The Capitulation of Science Foundation Ireland

Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) was established as a key organisation in the implementation of the Irish National Development Plan (NDP) 2007-2013 and the Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation 2006-2013.  A sum of €8.2 billion has been allocated for scientific research under the NDP and SSTI of which SFI has responsibility to invest €1.4 billion.  SFI ’s remit was to invest in academic researchers and research teams who are most likely to generate new knowledge, leading edge technologies and competitive enterprises in the fields of science and engineering underpinning three broad areas: Biotechnology, Information and communications technology and Sustainable energy and energy-efficient technologies.

The appointment of Prof Frank Gannon as the second Director General of SFI succeeding Bill Harris (ex NSF) was initially heralded as a good choice to lead Ireland’s epic journey towards achieving international accreditation and standing in research.  Prof Gannon was appointed as SFI Director General by the SFI Board in February 2007 and formally took up position on July 2nd 2007. Prof Gannon joined SFI from his position as Executive Director of the European Molecular Biology Organisation (EMBO) and Senior Scientist at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), based in Heidelberg, Germany; where he worked since 1994. Prior to that, Prof Gannon was Director of the National Diagnostic Centre, a BioResearch Ireland (BRI) initiative,  and Associate Professor in the Department of Microbiology at University College Galway, Ireland, with particular responsibility for the development of a biotechnology programme. He has also recently entered the blogosphere.

BioResearch Ireland (BRI) was the National Agency for commercialising biotechnology before the Technology Foresight programme that eventually led to the establishment of SFI.  BRI was originally set-up in 1988 as a partnership between Government and the universities to pursue a similar remit to that now adopted by SFI and employed staff within five university-based centres and its management group. For many, the BRI programmes poorly performed and failed to deliver on their core mission, partly due to lack of investment (of the kind previously available through SFI) and particularly because of a deep seated cronyism within the management structure of many of the National Centres, in particular the National Cell and Tissue Culture Centre (NCTCC). Technology Foresight and the establishment of SFI was the quintessential Irish solution to this most Oirish problem.

In its 2007 annual report,  SFI awarded over 48 million euro on Immunology research, second only to Molecular Biology within the Life Sciences Directorate. In 2008, Immunology represented a staggering 5.4% of its total budget for that year, surpassed only by Molecular Biology within the LifeSciences Directorate. Is it any wonder then that the recipient of the Boyle Medal for for Scientific Excellence and the SFI Researcher of the Year was an Immunologist ! While no doubt thoroughly deserving of the accolade and acclaim, it does more than anything else point to the true value of investment in a key research area where Ireland can now successfully compete on an international stage.

The Irish Times today hosts a commentary from The President of Dublin City University (DCU) making a compelling argument that Ireland’s future depends on continued investment in research, in particular through SFI and the HEA infrastructure programme (PRTLI). In this context, it is somewhat alarming to note that as of this week only three programmes of research are currently open for funding at SFI out of a  total of 28 programmes in all. All other programmes are closed indefinately.

The economic paralysis that has gripped the Irish economy over the last 18 months has now clearly manifest itself in the attempts to establish Ireland’s future as a knowledge based economy through state funding agencies like SFI and HEA. Of note, the HEA PRTLI V programme is also on hold and has been recommended by the McCarthy report to be discontinued with immediate effect.

It is indeed a worrying development that can easily result in the capitulation of Science Foundation Ireland and its laudable core mission unless our Government rethink their strategy for our future.

League Tables – Science and Technology

Quantitative analysis of science and technology is  a growing research area.  There are two university rankings based on different bibilometric indicators which are worth watching:

Cybermetrics Lab has this university ranking for Top 100 universities in Europe, published in July 2009. TCD is the only Irish university in this list, ranked 49th in Europe and 169th in the world ranking. In the world ranking UC Cork is 393rd and UCD is 457th. The world rank of Irish universities can be found here. It is worth noting that the metrics adopted are based on web publications.

169 University of Dublin Trinity College

393 National University of Ireland Cork

457 National University of Ireland Dublin

500 Dublin City University

554 University of Limerick

822 National University of Ireland Galway

1140 National University of Ireland Maynooth

1267 Dublin Institute of Technology

2234 Waterford Institute of Technology

3958 Cork Institute of Technology

4004 Institute of Technology Sligo

4520 Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland

4523 Mary Immaculate College University of Limerick

4694 Dundalk Institute of Technology

4798 Athlone Institute of Technology

4832 Institute of Technology Carlow

5094 Tipperary Institute

5516 Galway Mayo Institute of Technology

5537 Institute of Technology Tralee

5561 Institute of Technology Tallaght *

The Centre for Science and Technology Studies of the Leiden University has constructed several university rankings based on scientific output. While based on the similar data and methodological background, rankings differ depending on the focus of the impact – indicators. The Leiden ranking results 2008 can be found here.

