FT社评：地震预测失误不等于有罪

An Italian court’s conviction of six scientists and an ex-official for giving inadequate information to the city of l’Aquila just before it was devastated by an earthquake has been compared with the papal condemnation of Galileo in 1633. The judge stands accused of ignoring the scientific truth that earthquakes cannot be predicted, and of seeking scapegoats to appease the embittered population.

意大利一家法院判处6名科学家及1名政府官员有罪，理由是他们在拉奎拉市遭地震摧毁的几天前，向该市提供了有问题的信息。已经有人拿这件事与1633年教皇判处伽利略(Galileo Galilei)有罪相比。人们指责法官无视地震不可能被预测的科学事实、为安抚受灾居民而寻找替罪羊。

To be fair to the court, this is a misrepresentation of its verdict. The magistrate acknowledged that earthquakes cannot be predicted. However, he found the defendants had painted an overly reassuring picture to calm a panicking population. This position was taken after an official meeting held only a few days before the earthquake, and following months of tremors in the region.

公平而言，这是对法院判决的误读。该地方法官承认地震不可能被预测。但他认定，被告为安抚陷入恐慌的居民作出了过度安抚人心的表态。他们的表态是在拉奎拉地震数天之前经过正式会商后作出的，而在那之前的几个月里，该地区已发生过多次轻微地震。

The defendants could have been more cautious in their message. One of them stated on TV that there was “no danger and explained that the tremors were a “favourable situation, that is to say a continuous discharge of energy. This was scientifically incorrect. While a series of tremors is not normally followed by a disastrous quake, most scientists agree that a seismic sequence increases rather than reduces the probability of one.

被告本可更谨慎地斟酌他们提供的信息。其中一名被告在电视上表示，拉奎拉“没有危险，并解释称，小震是“有利的，表明能量在持续释放。这在科学上是不正确的。尽管一系列小震之后并不总会发生灾难性地震，但大多数科学家认为，接二连三的小震加大、而非减小了发生灾难性地震的可能性。

There is clearly a case for the Italian authorities to review how the commission handled the situation. Whether politicians leant on the scientists in order to influence their decision should also be investigated. But convicting the scientists of manslaughter was the wrong decision. In the case of an earthquake, failing to communicate the risks appropriately to the population does not mean that the scientists are responsible for the deaths.

意大利当局显然有理由审查国家重大风险预测及防范委员会当时的应对情况。另外还应当调查一下，政客们当时是否胁迫过科学家、以影响他们的决定。但判处科学家犯有过失杀人罪的决定是错误的。在地震前未能恰当地提醒人们注意相关风险，并不意味着科学家就应对地震遇难者负责。

The court’s decision sets a dangerous precedent. Yesterday, the head of Italy’s disaster body resigned in protest. In future, scientists could be reluctant to advise the government on how to deal with earthquakes and other natural disasters. When they do, they may be inclined to issue alarmist warnings just to cover their backs. This would be expensive and could fuel unnecessary panic.

法院此次判决树立了一个危险的先例。日前，意大利防灾部门主管辞职以示抗议。未来，科学家可能不愿就政府该如何应对地震和其他自然灾害提供建议。即便他们提供建议，他们可能也会倾向于发布最耸人听闻的警告，以免日后受到指控。这将带来高昂的代价，并引发不必要的恐慌。

The appeal court would be wise to reverse this week’s decision. The courts should then concentrate on the many outstanding trials against those builders and engineers who failed to abide by building codes. The conduct of local politicians, so far untouched by the investigations, should also be scrutinised. This would be a much better way to respond to the grievances of the citizens of l’Aquila.

上诉法院最好能够推翻上述判决。那些未能遵守建筑标准的建筑商和工程师面临多宗官司，法院随后应把主要精力放在这些令人瞩目的案子的审判上。当地政客迄今还未成为调查的目标，他们的行为也应该受到审查。以这种方式安抚拉奎拉居民的不满将会好得多。