beheading of London man in broad daylight
- A linguistic dissection of 7 annoying teenage sounds
- Sadly, you are uglier than you think
- 10 things you need to know today: May 23, 2013
- How the White House's war on media backfired
- London's gruesome attack and the rising threat of lone-wolf terrorism
- Is Greek yogurt hurting the environment?
- The politics behind Kanye West's 'New Slaves'
- Are we on the cusp of a solar energy boom?
- Why Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn doesn't want tornado relief money
- WATCH: Jon Stewart hates everyone in Washington now
- LIVE UPDATES: Massive tornado tears through Oklahoma City area
- Angry at the government? 5 ways you can fight back
- 7 purported health benefits of drinking coffee
- What is a quantum computer — and why does Google need one?
- Why NASA is funding a 3D pizza printer
- The cool backstory of the Slurpee