There is no official government ranking of Irish universities, and while there is a blizzard of official statistics about Irish universities, there is no very obvious way of turning them into a ranking – quality assurance mechanisms produce general assessments and suggestions for improvement, rather than producing a mark or score. There are unofficial measures to which frequent reference is made:

As part of the QS World University Rankings, the Irish sub-set of the data can be used to create a ranking. For 2009, this yields a listing as follows:
Trinity (43)
UCD (89)
UCC (226)
DCU (302)
Dublin IT (328)
NUIG (368)
UL (394)
NUIM (501)

The Sunday Times compiles an annual league of Irish universities. For 2009, the top 10 positions are:
Trinity
UCD
UCC
NUIG
NUIM
DCU
UL
Dublin IT
Waterford IT
IT Tralee

Tenure’s Value to Society – An American Legal Perspective

A judge ruled last week in Colorado that not only is tenure a good thing for the professors who enjoy it, it is valuable to the public. Further, the court ruled that the value (to the public) of tenure outweighed the value of giving colleges flexibility in hiring and dismissing. That is a principle that faculty members say is very important and makes this case about much more than the specific issues at play.

While noting “countervailing public interests” in the case, the judge wrote that “the public interest is advanced more by tenure systems that favor academic freedom over tenure systems that favor flexibility in hiring or firing.” The ruling added that “by its very nature, tenure promotes a system in which academic freedom is protected” and that “a tenure system that allows flexibility in firing is oxymoronic.”

The ruling came in a long legal battle over rules changes imposed by the board of Metropolitan State College of Denver on its faculty members in 2003. The changes — made in a faculty handbook — removed many of the rights of faculty members in cases of layoffs, where previous college policies had given such professors seniority rights to avoid layoffs in many cases, and the right to be hired back in many other cases. Metro State’s board said that the changes were needed, some professors sued, and the case has been in the courts ever since.

The first ruling in the case, by a state district court in 2005, backed the college’s board and not the faculty who sued. The judge ruled that the changes in the faculty handbook did not materially change tenure protections. But the professors appealed and, backed by the American Association of University Professors, won the next round. A state appeals court in 2007 ordered a new trial, at which the judge was to consider a series of questions, such as the public interest in tenure vs. flexibility, and the reasonable expectations of tenured faculty members that the faculty handbook that existed prior to 2003 represented a commitment on behalf of the college.

On these questions, Judge Norman D. Haglund ruled in favor of the professors. The decision noted that the college questioned whether its professors had specific expectations related to the old faculty handbook not changing. The judge indicated that the compelling evidence was not about Metro State’s professors but the expert testimony about “industry-wide expectations of academic institutions and tenured faculty.”

Rachel Levinson, senior counsel for the AAUP, called the ruling “fantastic,” both for the individual faculty members and for professors elsewhere. Those who were at Metro State prior to the handbook changes will still have the protections they enjoyed at that time, she said.

“More broadly, what this does is reiterate the value of tenure and the importance of tenure, and that tenure itself can be a public interest,” Levinson said. She noted that the college “was trying to argue that its flexibility was the sole public interest,” and that a court endorsement of that idea could have been dangerous for many faculty members.

A spokeswoman for Metro State said that lawyers were still reviewing the ruling and that no decision had been made on whether to appeal.

— Scott Jaschik

http://www.insidehighered.com/

Why academic tenure is in the national interest

Dr. Seán Ó Nualláin, Lecturer at Dublin City University

Consider the following scenario – a gifted Irish undergraduate becomes inspired by a subject like vascular biology and its potential in alleviating human suffering. He asks for an appointment to see the professor who most interested him in the subject and expresses interest in doing graduate work. The professor welcomes the proposal, but explains that he, the professor, can be summarily dismissed at any moment without cause. In fact, there is no way he can guarantee that he will be in office in 5 minutes, let alone the decade or so that the student will need him as a mentor to navigate the slippery slope of Ph.D., postgraduate assignments, and initial tenure track position if he remains in academia.
Being a responsible and compassionate professional, the professor will point out that there are over 400 universities in the USA to which the student can apply and that academic tenure is established there. He will add that no American university has ever argued to its highest court the case for summary dismissal of academics without cause that the Irish supreme court heard on 29th June, 2009. The role of the public university in the USA has evolved over time to include the education and rounded formation of undergraduates, providing a forum for the debate of pressing societal issues in an impartial environment, and research. The institution of academic tenure co-evolved with this magnificent ideal of the public university and is granted only after an often harrowing apprenticeship, with few achieving it under the age of 35. It is important to note that tenured academics can in fact be fired for misconduct, and rightly so; however, they cannot involuntarily be made redundant. Of course, the USA has acquired almost a monopoly of the word’s top universities; we shall look later at how to get around the redundancy issue.

The notion of the modern private university is almost uniquely American, and largely reflects the accumulation of capital that US society allows; yet tenure has not been seriously compromised even in the American private universities. The Irish situation is almost unique in world terms. Even if, as fortunately seems likely, DCU loses its quixotic and generously (if inadvertently so) taxpayer-funded appeal to Clarke’s high court judgement, both academic tenure and job security in Ireland were effectively destroyed by the 1990 industrial relations act. By prohibiting strikes for “individual dismissals”, this act allowed summary dismissal without use of any agreed procedures. The affected worker can try his luck with the effectively unenforceable recommendations of Ireland’s various labour relations boards, and watch as management appeal, defer, adjourn, and the case eventually makes its way through the circuit and High courts to the Supreme court a decade or more later. Alternatively, (s)he can attempt to use the common law immediately through the courts system; the employer, if state-funded, knows full well that here, too, it can simply run up the costs and run out the clock. A final irony is that even the high court has proven unable to insist that a reinstated employee be returned to her duties; the one case that has run the whole gauntlet of courts at UCC cost the taxpayer an estimated 5 million Euro.

