Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

On October 22, 2012, six scientists and one civil servant were convicted of manslaughter for failing to properly warn the people of L’Aquila, Italy, of an impending earthquake that resulted in over 300 deaths and 1,500 injuries. This article investigates a key event leading up to this conviction: An emergency meeting of scientists, civil servants, and politicians to determine whether or not an advanced warning should be issued to the residents of L’Aquila. The following investigation of this emergency meeting uses functional stasis analysis to identify the primary breakdown in deliberation that ultimately led to a message of calm and reassurance immediately prior to the devastating earthquake. The results provide insights into not only the events in L’Aquila but also broader issues of risk, uncertainty, fact, and value in science-policy deliberation.

Keywords

stasis matters of concern L’Aquila science-policy deliberation technical decision making

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Amato

Cocco

Cultrera

Galadini

Margheriti

Nostro

Pantosti

(2013). Before, during, and after the March 31, 2009 Commissione Grandi Rischi meeting. Retrieved February 13, 2013, from http://processoaquila.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/cgrmeeting.pdf

American Geographical Union. (2010). AGU statement: Investigation of scientists and officials in L’Aquila, Italy, is unfounded. Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 91, 248.

Atwood

L. E.

Major

A. M.

(2000). Optimism, pessimism, and communication behavior in response to an earthquake prediction. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 417–431.

Bertolaso

(2009, 3 30). A summons to hold a meeting in the Abruzzo Region. Retrieved from https://processoaquila.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/2-cgr-convoc-310309.pdf

Block

(2013, 2 18). Italian seismologists convicted of manslaughter. All Things Considered. National Public Radio. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/2012/10/23/163499530/italian-seismologists-convicted-of-manslaughter

Blythe

Grabill

J. T.

Riley

(2008). Action research and wicked environmental problems: Exploring appropriate roles for researchers in professional communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22, 272–298.

Bone

(2012, 10 24). Shock over Italian quake scientists’ kill verdict. The Australian. Retrieved from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/shock-over-italian-quake-scientists-kill-verdict/story-fnb64oi6-1226501812363

Brown

(2012, 10 23). A chilling verdict in L’Aquila. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/oct/23/chilling-verdict-laquila-earthquake

Callon

Lascoumes

Barthe

(2009). Acting in an uncertain world: An essay on technical democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

10.

Caporale

(2012, 1 18). Quando Bertolaso riunì gli esperti di terremoti “Mi servono per un’operazione mediatica.” La Repubblica. Retrieved from http://inchieste.repubblica.it/it/repubblica/rep-it/2012/01/18/news/il_terremoto_negato-28369392/

11.

Cas

(2012). The IAVCEI response to the conviction of the six scientists in Italy over the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake disaster and the issues arising. IAVCEI News, 4, 2–3.

12.

Ceccarelli

(2011). Manufactured scientific controversy: Science, rhetoric, and public debate. Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 14, 195–228.

13.

Civil Protection Department, Presidency of the Council of Ministers. (2006, 4 3). Presidential Decree of the Councils of Ministers No. 1250. Retrieved May 9, 2014, from http://www.protezionecivile.gov.it/resources/cms/documents/DPCM_03_04_2006.pdf

14.

Collins

H. M.

Evans

(2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32, 235–296.

15.

Commission of Grand Risk. (2009, 3 31). Meeting of March 31, 2009—L’Aquila [Meeting minutes]. Retrieved from https://processoaquila.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/3b-bozza-cgr-310309eng.pdf

16.

Cranor

C. F.

(1993). Science courts, evidentiary procedures and mixed science-policy decisions. Risk, 4, 113.

17.

Davis

G. H.

(2012, 10 25). Italian court action likely to harm efforts to mitigate earthquake losses. Geological Society of America. Retrieved from http://www.geosociety.org/news/pr/12-76.htm

18.

Dollar

(2010, 4 5). The man who predicted an earthquake. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/05/laquila-earthquake-prediction-giampaolo-giuliani

19.

Earthquake Scientists Guilty of Manslaughter in Italy: Experts Respond. (2012, 10 23). Science Media Centre. Retrieved from http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2012/10/23/earthquake-scientists-guilty-of-manslaughter-in-italy-experts-respond/

20.

Executive Committee, International Human Rights Network of Academies and Scholarly Societies. (2012, 10 26). Statement by the executive committee. Conviction of Italian Scientists in L’Aquila Trial. Retrieved from http://www7.nationalacademies.org/humanrights/cs/groups/chrsite/documents/webpage/chr_073302.pdf

21.

