JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE debate -
Thursday, 9 Sep 2004

Research and Development in Third Level Institutions: Presentations.

Chairman

This meeting has been convened to discuss research and development in third level institutions, an item on the work programme of the committee. On behalf of its members, I welcome the delegations, which are considerably larger than those that normally appear before us. They comprise representatives from the Council of Directors of Institutes of Technology and the Conference of Heads of Irish Universities. Perhaps the spokespersons will introduce the various members of their delegations when I call upon them.

Before we begin, I draw our guests' attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I welcome Paul Hannigan, chairperson of the Council of Directors of Institutes of Technology. Perhaps he will introduce the members of his delegation and I will then call on the spokesperson of the other delegation.

Mr. Paul Hannigan

I am director of Letterkenny Institute of Technology and, for this year, chairman of the Council of Directors of Institutes of Technology. With me are Dr. Tom Collins, director of Dundalk Institute of Technology, and Mr. Michael Delaney, head of development in Cork Institute of Technology. Also here is Mr. Joe McGarry, secretary general of the Council of Directors of Institutes of Technology, Mr. Willie Donnelly, head of research at Waterford Institute of Technology, and Ms Patricia Mulcahy, head of development at Carlow Institute of Technology.

Chairman

Will Dr. John Hegarty introduce the members of the delegation from the Conference of Heads of Irish Universities?

Dr. John Hegarty

I am provost of Trinity College. With me are Dr. Ferdinand von Prondzynski, president of DCU, and Mr. John Hughes, president of NUI Maynooth. Also with me are Mr. Michael McGrath, director of CHIU, and Mr. Conor O'Carroll, director of research at CHIU.

Chairman

We will now have the presentations. Representatives of Science Foundation Ireland came before the committee earlier in the year and made a positive impression. Some members attended the presentation last Wednesday. Perhaps Mr. Hannigan will commence.

Mr. Hannigan

We have presented a written document to the committee. I will summarise the main points made and outline the conclusions or solutions suggested by the institutes of technology sector.

I will first provide some background on the sector and indicate from where we are coming. In the first paragraph of the document we state that the institutes of technology, including the Dublin institutes of technology in this circumstance, take into third level on an annual basis more than 50% of the first-time admissions. They represent, therefore, a substantial element of the third level sector. We represent 13 institutes of technology, namely, Athlone, Blanchardstown, Carlow, Cork, Dundalk, Dún Laoghaire, Galway, Letterkenny, Limerick, Sligo, Tallaght, Tralee and Waterford.

The history of the sector in the past 30 years highlights the development of the economy on a regional basis through the development of the institutes of technology or the regional technical colleges as they were formerly known. It is important to consider the development of the sector and the economy in tandem, with particular concentration on the regional dimension, during the period in question. We have outlined in our document the number of graduates produced from the sector on an annual basis. More than 10,000 such graduates emerge each year, 30% of who obtain honours bachelor degrees, 40% with ordinary bachelor degrees and 30% with higher certificates. The significance is that the institutes have totally immersed themselves in the new national qualifications framework. Our traditional national certificate and degree programmes are now redesignated as higher certificates, ordinary bachelor degrees and honours bachelor degrees.

The sector has grown dramatically, particularly since the mid-1980s. If one takes as a base year 1987, when I joined the sector, the growth in student numbers has been dramatic in the interim. Between 1987 and 1990, the increase in enrolment in the institutes, right across the sector, amounted to 100%. At that time, resources were not increased to allow the sector to deal with this. The sector should be commended in terms of innovating to accommodate student numbers during that specific period. The sector's track record sets it up for further innovation in terms of the development of the research area, a matter on which we wish to concentrate this morning.

During the past ten years there has been an increase in the growth of research across the sector. We have achieved much without the requisite resources. If the institutes receive the investment funds necessary to build the physical infrastructure, we can further develop that research capacity and capability.

Building excellence is a very important element of what we do. We have excellent people working within the institutes of technology. Our track record in teaching has proven this. We now want to support the staff we have in the development of our own research capacity and capabilities. Building excellence in the research area is what we are talking about.

Our presentation refers to the current research profile. The Chairman mentioned that Science Foundation Ireland has appeared before the joint committee and members are also aware of the programme for research in third level institutions, PRTLI, programmes. On page 3 of the presentation, we outline the number of institutions of technology that have been successful in accessing funds from both those sources. Unfortunately, we feel the terms of reference for competition in these areas are skewed against the institutes in trying to build the excellence about which we are talking. While we have outlined the ten institutes which have participated and been successful in PRTLI and the four which have participated under SFI, there is further potential within the sector that these programmes are not allowing us to exploit. We would like to pursue this in the discussion later.

Our presentation also outlines the technological sector research programme which looks at research and development in the institute of technology sector. The statistics for that programme are impressive. They show the number of postgraduate research projects funded in the sector but, more particularly, the number of graduate entrepreneurs who have come out of the institutes of technology in recent years, the number of enterprises which have been created and the number of jobs that have come from them.

It is important to recognise the contribution of Enterprise Ireland to this activity. Enterprise Ireland has been participative with the institutes and encouraged them to get involved in the innovation partnership programme and through TecNet, where it has worked directly with the institutes of technology to encourage research in specific areas throughout the country. Enterprise Ireland has also helped in the development of business incubation centres on and off campuses throughout the country, with the support of a fund put in place by the Tánaiste in 2002.

On page 5, members will see a distribution of research funding on a regional basis. The table shows the imbalance in the dispersal of funds across the country, particularly between major urban areas and more rural areas. There is a need to address this imbalance. There is also an imbalance in funding to the IT sector. We feel we could get more of that funding and contribute more on a regional basis as a result.

In suggesting solutions we have highlighted four points, the first being:

A research funding vehicle which will provide competitive research programmes to develop necessary space and facilities in the institutes. This will underpin regional development and national spatial strategy objectives.

Following the recommendations of the national spatial strategy the majority of the gateway towns have institutes of technology. The institutes of technology can be the drivers of the national spatial strategy. However, in developing our own research capacity, space and facilities are important to us. We suggest an investment of approximately €50 million over a three year period to develop this infrastructural capacity. This would represent approximately 10% of the PRTLI funding to date.

Our second point requires "new funding programme criteria to have regard to commercialisation of research or near-to-market research and technology transfer". This is important in terms of the most recent publication from the enterprise strategy group. The IT sector is strong in terms of the commercialisation of research, near-to-market research and technology transfer. We want to continue to support that. Our strand 3 programme is sitting at between €5 and €6 million. We would like to see that increased to approximately €30 million to provide the basis for further development in this area.

Our third point sought a "floor funding initiative for the institutes of technology". We have been very strongly teaching institutions. Our staff has very definite contracts regarding their teaching load and so on. We are looking for more flexibility in that area so that the resources we have can be redirected. The floor funding would give us the flexibility to do that.

