Fault lines at the interface of science and policy: Interpretative responses to the trial of scientists in LʹAquila

The 2009 LʹAquila earthquake gave rise to legal action for involuntary manslaughter against the scientists who just days before had participated in an official meeting called to assess risks in view of recent seismic activity in the region. From the beginning, the case became the subject of tremendous controversy. Strong passions have been aroused and a wide range of opinions have been expressed, sometimes grounded on very limited or even incorrect information. Based on a review of documentary materials, I summarize the legal case and distinguish four main lines of interpretation in response to it: anti-science; failure of science communication; confusion of roles; and conflation of science and politics. I critically discuss and assess each of these interpretative responses, taking up normative questions and issues about the interface of science and policy that reach beyond LʹAquila.