With the bulk of monies going to Dublin institutions, some are uneasy about the whole approach to funding allocation. Anne Byrne reports

To those who have, more shall be given. On the face of it, that would appear to the spirit motivating the distribution of research funding by the State to third-level institutions in the Republic.

Another way of looking at it would be to say that the State rewards excellence. But for those just starting out - and I'm thinking in particular of the Institutes of Technology (former RTCs) who entered the research arena in 1992) and are attempting to climb towards that excellence - lack of grants, equipment and support, can simply make the scramble too steep.

The skewing of funding also appears somewhat ironic in light of the recent Skilbeck report, which urges universities to strengthen their links with industry and the community - a mission that has always been to the forefront in the ITs.

Substantial State funding for research in third-level institutes is a relatively new departure in Ireland. Since the inception of the Programme for Research in Third Level Institutions in 1999, the research landscape has altered substantially. To date, €605 million has been awarded under PRTLI, with the bulk of the funding going to the university sector.

In the recently announced third cycle, Sligo IT secured £2 million for a project on sustainable treatment, waste management and re-use of biosolids, while Waterford IT secured £3.9 million for a programme of research in smart space management. The remainder of the €320 million went to universities, although not all of them were beneficiaries. The other major funding body, Science Foundation Ireland, included one non-university, DIT, among the first 10 recipients of its funding, with the bulk of the funding going to TCD.

Dr William Harris, the director of SFI, is adamant that excellence must be rewarded and says too many conclusions should not be drawn from the first round of funding. The SFI focus on biotechnology and ICT is forward-looking, he says. These are very broad fields and the interface between the two is particularly rich.

Dr Don Thornhill, chairman of the Higher Education Authority, says the objective of the PRTLI is to build strong institutions, with strength in research. The criteria for awarding funding are: strategic quality, research quality and impact on teaching.

"The institutions that have been successful to date have produced proposals consistent with their mission," he says. The criteria are drawn up by the HEA, and approved by the Department of Education. The universities have no hand in drawing up the criteria, he stresses.

However, Eugene O'Leary, chief executive of TecNet, an organisation dedicated to promoting research co-operation among the ITs, says he is very disappointed at the recent PRTLI funding announcement.

"The ITs have a lot of offer, but the cards are stacked against them . . . it's a self-perpetuating situation with the HEA and the universities awarding the money to each other. At the same time, they have a consultant (Skilbeck) who criticises them and suggests they reposition themselves towards industry. What weighting does this get when it comes to research funding?"

Dr Venie Martin, head of development at Waterford IT, and Dr Patrick Mulhern, head of development at Athlone IT, recently drew up a table of research funding (1999-2001, exclusive of PRTLI Cycle 3), which shows a strong imbalance between the university and the IT sector in the region of nine to 1. It also shows a strong regional imbalance (see above).

Dr Martin says: "The reason the ITs can't compete for funding is that they are competing on an unequal playing field. They are funded to teach undergraduate students and have no special labs, or buildings or additional library support. Lecturers are employed on the basis they put in 16 contact hours teaching a week." The current funding mechanisms mean the gap between the ITs and the universities is widening, says Martin. She suggests it's easy to say you reward excellence, but the ITs need some assistance to gain that excellence.

Irish third-level research is not assessed and rated in the way that pertains in the UK, where a major exercise, the Research Assessment Exercise, rates college departments on a scale from 1 to 5*. The process is rigorous, with 68 subject panels assessing quality of research.

Following criticism of the previous RAE, carried out in 1996, last year's exercise included more than 300 overseas academics, who advised on departments being considered for the highest grades. In all but 3 per cent of the cases, they confirmed the judgment of the British panels.

Is there a case for research rating here? The Irish education sector is notoriously averse to league tables and tables such as those published by the Guardian or the London Times, in the wake of the RAE, are unlikely to be welcomed.

However, one senior academic, based in a university that has not enjoyed much success under PRTLI or SFI, says there is a strong case for rating researchers or research departments here. "Here, huge lumps of money are given out on the basis of very opaque processes. In terms of the RAE, there are few surprises, with most departments scoring as expected. Here, you might have an application you consider is 5* and you end up with zilch from PRTLI and SFI." There is no adequate explanation, he says, so it is difficult to know how to increase your chances of success. "Criteria are published but scores are not published. The feedback is pathetic, a half page, or so, of meaningless comments," he adds. Skilbeck's report is ironic, he says, as it is the traditional universities, concentrating on basic research, that are rewarded here.

Eugene O'Leary is also in favour of external assessment of research quality, but says it is imperative that all institutions be involved in drawing up the criteria. In the UK, the overall improvement in the RAE ratings means more departments competing for limited funding. Following the announcement of the results, a row about the distribution of funding broke out.

It ended in an uneasy truce between the university research elite and the former polytechnics as the Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce) indicated it would award grants based on the 2001 RAE rating, but would cap any large increases in university budgets to provide a safety net for others that are set for large cuts in funding. Hefce is due to meet this week to resume discussions.

The importance of research funding reaches beyond the ivory towers or breezeblock buildings of academe.

As Martin and Mulhern says: "It is generally accepted in developed countries that research in higher education leads to innovation, and innovation leads to technology transfer and spin-off companies. Spin-off companies and technology transfer to existing companies, in turn, create jobs and drive the economy.

Since the vast bulk (more than 65 per cent ) of the £284 million higher education research funding given out from 1999 to November 2001 was won by the main Dublin universities, it is clear that the benefits to the Irish economy will be focused in the Dublin region."

Is there a case for a third major funding mechanism, to be implemented by the State, to take account of regional distribution as well as the Catch 22 situation experienced by young research groups and departments?

On Thursday the Science Today page in The Irish Times talks to the SFI research director for biotechnology and looks at one of the funded biotechnology projects at Trinity College Dublin.