If there had been any doubt that the National Science Foundation would face angry reactions to a proposal to fund the Thirty Meter Telescope, it was quickly dispelled at last week’s four hearings on Hawaii island.
Opponents of the controversial telescope sited for the Mauna Kea summit had a passionate, pointed message for foundation officials: We are still here.
The NSF would be a major financier for the $2.65 billion TMT proposal, which has been stalled since the state Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that construction could begin. What stopped it? Throngs of protesters, who blocked access to the summit road the following year.
The intervening years of a pandemic did little to cool the emotions of people who see themselves as protecting a sacred space atop the mountain from the intrusion of an 18-story telescope.
And it seems unlikely that simply replacing the governance of the mauna with the newly created authority, giving Native Hawaiians more of a voice in managing the use of the summit, will change that reality — at least not easily.
The Maunakea Stewardship and Oversight Authority was established this year by lawmakers who hoped that it could bridge the chasm that had opened between the University of Hawaii and the critics of its astronomy campus.
The new board would include a mix of Native Hawaiians, cultural practitioners and representatives of the state and other institutions. There will be a five-year transition of power to the authority, but UH influence will wane.
If the new management is to have any hope of succeeding, the members, yet to be selected, will have to be both representative of various viewpoints, be able to navigate among them, and negotiate compromises. The right managers of Mauna Kea would be empowered to negotiate a balance of competing interests — cultural, environmental, economic.
Anyone watching the “scoping meetings” would see the challenge of finding such skilled diplomats for the authority. Native Hawaiians do not uniformly oppose the project, and those voices were raised. But they were all but drowned out by many of the people who had occupied the road in 2019.
The meetings are part of the foundation’s evaluative process to gauge the environmental impact of the project, availability of funding and other elements. Far from being happy to be heard, some seemed insulted to be asked the question, interrupting the NSF presentation with angry shouts.
“It’s really infuriating that we have to go through this again,” said Kaho‘okahi Kanuha, a leader of the opposition. “Because to even entertain this question, it allows you or anybody else to pretend that the last eight to 12 years never happened.”
Really? As they pointed out, the foundation officials are making a funding decision and are responsible for taking a full reading of the community views. Like it or not, there are multiple opinions, and it’s the duty of the foundation, which is embarking on its own review process, to hear them out.
One of them came from Kekoa Alip, who works for one of the observatories. He rightly pointed out that exploration of the cosmos not only serves the interests of humanity, it reflects the values of Native Hawaiians who navigated by the stars themselves.
The hope is that NSF takes in the full range of comments, including those submitted by people unable to attend these meetings. You can submit comments online (see the link at 808ne.ws/TMT-NSF).
NSF could favor the Canary Islands site instead. But for global progress in science, and all that Hawaii and the world stand to gain in astronomical advances and educational opportunities, Mauna Kea remains the right choice.
