Will cibse take a view?

The Institution's view at a higher level on this issue is therefore "no view", and the opportunity to include something of relevance and potential interest to a wider, outside audience is lost.

Mintzberg, the management guru, established a theory that we use the right side of our brains for intuitive, ambiguous issues and the left side for logical, analytical thinking. While the Code of Professional Conduct and competent practice are clearly left-sided thinking, forming new ideas and views in areas of risk and uncertainty - for example in nuclear energy policy - are all right-sided thinking.

In fact, we need to use both analytical and intuitive thinking processes in order to further "the art, the science and the practice" objectives of the CIBSE Royal Charter. Hence, escaping from clichés and fixed patterns of thought, challenging assumptions, generating

alternatives and finding new ways to move forward are all legitimate activities in fulfilment of the Royal Charter.

Brian Warwicker and Brian Edwards (BSj 03/06 )have formed their views in the difficult and complex area of nuclear energy policy. CIBSE's policy makers should follow their initiative and determine a position on this controversial issue, lest outsiders conclude that we don't have the right sides to our brains at all!.

Ian Brown FCIBSE

Samantha McDonough, Director of Policy for CIBSE replies:

As the person responsible for managing the development of policy, I can say that it's neither left nor right brain activity, but the development of ideas and innovation within the right context - in this case, that of energy demand. This is where CIBSE's contribution to the debate will have credibility and strength and we can argue strongly in favour of energy efficiency.

We have a healthy and longstanding relationship with a Government that looks to CIBSE to provide advice and evidence within our area - and we have achieved this by providing statements and responses that are relevant and supported by evidence. I can tell you, you get short shrift if you come up with rhetoric and unsubstantiated claims.

That is the other problem with this debate - the issues surrounding nuclear power are diverse and often emotive and there seems to be plausible arguments on both sides about issues such as safety of power stations, security of uranium supply and storage of nuclear waste. However if these arguments are not backed up, they are relegated in the government's mind as views from mere enthusiasts.