GIGO

Open Fires Debated

There's been a lot of dust in the air of late here in Christchurch, connected, in one way or another, with the increasingly hot debate over the role coal and open fires play in the city's high winter pollution levels. According to the Canterbury Regional Council, up to 90% of the PM₁₀ particulate matter that pollutes the air and causes health problems comes from the city's domestic fires. As a consequence, the CRC is considering tight controls and even bans on fuel burners and open fires.

That's sparked a major argument, not only over the proposed measures but also regarding the science underpinning them. The Canterbury branch of the Royal Society of New Zealand recently took the commendable step of sponsoring a public meeting, bringing together CRC representatives, researchers from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, and scientists from the Association of Independent Research who challenged the findings of the two former groups.

A local newspaper editorial criticised the meeting as bringing "contesting" scientists together only to "muddy what should be a straightforward matter". What the writer did not seem to realise is that science is all about contesting viewpoints, about challenging findings, about looking for evidence and counter-evidence. This is what makes it such a robust area of knowledge, what gives it the chance to stand outside vested interest, cultural biases or any other area of the human condition that would have the world reflected the way it should be, rather than the way it is.

We need to have more such debates in public. There needs to be broader recognition that, in reaching consensus on an issue, one first has to canvas viewpoints, present evidence and evaluate the arguments -- and recognise that occasionally we will not be able to come to a clear, straightforward decision.

Consensus is not such a common thing in science, as on-going debate in a whole host of areas demonstrates regularly. The important thing is to ensure that such debate and scrutiny continues, not just in the rarefied atmosphere of academia, but throughout society where science is used to underpin proposals for social change.

Vicki Hyde is the editor of New Zealand Science Monthly.