Sometimes scientists have to make known their forecasts and the occurrence or not of the predicted events can have an impact on the lives of people affected by filing in geographic space and time to which that refers forecast. Often such forecasts are based on probabilistic models and limited knowledge. Far the responsibility of scientists comes to made public their forecasts?
You might be referring to the L'Aquila earthquake case in Italy ? Scientists may be at times in a situation of damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't, and politicians are quick to seek and find scapegoats whereto the wrath of the populace may be safely channeled.
The responsibility of making any forecast public should likely not rest with scientists (imagine the effects of a scientist saying publicly that there is a 20% likelihood that a big asteroid would hit Earth), but a culture should be fostered whereby scientists are never afraid to tell it like it is.... Perhaps laws should exist or be enacted whereby scientists have a duty to report their public-impacting findings to some designated Authority, which would then be in charge of public policy regarding these findings?
Dear Ricardo:
A forecast is a forecast, a probabilistic calculation of random phenomena. I live in a tropical island where we live every year through a six-month "hurricane season". Every two of three years, we brace to face a terrible storm which, according to mathematical modeling and calculations, will hit hard right through the middle of our tiny Caribbean island. The last two hits were in 1989 and in 1998 and they were devastating. In 1989, our main water reservoir was heavily damaged and we were without tap water for almost two months. We have not been hit again since 1998, but every year we are advised to listen to the forecast, and we do listen. Every year we follow every storm on the radar as shown on the TV screen. Every year we purchase a hurricane map with the paths of all previous dangerous storms, we get flashlights and batteries, and canned food, and every ten years or so we buy a new Scrabble board game to play under candlelight in those terrible nights that rarely come to affect us. But we pay attention to the forecast.
We have never sued a meteorologist for making inaccurate forecasts, we just make jokes about "stupid meteorologists and their forecasts", because we know it's his or her job to tell us what might happen. So we have learned to pay attention to the forecast and on the night the hurricane is supposed to come, the whole family gets together, we have Fig Newtons, milk, and other bits of fast food, and play Scrabble until dawn, and laugh a lot and enjoy being together, and then we come out in the morning to inspect the skies and confirm no storm came, and then we fix lunch and play CDs and have fun together, and the talk about the next hurricane of the season, knowing that, probably, despite all forecasts, it will not hit us.
But it so happens that the hurricane hits real hard a neighboring island, the Dominican Republic or Cuba, or the extra-tiny leeward islands, and then we cry together for the harm the hurricane has done to so many defenseless people, left homeless, hungry, forsaken probably for two or more weeks. Then we as a country send medication, clothes, household equipment, building materials to ease our neighbors' pain. For six months we send aid to them. And then the next hurricane season comes around, and this cycle starts all over again. The forecasts start pouring in, there will possibly be 13 or 14 storms, some of them hurricanes, and we buy candles, and flashlights and batteries, and corn chips and Sneakers as well as diverse "ritual" stuff. And we start again by opening the Scrabble's box to brace for a stormy night. Maybe this year we will be hit, so we make sure everyone in the family will be ok. Hurricane season will start soon. I already bought new batteries... And I want a new map because I want to see the path of last year's hurricanes that never got to hit us.
I know this sounds funny, Ricardo, but that is the way we experience storm forecasts in Puerto Rico. Yes, it is funny, unless it becomes a catastrophe.
Best regards, Lilliana
Dear Ricardo De la Peña,
On this occasion, allow me to add as an insight into your question as follows: "What should be the responsibility of scientists to forcast the one made public"
Basically a scientist is a researcher, where certainly of all their forcast analysis based on steady facts or the analysis results.
When later the results of the analysis forcast does not fit or does not materialize, then there must be a scientific reason that could explain it. At least, a scientist can explain the factors that led to scientifically or on the basis of the results of the analysis.
Accordingly a scientist should do clarification over the analysis forecast if there is a discrepancy, and this clarification would at least add insight and understanding of other parties interested in the analysis.
It seems a little insight from the stan dpoint that I can convey.
