Research scientists will not buy into the Tanaiste's call for a 'civic science' until she addresses two reports currently on her desk, writes Geraldine Duignan
It's hard not be overwhelmed by all that is going on in the Irish science community. As huge budgets are made available, science in universities is innovating, science in industry is embedding, science in schools is in trouble, and science in culture is non-existent. So much change has been forced in the past five years, that growing pains can be expected.
Now the Tánaiste, Ms Harney, believes it is time we created a "civic science"; "a science engaged with and invited into the national dialogue, responsive to the public and worthy of public trust, embraced and valued by students, parents, educators, industry and communities, and yes, the Government". In case it has escaped your attention, it's all in pursuit of a "knowledge economy".
Technology and the knowledge on which it is based have become an intrinsic part of economic systems, according to economists. Long-term economic stability and competitiveness are no longer about labour and capital resources, but the ability to generate and use knowledge in science and technology. Like the US, Finland, New Zealand, Denmark and other nations aspiring to compete, Ireland has embraced a belief in a "knowledge economy" by investing heavily in research and technology development.
As a result, science policy has been an almost over-active area of Irish policy in the past decade. We are now spending unprecedented amounts of taxpayer's money on investment in technology research: €2.41 billion under the National Development Plan. The 1999 Technology Foresight exercise, commissioned by Ms Harney's Department, determined that biotechnology and Information and Communication Technology (ICT), held the greatest potential for jobs and economic development.
In March 2000, the Department of Trade and Enterprise established Science Foundation Ireland (SFI), with a budget equivalent of €646 million, to administer the Foresight fund for research in niche areas of biotechnology and ICT only. It was the largest single investment in research in the history of the State and was notably established quickly, without ever being the focus of Dáil debate.
The recommendation to prioritise funding of biotechnology and ICT comes as no surprise. Technology foresight exercises in New Zealand, Finland, and the US all came to the same conclusion. But the Irish Research Scientists Association (IRSA) has consistently argued that SFI's massive funding of biotechnology and ICT, to the exclusion of other areas of research, "defies all precepts of good management".
"It's not that we have a problem with prioritising biotech and ICT," says IRSA's Dr Donal Leech. "We are delighted with the increased funding and SFI's administration. It's the disparity in levels of funding between these and other areas that we are concerned with - €646 million for biotech and ICT versus €10 million for a broad research base in which biotech and ICT can also compete. The Foresight exercise was carried out five years ago and there has been no revision since."
There is however, evidence to suggest that Science Foundation Ireland are subtly widening their remit. Recent language refers to "technologies underpinning biotech and ICT", and a review of the 45 proposals recently awarded funding suggests that technologies underpinning biotech and ICT come from a wide range of disciplines. Without question, SFI's administration is considered a good and efficient model for research funding and a transparent international peer review process ensures that the most competitive proposals win support.
Ironically, while the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment were lauding the progress of SFI, the Department of Education and Science's largest source of third level funding, the Programme for Research in Third Level Institutions (PRTLI) was "paused". The failed commitment to the education sector is now to the fore and with a projected budget deficit of 3.9 per cent for 2003, priorities need to be determined.
The decline in uptake of physics and chemistry at second level is worrying. While school science has been on the agenda for the past three years, and the Task Force on Physical Sciences has submitted its recommendations, no action has yet been taken to implement any of the proposed measures.
"How can you have a knowledge-based economy when basic research and education are the first things to be cut," says IRSA president Dr Fiona Regan.
The imbalance in funding commitment to science and technology, between the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment could pose a threat to the success of Harney's economic strategy.
A skilled and motivated workforce must be maintained and the business community is concerned. Mr Sean Dorgan, CEO of IDA Ireland, calls for a "pro-active education sector".
There has also been little commitment to research into societal impacts of new technologies. Mr Brian Trench of Dublin City University's School of Communications, head of their Biosciences and Society group and former member of the Irish Council for Science Engineering and Technology (ICSTI), is hopeful that the Tánaiste's new language of a "civic" science may provide a reference for the inclusion of social research in funding policy. He welcomes the Tánaiste's civic science as a new and "useful language" for discussing science's place in society.
The Centre for Cellular Biotechnology at DCU is, so far, the only centre to have a Biosciences and Society research group.
While the Tánaiste's civic vision of science is accepted by most, there is a lot that needs to be done before it is realised. According to Mr Trench: "There is a considerable risk that nobody in the Government outside the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has any input, or feels any responsibility for making this happen. Science policy needs to be governmental, not departmental."
There is no communication between funding bodies in different Government Departments and considerable duplication of research efforts between the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Department of Education and Science are possible. The Walsh Commission submitted its report to the Tánaiste in March with a proposal to address this very issue. It is believed to recommend formation of an Office of Science and Technology under the Department of the Taoiseach, which would co-ordinate administration of research funding across the board. The Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment has not yet addressed its findings. "The bits still don't join up," says Mr Trench, "and there is no discussion in the media about this."
IRSA won't buy into the Tánaiste's civic aspirations until two documents currently on her desk are addressed. One is the report of the Task Force on Physical Sciences, which would make a commitment to education. The other is the report of the Walsh Commission on a Framework for National Policy on Research and Technology Development.
The Tánaiste's address on a "civic science" was a new departure in the discourse on science and technology in Ireland, and its vision is much respected. But to be truly a civic science, there needs to be more open debate about science policy, debate that actively considers not just economic, but societal and ethical concerns about science and technology. This debate, and an action plan, should be championed at the highest levels of Government.
We already look to Finland to benchmark our progress towards a competitive knowledge economy. The Finnish Science and Technology Policy Council is chaired by their prime minister. Our competitors are serious about science. Are we?
Geraldine Duignan is research programme manager, Institute of Technology, Sligo (the views expressed are personal).