Retorts

Defending Technologies

Dr Peter Meredith [Egg on the face? Feb 99] questions Anna Pilbrow's technological development, an extruded egg product. Anna won the ECNZ Canterbury-Westland Science and Technology fair with this development, being judged "best in fair" by the panel of nearly 100 judges. She stood out above the other exhibitors.

Anna proceeded to the ECNZ National Fair where the 18 members of the National judging panel awarded her the top technology prize. Few, if any, of the judges at either event questioned the quality of her work.

Dr Meredith misses a key issue with "technologies". They have to be appropriate or timely. While extruded egg products are not new, a technology did not exist that enabled anyone to make the product in their own kitchen and for a minimal cost. This is the true innovation in Anna's work for which she was rewarded. I understand this technology is also the basis of her provisional patent.

If Dr Meredith had concerns about the "quality" of Anna's work he should have presented these directly to me as Chief Judge of the ECNZ Canterbury-Westland Science and Technology Fair or to Barbara Benson as Chief Judge of the ECNZ National Science and Technology Fair. I would have gladly detailed to him why Anna's prize was considered so worthy. I am sure Barbara Benson would have done the same.

If Dr Meredith is concerned about future fairs, I would gladly have him assist with judging and to this effect I can be contacted at Lincoln University. From the university perspective, we are proud to have students of Anna's capabilities choosing to come to Lincoln This is what was stated in the Outlook October 1998 article.

Jon G.H. Hickford PhD, Chief Judge Canterbury-Westland, Science and Technology Fair