University Autonomy – Is the Argument lost ?

The Irish Government has imposed a recruitment ban across the higher education sector and warned Universities that failure to comply will see them lose their substantial state funding.

Both UCC and UCD have been told their deficits totalling over €35 million will no longer be tolerated. UCD has a cumulative deficit of €20 million, while the deficit at UCC is over €15 million. In recent weeks, the Higher Education Authority has told both universities to make the cuts necessary to rein in their deficits.

The recent failure of several college chiefs to balance their budgets has called into question the financial autonomy afforded each college through the Universities Act, 1997, and raised the likelihood that central government will now take greater regulatory control over the financial affairs of each college in the future.

Many commentators see this as a re “nationalisation’ of the University sector following 20 or so years of financial and administrative autonomy in an concerted effort to rein in the alarming amount of overspending and large budget deficits at several Irish colleges. For others with healthier financial positions, the accountancy practices of these institutions are being subjected to a further forensic audit to ascertain their real financial health and stability.

In some instances, college chiefs have secured profit from every commercial enterprise on campus ranging from restaurant facilities, housing, hairdressing and even ‘Spar’ franchises in an effort to balance their books and maintain the high level of remuneration to the select number of academics and administrators on campus.

The debate about whether it is in the best interests of the tax payer or the colleges themselves to have state oversight of their financial affairs has just begun. Some college presidents take the view that ‘central bureaucratic control over university financial management, even when carried out in a well-meaning framework, runs counter to the need to have vibrant, innovative universities that are able to take initiatives and assess risks on their own’.

Others argue if we are to learn anything from the debacle at FAS and the HSE not to mention the so called ‘regulated’ banking sector, autonomy for public agencies/bodies or private organisations without appropriate central oversight invariably leads to ‘bad habits’ emerging from those charged with financial accountability.

The recent controversies about ‘super sized’ academics with a total of 33 academics and senior administrators on massive salaries of up to €220,000 and the failure of college heads to address these anomalies despite the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) and the Higher Education Authority (HEA) requesting they be withdrawn have not helped the case for autonomy.

The additional practice of colleges involved in lengthy and costly litigation where university heads are wasting money on “hugely expensive lawyers and barristers” even though resources are stretched to the limit across the system has further damaged their case for financial autonomy. A quick perusal of the numerous cases of litigation across all colleges makes for sober reading.

The move to improve financial oversight on salaries and benefits at these colleges has been welcomed by the Irish Federation of University Teachers, whose general secretary Mike Jennings criticised high salaries given “in secret” to some staff.

The C&AG, as a matter of course, regularly audits the universities’ accounts, but sources say that this is the first time the detailed questionnaire has been issued as part of these audits.

While there is no suggestion of any financial impropriety on anybody’s part there is concern that allowances are still being paid to some senior staff in addition to their salaries. The extra allowances for staff such as registrars and bursars were highlighted by the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in two reports.

Last October, the review body said allowances over and above the salaries recommended in a 2001 report were still being paid. The body failed to understand how this situation could occur since, under the Universities Act 1997, payments of this sort required the approval of the Ministers for Finance and Education.

“Clearly there is a major departure from our recommendations if persons covered by our terms of reference are to receive payments in addition to the salaries we recommend, and this brings about a situation where the persons concerned are being paid more than we believe to be justified,” it said.

The review body added that the Department of Education and Science should take prime responsibility for ensuring that any unauthorised allowances “are withdrawn and should take the necessary steps to resolve the situation without delay”.

It is reported that the extra allowances have been stopped in some universities such as NUI Galway and the University of Limerick but are still being paid in others. Sources say it is custom and practice in a few cases, while allowances have also been paid to people who have been in their posts for some time.

As well as details of these allowances, the C&AG wants information on the housing arrangements made for some university heads including those in DCU, UCD and Trinity who traditionally live on campus.

In addition, the C&AG is getting details of the super-salaries paid to 33 other senior academic and administrative staff. The inflated salaries are paid under a Departures Agreement, which allows the universities to depart from the normal salary scales if they need to attract high-flying staff from abroad. There is no obligation to seek permission in advance from the Higher Education Authority which funds the universities on behalf of the State.

But they are obliged to notify the authority of any such ‘departures’ after the event. It is known that there is concern that a number of administrators are now being included among these ‘departures’. The most likely outcome of the HEA review is that any future ‘departures’ will be confined only to strictly academic posts.

The future of any financial autonomy within Irish universities is now in jeopardy as the chicken finally comes home to roost after the last 10 years of deregulated expansion within the sector. Unlike the banking sector where heads did roll after similar revelations of financial losses, university chiefs and a number of administrators remain in their posts, for now.

Commercialisation and Academia’s Pursuit of Profit

“It is the policy and objective of the Congress to use the patent system to promote the utilization of inventions arising from federally supported research or development” and “to promote collaboration between commercial concerns and nonprofit organizations, including universities.”

Sound familiar !

The Irish Government through Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) has championed a similar mantra to justify the large investment in research at third level institutions. Janet Rae-Dupree writes regularly on research matters from the Silicon Valley and recently addressed campus commercialisation in an article from the New York Times

The move to Innovation and Commercialisation within the Academy has come under increasing scrutiny by swelling ranks of critics. The primary concern is that its original intent — to infuse the marketplace with the fruits of academic innovation — has also distorted the fundamental mission of universities. Professors are stepping away from the lab and lecture hall to navigate the thicket of venture capital, business regulations and commercial competition.

