GNGTS 2013 - Atti del 32° Convegno Nazionale

issue of scientific communication than the average of Italian researchers (only 6.1% attended a course; source: ISAAC wave 1). More than half of the researchers surveyed (59.9% from INGV and 54.3% from GNGTS sample) have never been contacted by the media for interviews or comments about seismic risk, public safety and seismic risk prevention. Similar results have been found in the survey addressed to all kinds of scientists (ISAAC wave 1), suggesting that perhaps the media do not consider issues of seismic risk more important than other scientific issues. Topic 2: representations and attitudes toward the public of science among scientists. Using semantic differential technique, we explored the image of public in scientists’ mind. Researchers in both sub-samples think that their public is quite conditionable (about 75%), more biased than impartial, and more irrational than rational but, at the same time, quite open to dialogue. Moreover, the public is perceived to be older rather than younger. About 40% of INGV researchers (compared to only 19% of GNGTS researchers) think the public is “unable to learn”. GNGTS researchers believe that it is more important to transfer the scientific message rather than to engage with the public (51% vs. 42.8%*): this result could suggest different communication aims between INGV and other researchers. The former, as reported above, have more direct contacts with the public, especially in those critical situations such as during seismic sequences, when engagement and a more empathetic interaction with the public could be more necessary in order to establish a good communicative relationship. Topic 3: politics, ethics and the role of scientists. The vast majority of researchers think that their research activities have relevant ethic implications (over 80% in both sub-samples). At the same time, 73.2% of INGV (vs. 58.6% of GNGTS*) researchers agreed that scientists should provide only technical evaluations when asked to cooperate with politics in decision-making about what to do during an earthquake sequence. Yet, according to 67.4% of GNGTS members (vs. only 38% INGV*) researchers are also required to provide an opinion on how to manage the risk situation. When we asked whether scientists have the duty to publicly express their disagreement with the operational decisions taken by governmental institutions, their answers were quite uniformly distributed along the scale, with a slight predominance of agreement scores, more marked among researchers from GNGTS. Topic 4: the scientists facing the L’Aquila judgment. There are significant differences between INGV and GNGTS researchers about their (dis)agreement with the judgment of the court: 79.7% of the former disagreed completely or almost completely (scores 4-5) compared to 56.9% of the latter. However, when we asked their opinion on the idea that the ruling was a serious act of censorship of science like the process of the Church to Galileo, most of them disagreed (58.9%). We probed their opinion on the ruling by means of other items too. The index that summarizes their answers measures scientists’ degree of hostility toward the ruling. INGV researchers scored significantly and substantially higher than GNGTS researchers (5.8 vs. 4.7 on a 0-10 scale). With regard to the media coverage, the majority of researchers believe that information given by the media during the earthquake and about the judgment has been trivialized, dramatized and communicated superficially, and little room was available for scientists to explain the scientific points of view on the seismic events. In particular, most of them (70.9% GNGTS vs. 83.6% INGV*) accuse the media of having led the population to believe the radon thesis (as a reliable precursor for quakes) enjoys credibility from a scientific point of view, and of having given too much credit and visibility to Giuliani (92,6% INGV; 69.2% GNGTS*). About Giuliani, 89,7% of the researchers from INGV believe that he has no credibility in the scientific community but only 51,5% from GNGTS agree with this statement 4 . Researchers of both groups showed great uncertainty in judging whether Giuliani is credible or not in the eyes 4 However, 22.4% of GNGTS vs. only 1.5% of INGV has no opinion about scientific credibility of Giuliani. 137 GNGTS 2013 S essione 1.1