Our fourth point sought "the incentivisation of greater levels of collaboration between all the institutions in higher education". The first appendix to our document outlines a sample of the work ongoing in each of the 13 institutes of technology. Much collaboration is already ongoing between ourselves, with the universities locally and international bodies. Much of the funding for those programmes comes from European, not national sources. In Waterford Institute of Technology, for example, 54 researchers are employed in a full-time capacity in the Telecommunications Software & Systems Group, TSSG. That has arisen from the development of excellence within the Waterford area. Similar activity is taking place throughout the institutes of technology.

We have the capacity in the people we employ. We want to develop that capacity further through the infrastructure and the dedicated space we can have in the institutes and to build the excellence that we know is already in the research area.

Dr. Hegarty

On behalf of the Conference of Heads of Irish Universities, CHIU, I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to talk about research and development and the role of the university sector. Our document has been circulated to members and summarises the main points.

Research means different things to different people. It is about the creation of new knowledge, whether a new aspect of social behaviour or a discovery that will change the way in which diseases are treated. It is about new knowledge and advancing the field. Research has always been a feature of our activity in universities. It has always gone with teaching. It has always been recognised that good teaching needs good research and needs academic staff to be at the forefront of their fields. In recent years research has become an issue of national importance over and above the issue of teaching. We all recognise that the future of business and good policy making will be based on advances in knowledge and skilled people. Research has taken on a whole new realm of importance. Last week's science summit on this issue, where both the Taoiseach and Tánaiste, unbelievably, stayed for several hours, was the strongest indication in the history of the State of the importance research to the future of the country. At last week's summit the areas discussed were scientific, engineering and medical research.

In universities the questions have been asked: "Why invest in research in higher education? Why not set up institutes to create new knowledge that would not be fettered by teaching and all the other activities required of a university?" There is a particular advantage in investing in research in higher education. It kills not just two but three birds with one stone. We all accept the impact research has on teaching. There is also the creation of knowledge in itself. However, what many forget is that the process of doing research in higher education is equally concerned with people and with producing graduates. It is these highly skilled individuals who will make the impact. One cannot forget this 50% of the equation. People are as important as knowledge.

The final part of the puzzle is the conversion of that knowledge into wealth. One could say research investment is converting wealth into knowledge — in our case taxpayer's money. The other half of the equation is converting that knowledge back into wealth. The exploitation of innovation, technology transfer, intellectual property and so on is part and parcel of the research agenda.

Industry must play its part through engaging in research and absorbing the knowledge for new products. Research is a tough business. It is not easy for universities to do research because they compete on a global stage and not just in Ireland. Unless what goes on in Ireland is good internationally, it is a waste of time. That is the first thing that must be said. There is no such thing as good Irish research: it is either good internationally or it is not. The global stage is fiercely and brutally competitive. Quality is the key. To do good research is a challenge to us all. It is not something one switches on, it has to be built up. Doing poor research is not what we should be about because that is bad investment.

There are a number of things we need in order to compete. Higher education needs the best academic staff it can possibly get. We have to attract the people with the best minds in the world because they are the people who will generate ideas, supervise students and teach. Our facilities such as laboratories, libraries and so on must be state-of-the-art, otherwise we are wasting our time. We need the best students and must hold them because they will be the drivers for the future. Finally, we need the best methods to transfer this output into wealth that, at the end of the day, is what the public system will require.

This morning's edition of The Irish Times contains an article by the chairman of the HEA. What screams out from that and many other reports is, that Irish education is average by international comparisons. We have great ambitions and are right to have them. To be sustainable we must aim high. However, if we are average we will not be able to do so. The challenge facing us and Government is how we move our system beyond average to the top. At the end of the day, people are our only resource. We need our people to operate to their full potential.

Today's newspapers also contain articles about funding education in terms of fees and so on. However, we are focusing on research today. The story on research funding is good. SFI has brought to this country the calibre of people I referred to. The PRTLI which deals with infrastructural development has also done a great job. A recent review indicates it is working and that the universities and institutes of technology involved have made it work. It has been a success and should be continued. The research councils and Health Research Board are also involved. There are many sources of funding and the trend is right. However, what Government should examine is co-ordination of all this in order to obtain value from the investment which is important. The appointment of the chief scientific adviser is also a good development.

It is important that a co-ordinated plan to support research be put in place under the next national development plan if we are to obtain value for money. Such a plan should be sustainable over time and not be stop-go as in the past because stopping can be disastrous and can represent a waste of investment. Many of the reports published, including the one by the enterprise strategy group of which I was a member, state that the PRTLI-SFI should be improved; that industry needs to invest more in research and that we need a better route to exploitation of knowledge. That is true and is a challenge we face.

The expert group on future skills states that we are facing a major shortage of highly skilled people at PhD level. The figure has been put at 3,500 between now and 2010 and relates to the science, technology and business areas. We need to concentrate on these areas if we are to sustain ourselves and move up the value chain. That is an enormous challenge. I have not yet seen the OECD report due next week but I am sure it will have much to say on the issue. There are many challenges ahead for us and Government. I will speak first of the challenges facing us as many of the issues involved do not relate to funding.

The university sector has to play on the international scene. That is its role for Ireland. It has to create a reputation of Ireland being as good if not better than anybody else. The question however is whether we can step up to that mark. We must do our best to attract excellent staff that will make a difference to this country. We need to define a new career structure for research people, something we have not had before. Who has ever heard of a researcher in Ireland? We need to work in partnership with enterprise, the institutes of technology and all other sectors in delivering this. We need to produce more graduate students, more PhDs not in order that they can go into academia as would have been the case in the past but PhD students who will make the difference in industry, public policy and all other spheres. That requires a different type of training than heretofore. We need to find better ways to exploit the knowledge, something to which we are all committed.

On the Government side, we need greater investment in two areas. A funding issue arises in terms of how we will produce 3,500 PhDs over the next ten years. Also, we need people to supervise them. There is a mix of issues involved. There are also concerns about our physical infrastructure. Many new buildings have been constructed on campus sites but we have come from an incredibly low base and are still catching up. It is great to catch up and that is positive. However, we need further investment in physical infrastructure. The issue of sustainability also arises. The returns from research take time. They do not appear overnight. It is important not to falter or stop and to see it through. Sustaining the funding for PRTLI-SFI, the research councils and HRB will be important for a number of years and will produce dividends. As was stated last week at the summit, given current investment somebody here during the next ten years will make a discovery that will knock the socks off the world. If that happens, it will make a great difference to this country.

We are in exciting though tough times. It is a crucial stage for the country. Higher education has a stronger than ever role to play, a role we want it to play as strongly as possible. It is our intention and that of CHIU to put Ireland on the world's research map. That is our responsibility. While much has been done, we have been catching up. The challenge now is to see it through and to deliver the results.

Chairman

I thank Dr. Hegarty and Mr. Hannigan for their presentations. This is an interesting issue and we appreciate the brevity and clarity of the submissions given. The issue is one about which one could speak at considerable length. However, I am sure the good example will be replicated when members contribute.

Deputy Enright

I welcome all the members of the delegations. I was heartened by what Dr. Hegarty said regarding how our graduates compare with others from around the world. We have always said — although somewhat afraid not to say it — that we have the best education system in the world. We think if we do not continue to say that, companies will not want to come and set up here. We must be realistic about the situation and look at Finland, Japan, the United States etc. and realise that they are in many ways ahead of us. We must ensure that we remain competitive and that we compete on a level playing field. We must accept this if we want to improve.

I share the concerns expressed with regard to the number of graduates we are producing for the research area. The report states that we will need an additional 8,000 researchers by 2010 if we are to meet EU targets. However, our target of 2.5% is slightly less than the EU target. Can anybody inform us how we stand in that regard or what our spend is now in proportion to GDP? We know what we have to reach but it would be useful to know where we are.

With regard to the institutes of technology, Mr. Hannigan mentioned a research funding vehicle as a first solution. However, it was not quite clear from what he said whether he sees this as separate from the PRTLI or part of it. He also mentioned a 10% figure with regard to current spending under the PRTLI. I am unsure whether this is 10% of what is needed or whether he is speaking of what would fund the €50 million requirement. Will he expand on this?

Mr. Hannigan spoke about stop-go funding, a problem about which there appears to be a change in attitude. However, perhaps he would address the issue of the stop-go nature of student choice, a matter that was mentioned to me when I visited the Institute of Engineers of Ireland. For example, students commencing third level education may see that jobs are available in IT and so for three or four years they will all head in that direction. An article may then appear in the press to say the IT sector is unsound and students will all head in a different direction. Is this stop-go issue a problem and are we seen as not having a steady flow of graduates for each of the areas in which they are needed?

The number of students studying maths and sciences, particularly at higher level, has dropped in recent years and I presume this has a knock-on effect at third level. Is this a cause of concern? The physical infrastructure of our universities and institutes of technology was mentioned. Do the delegates consider this a barrier in terms of attracting people here or is this just a small part of the equation? In terms of the needs of industry, which is only one aspect of the purpose of education, albeit important, do they feel that universities and institutes of technology are in a position to be sufficiently responsive to the demands of industry? Can the colleges change rapidly enough or do they face problems in this area?

The enterprise strategy group report mentioned the structures and management of higher education. Do the delegates feel their college structures operate as a barrier and are a little unwieldy or too large for current needs? Perhaps this is a sensitive issue but I am interested in hearing their opinion on this. Do they feel enough industry people can access them at this level or that members of industry should sit on the college boards? This is important and could improve interaction.

I do not want to get into the argument on finance, an important matter that was mentioned in the report. We will probably leave that issue aside until next Thursday.

I know something about the Atlantic University Alliance, part of the aim of which was to stop the drain of university graduates to the east coast of the United States or elsewhere. I presume other institutions have similar alliances. Have such alliances been successful with regard to graduates in other places? We have not got to the stage we want to reach yet, but has this alliance helped? Are there other things we could do that would offer a solution to the graduate drain? Will the delegates comment also on the staff drain? We know it is not only students that are going elsewhere. We have heard much in the past few weeks about our capability of attracting undergraduates in certain areas. Could we have a comment also on our capability of attracting people from abroad at postgraduate level?

Deputy Crowe

With regard to floor funding for the institutes of technology, do the delegates believe the Department of Education and Science is doing enough to secure long-term sustainability of the colleges that will embed these institutions in the community? Is there enough funding to build or adapt and equip existing buildings to allow institutes of technology fulfil their mission statement that speaks about delivering research and social and cultural areas?

The PRTLI programme for research in third level institutions was mentioned. Have institutes of technology done badly in this regard? I understand the original review considered doing away with the building portion of the programme for them. There should be co-operation between the universities and the institutes of technology sector. However, has there been a difficulty in the sense that the institutes of technology sector seems to be the junior partner? How can this be overcome? Is the system skewed against them in the sense that where there were no facilities, the institution did not get funding? Is part of the difficulty in the system related to the fact that 65% of funding goes to the eastern region and 0.38% to the Border regions? Is this due to the fact that no research facilities exist in those areas or that they are unsuitable? How can this problem be overcome? The difficulty seems to be that if an institution does not have the facilities it will not be permitted to get the funding and must play catch-up all the time.

Spare capacity is another issue. We are faced with a situation where we have a drop in student numbers. How can we adapt the system to deal with this and will it all come down to the matter of research? On the matter of research, I note that the document Building Ireland's Knowledge Economy promotes a fine vision. It discusses targets and increases in business expenditure in research and development. Indigenous industry is far behind foreign affiliates in this area. How can our companies be encouraged to invest in research. An argument I have heard concerns the institutes of technology sector, the area with which I am most familiar and one of which is in my constituency. The argument is that where companies become involved in research there is a pay off in jobs in the long term. Delegates have spoken here about the number of jobs and mentioned that 273 enterprises were created involving thousands of jobs. How can we encourage the involvement of Irish businesses that have always been reluctant? If we examine foreign and multinational companies, we see the amount spent on training staff etc. is much larger than that spent by Irish companies. Training always tends to be the last item on the agenda here.

Is the binary system of institute of technology and university becoming more blurred at the edges? Do the delegates believe this is positive and that there is a crossover between academic and technical aspects? I am interested in hearing them develop this issue. I have other questions but will allow other members put theirs and perhaps return to the others later.

Deputy Gogarty

I will be brief because this is a very well attended committee meeting. I will direct my questions to both speakers, in particular to Dr. Hegarty who referred to an article in The Irish Times today by Dr. Don Thornhill. The article suggests that from the HEA enterprise strategy group point of view, Ireland should be among the top three performers of OECD countries in the area of higher education and research. In Dr. Hegarty’s opinion, how achievable is that goal? Could it be achieved within a five year period and how much additional funding would be required for Ireland to become a top three performer?

Other speakers so far have stayed out of the debate on funding. I wish to flag it because different people will have different inputs next time around and the committee may not have an opportunity to hear the delegation's opinions again. In the view of members of the delegation, what is required to increase third level funding? Should it be achieved by the reintroduction of third level fees, as recommended by the OECD or through private sector investment or by an increase in general taxation? Does the delegation have a preference for a method that in its view would improve access to third level education? The abolition of third level fees has not significantly improved access to third level education among those in disadvantaged areas. However, I do not believe the reintroduction of third level fees will have much of an impact either.

It has been noted in the presentation from the institutes of technology that the Border region receives a very small amount of funding. Is consideration given to targeting research into the areas that could benefit from it?

Deputy Curran

I thank the delegation for the interesting presentations. I will not go over all the points raised but will deal with two general aspects in more detail. I will address my remarks to Dr. Hegarty on the subject of the relationship between industry, research and development and education. Dr. Hegarty mentioned that people in Ireland would never describe themselves as working in research because we do not have that culture and history. Some may do so but we do not have a lifetime's experience of it. I am thinking of a number of colleagues who completed secondary education with me, graduated from university and emigrated in the mid-1980s. They have worked for 20 years in research and development. That probably would not have been the case if they had stayed in Ireland. There is an historical element to be considered and it is a question, as Dr. Hegarty said, of how we can now play catch-up in the future. How does he view the working relationship regarding research and development in Ireland? Is there a close relationship between industry and education in Ireland? Is it comparable to the situation in the United States and other countries, where research and development is greater?

