Name: ...... Class: ...... Date: ......

Lesson 5: Prepare for earthquakes

Extension worksheet:

Science Communication

People reading the findings of scientists need to be informed and able to understand and evaluate what is being communicated. Any actions as a result of scientific information depend on information being conveyed and understood correctly.

Scientific communication needs to be unambiguous and take into account the audience. A startling example of problems in communicating science has occurred in recent times in Italy.

Within a week of the L’Aquila earthquake, an investigative team of engineers was on site to document the 2009 earthquake, with the goal of analysing the damage and the intention of preventing such catastrophic losses in future seismic events.

See: ‘4.6 magnitude earthquake hits Italy’, couriermail.com.au, (17 February 2013)

The 32-page full report on the L’Aquila earthquake by global risk consultants, Miyamoto can be accessed:

Global Risk Miyamoto 2009, ‘Earthquake field investigation report. L’Aquila Italy earthquake, April 6, 2009’ (2.3 MB)

Part A

Evaluate the report to determine whether or not it was good quality science communication.Justify your position by supplying adjectives to describe the style of writing in the report.

You do not need to read the whole report just pages 2, 3, 5 and 27.

  1. Devise a set of criteria to help evaluate the quality of the science communication.
  2. Find one other account of the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake.
  1. Identify the source and audience.
  2. Compare the quality of this account with the Miyamoto report.

Part B

Three and a half years after the event, seven Italian scientists and officials were convicted to six years in prison for manslaughter over the deaths in the L’Aquila earthquake. See: Gearin, Mary 2012, ‘Italian scientists convicted for failing to predict quake’, ABC News (23 October 2012)

  1. Using your knowledge of earthquakes and the geological position of Italy in relation to tectonic plates, justify whether or not the convictions were appropriate?

Refer to pages 3–6 of the Miyamoto report. Also see: Hall, Stephen S 2011, ‘Scientists on trial: At fault?’ Nature September 2011)

  1. What responsibilities should the government have in protecting the people of earthquake prone regions?
  2. What measures can be taken to ensure that the government is made aware of risks?
  3. What would be your first step towards preparing for future earthquakes in the area?

© 2013 Australian Science Innovations. You may copy, distribute and adapt this material free of charge for non-commercial educational purposes, provided you retain all copyright notices and acknowledgements.