Discovery for its own sake provided academic motivation, but today’s universities function more like corporate research laboratories. Rather than freely sharing techniques and results, researchers increasingly keep new findings under wraps to maintain a competitive edge. What used to be peer-reviewed is now proprietary. “Share and share alike” has devolved into “every laboratory for itself.”

In trying to power the innovation economy, America’s universities have developed into cutthroat business competitors, zealously guarding the very innovations we so desperately want behind a hopelessly tangled web of patents and royalty licenses. Is this what is intended for the Irish University sector ?

While patients have benefited from the growing supply of new medications, the universities have obtained patents not only for the actual substances but also for the processes and methods used to make them, potentially hampering discovery of even more beneficial treatments.

Initially reacting to the change in US law (The Bayh-Dole Act, aka the University Small Business Patent Procedures Act) by slapping patents on every possible innovation, universities quickly discovered that patents were an expensive proposition. The fees and legal costs involved in obtaining a single patent can run upward of $15,000, and that doesn’t count the salaries of administrative staff members. Instead of bringing home the bacon, university tech transfer offices were throwing money into the void with little hope of returns.

To date, data gathered by the Association of University Technology Managers, a trade group, show that fewer than half of the 300 research universities actively seeking patents have managed to break even from technology transfer efforts. Instead, two-thirds of the revenue tracked by the association has gone to only 13 institutions.

Part of the problem has been a lingering misunderstanding about where the value lies in innovation. Patenting a new basic science technique, or platform technology, puts it out of the reach of graduate students who might have made tremendous progress using it.

Similarly, exclusive licensing of a discovery to a single company thwarts that innovation’s use in any number of other fields. R. Stanley Williams, a nanotechnologist from Hewlett-Packard, testified to Congress in 2002 that much of the academic research to which H.P. has had difficulty gaining access could be licensed to several companies without eroding its intellectual property value.

The issue is further clouded by “reach through” licenses, complex arrangements used by many tech transfer offices. A reach-through lets the patent holder claim a share of any profits that result from using, say, an enabling technology, even if those profits come several steps down the market transfer line. Several universities are already embroiled in messy lawsuits trying to sort out who is entitled to what.

Perhaps the most troublesome aspect of campus commercialization is that research decisions are now being based on possible profits, not on the inherent value of knowledge. “Blue sky” research — the kind of basic experimentation that leads to a greater understanding of how the world works — has largely been set aside in favor of projects considered to have more immediate market potential.

In academia’s continuing pursuit of profit, the wonder of simple serendipitous discovery has been left on the curb.

Protecting the Academy from Within

Cambridge Professor F.M. Cornford once suggested in his Microcosmographia Academica, published in 1908 that academic institutions have elaborate systems for stopping all “sensible decision-making” – because there is only one argument for taking a decision but dozens can be employed against even the most wonderful proposal.

Of course, in many cases, it is the wrong decision that is being proposed and implemented. As a result, it has always been left to the intervention of the tenured academic faculty, charged with the protection of the genuine interests of the University and its students, to maintain and protect the academy as Presidents come, puff and bluster, blog and then go.

What is needed from University presidents is more than just rational thought but imagination and leadership. In this context, at a recent UK/Ireland Universities meeting, the President of University College Dublin (UCD), Hugh Brady described the most important quality of any President not as the mere ability for rational thought but rather genuine leadership. Hugh Brady would know as he had the opportunity to see first hand what Harvard University did well. He contends that leadership is not necessarily political/politics but that it always involves political judgement – judgement about people as individuals and collectives. The supreme political judgement and one which any credible President and leader must master is the judgement about what may be compromised and what is non-negotiable.

Most academics fully realise that the reform packages proposed by several Irish University presidents openly remove the capacity of academic staff to have any genuine input in decision-making processes of their respective universities. Put simply, as suggested by one incumbent president, if a president doesn’t like the opposition from academic faculty, they can ‘decide over dinner’ to remove any academic by the giving of three months notice.

The removal of the fundamental tenets of any University through derogation of academic freedom and tenure will, as former Harvard University President, Derek Bok declared, lead to a situation that ‘is not a pleasant prospect to behold’. Indeed, the large increase in middle managers and consultants in all Irish Universities is a case in point not to mention the removal of several Academic Committees to oversee University decision-making. Akin to the large increase in middle management within the Health Services Executive (HSE), Irish Universities would now appear to be plagued with a similar affliction.

The large increase in funding for Irish Universities reveals a concurrent dramatic increase in the percentage of the Higher Education Authority (HEA) budget devoted to middle management and administration rather than the primary focus of their mission, namely the best education for all students towards the realisation of a knowledge based economy. As the major stakeholder, the Irish taxpayer has for a long time struggled to appreciate how Irish Universities behave when decisions are made contrary to the best interests of the students or academic staff who continually serve to uphold the best interests of the students. Indeed, the lack of accountability within Irish Universities in pursuing this agenda of increasing middle management to corporate levels while simultaneously attempting to remove academic freedom has overshadowed and to some extent undermined the hard work and commitment of academics towards further education through the pursuit of knowledge.

The tiger boom years that manifestly changed the way our banks, FAS and the HSE were run without any accountability should be a wake up call for Government to expedite a root and branch examination of the way in which our universities behaved during the same time period. The forthcoming forensic audit of the third level sector is a start and should go some way in defining the appropriate criteria (which to date have been lacking) for establishing and maintaining such a wealth of middle managers and corporate identities within Irish universities for the future.

