State of the Environment Report

Professor Victor Axiaq (The Sunday Times, September 22) defends the State of the Environment Report (SoER) by claiming that comments on it from various sources have been favourable.

While this may be true, I do not think that a scientific document's validity can be evaluated by the amount of praise heaped upon it, but by its ability to withstand criticism, especially on such delicate issues as objectivity, or lack of it.

My criticism of the SoER is straightforward and readily understood by everyone: firstly, objectivity in parts of the report was jeopardised when policymakers were commissioned to contribute to these parts of the SoER. It is obvious that these policymakers, mostly from MEPA, can never be critical of policies they themselves have devised, but which have failed.

Secondly, there were sections of the report on specific subjects, such as minerals, which were entrusted to persons who have no qualifications in the field. I find it hard to believe that no one more qualified than Adrian Mallia, a marine biologist at MEPA, could be found to contribute on important issues such as minerals which, in the rest of the world, would have normally been left in the hands of geologists to comment on.

Thirdly, the contributions by scientists which I have referred to in my article (The Sunday Times, September 29) who have behaved controversially from an ethical and/or professional point of view in the past four years may have diminished the credibility of the SoER.

Presumably, Professor Axiaq seems insensitive to the behaviour of these scientists, which in some cases was also questioned in Parliament. I am disquieted by this attitude since I believe that scientists should use science to serve the entire community rather than specific interest groups.

Professor Axiaq also makes some comments on Labour's environment document and claims that the SoER's section on minerals mirrors Labour's document. In reality, Labour's document presents a very different approach recommended by experts in the field of minerals and mineral policy. Later, Professor Axiak objects to my repeated reference in my article to Labour's environment document because he claims that this is completely different in scope from the SoER!

Professor Axiaq is emphatic in not excluding any scientists' contributions if Labour is in government. I wish to reassure him that Labour is not in the habit of excluding persons who can give a valid and objective contribution to society.

Indeed, when the Labour government had commissioned the first SoER in 1998 it did so without first scrutinising the political allegiance of contributors, even when it was evident that most of them were from the opposite end of the political spectrum. In our document on the environment we also made sure that all views are included, even of those scientists who made the political decision not to contribute anything.

Labour's apolitical approach to the first SoER made this report a truly independent document. I cannot say the same for the second SoER issued in 2002 under the PN government. As in all other spheres of life, the PN persisted in promoting only its small circle of friends. These were the only ones allowed to contribute to the SoER even if in some cases they are not the most qualified to do so. Unfortunately, the PN government's attitude of excluding other valid scientists is making our small scientific community even smaller.