Earthquake Hazard Assessment: Has Our Approach Been Modified in the Light of Recent Earthquakes?

This may be an historic event for many of you. It will be the first time that you have ever heard a geologist give a talk related to earthquakes that was not replete with Kodachrome slides of cracks in the ground and maps of active faults, or at least of "allegedly" active faults, or "potentially" active faults or even "possibly" active faults! But I would like to go beyond the detailed discussion of individual earthquakes this afternoon, and instead discuss the broader problem of whether our studies of numerous recent earthquakes -- here and abroad -- are leading to modifications in our hazard assessment techniques, speaking from the point of view of a geologist or seismologist. I emphasize that I make no pretext of speaking for either the geotechnical or structural engineers. You already know, of course, the answer posed by the title. It's both "yes" and "no". And I would like to focus on the question of: In what scientific areas, in particular, are our approaches changing, and in what areas do the traditional methods remain credible?