The public sector unions have shown little resilience in dealing with an aggressive state-funded management; the economic climate of the next decade might demonstrate that they became little other than firemen who put out industrial brushfires while the state announced the largesse it was distributing to the “union’s” closed-shop “members”. In particular, the unions in blushing virgin fashion refuse to hire legal teams at fora like the EAT wherein management has no such cavil. Yet that is not quite the worst aspect of the academic industrial relations set-up in Ireland today. In fact, it could be sorted out immediately by insisting on “double jeopardy” in unfair dismissals, giving the employer only one shot within a period of 3 months (as the legislation seems originally to have intended) and, similarly, by upholding the 2005 European court of Human Rights judgement (Morris and Steele vs. UK) that prohibits use of massively disproportionate legal firepower even by private companies, let alone state bodies like Irish universities, against individuals.

Universities originally arose from the will of students and scholars, respectively, to learn and teach. The administrative infrastructure was initially conceived of as subordinate to the university community, and in particular the community of scholars called the faculty. Yet, after gestures in the direction of academic freedom, the Irish 1997 universities act enshrined an executive in the “chief officer”, and Dail proceedings (for example, 18/12/2002) indicated that the state had little or no role in intervening in what it called the “day to day” operation of its universities. It is fair to say that this kind of management ideal is very Irish; efficiency is confused with centralization of power. The result is that an utterly unaccountable source of power has emerged – as we have seen – one that can dismiss staff, ignore students’ petitions, and indeed publicly humiliate High Court judges brought in as chancellor without any governmental sanction. Coupled with the recent overtures to “business interests”, the result is a structure in which academics may ultimately be powerless fronts for billions of state research funding that ends up directly serving short-term corporate interests at the expense of the nation. Regrettably, facets of the Irish media, including the Times, portrayed this craven surrender to short-term corporate interests as exciting and new.

Yet the situation in Ireland is worse still. The USA distinguishes the accreditation bodies, private enterprises to whom all colleges subscribe, and the various public and private third level institutions. In Ireland, HETAC is a state body. Therefore, education at a the level that will dominate the cultural, economic, and industrial progress of the country is an oligarchy. More importantly, it is conspicuously not working. The billions thrown at research since 2000 are, rather famously, yielding little or nothing by way of new businesses. Tens of millions are being spent by university administrators in often vexatious legal processes to get rid of (equally often) very high-performing academics – one can only assume, pour encourager les autres. Academic appointments to radically new disciplines are made by ill-qualified “old guards” with the expected disastrous consequences; the sclerosis in the university departmental structures is best attested by the fact that Ireland is the only OECD country not to have a bachelor’s degree in , to take but one example,a multidisciplinary area like Cognitive Science.

So what is to be done? The 1997 act needs to be rewritten; the CEO role adds nothing except rancour, and the idea that the CEO should get involved in disciplinary procedures involving suspension and dismissal, formerly the sole province of the minister, has already ruined several lives. No attempt has been made by university administrators correctly to define tenure, and they should be held to account for this as for other examples of their waste. Giving them unbridled use of legal firms like Arthur Cox and McCann Fitzgerald, as we have seen recently, is like giving submachine guns to children.

Finally, the sublime ideal of the public university needs to be affirmed, and yet they need proper monitoring. One idea might be to subject their accreditation to a suitably re-constituted HETAC; none of the Irish universities has been subjected to US-type of scrutiny for several decades (or, indeed, for centuries in the case of TCD). This accreditation body might also consider proposals from private colleges to teach courses that do not yet fall within the conventional purview of state universities; for example, computer science, now a core university subject, might have been initially farmed out in this way on a trial basis 50 years or so ago. Should the subject have legs, the state might invite the private college to teach it within a state university as a stepping-stone to creating tenured positions. The state might thus invite tenders to teach whatever subjects it views as promising, but not yet worthy of the full mechanism of state university incorporation, and tenured faculty. This will introduce the necessary dynamism.

When the attack on academic tenure in Ireland began in earnest about a decade ago, it was in the context of a state arguably heading toward dangerous waters indeed with e-voting and other such initiatives. That is no longer the case; while we are likely to be broke for a decade at least, we shall at least have the consolation in society as a whole of intellectual freedom as defined by Terrence MacSwiney; the right to live our lives by our personal beliefs. Academic tenure can perhaps best be seen as a salutary and ultimately efficient intensification of this dynamic within our universities. Should university managements, having lost all battles to date, eventually win the war, the loss will be the state’s; brighter students will seek out independent colleges where academic freedom is the norm.

Court halts disciplining of academic

DUN LAOGHAIRE Institute of Art, Design and Technology has been temporarily restrained from taking any disciplinary step against the head of its School of Business and Humanities, Dr Josephine Browne.

