The Irish Research Scientists' Association continues to have doubts aboutthe Government approach to research funding. Dick Ahlstrom reports
The Government is spending money on scientific research like never before and yet a body that represents the interests of research scientists has expressed disquiet about the situation. It suggests the research focus is too restricted and believes that at least some of the funding process lacks transparency.
The Irish Research Scientists Association (IRSA) recently prepared a submission for the newly established National Commission for Research and Innovation. Agreed by Government last month, the Commission is meant to review research spending procedures under the ongoing National Development Plan, which includes funding for science worth €2.41 billion. More than €700 million has already been allocated and much more is to come.
"In effect, the Commission may be an opportune time to restructure things," states Dr Donal Leech, IRSA chairman and a chemistry lecturer at NUI Galway. "It is long overdue, a lot of money has been spent to date and it is a timely exercise to determine whether the money has been wisely spent."
The key elements of the existing funding programme include the Programme for Research in Third Level Institutions, the PRTLI, administered by the Higher Education Authority; Science Foundation Ireland; and funding pooled by the science research council and Enterprise Ireland. Bodies such as the Health Research Board and Teagasc also have separate research budgets.
IRSA is delighted that research funding soared under the outgoing Government but is also worried about how the money is being spent, says Dr Leech. He highlights a number of issues of concern to IRSA and would like to see changes.
The association believes there is a lack of co-ordination between key funding programmes which leads to duplication of effort and too much money going into too few research areas, he says. Better funding co-ordination would mean greater balance in where the funds go, he believes. "The main benefit would be the resources could be more equitably spent."
The IRSA view is that too much money is being directed towards two key areas, information and communications technology and biotechnology. These areas are getting the lion's share of funding, he says. "It is great that there is money there, but the weight given to these areas to the exclusion of others is a problem."
He acknowledges that Science Foundation Ireland was set up with a budget of €635 million specifically to support research in these two areas. The Irish Council for Science, Technology and Innovation chose these two after an assessment suggested they held the greatest potential for jobs and economic development. "But that is a medium-term process," he adds. "Who knows what the next big thing will be."
IRSA has also sought changes in the PRTLI. "The main concern with PRTLI is the assessment process," says Dr Leech. The Enterprise Ireland basic research funding scheme spent €7.62 million in 2001 and has €16million for 2002 but uses between 80 and 100 experts in panels to assess projects, he says.
"The basic research programme has panels of experts in the areas they fund. Compare that to the international panel of seven experts who assessed the proposals under the PRTLI system. With no disrespect meant to the specialists, you cannot with seven people cover the whole breadth of science, technology and the humanities."
The chairman of the HEA, Dr Don Thornhill, defends the process however, saying the individual project proposals seen under the basic research programme are very different to the strategic proposals seen under PRTLI. "We are not comparing like with like," he says.
One is highly detailed, the other represents a broad approach to research activity. The PRTLI panel assessed institutional proposals and considered submissions at this higher level. "We were having the advice from some of the best people in the world," Dr Thornhill says.
IRSA proposes changes in any future approach to funding mechanisms. It calls for three statutory agencies to fund research and argues for greater co-ordination between them.
It wants a selection of research councils, starting with the existing science and humanities councils, later including health and medicine; agriculture, food, marine and forestry; and arts, culture and heritage.
It wants applied and industrial research funding co-ordinated by a second body that links existing schemes run by Enterprise Ireland and the RTI programme that backs company research.
The third body would be a National Science Foundation or a remodelled SFI, which would receive significant capital investment to establish a trust fund. This would generate funding in perpetuity to back "centres of excellence".
Existing research and funding bodies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Teagasc, State Laboratory and Marine Laboratory would be retained with defined roles under the IRSA approach, he says. The Commission is to make recommendations to the new government by December.