Geekosystem's Sci-Fi Scenarios Aren't as Far-Fetched as You Think

"Who owns the moon?" is the second most common question I get when I tell people I studied space law. "Space law: that's a thing?" is the first.

(No one, and yes.)

The electronic magazine Geekosystem ran a great article today about space law, a primer on the subject for your average non-lawyer. It's a great introduction for people who have never heard of space law, or who are wondering just what law there is in space. The interview portion also includes two extremely knowledgeable people I've had the pleasure of working with, Elsbeth Magilton and Frans von der Dunk. And I'm not just saying that because one of them quoted me. (I have never met the third interviewee, Julie McMahon, but, since she has the good sense to be a space law buff, I assume good things about her as well.)

Geekosystem, of course, got to the good stuff quickly. Star Wars. Gravity. Avatar. How do these movies stack up with space law? These are things that people really care about. I've written before about how science fiction says a lot about our culture, and literature can offer us important insights into our society.

But science fiction is just that: fiction. Star Wars and Avatar are unrealistic. (Gravity, although it gets a lot wrong on the science, highlights some real issues.) Questions like "Who is responsible for the space junk left over from blowing up the Death Star?" and "Can the Resources Development Administration be held responsible for damaging the Tree of Souls?" are fun, but fantastical. Right?

Wrong. They aren't as far-fetched as you think.

Italy's Assault on Science? Not Necessarily.

I have seen a lot of ink over the conviction of six Italian scientists (and one other government official) in L'Aquila last week. The coverage, to put it mildly, has been bad. A serious injustice has occurred here, but most of the English-language media have been too busy sensationalizing to comment meaningfully on it.

For anyone not familiar with the situation, a 2009 earthquake in L'Aquila, Italy, caused the deaths of more than 300 people. In the days leading up to the earthquake, tremors in the area appeared to indicate a coming earthquake. One Italian official, on information from the Italian National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks, stated that an earthquake was unlikely. After the quake, the official and six scientists at the Commission were charged with manslaughter on the theory that their "inexact, incomplete and contradictory" statements caused people to stay when they should have fled the area. Last week, the Italian court handed down a verdict of guilty and a potential sentence of 6 years.

Make no mistake about it: This is a bad thing. Seven people who do not deserve imprisonment look likely to get it. (Although, under Italian law, the sentence must be reviewed.) But the English-language press, out of the United States and United Kingdom, has largely missed the point. They have focused on largely on two things: 1) This conviction bends the definition of "manslaughter" and 2) This conviction is an attack on science that will have a chilling effect on how scientists do business.

I am not really convinced that either one is true.