The High Court heard yesterday that Dr Browne faced disciplinary proceedings for allegedly having failed to respond to inquiries by institute president Jim Devine into a reference she had made about a bullying culture at the institute.

In an affidavit, it was stated that Dr Browne had said there was “a bullying culture operating within the institute” in a draft team development plan, .

The institute appointed an investigator and asked Dr Browne for a written response. She said her union was dealing with the matter.

Mr Justice John MacMenamin granted her leave to seek a judicial review against the institute and Mr Devine and adjourned the matter until next Wednesday.

By Ray Managh
Saturday September 12 2009

hnews@herald.ie

- Ray Managh

We must play to research strengths of universities

THE QUESTIONING by the McCarthy report of the economic value of public research is not new but just another twist in the torn attitude that appears in policy circles to investment in science, writes LIAM DONNELLY

Over the past 40 years, Ireland has had a succession of initiatives aimed at linking science with industry, the most notable of which was the establishment of the Programmes of Advanced Technology (Pats) under the 1989-1994 National Development Plan. Rightly or wrongly, the Pats were not regarded as being successful in achieving the expected industrial impact and, by the mid-1990s, political support for public investment in science was at a low ebb.

The period since then has seen a sea change in public policy, and very substantial investment has been made in science. The direct challenge laid down by McCarthy might be dismissed as just the most recent example of the periodic waning of enthusiasm for science at national policy level except that the stakes are now much higher.

Ireland has grown up in its commitment to investment in science. Even in the way in which the language of science has entered the vocabulary of politicians and public administrators we are now more recognisable as a member of the club of developed nations.

In spite of the challenge of McCarthy, is there anyone who would seriously propose that we would dismantle the excellent scientific capabilities that we have built up in recent years and revert to a past when we were pilloried by the international community for neglecting this most basic of responsibilities for a developed country?

Yet McCarthy has a legitimate point when he questions the direct economic impact of public research. It is not an unreasonable conclusion that the impact is modest so far or that science-industry links in the form of technology transfer and innovation have not progressed as promised. This is in spite of the fact that, by any international standards, we have been active and imaginative in the number and type of initiatives that have been undertaken. The proposal of McCarthy to cut expenditure in science by 15 per cent, while painful, will not do irreparable damage but should give us cause for reflection on what exactly we should expect from the universities and how we can do better to harness science for economic benefit.

An examination of the various attempts to link science to industry quickly reveals a basic flaw in the approach: placing third-level institutions at the heart of every initiative. The presumption that national policy in science-industry relationships should be university centred has never been challenged, yet it is evident that universities have many difficulties in assuming this role because it does not fit comfortably with either their mandate or their culture. Product and process innovation is not something that can happen as a supplementary activity, but requires whole-hearted commitment of time and intellectual energy.

Notwithstanding those limitations there are several fine examples of the conversion of basic science knowledge into commercial opportunity, of which a very good one is the campus company Opsona Therapeutics set up by Prof Luke O’Neill who wrote here on this topic (“Investing €8.2bn in appliance of science myth”, August 20th). However, incidental discovery and commercialisation is one thing, putting metrics on basic science that pin it to a commercial agenda is another and will always lead to disappointment.

Universities are successful in establishing industry links if we judge them by a select set of criteria, and it is of great national interest that we play to their strengths in this regard. Links with research-performing multinationals, most notably in the pharmaceutical sector, are being successfully developed and are a central plank of the strategy for foreign investment.

The reason why these links are successful is that they can be established on basic research platforms and require little compromise in research interests by the academic partner. The major initiatives that are being undertaken through IDA Ireland and Science Foundation Ireland to promote these linkages should be strongly encouraged.

The major area of deficiency in the role of universities in science-industry relationships is the absence of an innovation interest and the accompanying market-focused creativity that drives product and process development. This has a particularly negative impact on the relevance of university research to companies who are not among the top international research performers. Most indigenous industry falls into this category. Basic research is not a driver of innovation except in rare cases and, hence, is not of interest to most companies. Innovation is driven more by applied research and, since it often involves incremental advances rather than a big bang discovery, it demands an intimate knowledge of existing technology and markets.

The correct response to the challenge laid down by McCarthy should certainly not be to undermine the funding of quality basic research. Rather it should be to look again at how we establish applied research capabilities in selected technology platforms. Whatever approach is taken it must satisfy the three requirements: culture, competence and continuity. By culture is meant a commitment to applied research and technology transfer, supported by a professional management system. By competence is meant that the group has an in-depth knowledge of its technology area and, by virtue of its close relationship with companies, a full understanding of company needs. Continuity is critical for the accumulation of skills and the achievement of the necessary competence. It can only come from having a core group on long-term career contracts rather than being assembled only for a project term. The linkage of such groups with academic institutions could have a renewing and energising effect due to contact with the wider scientific community. Equally important, however, is the close involvement of industry. This raises the issue of the preparedness of Irish industry for such a proposition. One of the factors that is often forgotten in this debate is the innovation ambition of commercial companies and their absorption capacity for new knowledge. No matter in what form the State supports innovation it is doomed to failure if the target companies have little interest in innovation. The implication is that State involvement is not appropriate for all sectors and all companies but must be targeted where the opportunities for new technology are greatest and the reception is assured.

