It is easy to feel outrage at the jail terms handed down to six Italian seismologists and a civil servant this week. How could anyone hope to have predicted the earthquake that devastated L’Aquila in 2009?

That is the rallying cry, but failure to predict the quake is not, in fact, what the seven men have been convicted of (see “Seismologists found guilty of manslaughter“). The prosecution made it crystal clear all along that their case was about poor risk communication; it was built on an accusation of giving out “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information”.

On this charge, there was clearly a case to answer. Employed by Italy’s Major Hazards Committee to assess earthquake risks and communicate them to the government and the public, the seismologists got the science right, but left the job of public communication to a civil protection official with no specialist knowledge of seismology. His statement to the press was, to put it mildly, a grossly inaccurate reflection of the situation: “The scientific community tells us there is no danger, because there is an ongoing discharge of energy. The situation looks favourable.” At this point, the seismologists should have stepped in. But they did not, and the message stuck.

Of course, it is debatable whether this neglect merits a manslaughter conviction and six-year jail term. That is a matter for the Italian justice system. The appeals have already started.


But there are broader issues to consider. Many commentators argue that the L’Aquila verdict will have a chilling effect on the provision of scientific advice in Italy and beyond. That is clearly a concern worth taking seriously.

However, it should also encourage scientists who take on those roles to think long and hard about the responsibilities that come with them. It is tempting for scientists to defer communication with the public to others who are supposedly “experts” in doing so. But this approach often leads to confusion, as evidenced by a litany of failures in the past: BSE, vaccines, genetically modified crops and many more.

This cannot continue. Scientists valued for their expertise should speak for themselves rather than letting others speak for them. Lives are at stake.