In a ruling that many have hearkened back to the dark ages of scientific misunderstanding, six Italian scientists were convicted of manslaughter last week for not providing the public with acceptable earthquake risk information. The charges stem from a public meeting which some claim gave false reassurances that L’Aquila wouldn’t be struck by an earthquake. A week later, 309 people died when a 6.3 magnitude temblor struck nearby.

“After two years of suffering, I find myself condemned like Galileo, along with my colleagues,” Former president of the National Institute of Geophysics Enzi Boschi, is quoted as saying in the Christian Science Monitor. “I didn’t reassure anyone. In that meeting, I said that no one can predict [earthquakes] and that one therefore cannot exclude them, either.”

That didn’t seem to matter as Boschi, five other scientists, and a public official were found guilty for what prosecutors called “incomplete, imprecise, and contradictory” earthquake warnings, according to Reuters. Many found the verdict baffling.

“If an event cannot be foreseen and, more to the point, cannot be avoided, it is hard to understand how there can be any suggestion of a failure to predict the risk,” defense lawyer Franco Coppi is quoted as saying by Reuters.

Beyond the plight of the scientists on trial—who must also pay damages and court costs—many fear the verdict will hinder scientists who feel a wrong move could spell jail time or large fines.

“The issue here is about miscommunication of science, and we should not be putting responsible scientists who gave measured, scientifically accurate information in prison,” Richard Walters of Oxford University's Department of Earth Sciences told Reuters. “This sets a very dangerous precedent and I fear it will discourage other scientists from offering their advice on natural hazards and trying to help society in this way.”

Whether that happens or not remains to be seen. The defendants won’t serve jail time until they exhaust the appeals process, which could take years according to the CS Monitor. In the meantime, a question mark hangs over the field—and not for the first time.

In Europe, there has been a recent spate of complaints against weather agencies that inaccurately predict rain, which undermines tourism. And in the U.S., there is the notable case of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, in which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers were held financially responsible for catastrophic flooding (although was recently repealed). That case was used in the L’Aquila trial as support for the prosecution, according to the New York Times.

Still, for the most part, scientists remain unjaded. For now at least.

“It would be terrible if we started practicing defensive science and the only statements we made were bland things that never actually drew one conclusion or another,” David Spiegelhalter, Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at Cambridge University told the BBC. “But of course if scientists are worried, that's what will happen.”