Investment in science is not the reason for our current economic travails, and when it comes to looking for scapegoats we should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Infrastructural developments, whether in roads or in our scientific capability, are things that at least retain their value, unlike the fields and flats of the property bubble. Is there anyone seriously suggesting that the creation of top scientific groups like Prof O’Neill’s are not worthwhile products of the Celtic Tiger years?

Prof Liam Donnelly is director of food research at Teagasc and managing director of the public-private partnership company, Moorepark Technology Ltd

Investing €8.2bn in appliance of science – The Debate

IN THE past seven years Ireland has risen on the international league tables in relation to its performance in scientific research. This achievement is because of increased funding over that period by Science Foundation Ireland (SFI), the government agency which funds scientific research. The evidence for this can be seen across several internationally accepted measures, notably outputs in terms of discoveries (as measured by publications), patents, spin-out companies and collaborations with multinationals. The investment made to date is working.

It therefore came as a major surprise to researchers who are responsible for these impressive achievements that the recent report from Colm McCarthy’s “An Bord Snip Nua”, in its review of public spending, blithely stated: “The evidence adduced to date for the impact of State STI [science, technology and innovation] investment on actual economic activity has not been compelling.”

In stark contrast to the US and Germany, which have actually increased expenditure on scientific research in response to the economic downturn, the report “proposes an initial reduction of just over €100 million, or 15 per cent of the 2009 allocation”. It is therefore necessary and essential to address the issue of whether or not Ireland can afford to continue to support basic research, in order to prevent these misguided proposals from being implemented.

SFI was set up to improve Ireland’s position internationally as a place where outstanding scientific research is carried out. In 2004, the then director of SFI, Dr William Harris, organised a meeting in Dublin Castle with the then taoiseach, Bertie Ahern and tánaiste, Mary Harney along with leading SFI-supported researchers and the CEOs of multinationals with a major presence in Ireland. On that occasion, I directly addressed the taoiseach stating that he must wonder why the Irish taxpayer should fund science.

I went on to say that two outputs from their substantial investment should be hoped for: Firstly, that within five years (a relatively short time for outputs from research) Irish scientists would make globally important discoveries that would improve human knowledge, and secondly, that in the case of life sciences, the field in which I work, an indigenous biotechnology sector would begin to emerge. Regarding the first goal, Irish scientists have made a host of important discoveries over the past five years.

Ireland is now in the top 1 per cent in several fields based on citation per paper which measures research impact, one good example being in immunology where we now rank second in the world. Other fields where Ireland performs in the top tier include molecular biology and neuroscience.

Regarding the second goal, several companies have spun out from SFI-funded laboratories. There have also been important collaborations established with 300 companies, including multinationals such as Intel. IDA Ireland has been able to use SFI as another argument to attract foreign direct investment – 56 new projects secured by IDA Ireland in 2008 were attracted here due to significant involvement with researchers funded by SFI. SFI is also seen as key for IDA Ireland to attract and retain high-tech investment into Ireland.

All of this constitutes a remarkable performance for the level of SFI investment when compared to international norms. Take the example of Opsona Therapeutics, a TCD spin-out company and one of Irelands indigenous biotechnology companies which focuses on novel therapeutic and preventative approaches to auto-immune and inflammatory diseases. I was co-founder of this company in 2004 along with two fellow academics Kingston Mills and Dermot Kelleher at Trinity College Dublin and PhD scientist and entrepreneur Mark Heffernan. A total of €29 million has been raised to date which is made up of mainly international venture capital funds Novartis Venture Fund, Inventages and the Roche Venture Fund, along with the Irish venture funds Seroba Kernal and Fountain. Enterprise Ireland also provided key support.

This is the largest round of funding for any Biotech company of comparable size in Europe in 2008. Quite simply Opsona Therapeutics would not exist without the support from SFI, as it gave the founders funding to pursue basic research projects which not only gave rise to intellectual property, but also provided the opportunity to publish important discoveries, thereby gaining international credibility as scientists. Without this credibility, the venture funds would not have given the funding. It is this kind of benefit that can’t be directly measured and yet is obvious.

The McCarthy report also recommended that research expenditure should be more commercially focused. Why is it that the major pharmaceutical companies have difficulty discovering new drugs in spite of multibillion investments in research? And why are they increasingly turning to small biotech companies and academics to help them? It is because the discovery process is very challenging and requires substantial insight – a key trait found in people who pursue basic research passions.

What will happen if Ireland takes its eye off this particularly important ball? The effect will damage Ireland for a protracted period. Science is a superb pursuit as it involves adventure and discovery. Its aim is to “boldly go where no-one has gone before” and it should attract the brightest and best in any country. Scientific discovery satisfies a key human need – curiosity. More importantly it gives rise to new technologies which improve human lives, and is a key engine for economic growth. That Ireland should not participate in this grand adventure would relegate it to the league of countries that are economically underdeveloped and unable to participate fully in the world economy. Ireland would also not have a role in the shaping of future technologies, putting us at a distinct competitive disadvantage.

