logo
Call us: +44 (0)1865 244727

  • Home
  • Scope
  • News
  • Products
    • RADAR
    • CALL-OFF PROJECTS
  • Clients
  • Contact
  • How we work
    • Independent
      • Common law orthodoxies
      • Sensationalism
      • Expert witness
      • Regulation and Politics
      • Tied services
    • Up-to-date
      • Timely
      • Insurance Scenarios
      • Probabilistic Methods
    • Expert
      • Personal Injury
      • Trends
    • Innovative
  • Database
    • Member’s login
    • Member’s Settings
    • Register
    • RADAR Database
  • Recent projects
    • EMFs
    • STRESS AT WORK
    • WHIPLASH
    • WELDING RODS: MANGANESE EXPOSURE
    • ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE
    • Other Projects



October 2012: Who would be an Expert?

Oct 23, 2012
by Andrew@Reliabilityoxford.co.uk
0 Comment
A group of six scientists and a government official are facing six years in jail for manslaughter after providing “an incomplete, inept, unsuitable and criminally mistaken” assessment of risks posed by what turned out to be the devastating L’Aquila earthquake.

They had met  a few days before the damaging quake and ruled that it was impossible to determine whether the (recent small) tremors would be followed soon by a large quake.

The prosecutor Mr Picuti told the court that the defendants had provided “an incomplete, inept, unsuitable and criminally mistaken” analysis which gave the residents of L’Aquila a false sense of security.

Evidence from:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9626075/LAquila-earthquake-scientists-sentenced-to-six-years-in-jail.html

Comment

Various comments suggest that given the data and relevant theories  the inconclusive finding of the committee was among the range of opinions that could have been reasonably formed. It is suggested that the fault (no pun intended) lay in the way in which the risk was described in public.

Experts should expect to come under very close scrutiny for both false positives and false negatives. Recent examples include the false impression that murder was the most likely explanation for a succession of cot deaths, and after years of anxiety, the discovery that MMR vaccinations were not after all the identifiable cause of autism. Either way, legal expenses will be incurred.

While it is that doom sayers have a natural advantage (no-one deeply cares if they are wrong) the costs of inflated negative forecasts can be enormous. Credibility would be enhanced if on occasion a doom-sayer announced they were not concerned about something e.g. Y2k.

On the subject of earthquakes; models and theories are indeed sophisticated and data sets are beginning to become useful. However, the various relevant time-scales are such that data sets cannot be definitive. On occasion the stated uncertainty in predictions of location and size will be small enough that decision-makers would regard the advice as useful. But usually not. The onus should be on politicians to make policy.

It would help greatly, if risk decision-makers (policy makers) would specify the range of uncertainty in predictions with which they can usefully work. If modellers can reduce uncertainties to that useful level, then they can meaningfully contribute, but if not, then why should decision-makers ask for their detailed opinion? At best, such detailed opinions provide comfort for those with a political interest. Insurers could usefully take note of the precision being asked for and the precision that the modellers actually provide. Comparison would allow selection in underwriting.

The careers of the seven people found guilty in this case have suffered a set-back. If eventually cleared, it would be anticipated that they would seek recompense.

 

Social Share

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

*
*

captcha *

Search Documents


Categories

  • Causation
    • de minimis
    • material contribution
  • Date of knowledge
  • Diagnosis
  • Duty of Care
  • Exposure estimation data
  • Mitigation
  • Motor related injury
  • News
  • Uncategorized

Archives

  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • November 2020
  • January 2020
  • November 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • April 2018
  • November 2017
  • July 2017
  • April 2017
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • November 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • July 2014
  • April 2014
  • February 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012

© Re: Liability (Oxford) Ltd. 2012. All rights reserved.
Website Design by The Big Picture