Best regards ,
Teguh Juniarto
That may happen because either full information are not available or conditions change.
Dear Ricardo,
In scientific Medicine, forecast are usually called prognosis.
But we do know that the course of any disease changes radically according to a particular patient's profile. We do know the natural development of most of diseases if no treatment were applied. But it would be foolish to offer rigid prognosis to a patient, without previous experimentation of the drugs that may help heal or cure the disease. (Even natural normal pregnancy depends on so many variables, that it could be unscientific to predict the exact time and date of birth in rigour.)
I wouldn't tell a patient if he is predicted to die, just as I cannot guarantee total success of any treatment, but I will certainly advise on the kind of ailments he will suffer if he doesn't undergo any treatment.
It takes to common sense., integrity and honesty, just as Pierlorenzo correctly mentioned.
It is a frequent misconception to interpret the quality of the forecasting model as the primary factor driving the accuracy of the forecasts: this is not the case.
The most important factor driving the value of the accuracy is the intrinsic volatility of the phenomenon being forecasted. In practice, in commerce or manufacturing, this volatility highly correlated to the aggregation level:
•larger areas, such as national forecasts vs local forecasts, yield more accuracy.
•idem for longer periods, such as monthly forecasts vs daily forecasts.
https://www.lokad.com/forecasting-accuracy-definition
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7xMMtPI73U
The only 'forecast' that is valid and certainly will come true is that everybody will die some time at the end of his life. Concerning the impact to the community /humans in general and perhaps responsibility for such sscientifically based "forecasts" it might be of advantage to know that THERE IS a 20% chance to be (or that the earth is) hit by an asteroid or by a hurricane (if such is not yet an hereditary knowledge) than to die from total ignorance. But yet knowing that some people (and religions) might be fatalistic anyway... A certain imponderability might be one/a special vivid and realistic property of human and global life but nobody is prompted to stop his own thinking when "forecasts" are made anywhere by anyone. If I have interpreted the question of Ricardo right he refers perhaps to "forcasts" of catastrophes, seaquakes, earthquakes, severe changes by unusual climatic processes, eventually avalanches (in the alpine region) etc, etc (just to name only very few possibilities)... with regard to such "forecasts" I would and take into account (for a personal reaction) at least the possibility as stated by the experts in their field (despite they also could be wrong in the end, luckily!). If someone would "forecast" an immediately effective new, 100% successful cure / salvation from plague / the global problems of man these times (I shall not name them here) I for sure could not trust but naturally could appreciate well my former / initial failing/unwillingness to accept a / the truth....
Hopefully this my comment is not confusing anybody.. with my best regards and wishes for a nice and calm&recreative weekend, WM
I think there responsibility is to correct such in order to prevent panic amidst the public
Dear Ricardo:
My view is that if the scientists involved made a good job and communicated the results including the necessary information on the level of certainty / uncertainty, then the users should know that they are utilizing a scientific technique of forecasting along with its advantages and risks.
However, I think the public is not usually well informed about the nature of many kinds of forecasts, as Ivo has already highlighted.
In general, The scientist is not responsible even if his wrong forecast is made public because he is not in the executive board who makes the decision....the boss is responsible particularly when you have a disaster....now if the forecast has no harmfull impact then the scientist will risk exclusion from the scientific communauty...
What should be the responsibility of the scientist for a wrong forcast made public?
If a scientist known to be a Subject Matter Expert (SME) in certain areas made a wrong forecast & before holding him / her to responsible - we need to "dissect" how the forecast being derived e.g. whether the error is due to the scientist own doing, due to factors beyond the scientist control or outdated model being used that is superseded by newer model / knowledge contribution by other SMEs' research etc.
From an angle of prevention, if a forecast & its outcome are very critical e.g. impacting lives of many people, then more stringent process / procedures need to be put in place (e.g. more reviews / sanity checks / re-tests, endorsement by committee / authority etc.) to ensure the forecast is correct & accurate before being published to the general public.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication