Astronomers still can’t get it through their thick skulls that consensus building and compromise requires consensus building and compromise.
The TMT is already a historic failure of science policy, outreach and, frankly Science writ large. Past tense. Even if it is does get built, its management has already done enormous damage to the credibility and prestige of Science as an institution both in the US and globally.
The controversial project with an unprecedented footprint aimed to be built atop the highest mountain on the Big Island of Hawai`i, Mauna Kea. The fallback is in the Canary Islands. Both locations are facing growing legal, social and ecological resistance.
Telescopes on the Summit of Mauna Kea have been controversial since the start, and the Mauna already hosts 13 telescopes. At least form this author’s perspective, Astronomers have done nothing of substance to ameliorate these tensions.
The process of consensus building should have happened decades ago, before construction of the TMT was imminent. It should have involved the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) and local conservation groups. All stakeholders - however difficult to the mission - should have been included from the beginning, although that would likely have resulted in a large concession in scope or the status quo.
In 2017, the OHA sued the State and UH for a number of cases mismanagement of the summit Mauna Kea. From their announcement, these included:
"Failure to budget and fund proper management of Mauna Kea
Failure to prudently negotiate sublease terms – for example, by allowing 11 of 13 telescopes to not pay rent
Failure to adequately implement the 2009 Comprehensive Management Plan, with 32 of the 54 management actions that specifically affect Native Hawaiians remaining incomplete
Failure to create an environment respectful of Mauna Kea’s cultural landscape, including by not adequately protecting Native Hawaiian traditional and customary rights and practices on Mauna Kea
Failure to manage access to Mauna Kea and activities on Mauna Kea, which has led to vehicular accidents and personal injuries and deaths, and hazardous material spills, and
Failure to manage observatory development and decommissioning."
Today, environmental groups are also taking action. Per Kahea.org:
“In the 1960s, Hawai’i agreed to share two of our highest and most sacred mountaintops with a small community of astronomers. Today, an expanding industrial footprint of roads, buildings, people, parking, and ever-larger telescopes populate these summits—all while cultural landscape and native habitat are being irreplaceably lost.”
The failures of the Astronomers with the State of Hawaii have also manifested in the TMT’s planned back up site in the Canary Islands, where a recent lawsuit by a local conservation organization resulted in a Spanish judge vacating any and all prior approvals for telescope development. Owing to the failure of the TMT team to follow local laws regarding development on protected land.
From Strength and Opportunities to Weakness and Threats
Had the concerns of these other stakeholders been seriously and equitably incorporated from the beginning, the TMT planning process could have done much to repair the arguably broken relationships. Instead, the Astronomers have squandered this chance, converting a potential opportunity for growth into a threat to Astronomy and Astrophysics in both Hawaii and the US.
Failures of large scale Science - like the Superconducting Super Collider - represent the degradation of what was once a strength of the US: a large and vibrant Scientific Establishment supported by the public - into a liability of damaged relationships and reputation. For the case of the TMT, Astronomers could not see beyond their own aspirations, and try to place them in a context of community which ostensibly supports them.
The saga of the TMT almost almost certainly derives from institutional arrogance borne of implicit and structural privilege. Academics and Scientists don’t often have to deal with external politics. They certainly don’t often have to justify their entire field of study to the public. Whether from a perspective of superiority of mission or just simple ignorance, it is simultaneously understandable and unforgivable.
I published a related essay about the fragility of the modern Scientist in 2020, which is worth revisiting here, about how even the most progressive, civilized, kind and well-meaning Scientist can turn into a red faced spittle over-talking brute the instant the ethics of their work is questioned. If you’re looking for additional context, you might start there.