Four particular things will happen if funding decreases or is redirected away from fundamental research. First, our best scientists will leave Ireland and the initial period of investment will have been wasted. Irish scientists are in high demand internationally and they will go where there is funding to pursue their passion of basic discovery. Second, we will let down a generation of our brightest and best. One of the country’s most important natural resource is its people and not to support them, both in education and in science, would be akin to Ireland discovering oil and not investing in oil wells. Investment in them is fundamental in ensuring economic recovery.

It is well known that investing in basic research is not for an immediate output. It is to be ready for change and remain competitive. However, it is also well known that investment in basic research, as well as being an investment in what economists prosaically call human capital, pays back on average three to one in the long run. What other sector that the Irish government funds can boast such a return? Thirdly, the fragile growing indigenous biotech sector (and other similar sectors) will falter as there will be difficulties in obtaining venture funding and also recruiting trained staff, and Ireland will be seen internationally as a third rate place for high-tech business. Finally, multinationals will be given another reason either not to locate here, or more importantly to move to other countries where there is support for science.

They have enough reasons to go already. We can only hope that the other recommendations in the McCarthy report aren’t as ill-informed and crass as those relating to investment by Ireland in science and technology, otherwise Ireland is doomed.

Luke O’Neill is professor of biochemistry at Trinity College, Dublin, and founder director of Opsona Therapeutics

In response:

Pleas for continued State funding for university-driven scientific research are just the voice of yet more vested interests, writes MICHAEL HENNIGAN

IN RECENT months, The Irish Times has published a number of articles defending the €8.2 billion science budget in the current National Development Plan, but its striking that the practitioners of the hard sciences present few hard facts in its defence. Dreams of finding a new Nokia are fine but critics question the over-reliance of a small country like Ireland, on university-driven basic research.

At policy level there is also a preference for bold aspirations over substance, and at the McGill Summer School last month, Tánaiste Mary Coughlan praised America’s Stanford University as an example that Ireland should emulate, with its approach to innovation, to multidisciplinary research and to engagement with industry, which has earned members of its academic staff the Nobel Prize on 27 occasions since its founding. She said the university has spawned some 3,000 companies in high technology and other fields, resulting in the creation of tens of thousands of jobs.

However, Ireland should not try to emulate Stanford University, in the same way that it would be foolish to try and create a new Manchester United or Chelsea FC.

The Oireachtas has given little attention to reviewing the planned expenditure of €8.2 billion over the period 2007-2013, and last June, Taoiseach Brian Cowen announced a 28-strong innovation taskforce, packed with insider members from the universities and State agencies.

Prof Luke O’Neill in his article on the McCarthy report (Opinion and Analysis, August 18th), which recommended that research expenditure should be more commercially focused, cites publication references, spin-outs, collaboration with commercial firms and the attraction of foreign firms. On basic research, he says “investment in basic research . . . pays back on average three to one in the long run”.

This claim contrasts with much lower returns cited by a US Congressional Budget Office 2007 report on federal support for RD. In Prof O’Neill’s own sector, biotechnology, the industry in the US became profitable in 2008 for the first time in 42 years. A study of 370 public companies showed that 67 made a net profit totalling $9.4 billion. Almost all the profits, about $8 billion, went to three companies: Genentech, Amgen and Gilead.

The problem about relying on basic research is that commercialisation is incidental. In the US, the proportion of total business RD spent on basic or pure research is less than 10 per cent, while research geared towards producing a product to meet a market need usually has a deadline of five years to launch in the market. The US government funds basic and applied research and commercialisation spin-outs happen by chance. The internet is one example.

Prof O’Neill writes: “That Ireland should not participate in this grand adventure would relegate it to the league of countries that are economically underdeveloped and unable to participate fully in the world economy. Ireland would also not have a role in the shaping of future technologies, putting us at a distinct competitive disadvantage.”

This is a dangerous position because it’s not that critics are saying there should be no RD investment or PhDs produced by Irish universities, but there will not be a return from putting most of the science budget into what is effectively blue-sky research.

UCC economist Dr Declan Jordan wrote in The Irish Times last July that: “A census of post-doctoral researchers that left Science Foundation Ireland-funded projects in 2007 found that 9 per cent went to work in science and engineering businesses. A further 10 per cent went to work in industry in other sectors. The most common destination, at 38 per cent, for these post-doctoral researchers was another post-doctoral position on a different research project.”

He added: “It is worrying, given the significant taxpayer investment, that there is so little movement of researchers from funded projects into business. The most effective method of knowledge transfer from universities to businesses is on two legs,” he added.

There were eight spin-outs from Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) research between 2002 and 2008 and SFI forecasts 30 in the period 2009-2013. Some of the existing firms are very small and Enterprise Ireland claims a 90 per cent survival rate from its spin-outs but this is totally out-of-line with US experience.

Simply put, its data is not credible. The number of significant university collaborations with business is small and it’s likely at a high cost level to the taxpayer.

As for the metrics of citations in journals, number of PhDs and patents, Prof Amar Bhidé of the Columbia Business School, argues in his book The Venturesome Economy that the development and effective use of innovations requires multilevel, multifaceted advances and he asks: why has the US maintained (or possibly expanded) its productivity and per capita income lead while the EU and Japan have increased their shares of PhDs, scientific articles, etc?

