Comment to “More than ten years of Lusi: A review of facts, coincidences, and past and future studies” by Miller and Mazzini (2018): Taking the trigger debate above ground

Since erupting in 2006, the “Lapindo” mudflow (or “Lusi,” as it is known by scientists) has released a constant flow of mud that has devastated communities and environments in East Java's Sidoarjo regency. The mudflow also has spawned countless formal and informal scientific reports that dispute what initiated the eruption: drilling for gas or a distant earthquake. A 2018 special issue in Marine and Petroleum Geology by the “Lusi Lab” is devoted entirely to the mudflow, which includes an article by Miller and Mazzini (2018) that presents one perspective of the current status of the trigger debate. This discussion article draws attention to a series of inaccuracies and misrepresentations within Miller and Mazzini’s (2018) article. These concerns include (1) the promotion of erroneous drilling and geological data, (2) the inaccurate and unprofessional characterization of scientists who posit opposing interpretations of drilling and geological data, (3) the use of deceptive rhetoric, (4) the dissemination of misleading and unsubstantiated claims about unnamed stakeholders, and (5) the lack of knowledge of – and sensitivity toward – social contexts. After providing an overview of these issues, this article focuses on items (3), (4) and (5), which tend to be overlooked in ongoing geological discussions on the disaster, but have a significant impact on the production, circulation, and reception of geoscience in both professional and non-professional arenas. This commentary on Miller and Mazzini (2018) does not challenge the credibility or integrity of the authors or any scientist associated with the Lusi Lab, but rather argues for a version of geoscience that stays above ground by being conscientious to the social dynamics that impact, and are impacted by, scientific inquiry. Without the appropriate care and scholarly caution, even the most neutral scientist's work can be perceived as compromised to both scholarly and non-scholarly audiences