On the question of funding, last year's budget made changes that allowed tax credits for research and development. Is this having any impact in the area of education or is industry investing in research and development on its own rather than in co-operation with educational institutions such as the institutes of technology? What will be the effect of that budget change in the future?

I was interested in some of the points Mr. Hannigan made. Both Deputy Gogarty and I were members of South Dublin County Council. A number of years ago the council decided to create a biotechnology campus. It is an impressive facility with a significant multinational company as anchor tenant with in excess of 1,000 employees, more than half of whom are graduates. Mr. Hannigan spoke about the creation of additional space. A number of courses in Tallaght Institute of Technology have been designed to accommodate the area of biotechnology. I ask Mr. Hannigan to consider this biotechnology campus that will eventually have a number of different industries. In his view, would it be preferable that in the future, additional space should be created on the industrial campus rather than remotely in a third level institution, wherever that might be? Where will it have the most impact with industry? As Dr. Hegarty said, the aim is a commercial return and the creation of profit. Should the aim be to cluster together various similar types of industries with educational facilities for research and development?

Senator Minihan

I welcome the members of the delegation to the meeting and thank them for their contributions. I have some brief points to make. We all agree with the notion of average not being good enough. We must ensure that we are above average, particularly in the context of a knowledge based economy. Will our third level institutions be regarded as research institutions on an equal basis? I do not wish to see the members of the delegation fight among themselves because we do enough of that on this side of the room. Should we have the fight now and decide there should be a two-tier third level scheme with pre-designated research universities or IT colleges? Will we cripple ourselves by trying to ensure all our universities and institutes of technology exceed the average benchmark and have a research capability? Given the population, the number of institutions and the financial input that would be required from the State and industry to achieve this objective, this issue will need to be considered. I would welcome the views of the delegation on this point. Its members will disagree or agree with me, depending on whether their institution is designated a centre of research.

As regards career paths and structures, what is the career of a scientist or researcher? There is no pre-designated career because everyone present would have a different view on the matter. Some of the salaries being attracted by PhD students involved in research are dismally low. We must work together on this issue because the figures for the anticipated requirement of PhD students are frightening. A report last year indicated that we had a sufficient supply of people with diploma, certificate and undergraduate qualifications but a major problem in the PhD area. Part of the solution will be to establish a proper career structure for PhD students and researchers.

To put the ball back in the court of the delegation, do its members believe the third level institutions — I am painting with a broad brush in this context — are doing enough to foster relationships with industry vis-à-vis funding? An analysis of the universities, in particular, would show a significant difference between those which have achieved good support and those which have not.

We all recognise that a partnership across academia, research, industry and politics is required. Unfortunately, one of the problems we face is that the various sectors look at the issue differently and speak a different language, although they know what is the common goal. Politicians will think of outturn and how quickly it can be translated into jobs, whereas scientists will not be particularly concerned in this regard. They will be happy once they have produced a final paper which has received great reviews from their peers. As regards industry, for example, companies such as Siemens, their concern is that turnover in modern technology occurs in a very short timeframe. With the three groups trying to achieve a common goal thinking differently, much greater understanding is needed. In other words, scientists must become more political, politicians must become more science-orientated and industry must play both sides. We should develop stronger links.

The ultimate goal is to stop producing graduates to become integral parts of multinational companies but to produce them for Irish multinationals. That is the measure by which the success of the overall strategy will be judged.

The submissions have been very informative. Some of the figures on the distribution of funding create a problem, which brings me back to my original point, one on which I would like the delegation to reflect. Is it possible to carry out research in all third level institutions or should we take a bold decision to designate certain institutions as research centres? What impact would such a decision have on institutions not selected for research?

Deputy O’Sullivan

I sincerely apologise for my absence during the presentations. I have had an opportunity to read them and will make a brief contribution to avoid repeating what others have said. My questions are closely related to Senator Minihan's contribution.

From talking to people who work in third level education, it appears that departments must produce a certain quantity of research every year to obtain funding. Quantity appears to be very important in all departments, not only in science but also in the humanities and other areas of third level education. We should not spread things too widely or undervalue teaching. While we are not here to discuss these issues today, there may be an over-emphasis on the quantity of research as opposed to its quality. Will the members of the delegation comment? How are institutions funded? Must they produce a certain quantity of research to attract State and other forms of funding?

Both presentations refer to working with other institutions, industry, the State and so forth. What is the extent of co-operation? Who ensures the research being done in different institutions does not overlap to a significant degree and that where it does overlap, the institutions in question inter-relate and are productive in terms of the good of society and the individual institution? As public representatives, it is our job to ensure the public good is served. While the representatives will all — correctly — have a brief for their respective institutions, it is important that we try to get that picture today.

At a previous meeting of the joint committee we were told of difficulties in attracting good researchers caused by a lack of flexibility with regard to how they could be paid. If I recall correctly, this issue which was touched upon earlier was raised in the context of an OECD report. I ask the delegation to comment on it. Are the institutions restricted in attracting good researchers? Are good Irish researchers being attracted to other countries because of the system of reward available here? Is this a problem? I apologise if these questions have been asked.

Co-operation among Departments, primarily the Departments of Education and Science and Enterprise, Trade and Employment, is another area on which the committee touched on previous occasions. The latter Department appears to have strongly encouraged research in the past, whereas the former appears to have adopted a stop-start approach.

Deputy Andrews

Dr. Hegarty makes the point that the Research Council of Ireland should be on a more permanent footing. Should it be on a statutory basis not dissimilar to other councils of that nature? He also stated health research and development should be included in the next national development plan. Do third level institutions have an input in the preparation of the national development plan, including the current one, which is obviously the key vehicle for funding in this area?

Dr. Hegarty also referred to avoiding duplication in research. Does the desire to achieve a patent not create major conflicts, with great minds thinking alike but not sharing information? Does this not give rise to a natural, constructive rivalry? When spending taxpayers' euro, we want to ensure there is no duplication and multiplication of effort in the same area. At the same time, however, are rivalry and competition not essential in the area of research if patents are to be achieved?

Mr. Hannigan stated his institution is able to make some money from consultancy services. The Dublin Institute of Technology, through its business incubation system, has also achieved some success in this area. Is this a real source of income for the institutes of technology which do not benefit from bequests or charitable donations to the same degree as universities? What is the value of consultancy services in terms of research?

Will Dr. Hegarty provide a brief summary of the outcome of the science summit?