Presidential Politics – The Race is On

Next year will see the replacement of Ferdinand Von Prondzynski as President of Dublin City University (DCU). Several names of individuals for the coveted position are already being mentioned in the media with a search committee of the Governing Authority already in place to screen all potential candidates.

Ferdinand von Prondzynski is the second President of Dublin City University (DCU), having taken over in July 2000, in succession to acting President Dr. Albert Pratt, and to Dr. Danny O’Hare, DCU’s founding leader, who had completed his ten years in office as president of the university in 1999. He is an a academic lawyer and scholar by training and has been a visible university President with a particularly high public profile in the final 3 years of his Presidency. He has become known for his controversial views on higher education and other public policy issues and is also the author of a blog in response to another blog critical of him that surfaced on the web in July, 08.

In his blog (which is openly advertised on the DCU website) and elsewhere he has made statements about the benefits of immigration for Ireland, about the risks to universities caused by the failure of the Department of Education and Science to prioritise higher education, and about the need to recover civility and courtesy in Irish society. He has also been one of the leading campaigners for a re-think on the ‘free fees’ scheme in Ireland, under which Irish and EU students do not pay tuition fees; he has argued that too much of the money spent on this goes to wealthier people who do not need it, while poorer students are neglected. He has also criticised the so-called ‘points system’ which determines student entry into university courses.

As an academic and social sciences lawyer, he was the first to call for the reduction in the number of lawyers graduating from Irish colleges yet he approved the introduction of a new BCL law degree at DCU. Sources at the college believe that he is in line to take up the position of Head and Professor of Law and Government at DCU when he stands down next year.

In his role as President of DCU, the college has been successful but his presidency has been very controversial. He has always seen himself as one of the new breed of ‘reforming’ Presidents, yet many in the college have raised serious concerns about his poor judgement. He initiated some structural reforms that characterised the leadership of other Presidents in Ireland and focused on interdisciplinary ‘Academic Themes’, first introduced in his initial strategic plan, Leading Change (2001). These have tended to develop DCU’s reputation for cross-disciplinary teaching and research, but have not necessarily taken root in quite the way he may have wanted. Of the six academic Theme Leaders originally proposed in the strategic plan, only two academic themes leaders have been recruited to champion his strategic plan.

Under his presidency DCU like all Irish Universities has secured large research grants in Ireland (particularly under the Programme for Research in Third Level Institutions, and under the Science Foundation Ireland programme for Centres for Science, Technology and Innovation).

In his role as President of DCU, he also established the DCU Ryan Academy for Entrepreneurship as part of DCU Enterprises (a DCU Campus Company umbrella) through a generous donation from the late Tony Ryan and his family. A high profile CEO was recruited only to leave the post a year or so into the job when serious concerns were raised by the CEO about DCU corporate governance and board membership under Von Prondzynski’s stewardship.

He has frequently been involved in controversy, driven by his apparent desire to be directly involved in staffing issues and industrial relations disputes, in which he invariably badly misjudges the mood. There has been plenty of litigation concerning members of staff at DCU, in which the issue of disciplinary procedures, discrimination, academic freedom and academic tenure have been raised; the university lost these cases in the Labour Court, the Employment Tribunal and the High Court. In all cases they either settled or appealed the judgments.

The history of litigation arose after he introduced new statutes for the suspension and dismissal of staff at the college in 2001, only to have the Labour Court recommend in 2002 that they be changed and rewritten to reflect previous agreed terms and conditions of employment. He ignored the recommendation and went on to dismiss a tenured academic in 2002 using the controversial statute only to have the Labour Court Rights Commissioner reverse the dismissal and recommend the academic be reinstated with full back pay. He further ignored this recommendation and appealed the case to the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT). The appeal case was adjourned in 2003 when preliminary High Court proceedings were initiated. The EAT case is now rescheduled for hearing in June 2009, a full seven years after the Rights Commissioner recommended reinstatement. The academic in question has been in exile at UC Berkeley and Standford since 2002. In July 2006, Von Prondzynski attempted to dismiss another academic from his post as professor using the controversial statute only to have the High Court adjudicate that the use of the Statute as written was an ‘invalid exercise’. The University, under von Prondzynski’s direction have appealed the judgement to the Supreme Court.

As a direct result of these litigious forays by the president, the staff at DCU voted no confidence in the President and senior management of the University in 2008.

Media reports now suggest that the main contenders to replace Von Prondzynski include UCD Vice President Philip Nolan, Colm Kearney of TCD, at least one member of von Prondzynski’s ‘kitchen’ cabinet and a senior Irish academic currently in London.

Sources at the college also report that several senior high profile academics outside of the current ‘kitchen’ cabinet are also very interested in the post and are keen for DCU to have a new start free of litigation in these challenging economic times.

Weathering the Slump – Ireland Fights Back

Quirin Schiermeier, Nature’s Germany correspondent profiles the latest research investments in Ireland with an advertisement spread in the February 2009 edition of Nature Jobs.

Despite an economy that is sputtering, Ireland has recommitted to investing in science.

Scientists in Ireland held their breath last autumn as the financial storm that started in Manhattan hit their high-revving economy, buffeting the housing and construction sectors. It was a relief when, after a few tense weeks, the government redoubled its support for science.

Renewed investment in science and development play a key part in Ireland’s recovery plan. “That the government has not blinked, despite the dire economic situation, sends a very strong signal to the Irish research community,” says Frank Gannon, director of Science Foundation Ireland (SFI), a government-funded grant-giving agency. Its creation in 2000, with an influx of new funds, heralded the dawn of a new era for Irish science (see Nature 444, 396–397; 2006).

