There's jubilation among third-level researchers thanks to a boost of £550 million in the National Development Plan, launched last week. There's hope, too, that the institutions will be able to avail of some of £560 million allocated to a new "Technology Foresight Fund". The proposed third-level investment of £550 million "represents the single largest commitment ever to enhancing the research, technological development and innovation capacity of the third-level education sector", says the Minister for Education and Science, Micheal Martin. "The investment marks a huge sea-change in government attitude to research," says Dr Frank Hegarty, UCD's dean of research.

"It's a recognition, finally, that research is what is going to sustain the Irish economy in the medium and long term," adds TCD's provost, Dr Tom Mitchell. The investment is designed to fund a major capital investment programme which "will facilitate the R&D physical infrastructure of the third-level institutions in line with national strategic priorities", the plan states. Funding will be allocated to the institutions on a competitive basis. The mechanisms will be similar to those which pertained in the £180 million R&D initiative, which was launched last year. The competitive element is essential, researchers agree. "The universities would favour an open peer-review bidding system for getting and spending money," Mitchell observes. "Research has to be merit driven."

However, while no one in higher education is looking a gift horse in the mouth, the phrase "in line with national strategic priorities" is a cause for some concern. Does this mean that grants will be limited to projects which meet certain Government criteria? Researchers are adamant that there should be no Government interference. "Grants should be awarded by open competition," comments TCD senior lecturer Dr Michael Laver. "There should be no directions as to which areas are important or strategic. We should be able to conduct real research and not have to address current bottlenecks. "We need a system for people to come along with ideas which could develop into major innovations but are not national priorities."

NUI Maynooth's Professor Jim Slevin agrees. "If the Government thinks it can direct research it won't succeed." Laver argues for setting up research councils to supervise bidding and allocate funds. "It's the way it's handled in every other serious economy in the world."

According to Slevin, "councils should be set up to develop policy in line with Government aims, but you have to have basic programmes running parallel with strategic programmes. These are essential for the production of good, high quality research and the training of young researchers." But with more than £1 billion going into research between the two programmes, can we easily spend the money? "The money won't be hard to spend," says Shane O'Mara, chairperson of the Irish Research Scientists Association. "There has been a dramatic under-investment in R&D over the years. We have been investing less than 1 per cent of GDP in R&D, which compares poorly with the investment of other countries. The US and Finland, for example, invest around 3 per cent. "Innovation is absolutely central to a modern economy - it's not an optional add-on." "I have no doubt that the capacity can be created," Mitchell comments, "because we have had a massive brain-drain of Irish research talent over the last 20 years. Many of our best have gone abroad to do postgraduate and postdoctoral work. There is a huge expatriate population of Irish researchers who were born and educated here that we could attract back now that we finally have the resources to enable them to fulfill their professional potential." Meanwhile, some of the £550 million is to be spent on graduate enterprise programmes and higher education-industry links. More money will be available for postgraduate and postdoctoral researchers.

The situation for postgraduate students has improved in recent years, Slevin points out. "We are working on an average of £7,000 per postgraduate student per annum, but we should be moving to £10,000 per annum in order to keep and attract more people."

UCD's Frank Hegarty also argues in favour of a greater allocation of funding for current spending than was available in the £180 million R&D initiative which was launched in 1998. Here, only £30 million was allocated to current spending and capital costs received the lion's share. "I think 50-50 would be a better balance."