Denise Konan, in her first key decision as Manoa's interim chancellor, has made a reasoned recommendation against the university-affiliated Navy research center (UARC) contract.

Rather than dismissing the concept of a UARC, she evaluated costs and benefits of this arrangement and decided that it wasn't in the University of Hawai'i's best interest.

That pragmatic-based approach is how the UH Board of Regents should analyze the plan to set up a Navy-directed research center on campus. Regents should conduct a clear-headed cost-benefit analysis rather than accept or reject the notion of a military partnership on emotional or philosophical grounds.

The question has sharply and painfully divided the university community. Regardless, Konan seems to have performed her own due diligence by seeking out the various points of view on campus, divergent perspectives that she is unlikely to reconcile. There appears to be little room for consensus here, so the verdict must arise from a dispassionate look at the facts.

The regents plan to hold more public hearings and conduct other research before taking a final vote. That's fine, but what's more crucial is evaluating whether UH research — and the state as a whole — will be well served by a UARC.

Konan has concluded that while many faculty back the UARC as a funding source, few seem to have plans to seek grants from such a center. Likely participation is a factor worth considering.

The regents also must look at the way the center would operate here. The potential difficulties of commingling staff and resources in an on-campus UARC — unlike the free-standing centers affiliated with other universities — must be scrutinized.

The university community has endured enough wrangling over the idea of a UARC and needs its officials to get to work reckoning with the reality. Only after doing their homework should the regents make the call.