Editor,

Mr Siaosi Chan wishes to classify Ms. Mallaney's "op-ed" letter (Major weaknesses . . . 3 Mar 2010) as "scientific" study. May I ask Mr. Chan: Must our social duties to strengthen national security, people's safety, and national economic stability be trusted to untested personal opinions?

How many opinions are out there, and whose opinion shall we rely upon?

Rather we must rely on sound scientific evidence. Organizations such as Ms. Mallaney's employer, Global Integrity, provide legitimate studies they claim are designed scientifically and constructively using "quantitative" research methodologies. Quantitative study collects evidence from laboratories or field work, translates them to numerical data, and applies statistical formulae and rigorous scientific logic to analyze them.

Furthermore, Global Integrity claims to apply scientific "peer-reviewed" analysis before releasing their reports to the news media, government agencies, and the general public. Ms. Mallaney must not use Global Integrity's "scientific" reputation to promote untested personal opinions. Seems to me she played "parachute" journalist for a day.

People's Security & Safety

In the interest of the country, the PM's Office must ask if Ms. Mallaney's letter was a product of scientific analysis, or simply her opinion? Since she did not backup her statement against her company's scientific peer-reviewed analysis, etc., we must conclude deductively that her letter is a personal opinion.

Moreover, government leaders and scholars must not resort to exploiting (emotionally) a tragedy such as the Princess Ashika disaster to further their agenda unethically. Our social responsibilities dictate that we must not "masquerade" opinions as scientific study evidence.

Scientific studies, ethical and good governance practices, must be the foundation of all public projects. I would rather side with Science, which has had better success rates than untested opinions.

Sione Akemeihakau Mokofisi