He also says US venture capital-backed businesses use different people and procedures than the typical laboratory high-level research: they employ a much smaller proportion of PhDs in their technical staff, and their overall workforces contain a larger proportion of managers and sales and marketing staff – people who are close to users.

It would be foolish for Ireland to bank its future on a university lab or unquestionably accept the position of the various vested interests involved.

Michael Hennigan is founder and editor of the financial website Finfacts – www.finfacts.ie

Choosing a fulfilling career is not Rocket Science

IT’S THE morning after for the 57,000 students who got the results of the Leaving. It’s also the morning after for Batt O’Keeffe and others concerned at how few Irish students chose to be examined in maths and science.

These numbers lower the points threshold for entry into science, technology and engineering courses at third level, where dropout rates of more than 20 per cent have recently been reported. Some complain of students’ poor schooling in science on reaching university, others that we are graduating “too many PhDs”.

Why do so few choose science at a time of such creativity, possibility and technical breakthrough? The career depicted by some in this paper sounds depressing enough – poor pay, intense competition, little respect, prolonged training and no jobs – so much so that no rational student would make that choice. On the other hand, this characterisation sounds to me about as accurate as Sarah Palin’s take on universal healthcare.

Imagine a career where every day you decide what you will do. You are the author of your own destiny. You set the pace; you manage your own calendar. All you have to do is convince a group of your peers that what you want to do is a worthwhile idea; just like a Renaissance artist.

Every day, you can do something different. You can’t imagine what you will be working on in a year’s time. There is no tedium of the predictable and the humdrum.

You have the consolation that your effort is for the greater good. Your aim is to better the lot of humankind.

Your colleagues in this pursuit are selected for their intelligence, imagination and accomplishment. The friends you make in this group hail from all over the world. As you advance, you are subsidised to visit them to discuss your shared interests and to enjoy warm and generous hospitality in their home countries at little or no personal cost.

This career pretty much guarantees you a materially comfortable lifestyle. Indeed, if money is really important to you and you have luck and talent, you may become extremely rich.

As you age, you are provoked by constant contact with the imagination and energy of the young and increasingly, you can shape the opportunities for them to advance their careers.

Amazingly, in these times of economic crisis, the resources available to those who pursue this career are increased, not diminished. Your opportunities are augmented, while those of so many others are so cruelly curtailed. As you gain skills and experience, you are courted for job opportunities as diverse as the countries in which they arise.

This is a career of discovery. You decide what you would like to discover, where and how you will go about it. If it is a big question, there will be many parts to the big answer. It may take your entire career and you may never get to the final answer. But along the way, you will be able to ask the question in many different ways; you can paint the broad canvas or relish in the detail of a miniaturist.

Unsurprisingly, unlike physicians, bankers or lawyers, most people who have pursued this career would opt to choose it again. But its diverse virtues are a well-kept secret. Its practitioners rarely talk about it. It is a choice that requires vision and the courage to reach beyond the parochial, but one of extraordinary fulfilment.

The number of students choosing to pursue any career in science is diminishing in the West, not just in Ireland, just as they increase in the East.

Innovation in science has revolutionised agriculture, medicine, travel and communication.

We must communicate more effectively the excitement, impact, altruism, personal fulfilment and material rewards of this career choice, if we are to continue to enrich humanity through science by recruiting the best and the brightest of the young.

Garret A FitzGerald MD is a physician scientist at the University of Pennsylvania

Comment

Prof Garret A FitzGerald seeks to address the depressing depictions of a career in science (Opinion, August 13th) but he presents a rose-tinted view of the life of a researcher that is unrealistic when applied to early-career scientists.

The practical side of being a contract post-doctoral researcher, with years of experience but no short-term prospect of a permanent job, became clear to me recently on learning that getting approval for a mortgage will rely solely on my (non-scientist) partner’s salary. My eight years of third- and fourth-level education plus years of post-doctoral research experience are worth nothing in the real world.

I agree wholeheartedly with many of the positive points Prof FitzGerald makes about a research career, such as the opportunities to travel, to contribute to greater good and to find intellectual fulfilment. However, intellectual fulfilment is not enough to pay the rent, or the mortgage if you can get one. Prof FitzGerald states that as a scientist “every day you can do something different. You can’t imagine what you will be working on in a year’s time”.

Many of us also have to wonder where we will be working in a year’s time, due to the nature of post-doctoral research contract positions. It is an oversimplification to say that to conduct independent research all you have to do is “convince a group of your peers that what you want to do is worthwhile”.

In Ireland, to qualify for most of the research funding schemes that allow this independence you must also have a permanent position at a university. With the current public sector hiring freeze and the constraints on university finances, permanent positions for young researchers are looking ever more scarce.

I love what I do and my research has been successful and is internationally competitive, but when I was a young and optimistic school-leaver I chose a career that interested me and I did not envision that when I would reach my 30s I might not qualify for a mortgage or that I would be uncertain of what I would be doing in a year’s time.