In December, as an economic downturn seemed likely, the Taoiseach (prime minister) Brian Cowen reaffirmed a previous commitment to invest some 8.5 billion (US$10.6 billion) in science over the next six years. In its framework for sustainable economic revival, the government outlined 45 key actions — from a 500-million venture fund to support research and development by early-stage companies, to fast-track visas for foreign researchers and their spouses — aimed at turning Ireland, with its population of 4.2 million, into an ‘island of innovation’.

With cash in hand, and newly introduced peer-review standards to help ensure quality research, the SFI helped to start a remarkable upswing that attracted talent from abroad and kept Irish scientists in the country. Funding is available in three government-established growth areas considered vital for Ireland’s future: the life sciences and biotechnology, information and communication technologies, and sustainable energy and energy-efficient technologies. Its annual 200-million budget will continue to grow at the same rate, around 4%, as in previous years. This, says Gannon, should be sufficient to keep up the healthy 25% success rate of applicants for individual SFI grants, including ‘research frontiers’ grants for more risky science, ‘starting investigator’ grants for early career scientists, and principal-investigator grants worth 250,000 per year on average.

The SFI’s funding activities, through government agencies such as Enterprise Ireland and Industrial Development Agency Ireland, are part of a broader strategy aimed at transforming Ireland’s manufacturing sector. Some 40% of SFI-funded investigators have active connections with industry. Overall, 90% of Ireland’s public-science funding is earmarked for research with potential commercial applications in an attempt to maximize jobs and economic growth.

Despite these programmes, Ireland’s research expenditure is still relatively modest. At around 1.4% of gross domestic product, research spending in the republic is considerably below the European Union (EU) average, and even slightly below that of China. But in terms of numbers of researchers, Ireland, with 5.7 researchers per thousand in the labour force, is now ranked slightly above the EU average (5.6), and is almost on par with Switzerland (5.8) and Britain (6.2), according to 2006 figures just released by the EU.

Small size has its virtues. “We’re able to have a census of all groups we support,” says Gannon. “That’s a real advantage when it comes to coordinating our research efforts.” All researchers applying for SFI grants must demonstrate how the project could have an economic impact. Applications for the flagship scheme, the SFI Centres for Science, Engineering and Technology (CSET), through which large academic–industrial partnerships can receive up to 5 million per year, undergo particularly thorough review. Centres are expected to focus on research with commercial potential and to deliver publications and patents.

Among the CSET beneficiaries is Fergus Shanahan, director of the Alimentary Pharmabiotic Centre at University College Cork, which is run in partnership with GlaxoSmithKline. He recently won a second round of funding. Over the next five years, the SFI will support the centre — one of nine ventures funded through the CSET programme — with an overall 17.5 million; an additional 5 million will come from industry. “It’s a blessing in these times that the government has reconfirmed so determinedly its commitment to science,” says Shanahan. “I do hope we can repay the trust over the next five years.” He expects opportunities for geneticists, microbiologists, clinicians and others.

All 56 group leaders and young investigators who have moved through the centre since its creation five years ago are still in science, most of them in Ireland, and most of them have moved up the career ladder. Around one-half are now working for industry. The centre itself, says Ferguson, has become more international. The number of non-Irish natives among its 125 staff has doubled to 30% as more scientists from Europe, North America and Asia-Pacific have been recruited, suggesting that Ireland continues to be a draw. “Salary has long ceased to be a recruitment hindrance,” says Shanahan.

The hub of activity

Dublin hosts much of the action. Last year, Ireland’s first official nanoscience institute, the SFI-funded Centre for Research on Adaptive Nanostructures and Nanodevices, moved its 100 or so researchers into a stylish five-story building complete with an art gallery. The centre, is, among other things, developing nanoscale biosensors for virus detection.

Three new CSET centres opened their doors in Dublin last year. One was the Centre for Next Generation Localisation, led by Josef van Genabith of Dublin City University. Working with IBM and Microsoft, the centre is adapting computer software to different languages and regional cultures. And CLARITY, led by Barry Smith of University College Dublin, aims to improve sensor technology for wireless transmission of messages. Such sensors could be used to transmit large environmental data sets. Industrial partners include Ericsson, Vodafone and IBM.

Setting up a CSET centre, which typically employs 100–150 scientists, requires at least 25% involvement from industry in the form of money, personnel or both. These partnerships have various arrangements. At the Biomedical Diagnostics Institute at Dublin City University, for example, researchers from participating companies, including the biotech company Amic from Uppsala, Sweden, and medical technology company Becton Dickinson, headquartered in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey, are working with colleagues from academia. “This creates a very productive and innovative work environment,” says Brian MacCraith, an optical physicist who runs the centre, which was established in 2005 with a 16.5-million SFI grant.

Arranging industry participation can take time, because it requires agreements on funding, patents and royalties. So in 2007, the SFI created the Strategic Research Clusters programme to back commercially promising ideas, giving investigators more time to attract and cultivate industry partnerships. Twelve such clusters have been announced so far, each funded by up to 1.5 million per year over a five-year period, and focusing on topics ranging from solar energy conversion to dairy-cow fertility.

