Papers by Anthony Woodman
In 2009, an earthquake hit the city of L'Aquila in Italy, killing over 300 people. Scientists sta... more In 2009, an earthquake hit the city of L'Aquila in Italy, killing over 300 people. Scientists stated repeatedly that an earthquake could not be predicted or excluded, but were nonetheless successfully prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter. In 2012, they were found guilty and sentenced to six years each in prison.
This eye-catching case study provides a lens through which I examine the obligations of publicly-funded scientists to communicate action-relevant science to an interested public, as in L'Aquila. By unpacking events in L'Aquila using both primary and secondary documents, I develop a novel account of such ethical obligations based on informed choice. Re-applying this to the L'Aquila case shows that the scientists failed their communication obligations in three particular ways, all of which miscommunicated the risk of an earthquake and thus prevented residents of L'Aquila from making an informed choice about what to do on the night of the earthquake in April 2009.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Papers by Anthony Woodman
This eye-catching case study provides a lens through which I examine the obligations of publicly-funded scientists to communicate action-relevant science to an interested public, as in L'Aquila. By unpacking events in L'Aquila using both primary and secondary documents, I develop a novel account of such ethical obligations based on informed choice. Re-applying this to the L'Aquila case shows that the scientists failed their communication obligations in three particular ways, all of which miscommunicated the risk of an earthquake and thus prevented residents of L'Aquila from making an informed choice about what to do on the night of the earthquake in April 2009.
This eye-catching case study provides a lens through which I examine the obligations of publicly-funded scientists to communicate action-relevant science to an interested public, as in L'Aquila. By unpacking events in L'Aquila using both primary and secondary documents, I develop a novel account of such ethical obligations based on informed choice. Re-applying this to the L'Aquila case shows that the scientists failed their communication obligations in three particular ways, all of which miscommunicated the risk of an earthquake and thus prevented residents of L'Aquila from making an informed choice about what to do on the night of the earthquake in April 2009.