Fahnestock

Secor

(1988). The stases in scientific and literary argument. Written Communication, 5, 427–443.

22.

Graham

S. S.

(2015). The politics of pain medicine. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

23.

Graham

S. S.

Herndl

C. G.

(2011). Talking off-label: The role of stasis in transforming the discursive formation of pain science. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 41, 145–167.

24.

Hall

S. S.

(2011). At fault? Nature, 477, 264–269.

25.

Holm-Nielsen

Tindemans

(2012, 10 26). Euroscience on L’Aquila: Science to learn, not to be sentenced; public authorities to be centre stage. Euroscience. Retrieved from http://www.euroscience.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/L’%20Aquila%20statement.pdf

26.

Joss

Durant

(Eds.). (1995). Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe. London: NMSI Trading.

27.

Kleinman

D. L.

Powell

Grice

Adrian

Lobes

(2007). A toolkit for democratizing science and technology policy: The practical mechanics of organizing a consensus conference. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 27, 154–169.

28.

Knight

F. H.

(1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. New York, NY: Schaffner and Marx.

29.

Koerber

(2006). Rhetorical agency, resistance, and the disciplinary rhetorics of breastfeeding. Technical Communication Quarterly, 15, 87–101.

30.

Krueger

(2012, 10 23). Re: Scientists convicted for not predicting an earthquake [Web log message]. Retrieved from geo-techtonics@jiscmail.ac.uk

31.

L’Aquila earthquake trial: UK seismologists react with dismay at jailing of Italian scientists. (2012, 10 22). The Huffington Post UK. HPMG News. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/22/laquila-earthquake-trial-verdict-uk-reaction_n_2001964.html

32.

L’Aquila quake: Italy scientists guilty of manslaughter. (2012, 10 22). BBC News Europe. British Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-20025626

33.

Latour

(2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30, 225–248.

34.

Latour

(2005). Reassembling the social. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

35.

Latour

(2008). What is the style of matters of concern? Two lectures in empirical philosophy. Assen, Netherlands: Koninklijke Van Gorcum.

36.

Leshner

A. I.

(2010, 6 29). Letter to Giorgio Napolitano. Retrieved from http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/migrate/uploads/0630italy_letter.pdf

37.

Mazur

(1977). Science courts. Minerva, 15, 1–14.

38.

Mileti

D. S.

Hutton

J. R.

Sorensen

J. H.

(1981). Earthquake prediction response and options for public policy. Boulder: University of Colorado.

39.

Mullen

(2012, 10 23). Italian scientists resign over L’Aquila quake verdicts. CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/23/world/europe/italy-quake-scientists-guilty/

40.

Nosengo

(2012, 10 31). L’Aquila verdict row grows. Nature. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/news/l-aquila-verdict-row-grows-1.11683

41.

Olson

R. S.

Podesta

Nigg

J. M.

(1989). The politics of earthquake prediction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

42.

Peterson

T. R.

Horton

C. C.

(1995). Rooted in the soil: How understanding the perspectives of landowners can enhance the management of environmental disputes. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 81, 139–166.

43.

Prelli

L. J.

(2005). Stasis and the problem of incommensurate communication: The case of spousal violence research. In Harris

R. A.

(Ed.), Rhetoric and incommensurability (pp. 294–333). West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.

44.

Ropeik

(2012, 10 22). The L’Aquila verdict: A judgment not against science, but against a failure of science communication. Scientific American. Retrieved from http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-laquila-verdict-a-judgment-not-against-science-but-against-a-failure-of-science-communication/

45.

Smekens

J.-F

. (2012, 10 30). VOLCANO: Scientists condemned for l’Aquila deaths [Electronic mailing list message]. Retrieved from volcano@asu.edu

46.

Sol

Turan

(2004). The ethics of earthquake prediction. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10, 655–666.

47.

Walker

Walsh

(2012). “No one yet knows what the ultimate consequence may be”: How Rachel Carson transformed scientific uncertainty into a site for public participation in Silent Spring . Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 26, 3–34.

48.

Walsh

(2009). Visual strategies to integrate ethos across the “is/ought” divide in the IPCC’s Climate Change 2007: Summary for policy makers. Poroi, 6, 32–61.

49.

Woodman

(2013). Facilitating informed choice: The communication obligations of scientists to the public, and the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Trinity College, London.

50.

Wynne

(1992). Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 281–304.

Stasis and Matters of Concern

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References