OF all the decisions facing the incoming Taoiseach, the one with perhaps the most far reaching implications for tomorrow's Ireland is perhaps this: how to integrate adequately into government the virtually neglected areas of science, technology and innovation?

The issue is critical because innovation, driven by technology, has now become the main determinant of economic growth. This is a potentially disastrous development for Ireland, since our consistent policy throughout 40 years of economic development has been to ignore innovation almost completely, piggy backing instead on the achievement of others.

Unfortunately, taking our innovation second hand is no longer an option. To get our share of tomorrow's growth, Ireland must become a full player in the innovation stakes and, by all objective measures, we start well down the field.

Alongside the dominance of innovation is the arrival of the information society. This has been compared to the invention of printing five centuries ago: suddenly an entirely new world is born, bringing a tidal wave of economic, social and cultural change.

For Ireland, the information age can be an opportunity of historic dimensions, with the realistic possibility of attaining global leadership in certain key areas. But the threats are, just as immense: if we fail the challenge, we risk throwing away much of the economic progress that was so painfully won.

This is why innovation and the information age must be brought to the centre of government policymaking. Hopefully, Fianna Fail's manifesto shows some recognition of this need.

But recognising a need is one thing: making it a reality in day to day government is quite another.

The first fact to be faced is that the present structural niche for science, technology and innovation has outlived its usefulness. When the Office of Science and Technology was first set up, as part of the then Department of Industry and Commerce, it was a major step forward. But this structure is quite inadequate for today's challenge.

Currently, 12 separate government departments and 30 State agencies spend almost £800 million annually on science and technology. It is clear that effective management and leadership in this area can never be properly exercised by a junior minister in a department whose rem it is focused on only part of the overall picture.

For example, 80 per cent of Ireland's research is done in third level educational institutions. The fact that this is controlled from a subsidiary office of the Department of Enterprise and Employment guarantees, if nothing else, that research will never figure very highly in the priorities of the Department of Education.

But the "turf issue" goes much wider. If we are to exploit the opportunities properly, we must embrace, innovation and the information society across the whole span of government.

To do this, two conditions must be, met. Innovation and the information age must have a place at the centre of government, not on its periphery. And this place must carry enough status to drive a government wide commitment to action.

From this perspective, at least four options are open to the new Taoiseach:

1. Create a new Cabinet level department dedicated to innovation and the information society (similar to the Danish Ministry for Research and Information Technology).

2. Transfer the existing Office of Science and Technology to the Taoiseach's department.

3. Create a high powered action group with the secretary of the Taoiseach's department in the chair. This could be modelled on the group which so successfully drove the development of the International Financial Services Centre.

4. Appoint a highly qualified special adviser to the Taoiseach on "innovation and the information society. Again, there is a successful precedent: in the past, advisers on the arts and the environment have spearheaded a national change of direction. Both areas now have full time Cabinet Ministers.

Appointing a Cabinet minister for innovation and the information society would indeed be a bold stroke. ,Nothing could more dramatically demonstrate the government's commitment to the new era.

But it is probably more realistic to see this as a medium term rather than immediate aim. Because of constitutional constraints, such an appointment could be made only by downgrading an existing portfolio. Given that a central part of the present problem is the low level of public interest in science and technology, it is unlikely the political will exists to create a Cabinet post at this stage.

THE minimalist approach to shifting the Office of Science and Technology to the Taoiseach's department might do more harm than good. It would bring the office to the centre of "power, but at the expense of divorcing it from a main conduit for innovation funding, Forbairt.

The other two options are more attractive. We have seen in the past how projects with handson support from the Taoiseach's department have flourished, viz, the Custom House Docks, Temple Bar.

When a task is of national importance, involves issues that cross the borders of government departments, and above all requires wholehearted continuing commitment from the top level of government, the mechanism with the best track record is direct control by the Taoiseach.

My hope is that the incoming Taoiseach will equip himself either with a top calibre personal adviser on innovation and the information age, or set up within his department an action group with a tightly defined remit and a fast track to the legislative process. The ideal solution would be to combine both these mechanisms, as a steppingstone to the "eventual appointment of a full Cabinet minister who would adopt these responsibilities.