Deputy Stanton

I welcome everybody to the meeting and thank the delegations for their presentations. In his presentation, Dr. Hegarty said: "The funding situation for universities was exacerbated by an effective 10% cut in core grants for 2004, a pause on PRTLI funding and savage cutbacks in capital funding over the past two years". What has been the impact of those cutbacks in practical terms in the universities where research and development is concerned? What is the impact on the ground? Has it meant, as some have suggested, that universities have had to become more effective and tighten up on various areas where spending was loose? He also said that core funding needs to be significantly increased. The OECD report that is on the way may shed some light on this. How much would he like to see being put into that area? What would be his wish list today?

A debate is taking place in the United States about universities being privatised and the public universities. It is an issue that is being touchedon here from time to time. I would like Dr. Hegarty's views on that and its impact in the United States. I think I am correct in saying the public universities there are suffering from a dearth of funding as a result. The issue is current here and some people have been discussing it.

Mr. Hannigan mentioned the issue of incentivisation and collaboration between the various universities and institutes. How does he see that working and how would he like to see it happening? What should be put in place? What does the Oireachtas need to do to encourage that in practical terms? All the third level institutes in Ireland put together would probably be the same size as one of the larger universities in the United States, because they are so big there, but, perhaps, big is not everything and small can be beautiful. Some of the research is very focused. I note that some of the institutes of technology specialise in various areas and the universities specialise in particular areas. I am interested to hear comments on this.

Some colleagues have touched on the broader issue of the development of science and research and development. Am I correct in saying many researchers become interested in and excited by science, in particular, at a young age prior to university? We have been told of the need to do more at primary and second level to encourage young entrepreneurs to develop an awareness and love of science. As a former teacher, I am aware this is being considered at curriculum development levels in the Department and so on. Many students are turned away from science because of the points system. They fear they will fail to get sufficient points to gain access to courses. This is as important as the funding issue. What can we do in this area?

Recently we visited the centre for gifted children in DCU and were impressed with the work there, whereby teenagers and younger children were exposed to science and technology, language and many other disciplines in an exciting way. We noted and wrote to the Department about the need to put more funding into that area. Do the representatives agree that we should do this? Have any of the other universities looked at a similar type of initiative? I was highly impressed with the initiative and the enthusiasm among the younger people who, once exposed to science in a meaningful and practical way and the other disciplines, decided they wanted to take careers in the various areas. We had the brightest and best there. This is also happening in other countries.

Mr. Hannigan mentioned that new funding programme criteria should have regard to commercialisation of research or near-to-market research and technology transfer. To what extent is this happening? I would have thought it would be happening but, obviously, it has not happened to the extent one would wish. He said there is a need for the various funding agencies to change their criteria. What are they doing with which he does not agree, and what do they need to do?

Senator U. Burke

I welcome the delegations to the joint committee. Dr. Hegarty suggested the co-ordination of a plan. I do not know who Dr. Hegarty sees as leading the co-ordination of a plan in the present context where the institutions are literally in a dog fight for funding, whether at local level, from the Government, or internationally. The table on page 5 clearly indicates the imbalance on a regional basis and within the institutions. I do not know how one could draw all the partners together and put in place a co-ordinated plan. Who would be responsible for bringing the partners together to get a comprehensive co-ordinated plan? The one I know best is NUI Galway. It has had tremendous success because of its close ties and vigorous promotion of its institution with the American medicare companies based in Galway. For any of the other institutions to get into that area by way of research, they would have to stand on the toes of those who have established in Galway.

While we are talking about third level, postgraduate and doctorate levels, one issue that has manifested itself in the institutes, where they had a particular focus from their establishment, is the failure to co-ordinate with industry. One of the biggest failures of the institutes is the practical application of a work module within the institutes. They have failed miserably to find reasonable work experience situations for their students. In recent days they were notified of the changing accreditation from diploma to degree status for various courses. Students were going back into a diploma course where a high level of work experience was supposed to be provided by those institutions and, suddenly, they have been told to go out and find it themselves. If in the initial stages the foundation of links between industry and the institutes is that weak, with perhaps the odd exception, it has to be equally poor at the other end. We must have a comprehensive co-ordinated plan. Who would lead a comprehensive plan?

Deputy B. O’Keeffe

I will be brief. In terms of the institutes and universities, our economy is being lauded as the fastest growing in Europe and we are average in terms of third level. Is that an indictment of our third level system? In the medical science area, for instance, our standards are outstanding within the sectors but there appears to be no relationship between the numbers of graduates being produced and the requirements of the economy. We had a report that indicated that we did not have a sufficient number of people in the therapy areas. Another report indicated that we did not have enough people in the area of dental training and a recent report from the health committee indicates that we are not producing enough doctors. Where do the representatives see their role in all of this? They have told this committee we will be short 3,500 PhD graduates over the next ten years. Are they saying they are blocking students from actively pursuing PhDs in their institutions or that there is no funding to allow those people do them? We want to establish clearly whether it is a problem with the funding or the quality of the graduates being produced and the reason there is such a deficit in that area.

On the question of value for money and what we call added value, in terms of grants to multinational industries, Senator Minihan indicated that we should try to produce our own multinationals. That is something to which we must aspire because we are not achieving it. Should we refocus the whole structure of the grant system? At one time it focused on jobs but much of it now focuses on a certain amount of research and development. Should we not focus grants on a guarantee from the industry coming here to sponsor the type of person we require within the industry to meet our demands? For instance, rather than giving the 3,500 PhD graduates tax incentives there should be a link, in terms of future investment, between the number of people each of the industries would sponsor in respect of funding for those students rather than always looking to the Government to provide that funding, given that industry will be the major beneficiary at the end of the day.

I want to ask about shared experience. I am interested to read Dr. Hegarty's programme that referred to national co-ordination and that stated that in terms of supporting research in the next development plan the universities should be the key location for research and development. In the future we will collaborate much more with the institutes of technology but have we lost the remit in terms of the level of co-operation between the universities and the institutes of technology? Are we arriving at a scenario where we will have to examine the possibility of all the groupings coming together on a national stage and sharing their experiences?

One of the presentations indicated that in looking to the future we will have to consider working in partnership with the national research board and about five other boards but should all of those be there? Has the time come to rationalise all of these units into one body in order that the third level sector, whether it be a university or institute of technology, would be one in terms of dealing with that one national board?

I listened with some mirth to Senator Minihan's suggestion that the centres of excellence should be taken out of the west and the peripheral areas. I can imagine the political import. I notice Mr. Hannigan is smiling on that particular score.

Senator Minihan

I will refrain from replying to that comment but will read the Official Report.

Deputy B. O’Keeffe

It is a serious question because of the percentages in terms of the distribution of research funding, even in the Dublin mid-east area, in comparison to the south west, for instance, that has 40% of population getting nearly 70% of the funding. Is it a problem to get the real levels of expertise out of the peripheral areas and will it continue to be a problem in terms of training graduates for the future? Is it the case that the best qualified people will want to go to the centres of growth rather than to the peripheral regions?

Senator White

I thank the representatives for coming here today and appreciate the eloquent presentations. I would appreciate it if they could answer two questions, as a group or individually. At the launch of the European Presidency in Dublin Castle in January this year the Taoiseach said, not in his prepared speech of which we got copies, that research and development in Europe is only in the ha'penny place in comparison to the United States. I would like the witnesses to comment on this because that point has stuck in my mind since. It is the point I remembered most from his speech.