Kingston Mills, an experimental immunologist, leads one such cluster, the Immunology Research Centre at Trinity College Dublin. It is a 10-million, five-year research programme. Since funding started early last year, he has recruited one group leader, nine postdocs and five PhD students whose research focuses on the discovery and function of novel activators and inhibitors of innate immunity. Private partnerships with Opsona Therapeutics, a Dublin-based spin-off company for vaccine development that Mills started in 2004, and the pharmaceutical firm Schering-Plough contribute some 20% to the overall funding. “Raising funds has become more difficult,” he says. “But if you have the right company and the right idea there is still plenty of seed money available.”

Meanwhile, Enterprise Ireland has announced that it will invest 20 million in a new research centre for functional foods designed to provide health benefits beyond basic nutrition. And a 150-million Biosciences Institute is being built in a public–private partnership involving Trinity College Dublin. Its planned opening in 2011 should provide collaboration opportunities for PhD students.

Ireland’s government is seeking to double the number of PhD students over the next five years. But a decline in core funding — money that the ministry of education gives to Ireland’s seven research universities — could affect this, says Mills. These funds cover running costs, such as electricity, building repairs and salaries. Fixed university budgets are to be cut further, by approximately 7% this year. “Grant money keeps increasing while core funding is eroding,” says Mills. “There’s a disconnection.”

To bridge the gap, some government officials and university rectors favour the re-introduction of undergraduate student fees, which were abolished more than a decade ago, to provide greater access to higher education. Irish students hate the idea, but its champions argue that free education is no longer justified when so many Irish families can now easily afford to pay for it.

More families, however, could feel the pinch as the economy continues to cool. But the Irish economy has acquired a serious affinity for science — an affinity that should provide ample research opportunities for students and scientists for the foreseeable future.

The Smart Economy and Innovation within Irish Universities – How are we doing ?

Since 1998, the Programme for Research in Third-Level Institutions (PRTLI) has invested €865 million (including exchequer and private matching funds) into strengthening national research capabilities via investment in human and physical infrastructure within Irish Universities.

In 2000, Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) was established as a key organisation in the implementation of the 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.

Forfas published its initial findings from a 2005-2006 Survey of Research and Development Performance in the Irish Higher Education Sector which shows that the sectors R&D performance exceeded €600 million for the first time, a growth rate of over 7% p.a. (in real terms) since 2004.

However, the words patent or patents, do not appear in the report.

In December 2006, the Sunday Business Post survey found that Irish universities had obtained just 163 patents in major world markets since 1996. By comparison, the University of Bristol, a British institution with 13,000 students, filed 134 patents, while world research leader MIT secured 1,104 in that time, according to the World Intellectual Property Organisations patent database.

Today, in 2009, the situation is a lot healthier with significant progress made in the number of patents filed at Irish Universities. However, as a ‘knowledge’ or ‘Smart’ economy, we still lag way behind other counties and international centres of excellence.

According to the World Intellectual Property Organisations patent database, University College Dublin (UCD) and Trinity College (TCD) lead the way in patents filed in major world markets.

In a clear indictment of the decision to form an Innovation Alliance between UCD and TCD the survey shows that of the 1,419 patents filed from Ireland, UCD has filed over 138 patents alone with TCD just behind at 115. UCC and DCU lag behind with just under 70 (UCC:69, DCU:64). NUIG, UL, NUIM and RCSI follow suit with 43, 36, 15 and 10, respectively.

By comparison, the University of Bristol, UK filed 436 patents worldwide, the University of Rochester, Rochester NY filed 686 patents while Harvard University in Boston, a world leader in world class research and innovation, has filed over 2,335 patents during the same time period.

It is clear that much work has yet to be done to bring the ‘smart economy’ to fruition with further significant investment in research and development essential if these laudable goals are to be achieved.

The Academic ‘Gold Standard’ – Dumbing Down the Academy

The recent drive by agencies like Enterprise Ireland and Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) to enhance Ireland’s reputation in ‘globally recognised research excellence’ and achieve ‘nationally significant economic outputs’ has come under the microscope as the economy in Ireland heads sharply downhill.

The Irish Government has already spent considerable amounts of public funds to allow Irish universities to compete internationally in research excellence and have made some progress in this regard. But many are now asking how this success is to be appropriately evaluated and quantified.

What is excellence in research and what is the appropriate ‘gold standard’ for evaluation and suitable output for determining a dividend for the economy ?

It is no surprise that the most ardent defenders of bibliometric analysis of research standards of excellence through peer review are those who openly excel under these universally accepted criteria when evaluating world class research. A paper in journals like Nature or Science is considered world class and several Irish academics have recently published in these journals. A priority one might argue would be to at least publish in the top 5 ranking journals for a given field.

On the other hand, Universities who do not fair so well in a bibliometric analysis can invariably turn to the ‘commercialization’ argument for some cover. In an effort to detract from their poor performance under these universally accepted criteria for excellence in research, some now argue, the real dividend they seek to create for the university and the wider economy is more ‘innovation’ rather than basic research accreditation with the generation of IP and patents now seen as the ‘gold standard’.

Thanks largely to Enterprise Ireland and SFI, universities are now applying this extra criterion where job creation and commercialization of research is now regarded as highly, if not more, than the universal evaluation of excellence through bibliometric quantitation following peer review.

Given the Government’s “Smart Economy” strategy, many involved in commercialization of research welcome such a move. However, this approach is fraught with some downsides.

While there may be some merit in taking into account success in this regard, it is clear that the generation of IP is tailored more towards the hard sciences rather than the Arts and Humanities. A similar reservation was recently raised by a member of the Higher Education Policy Research Unit (HEPRU) with regard to University rankings. Prof Ellen Hazelkorn at Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT) argues that it is difficult to evaluate social innovation, nor measure the quality of teaching or the impact of research on teaching when ranking universities on purely their research credentials through IP generation or high quality peer reviewed research publications.

