When Public Scientists Forget Compassion: Involcan, Accountability, and the Duty to Communicate Responsibly

Opinion piece

By Sharon Backhouse

A week ago, an exchange on social media once again reopened wounds in La Palma. Luca D’Auria, a senior scientist at Involcan, responded to a local man who had lost his home in the 2021 eruption of the Tajogaite volcano with a comment that many in the community found shocking. Locals have contacted us via our VolcanoStories Forum for comment, calling for his dismissal.

This is not an isolated slip of the tongue. Over the past four years since the eruption, Involcan’s interactions on social media have repeatedly been accused of arrogance and insensitivity toward those directly affected. Many Palmeros recall the tone of some of the institute’s statements after the eruption as dismissive, even mocking. With Tenerife hosting Europe’s largest volcanic drill last week, at the same time as this exchange, those unresolved wounds have resurfaced.

We spoke to Antonio Rodríguez to ask him how the interaction on social media made him feel. He told us: “I just can’t stand this man because he has been very rude to the people affected by the volcano. One thing is to respond to comments, and quite another is to insult people. I think we’ve already bled enough and don’t need to keep bleeding, as he says, just so he can continue collecting his salary. I hope that at some point they take action against this character.”

Responsibility in Public Service

Involcan is not a privately-funded think tank. As a company of the Cabildo de Tenerife, funded by public money, it is tasked by the island council with safeguarding public safety in one of the most volcanically active regions of Europe. Its staff, whether they sit in laboratories or speak to the press, carry not only scientific authority but also a duty of care in how they address the public — especially disaster victims.

Iavcei, the International Association of Volcanology and Chemistry of the Earth’s Interior, released guidelines for scientists and their communication:  “IAVCEI promotes dialogue at all levels within the local scientific community and among stakeholders during inter-eruptive periods. Developing a cooperative, united, and well-trained local scientific and stakeholder community is the strongest and most effective way to deal with volcanic crises.” (Giordano et al., 2016). By those standards, D’Auria’s remarks would be more than just “inappropriate.” They would raise questions about his continued suitability to represent a public institution.

In most European countries, civil servants or scientists in public institutions are bound by strict codes of conduct. In the UK or France, for example, mocking victims of a disaster on a public platform would almost certainly trigger a disciplinary process. Universities and research institutes in North America similarly sanction staff who undermine public trust or demean citizens. Sanctions can range from reprimands to suspension or even dismissal, depending on severity.

Some might dismiss this as a personal spat on social media. But words from officials matter. In volcanic emergencies, trust in institutions is as important as scientific data. If citizens feel belittled or mocked, they are less likely to believe the same institutions during a volcanic emergency. 

La Palma’s eruption in 2021 left deep scars. Thousands lost homes, land, or livelihoods. Recovery remains incomplete. For those communities, every reminder of insensitivity feels like salt in the wound. A comment made online by a senior scientist is not “just a joke” — it is a betrayal of the compassion victims deserve from those paid with public funds to protect them.

What Needs to Change

Some locals are now calling for D’Auria’s dismissal. Whether or not the Cabildo de Tenerife takes that step, it is clear that a serious reckoning is overdue. Involcan must confront the culture of communication that has allowed such comments to be made — and, until now, go unaddressed.

This means:

• Establishing clear codes of conduct for staff, including social media use.

• Training scientists in risk communication and empathy, not just technical accuracy.

• Creating mechanisms for victims to raise concerns without being dismissed or mocked.

• Most importantly, demonstrating publicly that compassion is not optional in public service.

When disaster strikes, people look not only for scientific expertise but also for humanity. The role of organisations like Involcan is not simply to measure tremors or model lava flows; it is to help communities navigate trauma and uncertainty. That requires authority, yes — but also humility, empathy, and respect.

If those who represent our public institutions cannot meet that basic standard, the question is not whether they should apologise. It is whether they should continue to hold their positions at all.

We contacted the President of Tenerife and Involcan for comment, but received no response. We will add to this piece if we do.

Overall, the emergency management of the eruption has been criticised as being too slow and overly cautious, leading to the volcanic traffic light level not being raised to full alert before the eruption began. Read more here. The emergency management of the eruption was coordinated by PEVOLCA, in which Involcan, as an invited member and therefore Dr D’Auria, as a senior scientist, was deeply involved in. You can read our ongoing, open-access coverage of the 2021 eruption and reconstruction in La Palma here.

What is Involcan’s role in volcano monitoring and outreach?

IGN (The National Geographic Institute of Spain) is the national institution legally responsible for volcanic monitoring. However, the island Cabildo in Tenerife also established Involcan as a company in Tenerife with public funding over a decade ago, tasked with volcano monitoring and outreach to the local population. Although its name says it is an “Institution”, Involcan, as a private company of the Cabildo, has not been held to the same rigorous transparency and oversight obligations expected of publicly funded entities.

Under the terms of the Canarian volcano emergency plan, PEVOLCA, Involcan is invited to the Scientific Committee to share its data at times of volcanic crisis alongside others. PEVOLCA  also states that the Canarian Government is responsible for preparing the population for a possible future eruption.

Over the years, Involcan has received “significant” public funding for outreach programmes to inform the public about volcanic risk and promote readiness via programmes like “Canarias: una ventana volcánica en el Atlántico” (The Canaries: a volcanic window in the Atlantic). We have contacted the Tenerife Cabildo’s transparency portal twice this year to ask specifically how much money Involcan has received over the past decade for its outreach programmes and what the success of the programmes has been. We have yet to receive a response.  Current funding appears to be included in their TFRESILIENCIA project (strengthening municipal resilience in Tenerife for volcanic risk), with a budget of €123,000, although additional contributions from municipalities and other islands remain unclear.

Anecdotally, Involcan’s outreach programmes have been “poorly attended”. Residents in La Palma complain of having been “badly prepared” for an eruption, which raises questions about the success of Involcan’s outreach work in the past. 

References

IAVCEI Task Group on Crisis Protocols. Toward IAVCEI guidelines on the roles and responsibilities of scientists involved in volcanic hazard evaluation, risk mitigation, and crisis response. Bull Volcanol 78, 31 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-016-1021-8