Last week many of us present were privileged to attend the SFI conference in Dublin Castle, which was most informative. It was a pleasure to hear the contribution of the managing director of Wyatt and of the ground-breaking drugs created in Ireland by Irish graduates and to hear the managing director of Intel, Mr. O'Hara, bring us up to date on the developments in Intel. These are two multinational organisations which we all know we need, but where is the silver bullet in terms of our being able to produce indigenous Irish companies that would deliver new products? The purpose of the development of research and development is to enable us to create commercial success. I would like to see Irish commercial successes in this field because the development of our indigenous industry is critical.

I draw to the attention of the representatives a development about which I am not boasting. Last year my nominating board to the Seanad, the Irish Exporters Association asked me to lobby the Minister for Finance about the 9% intellectual property tax on patents. I did so and much to my pleasure, at the launch of the budget in the Dáil, I could not believe my ears when the Minister said he would bring it up in the Finance Bill. The Irish Exporters Association approached me and pointed out this ridiculous contradiction, if that is the right word, in terms of money being paid out for research and development and taxing people who develop a patent. I am not criticising the Department of Finance on the general area. The Irish Exporters Association drew this fundamental contradiction to my attention, as a legislator. Money is being allocated to develop research and development, yet those who develop a new product are being taxed. I would like the representatives to comment on those three points.

Deputy Nolan

I have two brief questions. Will some of the members of the delegation comment on the competition between the IT sector and the universities and also on the obvious competition within the IT colleges? Members of the delegation will recall that some years ago Cork Institute of Technology, in particular, and Waterford Institute of Technology which were regional technical colleges at the time were well down the road of raising their status from the level of regional technical college to institute of technology. The Government at the time rightly decided to upgrade all the regional technical colleges to IT status. However, the difficulty did not stop there. There is still a pecking order within the IT colleges with some colleges trying to steal a march on others. How can this problem be addressed and what is the level of co-operation between the IT colleges, in particular? In view of the fact that we will have a falling number of secondary students, the market for third level colleges will get smaller and more competitive. I would like to hear the comments of members of the delegation on how it is proposed to overcome that problem.

Chairman

I have four speakers listed but some of them, including Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, have to leave to attend other meetings.

A Deputy

He spoke.

Chairman

Yes, but he could not wait for a response to his comments.

Deputy Crowe

We are discussing funding. Is it true that there is no structure in place for institutes of technology to receive endowments? I presume the Department is largely responsible for that area. How can this issue be overcome? Would it be a more favourable option for the IT colleges to be brought under the remit of the Higher Education Authority? Would that help to create a more even development between the IT and university sectors?

Deputy Enright

Senator Minihan referred to PhD graduates. I presume the sectors are reaching their full capacity and that they cannot take in any more PhD students, or perhaps that presumption is not correct. I acknowledge that funding is also an issue. Will members of the delegation explain the reasons we are at this point, on which our assumptions are based? The representatives of the institutes of technology probably picked up on an error I made when I referred to people choosing where they want to go; I meant to say information technology rather than institutes of technology.

Chairman

When representatives of Science Foundation Ireland appeared before the committee in April one of the speakers made the point that the Irish third level sector is perhaps unattractive at the higher level because of the salary structure and how appointments are made. I am sure the delegates will all agree on the aspect of the salary structure. That speaker did not develop on how appointments are made, but it was an interesting point. On that occasion the representatives referred to a programme, which was also referred to in Dublin Castle last Wednesday, to provide for a small number of science teachers to visit laboratories and the delegates' sector also had an involvement in that programme. The point was made that perhaps one of the reasons science subjects are less attractive to students is that things have changed quickly and teachers have become in some cases disconnected or at least would benefit from renewing an acquaintance with the college sector. Do the delegates envisage they have a role in that regard or is that the case?

At the conference in Dublin Castle last Wednesday considerable reference was made to the need to create a critical mass in the area of research. It is not clear what role, if any, the third level sector might have in that regard. For the information of those who did not attend the conference in Dublin Castle, some of the science teachers who had been on the programme spoke to the gathering and were extremely impressed by the impact of having been exposed to work in laboratories and the direction in which science and technology and all that area is moving at the highest level. I do not know whether Dr. Hegarty made the point in the form of a question or an answer that PhD graduates seem to be inclined to stay on at research in university and how they might perhaps be encouraged to make a contribution in another area.

There are many questions and I do not expect the delegates will be able to address all of them. This is the beginning of a dialogue between their sector and the committee in this area. Some of the questions raised do not refer directly to the specific business before us but we might have an opportunity in the future to meet both groups to discuss other areas that were touched on by some speakers. In so far as possible I ask that the delegates confine their answers to the research and science area generally. If they wish to send additional information, the committee would consider it at a future date. I call on Mr. Hannigan to respond.

Mr. Hannigan

I thank the members of the committee for their questions. There is a good deal of information to get through in terms of the questions that have been posed. The fundamental one from our point of view — this was raised by a number of members — is the need for a national policy framework. We have requested that as part of an expert working group we put together in the institutes of technology in the past 18 months. We published the report in May 2003, which specifically sought the development of a national policy framework by the Department of Education and Science and that all higher educational institutions would operate within that policy framework. That answers many of the questions on how we will try to pull things together. Only last week there was a colloquium between the institutes of technology, the HEA, the universities and the Department of Education and Science, and progress is being made in that respect. That is an important development in terms of what is happening.

I would like to clarify some of the issues that arose from our point of view. We did not come here this morning to cry the poor mouth on this issue. Our position is that we are very active in research currently in terms of collaborations with Enterprise Ireland and with small and medium-sized enterprises within our own regions, which is important. Another point we need to stress is that the institutes of technology have attracted industry into the regions. It is because of the institutes of technology that companies have set up in the regions. In Letterkenny, for example, two organisations have set up in the past three years. They now employ 600 people, 40% of whom are graduates of the institute of technology in Letterkenny. Those organisations would not have been set up if the institution was not in place there. That must be respected in terms of where we are coming from. In regard to the questions on whether there should be specialist research institutions, the contribution that has been made in the regional dimension has to be considered.

With respect to our own solutions, we have been successful in attracting research funding. Our issue is trying to develop this. When academic staff are successful in terms of bringing research funding into the institute they often ask me where it will be allocated. That is the problem. These are active people who are interested in developing this research but then we have to consider the physical facilities needed to support it. We need help in that area and, to clarify the position, we are seeking 10% of what is spent on the PRTLI in terms of capital. That would give us a good start in terms of where we are coming from. Perhaps Dr. Collins would like to speak on a number of issues.