The President of Dublin City University (DCU), Ferdinand Von Prondzynski has endorsed these new criteria and believes that the evaluation of IP generation should now form some part of the promotion criteria for academics climbing up the ladder within the University sector.

A Sunday Business Post survey in 2006 found that Irish universities had obtained just 163 patents in major world markets since 1996. By comparison, the University of Bristol, a British institution with 13,000 students, filed 134 patents, while world research leader MIT secured 1,104 in that time, according to the World Intellectual Property Organisation’s patent database. It will certainly be informative to examine the level of filed patents across the seven universities since 2006.

The fact that the filing of patents is expensive, curtails publication for the most part and is at the pleasure of the University (who end up paying for the paperwork and legal costs) does not suggest that it is in any way a reliable benchmark for either quality research or excellence. Indeed, Irish Universities through the adoption of specific research strategies have in the past marginalized certain research strengths (as assessed through bibliometric analysis) using the argument that a specific research area is not a strategic priority for the university and thus does not merit investment by the University in any IP generation.

This scenario could eventually lead to a situation where ‘research excellence’ in Irish Universities through evaluation of IP generation will be governed by short term narrow university strategic priorities rather than the universal validation of excellence in research through peer review.

How will excellence in research be evaluated if it’s dividend is the generation of IP and what is the appropriate ‘gold standard’ for evaluation of this dividend to the economy ?

More jobs..will that define excellence !

The likelihood of dumbing down research excellence by redefining what is ‘excellent’ as part of the wider commercialisation of Irish Universities is worthy of more debate and further consideration.

HEA PRTLI funded Research – Value for Money ?

Launched in 1998, the Programme for Research in Third-Level Institutions (PRTLI) has invested €865 million (includes exchequer and private matching funds) to date into strengthening national research capabilities via investment in human and physical infrastructure. Based over four cycles, the ultimate aim of the programme is to propel Ireland toward establishing an international profile as a premier location for carrying out world class research and development.

PRTLI provides integrated financial support for institutional strategies, programmes and infrastructure in key areas of research spread across all disciplines. The programme supports research in humanities, science, technology and the social sciences, including business and law.

In the Biological and Medical Sciences, PRTLI has funded 21 Centres of excellence since 1998 with the largest investments in capital and recurrent funding going to the Conway Institute for Biomolecular and Biomedical Sciences at UCD and the National Institute for Cellular Biotechnology (NICB) at DCU. Both programmes of research received over €35 million in funds when they were established.

The outputs per unit funding for both of these centres is presented below and underscores the clear differences between the performance of a large Institution like UCD and the smaller former National Institute of Education, DCU as research driven Institutions in Biological and Medical Sciences.

The UCD Conway Institute of Biomolecular and Biomedical Research was set up as a multidisciplinary centre for research funded by an initiative of the Irish Higher Education Authority; the Programme for Research in Third Level Institutions (PRTLI) for €36 million, with €9 million dedicated to human capital. Located on the 300-acre Belfield campus of University College Dublin (UCD), UCD Conway Institute brings together over 550 research staff from all over the University and its associated teaching hospitals. The Institute boasts numerous internationally acclaimed research academics with over 50 Professors and has several programmes of research led by numerous independent investigators.

It has attracted significant funding from SFI and other research grant funding agencies and has published extensively since its establishment through the HEA.

The Institute is managed and operated by a Board of Management appointed by the President of UCD. The Board is chaired by the Vice President for Research at UCD, and includes members with scientific, administrative and business expertise.

The full bibliometric analysis for research publications from the Conway is presented here and here

The DCU National Institute for Cellular Biotechnology (NICB) is also a multidisciplinary centre of research in fundamental and applied Cellular Biotechnology, Molecular Cell Biology and Biological Chemistry. NICB was set up as a multidisciplinary centre for research funded by an initiative of the Irish Higher Education Authority; the Programme for Research in Third Level Institutions (PRTLI) for just over €34 million, with just under €16 million dedicated to human capital. It includes a multidisciplinary team of Cell and Molecular Biologists, Biotechnologists. Chemists and Computer scientists. According to their press statements, the institute claims to draw from the established expertise of researchers in Dublin City University, IT Tallaght and NUI Maynooth with the aim to be a Centre of ‘world-class expertise’ in Cellular and Molecular Biotechnology. The NICB has combined the variety of expertise of its researchers to develop targeted research programmes in key areas relating to identification of new therapeutic targets and diagnostic methods for disease (in particular for cancer, microbial diseases and diabetes) and understanding of basic biological processes including regulation of gene expression during cell differentiation.

Unlike the Conway Institute, despite being awarded €7 million more than Conway for staff, NICB has far fewer members from the DCU Cellular and Molecular Biotechnology research community and its programmes of research are not led by any significant independent investigators but rather a series of investigators working under the mentorship of the current Institute Director. The Institute boasts several ambitious research programmes but many are led by inexperienced researchers.

It has attracted some funding from SFI and other research grant funding agencies but has not published as widely since its establishment by the HEA.

It is believed the Institute is managed and operated by a Board of Management but no details are available at their website to confirm it membership or existence.

The full bibliometric analysis for research publications from NICB is presented here and here

Both Institutes have been audited by the HEA and an Impact assessment carried out before funding programmes were completed but these reports in full have not been made public to date.

