It is becoming common for academics to cross swords with politicians. Last week Dr Joseph Cannataci continued to reply to comments made by Carmelo Abela, MP, Opposition spokesman on education, while environment Minister George Pullicino took Professor of Biology Victor Axiaq to task on his comments on the proposed Sant'Antnin waste treatment project.

Professor Axiaq is the chairman of the Curia Environment Commission. Dr Cannataci was the University-appointed chairman of the board of governors of the Malta Centre for Restoration from May 1999 until last March. Both are academics whose views cannot be dismissed with ease while Mr Abela and Mr Pullicino carry great weight in local politics.

Such deliberations should be healthy but for the fact that the implications could have unwelcome consequences on the positions held by particular individuals. It is difficult to find academics of calibre who are also willing to chair institutions such as the Malta Centre for Restoration and the Curia Environment Commission. For this reason, although all have a right and probably a duty to voice criticism, diligent politicians should not act in a way that would discourage academic members from venturing into difficult innovative grounds.

Without going into details, the words said by the two politicians ought to have been thought out better. Mr Pullicino stated that "Professor Axiaq was not loyal to the opinion paper issued by the Commission he chairs. For this he has the rest of the commission of the Church's leaders who appointed him to answer to."

This is a very serious accusation because Professor Axiaq's main professional activity is leading a department whose reputation depends on the prestige and reliability given through examples and where students are mentored so that in the future they can have an impact in the way we deal with our environment. Although professors' opinions, even when given as experts, are not infallible and politicians have every right and obligation to correct or disagree with them, there are ways and means to do this.

Professor Axiaq has claimed that the study leading to the approval of the project (the Sant'Antnin waste recycling plant) was a "disaster." Minister Pullicino could perhaps have done better if he had made more use of University academics as experts, because, as Professor Axiaq stated, MEPA's members are not experts in the matters related to the project.

The minister may be correct to insist on going ahead with the Sant'Antnin project and Professor Axiaq is possibly wrong to raise doubts about an essential project. The latter is perhaps in the danger of joining his environmental colleagues in becoming a frustrated whistle-blower. The danger is that when there is nothing to whistle about and the whistle-blower is out of a job, there is the temptation to whistle about anything, even some development where the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.

Academics must be careful not to fall into this trap. They should take the role of suggesting better alternatives rather than just throwing cold water on a project. This totally negative attitude is what irritates persons like Mr Pullicino, and rightly so. Besides, it could be seen to be unjustified support for the Opposition who seem to be in the habit of opposing just about everything.

In the case of Dr Cannataci and Mr Abela the position is more clear yet more alarming. Briefly, because of incomplete information, Mr Abela may have inadvertently caused "a loss to the new generation of graduates". This he unwittingly achieved because he listened and acted upon hearsay, probably from persons who had an axe to grind with Dr Cannataci or with the Restoration Centre.

Again, we are not saying that Dr Cannataci is infallible. However the end result is that the wrong message is sent to academics, mainly that those who go out of the ivory castle may face unjust criticism from persons who should know better. Mr Abela, who is otherwise described as "extremely courteous and genuinely motivated" has the unfortunate habit of bowing to pressure from his constituents and gets "grossly misinformed and jumps to the wrong conclusions". Mr Abela has also a bad habit of putting a number of PQs which could not only be time-consuming to answer but could also serve to throw cold water onto good projects. This he does possibly to placate frustrated constituents who hold grudges against society and who use politicians for the wrong motives.

Undoubtedly, both Mr Pullicino and Mr Abela are wiser than this. It is a pity if they fall victim to outbursts. They definitely can contribute more to society by addressing their efforts to positive activity. It is to be hoped that tomorrow, when traditionally a number of politicians meet informally with academics during the opening of the new academic year, the opportunity will be taken to discuss differences in a more cordial and academic manner.