Dr. Tom Collins

I would like to make some brief comments in response to some of the questions raised. The links with industry were raised extensively. Within our own IT sector, there is a position of head of development. The head of development on the management side of the college is a member of a senior management team, made up of typically six or seven people, of every institute. As part of his or her brief, he or she has a specific task of supporting industry in the region. It is not, in a sense, an add-on or a discretionary function of the institutes. It is a senior central management function built into the institute which recognises the role and responsibilities the institute has for supporting industry.

The second point is that industry is increasingly looking to us at two levels. It looks for immediate solutions, more development than research solutions, so to speak. It has a development idea and a concept but it is not fully sure how to bring it to market. It is at that stage, typically, that industry interacts with us. It tends not to interact with us — I am not sure if it does so, or how extensively it does so, with the university sector — at blue sky sunrise developments, but it certainly does so at close-to-market side. There is a need for closer, joined-up thinking between the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Department of Education and Science on this matter. The Department of Education and Science funds us to employ teaching staff. It does not fund us to employ any other kind of staff and this is a significant problem. We have no mechanism for recognising or rewarding staff who get involved with industry at the close-to-market side, nor, particularly, have we have any mechanism for recruiting staff at that side.

The third point in this regard has to do with whether everybody can do it — whether every village can have its own hospital. It is an important question and it can be addressed in two ways. I have worked both in the university sector and in the institute of technology sector. It is imperative for every institution at higher education level to feel that it can maximise its potential and arbitrary barriers imposed on its natural instinct to grow are akin to the kind of tariffs that were imposed on native Irish industry when it could not export during the economic war. It would be a recipe for stagnation, apathy and death.

I was surprised to hear one of the members express concern that there may be competition between us. I would be worried if there was not competition between us. We have a responsibility to our region, to second level students and to mature students to be dynamic, to grow our provision and to be responsive to their needs. The constant difficulty we encounter with our parent Department is that when we try to do this, the Department usually intervenes to restrict us.

A question was asked as to whether we would like to move into the HEA. The answer is yes because of the artificial limitations that are placed on our capacity to respond to need on the one hand and to grow our service and our range of activity on the other.

There is a key problem with the distribution of research funding in the way it is managed currently at a couple of levels in Ireland. The fundamental problem is that while it rewards excellence as it should, it does not sufficiently address the business of growing excellence. I am concerned that there are inadequate funding streams to support sectors which in a sense are at the early stages of their development in adopting a research agenda. I accept that not every institute or university can be excellent in everything, but increasingly colleges within our own sector are identifying areas in which they intend to specialise. They recognise they cannot grow everything. However, they recognise that if they can grow something like the biotechnology area in association with local industry, they will create an integrated cluster of higher education and dynamic industrial development. Our college in Dundalk has a centre for renewable energy. We established it three years ago recognising that the issue to which Deputy Gogarty referred was emerging and increasingly urgent. However, we have received no support or funding for this initiative from our parent Department.

Equally, we have focused on the area of linking the arts and technology. It is important when we have an industry focus that we do not forget that increasingly the economy can be driven by a focus on humanities, on artistic development and on cultural development. One of the strong reasons the institutes of technology are interested in developing those aspects is that they can provide a synergy with technological developments.

One of the features of our sector is that we serve a population of students, many of whom do not get six A1 grades in the leaving certificate. Many of them are gifted but, because of their social background and the economic opportunities their parents' generation had, the possibilities to realise their giftedness have not been apparent at second level. At third level, we can address that if we are given the resources to do it. Part of the challenge in modern Ireland is to be able to provide research role models from student populations which never produced such role models previously, and I think we can do this.

Dr. Michael Delaney

I will address a few of the specific points made. It is obviously difficult to be comprehensive but I will try to deal with a few issues and take up the point my colleague was making about excellence. The institutes of technology are not interested in anything other than excellence. Reference was made to research institutions and whether an institute of technology is a research institution. That is a broad classification. I would ask the following questions. Has a particular institution an expertise in a focused area? Has it a reputation for excellence in an area that is of relevance to the country and is supportive of the economic, cultural or social life in the country and in the region in which it functions? Some of the relatively small institutes of technology have achieved excellence in niche areas and this should not be forgotten.

Collaboration was mentioned a number of times. Given the right incentive, there is collaboration both between the institutes and between the institutes and the universities. We can cite many examples of this.

On the specifics of where funds come from, notwithstanding our veiled criticism here and there of our parent Department of Education and Science, we must give credit for the funding under the technological sector research strand. In particular, the value for money and the outputs from strands two and three of that programme across the institutes, including the DIT, has been significant.

Strand two covers enterprise development. Reference was made to the impact on local industry. Many companies functioning in the regions are products of that programme.

Strand three is a capacity building programme and unfortunately from our point of view, as our chairman of the council referred to, it is poorly funded. There are many programmes proposed every year that are not capable of being funded.

On the issue of technology transfer, reference was made to the University Atlantic Alliance with which I would be familiar. TecNet, within the institute sector, is one example where the specific brief is the building of networks between institutes, not necessarily always between all 13 or 14 institutes but between clusters of institutes. There are many examples of this, for instance, Dr. Donnelly, my colleague from Waterford, heads up a cluster or network in the telecommunications area.

Senator Burke made a point about mandatory placements. I do not know how relevant this is to research, although it has some relevance for our links with industry. Many of our certificate and degree programmes involve mandatory placement in industry and in the workplace as part of their work experience requirement. I would utter a word of caution in that regard. If one states it is mandatory, one must guarantee it to students.

There is an issue of funding. One of the issues about which we have had to be careful is that industry has not always stepped up to the plate in that regard. We have had to be innovative with regard to funding those types of programmes. Certainly a feature of my experience of the institutes of technology is that mandatory placement is very much part and parcel of our programmes.

Dr. Hegarty

There is much here for us to mull over later. It is not possible to answer all the questions but perhaps I will address a few. One of the points emerging may be encapsulated in the following questions. Can all of the institutions aspire to the same thing? How does one get to the top decile of OECD countries? How does one balance competition within the universities, within institutes of technologies and between all of those, with collaboration?

Having been involved in research for half my life before experiencing university in the United States, I must state that research is not easy. It is a tough proposition to carry out research that will make an impact. Unless it makes an impact, one can forget it. There are approximately 23 institutions here and it does not make sense for all of them to become world-class institutions in every respect. We must, therefore, look at a different model, of which there are a number. The authorities in the United States would state, for example, that it has perhaps 50 top-class universities out of many thousands and that they can only afford one per 10 million of population. Where does that leave Ireland and what does it mean?

Can any institution aspire to operate at the level to which I refer? If the answer is yes, that is fine. We all probably aspire to do so. Another model to consider is, perhaps, a distributive system that could, as a whole, aspire to operate at that level. There are different activities in each institution and when these are all put together they constitute a world-class system. However, it would still be small. How could we achieve this, co-ordinate it, avoid duplication, etc.? It is a tough issue with which to deal.

On the balance of funding, there was a reference to too much funding going in one direction and not enough going in the other. By definition, the distribution of research funding will be uneven. To try to make it even would be to destroy the entire concepts of quality, competitiveness and international review. It is not even within any institution, nor should it be. We should scrap that idea. Unless it is awarded competitively, on foot of international review and with the highest standards, then it will be a bad investment. This means that some areas will lose while others will gain. It will depend very much on what one is talking about and so on. That is my main point about good investment.