The comparison raises serious questions about value for money per unit funding and whether the distribution of these large public investments could have been more prudently assessed and verified.

The Legacy of Edgar Page – A Lesson for Ireland

The debate about reform of the Higher Education sector in Ireland has loomed for several months now and will no doubt form one important strand of the forthcoming overall reform of the public service sector in Ireland.

In 1988, the conservative government headed by Margaret Thatcher abolished academic tenure in British universities, empowering them to dismiss academic staff for reasons of financial exigency or “good cause.” The original bill, the Education Reform Act, 1988 that did away with ‘tenure’ contained no reference to academic freedom. Thanks to the House of Lords, however, the government accepted an amendment designed to “ensure that academic staff have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs and privileges.” The lords also forced the government to remove a clause permitting universities to replace “expensive” academics with “cheaper” ones.

According to Adam Fairclough, Professor of American history at the University of East Anglia, the common element in all these changes to higher education in the UK in recent years has been ‘centralization’. The abolition of tenure and an array of other government-imposed reforms in higher education have led to increased workloads, job insecurity, and mounting pressures in the areas of teaching, research, and administration with UK universities. Together with the decay of internal democracy in universities in the name of “managerial efficiency,” these developments added up to a grim picture of cowed, overworked, demoralized academics, who are increasingly reluctant to question and challenge the way higher education is “managed.”

Fairclough argues that the abolition of tenure ostensibly applied only to staff appointed after 1987 (as well as, paradoxically, staff who were promoted after that date). Those who held pre-1988 contracts, however, and believed that they were secure, were in for a nasty surprise. In 1988, the University of Hull dismissed Edgar Page, a fifty-seven-year-old philosophy lecturer, when he refused to accept voluntary “redundancy” (the term for being laid off). The Association of University Teachers in the UK fought a five-year campaign, which included an academic boycott of Hull, to have Page reinstated. As part of the boycott, union members were urged to avoid accepting posts at Hull or holding conferences there. Page eventually won compensation, but the courts upheld Hull’s right to dismiss him. Academic tenure was now in ruins.

University administrations were at first reluctant to exercise their new power to dismiss academics on financial grounds. In the mid-1990s, however, as universities accumulated massive budget deficits, management took off the gloves. Nottingham University threatened to dismiss fifty “underperforming” academics and offered early retirement to all staff over fifty years old, while Exeter University proposed shedding a hundred jobs. Many of the threats at long-established institutions never materialized, because enough staff were sufficiently frightened to go voluntarily.

But the “new” universities-former “polytechnics” that were raised to university status in the early 1990s-were far more aggressive. They had little tradition of internal democracy and were often run by businesspeople rather than academics. These institutions went about shedding academic staff with abandon: a research professor was fired at North London University, for example, and academics were dismissed by Newport, London Guildhall, South Bank, Derby, and Westminster Universities. Strikes, academic boycotts, and litigation mitigated the effects, but some faculty members remained fired. The damage had been done. All university teachers, whatever their status and rank, feel insecure.

On top of a continuing financial crisis that has given university staff a bad case of the jitters, Fairclough argues that academics are now subjected to regular inspections of their teaching and research. The “Research Assessment Exercise,” launched in 1988, rates the research of every department in the country on a scale of one to five. A complicated funding formula ensures that more money flows to the “better” departments, while departments rated below three can no longer receive any “research funding.” Because the exercise is repeated at four-year intervals, the pressure to publish is constant, and it is having a ratcheting effect in increasing that pressure. In the humanities, academics are expected to submit four publications in each cycle; in the social sciences the expected number is six. Some assessment panels give an individual rating to every academic-but individuals are not told what their rating is. Given that departments are, in effect, competing against each other for declining resources, the exercise has become an obsession with university deans and department heads. Academics are being advised about what they should publish (monographs, not surveys) and where they should publish (the “more prestigious” journals). All departments are now given a numerical rating on the quality of their teaching (a scale of one to twenty-four), and individual staff members are “appraised” at least once every two years.

Meanwhile, universities have tripled the number of students they teach, adopted an American-style system of course credits, imposed two semesters on the traditional three-term academic year, and made individual departments “cost centers” that are required to manage their own budgets and break even (although few manage this feat). Students are now required to pay a tuition fee of L1,000 a year (tuition used to be free). Rampant grade inflation and a huge increase in the number of students who graduate with either “first-class” or “upper-second-class” degrees is another consequence of the academic revolution of the past eleven years. Few academics feel inclined to question the decline in standards. Indeed, university management views it as the inevitable consequence of moving to a system of mass higher education.

In 1991, three philosophy lecturers at Swansea University criticized the academic standards of a new degree in the “philosophy of health care.” They charged that master’s theses were being passed even when they were substandard and contained plagiarized material. The response of university higher-ups amounted to the most egregious violation of academic freedom in recent history. The vice chancellor (president) of the university commented that in the business world “those people [the three complainants] would have been up the road the moment they kicked up the fuss.” The university charged one lecturer, who had written to the Guardian newspaper, with breach of loyalty, and cranked up the machinery to dismiss her. She resigned. The two other complainants were suspended from teaching and relegated to a converted broom closet.

After the lecturers complained to the Queen in her capacity as “visitor” to the university, the Privy Council appointed a retired judge to investigate the affair. He ruled in favor of the complainants, found their allegations against the master’s course to be justified, and criticized the vice chancellor, who-to the profound amazement of all observers of public life in Britain-subsequently resigned. All three complainants were restored to their previous positions.

