For years now, the debate over the Thirty Meter Telescope has generated more heat than light.

Both sides have dug in. Advocates see the controversial, 18-story, state-of-the-art telescope, planned for part of the astronomy complex at the summit of Mauna Kea, as extremely important to Hawaii and the world.

Opponents cite long-term frustrations with the University of Hawaii, up until now the managers of the summit district. Criticism includes assertions that TMT construction threatens the sensitive environment and represents an affront to the cultural and spiritual importance of the site to Native Hawaiians.

Emotions have run as high as the elevation. But now there’s an opportunity to lower the temperature, for at least long enough to get a clear assessment of all the viewpoints — especially testimony from residents who may have been silent up until now.

That is the intent of the National Science Foundation, which has just begun a two-year environmental review of the $2.65 billion project. In its website, the NSF cites the need for “extensive engagement and understanding of various viewpoints” before the foundation allots any money for the project.

So it’s of critical importance that anyone with an interest in the central question — “Should TMT be built?” — weigh in (see beta.nsf.gov/tmt for details). There is already a persuasive case made, such as in the decadal Astro2020 survey, that the telescope will be one of the crucial elements in American ground-based astronomy.

But having a dispassionate review by an experienced assessment team of the NSF will be welcome. There are ways of submitting comments online or by mail laid out on the site, and Hawaii island public meetings will be held Aug. 9-12.

The review has been launched amid the context of a changing landscape for Mauna Kea management. Just this month, enactment of House Bill 2024 established a new Mauna Kea Stewardship and Oversight Authority to manage the mauna lands now under lease from the state Board of Land and Natural Resources to UH.

After five years of joint management of the lease with UH, the new body will become the sole authority in July 2028.

All of that will be accomplished in fairly slow motion, though. Selecting the 11 voting members of the authority is likely to be a difficult and politically fraught process.

Voting members will include the BLNR chairman or a designee, the Hawaii County mayor or a designee, a UH Board of Regents representative, someone with Hawaii island land resource management expertise and a representative with expertise in public education up to grade 12 or post-secondary education.

There also will be a person the governor may tap from a list of three names submitted by Maunakea Observatories, someone with business and finance experience, a lineal descendant of a Native Hawaiian traditional practitioner associated with Mauna Kea, a current and recognized Native Hawaiian practitioner; plus two members to be appointed by the governor from a list of three nominees submitted by the state Senate president and House speaker.

Lawmakers who advanced this idea in the 2022 legislative session, with the help of a working group in the preceding year, have said a wholesale change in management was necessary to move past an impasse on the TMT issue. Their position on this specific project now is owed to the voters because that is what will guide how the authority is set up.

There are some people, the most outspoken, who will not change their mind — all the more reason why others need to step forward now. The potential NSF funders need a clear assessment, not a cacophony.

That’s the best hope for finding a middle path if TMT is to have, as it should, a future.