Who is really to blame for deaths?

The recent sentencing of six Italian scientists and a government official has captured the world’s attention.

According to reports, this small group of experts was found guilty of multiple manslaughter after underestimating the risks of a killer earthquake in 2009 and failing to adequately warn the public, resulting in the death of 309 people. They were given six years in jail and ordered to pay almost US$12 million in  damages to survivors.

Unsurprisingly, there have been several objections to the unprecedented verdict, which has raised the ire of many, particularly those in the international science community. In addition to the fact that the verdict will not bring loved ones back, many argue that one  cannot be held responsible for something as unpredictable as the weather. One scientist even compared predicting an earthquake strike to finding the Holy Grail. Still, more people disapprove because the verdict will undoubtedly dissuade other experts from sharing their views in the future.

However, representative for 11 plaintiffs in the case, lawyer Wania della Vigna, has countered these arguments by saying those on trial should be held responsible for their “incomplete, imprecise and contradictory” analysis and calls the case “historic”, noting that “It also marks a step forward for the justice system and I hope it will lead to change, not only in Italy but across the world.”

Whether or not it marks a step forward remains to be seen, however at present it certainly raises interesting questions.

Though it may seem that scientists should not be jailed for their opinions, in other instances doctors have been tried in malpractice cases for negligence, and engineers and manufacturers have been found guilty for wrongful deaths as a result of their negligence. While the charge of manslaughter may be considered extreme, some may argue that these men should be punished for their negligence or failure to act, especially as they were specifically selected for the Major Risks Committee for the express purpose of advising the public about the risks involved. They did not have to predict an earthquake, but establish the risks. And with several tremors over the days leading up to the big quake, wouldn’t it be negligent to form an opinion that there is “no danger”?

Contrarily, at which point should the public take responsibility for its own safety? And what of the government? L’Aquila, the site of the quake, is a medieval town with origins dating back to the 13th century. Though its buildings were made of stone, they were also hundreds of years old. Unfortunately, any misgivings that residents had after the initial tremors and unofficial earthquake predictions were quelled with the scientists’ reassurances that all would be well. Still, the scientists only offered advice. When one hires a consultant for a job, they can only offer their opinions. The responsibility is yours to follow through or get a second opinion. Therefore, should government official Bernardo De Bernardis – a senior official in the Civil Protection Authority – be alone in shouldering the blame on the side of the state stakeholders? Wasn’t the decision carried to a board, council or other committee? Does he have full responsibility to make these decisions?

These queries also bring to light other possibilities in instances where mismanagement or poor performance pertains. Is it only where death results that persons are held accountable?

As these and other questions surface, we continue to follow the case in Italy with interest.