This “happy” outcome was rightly celebrated. But the travail of the Swansea philosophers was as much a warning as an inspiration. In 1998, the Labour government passed the Public Interest Disclosure Act to protect those who disclose malpractice “in good faith.” Whether this will encourage other “whistle-blowers” remains to be seen.

As Ireland prepares for yet another university reform process (the Universities Act, 1997 was deemed the first reform of Irish Universities), one University President is leading the charge to drive the agenda and promote similar change in Ireland. The outgoing President of Dublin City University, Ferdinand Von Prondzynski has taken it upon himself to advocate a similar diminution in academic freedom and tenure within Irish Universities.

One cannot help but think that his time as Professor of Law at Hull University when the Page case on tenure was under deliberation may well have inspired Von Prondzynski to attempt a similar rewriting of the Universities Act in Ireland on his return to Dublin in 2000. Ironically, it was at Dublin City University (formerly a polytechnic) where von Prondzynski found a home for his agenda to remove tenure from the academic lexicon in Ireland. The Supreme Court in Ireland will eventually adjudicate on whether the legal precedents set by the Edgar Page case at Hull when Von Prondzynski was there are sufficient legal cover for his lawyers representing him at the Court.

All academics in Ireland will await the outcome of this important case with bated breath.

Regulation of Irish Universities – Where is the Regulator ?

The State spending watchdog overseeing the long overdue ‘forensic audit’ at Irish Universities has contradicted a claim by Education Minister Batt O’Keeffe that a major value-for-money review of higher education is nearly complete.

The Comptroller and Auditor General, John Buckley, contradicted the Minister by stating that the review will take up to 18 months before it is concluded.

Mr Buckley further stated that only preliminary work scoping out a study had been done, and that the substantive work will not start until the autumn. He added that the first call on resources was to ensure that the accounts of state bodies were certified on a annual basis. Work on other reporting topics, including FAS, had to be prioritised.

Fine Gael education spokesperson Brian Hayes, later accused the minister of making things up as he went along. The “forensic audit” was promised eight months ago but there was still sign of it, said Mr Hayes.

What is most alarming about these developments is the complete lack of accountability at the Higher Education Authority – a case in point where an tÚdarás has gone completely silent.

The Universities Act, 1997 was enacted to give greater autonomy to the Irish University sector so that they could manage their affairs in a more strategic manner. The Minister of Education through the Higher Education Authority remained in place as the regulatory body to oversee how this new found autonomy worked on the ground. This form of regulation was put in place solely to guarantee that University Heads did not get carried away with their newly delegated powers of recruitment, remuneration and managerial policy within a given college.

The Act also sets out a framework for interaction between the universities and central government. This framework strikes a measured balance between the institutional autonomy of the universities and the requirements of public accountability. The Act explicitly recognises the centrality of academic freedom and institutional autonomy to the mission of the universities, while addressing the obligations of the institutions on equality of opportunity and access, quality assurance, the effective and efficient use of resources and the requirements of public accountability.

An tÚdarás, the Higher Education Authority was given key functions in respect of these areas of the operation of the universities. The Universities Act 1997, in addition to providing for strengthened governance arrangements at an institutional level, also provided a wider public interest protection in cases where the Minister for Education and Science was of the opinion that there were reasonable grounds for contending that the functions of a university were being performed in a manner which prima facie constituted breach of the laws, statutes, or ordinances applicable to the university.

In essence, the Government, through an tÚdarás were given the powers of regulatory oversight in the event that serious managerial or financial irregularities were taking place within the sector.

Does this sound familiar…Banking Regulation !

The legislative framework also allowed the Minister on advice from An tÚdarás the powers to assign a Visitor to oversee whether breaches of laws, statutes, or ordinances applicable to the university had transpired.

University College Cork had the distinguished honour of having the Minister appoint a Visitor to look into managerial and financial irregularities at the College during the controversial Presidency of Gerry Wrixon.

Calls for Visitation have also been made in the case of Dublin City University. Controversial allegations were made against the management of the University by Minister Eamonn Ryan TD, Paul Gogarty TD and Senator Dan Boyle, when they were in the ranks of the opposition. The Green Party TD’s claimed the university were in breach of the Universities Act, 1997. The Labour Court and Rights Commissioners independently upheld the TD’s concerns about the University and recommended changes in the management policy with respect to staff.

More recently, the High Court further upheld the TD’s assertions that the University were in clear breach of the Act when it adjudicated in 2007 that the University Statute on suspension and dismissal of academic staff was an ‘invalid’ exercise.

The allegations of a breach of the Act originate from the arrival of the controversial President Dr. Ferdinand Von Prondzynski at the college in 2000 and his Statute proposal and subsequent promulgation in 2001.

The University under the President’s instruction has appealed the High Court adjudication to the Supreme Court. In the interim, the staff at the college through their representative Union, SIPTU have voted in favour of a motion of no confidence in the President and senior management at the University.

Instead of a Supreme Court hearing, the appointment of a Visitor by the Minister of Education would seem the most sensible and the only appropriate forum to address these irregularities at University.

In a clear indictment of their inability to regulate the governance of the College, the appointed Governing Authority (chaired by Mr David Byrne SC) and An tÚdarás have both willingly turned a blind eye to these alleged irregularities and have failed to request a Visitor be appointed by the Minister to determine if a prima facie case exists.

Many will argue that regulation not only of the Banking sector but the whole University sector is now required if we are ever going to have real reform of the Higher Education sector in Ireland.