In a week when much is being said about the need to encourage students to follow careers in science, I was prompted to write this letter to stress to students that they should give careful consideration to the practicalities of a career that requires long years of study, hard work and discipline, and will quite likely lead you to emigrate. In addition there is no guarantee of generous financial reward and no job security. If this sounds depressing, it’s just how I see it from where I stand. – Yours, etc,

Dr SARAH HARNEY,

Department of Physiology,

Trinity College Dublin,

Dublin 2

CAO points for science courses rise

CAO points for places in most third-level science courses have surged after much stronger demand from students.

However, the class of 2009 have deserted property-related courses in their droves, resulting in a massive slump in points.

In a trend which will be welcomed by Government and industry, first-preference applications for a higher degree courses in science are up 28 per cent. As a result, the points requirement for many science courses have increased dramatically.

At UCD, the points for science have increased to 385, up 85 points on last year. This is the first time in over a decade that points for UCD science have exceeded those for UCD arts, which now requires 360 points.

In all, a higher degree course was the first choice for more than 7,000 students this year. Many appear to have deserted property-related courses, where first preferences are down by 26 per cent.

Points for virtually any degree course linked to construction have slumped. These include courses in quantity surveying, property management, architecture and civil engineering.

At the University of Limerick, architecture is down by 30 points to 460. Civil engineering is down 60 points at UCD to 410 points.

At Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT) – the college most associated with the property boom – construction management is down by 55 points to 305. A whole range of courses linked to property at DIT all see a significant drop in points.

Degree courses in law – once thought immune from annual CAO trends – also see a fall-off in points. At UCD, law is down 30 points to 470. Overall, first-preference applications for law are down more than 10 per cent, reflecting concerns about the decline in conveyancing work. Points have increased for about two-thirds of all higher-level degree courses this year.

While the Government will welcome the increased uptake in science, the area is still much less popular than arts/social science areas which attracted more than 17,400 first preference applications. In all, arts and social science courses account for over 25 per cent of all higher degree applications.

This year, points for a range of broad-based arts courses have increased by between 10 and 25 points.

UCD arts, the largest undergraduate course in the State with more than 1,100 places, is up by 10 points to 360. At NUI Maynooth, arts is up 20 points to 375.

Another striking trend of this year’s CAO figures is the dramatic increase in points for nursing, an average increase of 40 points across the 13 colleges offering these courses. Nursing is up by 50 points to 390 at Dundalk IT, by 35 points to 390 at UCD, and by 35 points to 435 at UCC.

In medicine, this is the first year that the new HPAT system – combining an aptitude test with strong Leaving Cert scores – is in place. As a result, a “perfect” Leaving Cert of more than 550 points no longer guarantees a place in medicine.

SEÁN FLYNN, Education Editor

Mon, Aug 17, 2009

Over 20% drop out of university science and technology courses

HUGE NUMBERS of university students are dropping out of science and technology courses after their first year in college, according to new figures obtained by The Irish Times.

At Dublin City University, regarded as the State’s leading “hi-tech” university, 39 per cent of students who began a science and technology degree course failed to progress to second year in their chosen course.

At UCD, the non-completion rate in science and technology courses was 26 per cent.

The drop-out rate from science/technology/engineering and maths courses was high across the seven universities in the State, averaging more than 20 per cent. Ahead of the Leaving Cert results on Wednesday, the high drop-out rates among first-year university students will raise fresh questions about the so called “dumbing down” of the exam.

While grades have improved dramatically in the past decade, Tom Boland, chief executive of the Higher Education Authority, recently voiced fears of declining standards, with what he called “spoon-fed” second-level students struggling to cope at third level.

Last night, Tony Donohoe, head of education and social policy for employers’ group Ibec, said these “extremely disappointing” new drop-out figures highlight “the worst effects of the points system.”

It was inevitable, he said, that the declining number of students taking science/technology courses – and their lower Central Applications Office (CAO) points – would “result in entry by some students who were ill-equipped to take these courses. These figures also raise serious concerns around the teaching of mathematics and science at second level.” CAO points for a huge range of science and technology degrees have fallen dramatically in the past decade, as colleges struggle to fill places in these courses.

Last year, students could gain entry to many science and technology courses with less than 300 points. This compares, for example, with the 470 points required for primary teacher training.

The Government has identified science and technology as a key building block for economic revival, investing heavily in research.

But in international assessments, Ireland ranks 14th and 16th respectively out of 30 OECD countries in terms of the science and mathematical literacy among 15-year-olds. In 2008, close to 5,000 students failed ordinary-level maths in the Leaving, making them ineligible for most third-level science courses.

Last night, DCU president Ferdinand von Prondzynski said the university has been working hard to improve retention, but he acknowledged that non-completion rates are still unacceptably high.

“DCU has recently been looking more generally at retention, and we have introduced a new framework of student support which should ensure further significant improvements. We accept, however, that every non-completion is a serious problem.”

UCD said its relatively high student numbers in the science and technology area should be taken into account when comparing non-completion rates across the sector.

SEÁN FLYNN, Education Editor and GRÁINNE FALLER

Mon, Aug 10, 2009
© 2009 The Irish Times