| dc.description.abstract | On 6 April 2009, an earthquake hit the city of L’Aquila in Italy, destroying much of the historical centre, injuring thousands of people and killing more than 300. In an unprecedented verdict, in October 2012 the court of first instance in L’Aquila condemned for manslaughter the six Italian scientists, members of a national scientific advisory committee. The reasoning underpinning the verdict centres around the scientists’ poor assessment and communication of the seismic risk. Two years later, in November 2014, the Appeal Court of L’Aquila reversed the first instance verdict, acquitting the scientists. This trial is of paramount importance, being the first (criminal) trial to regulatory scientists in contemporary history. Unsurprisingly, the first instance verdict has attracted much criticism. In contrast to most commentaries harshly criticizing the verdict, we find that the first instance verdict invites broader reflection on the role and possible responsibility of scientists in risk governance. We take the L’Aquila trial as a case study and look at the general relevance of this case for a debate on accountability of regulatory science. This article defends the view that, in a world where scientists retain a certain degree of regulatory authority, they should be held accountable for their contribution to regulating risks. While we find criminal liability not necessarily the most appropriate way to establish accountability, it is equally incorrect to have no accountability at all. Drawing on the L’Aquila case, this article shows the overall desirability of a legal framework for accountability of regulatory science. | en |