For different institutions, one should consider different roles. We do not need 23 similar institutions; we need 23 different institutions. All the universities must be different from each other. Why should they be the same? We need diversity rather than sameness. Achieving that diversity will be important, otherwise the country will not be well served. There are issues of serving local, national and international needs. Any one institution cannot serve all of these needs, nor should it be expected to. Institutions should be asked to state what it is they will not do as much as what they will do. That is a tough proposition. Who will state that they will not be involved? However, that is what we need to do.

There was reference to national needs versus what it is that students opt for or the research individuals choose to pursue. How do we match those needs with the freedom of students to choose or that of academic staff to decide what research they wish to pursue? I do not see that as a problem. Students are very smart and they are voting with their feet. Today they are voting for a broader education than they did in the past and they are right to do so because it will provide them with greater flexibility later on. We should follow what students want.

The question was asked as to how we match research with national needs. The calibre of people to whom I refer, who will be the drivers of research, also have good instincts about what is viable, what problems exist and what the country needs. I would trust them to search those out. I do not see a difficulty in this area. The track record across the entire higher education sector during the past 20 years in responding to national needs has been excellent in terms of the provision of skills and perhaps also in the area of ICT. Members need only consider how the universities and institutes of technology responded during the past 20 years to designated skills needs. The numbers expanded tremendously in response to national need. Research is also now expanding in response to national need. There is flexibility in the system in terms of responding to national needs. One cannot dictate it. If one tries to write it down on paper, one will ruin matters.

The issue of capacity was raised and I was asked how we would generate an additional 3,000 PhDs. It was stated that 8,000 is what we really need. The capacity in existence at present is capable of generating half of those 8,000. It is the balance that is the problem. We cannot just take in more PhD students. We need top-class people to supervise them. These are the calibre of people about whom I am talking. There is a bottleneck in terms of increasing that capacity. There is also the issue of facilities. World-class people will not come to Ireland to work in lousy facilities. That has been our experience. If these are all put together, there is a price tag attached. That is the way I would approach it. We must think first about the people we need and the facilities required and then calculate the cost, rather than doing things the other way around. Money is an enabler, it is not the end goal.

We talk about management, etc. Every institution is involved in significant change in terms of evaluating management practices and considering all aspects of how they carry out their business. If members read the newspapers during the past year, they will have seen that there has been a great deal of such activity. Change is necessary.

I was asked very specific questions but I tried to pick out just a few matters on which to concentrate.

Dr. Ferdinand von Prondzynski

There are a number of threads that ran through the questions and Dr. Hegarty is correct that we cannot deal with all of them now. Perhaps we could forward answers to some of them to the committee at a later date. There were some recurring themes, one or two of which may be worth pursuing.

A concern that has the capacity to derail planning was expressed in a number of the questions. I refer to questions about inter-institutional collaboration and competition, equity between institutions, etc. As a national system, the major objective we need to pursue is the achievement of excellence. We must ensure that we are equipped to provide excellence through our own institutions, through the people who are already in the country and who can be trained up further and, to the extent we can do so, through recruiting into the country people who are able to add further to that. All of this can be derailed to a considerable extent if we spend all our energies worrying about our institutional security. Equally, spreading scarce resources around a system so thinly that wherever they were deployed, they would make no difference could derail it.

The answer to this has, in part, already been found, although it has not perhaps been referred to adequately at this meeting. The system we have been working with for a number of years operates on the basis that we are identifying clusters or centres of excellence and are funding those to the extent that it is possible to do so and only to the extent that they represent excellence. That is not specifically institution-based so, for example, almost all of the PRTLI centres referred to earlier are very definitely inter-institutional. They take in a lead institution that will act as the administrator of a programme but, typically, a number of other institutions will also be partners in that. For example, my university, like many other institutions, is both a junior and senior partner in different projects. The same is true of the SFI grants that have been disbursed.

Each of these programmes, whether they are funded by the PRTLI, SFI or other means, represents international excellence and picks up from across the country those people who are capable of adding value to them. That is the system that should continue. We should be rigorously excellence-based wherever we can. The way to achieve that is to continue to encourage institutions to collaborate with each other and to do so without engaging in institutional jealousy. We have got better at this. I am not stating that we are good at it but we have become much better. That is true not just within each sub-sector or within the university and institutes of technology sector, it is also the case between the sectors. Every PRTLI initiative to which we are a party, for example, includes one or more institutes of technology. That is the way to go. We should not, however, compromise on excellence. I fully agree with Dr. Hughes that it is a mistake to invest money in a venture simply for the purpose of creating equity which does not meet the target of international excellence. That is a waste of money and it does not matter in those circumstances whether the allocation goes to a university or institute or a combination of the two.

I had a life changing experience approximately ten years ago when I visited the Raleigh-Durham research triangle in North Carolina which I am aware committee members have also attended. North Carolina was a backward rural economy until the collaboration emerged between the universities which make up the research triangle, industry and the North Carolina state government. It transformed the state from being a rural backwater to not only being a research intensive, industrial research and development centre but also the second financial centre of the United States. Charlotte, the other main city in North Carolina, is the second financial centre in the United States after New York.

That experience which has been replicated in other equally and less ambitious projects demonstrates what became known as the triple helix, the collaboration between industry, universities and government in achieving excellence in research and development. This can make a difference way beyond the participating institutions by generating significant economic growth and major benefits for society. There is the raw material for this in Ireland. We have learned the techniques of collaboration effectively in the last few years but a strategic discussion platform for the further planning of a triple helix is not in place. For example, universities and institutes of technology are too often seen as service providers for somebody else's objectives.

We need to be seen as partners in planning, not just deliverers of the implementation for such a strategy to succeed. Parts of the State system have understood this and are operating accordingly. That is true of agencies such as the SFI and increasingly true of the IDA and Enterprise Ireland. However, this has not got through to Government. There is an urgent need to develop thinking in order that universities are seen as partners in the exercise. Universities are well versed in industry collaboration. SFI schemes, in particular, which have often required such collaboration have made a major difference and industry is rising to the challenge increasingly.

It is correct that indigenous industry has not benefited or participated in the same way. However, we are working on this, if not yet with the correct volumes. Virtually all our institutions have innovation centres which are partly geared towards developing indigenous enterprise and, ultimately, research and development successes. We can collaborate between ourselves further to add value but it is under way. I fully agree major emphasis needs to be placed on this area. We are vulnerable if we rely wholly on imported excellence. We need to develop our own track record which also includes encouraging overseas companies which have invested here to permit local management to take more research and development initiatives.

Reference was made to off-campus initiatives, in other words, taking initiatives from universities to an industry based environment. That is entirely desirable. Initiatives supported by a number of institutions are ongoing. They probably could do with more publicity and a higher profile. It will be inevitable for some institutions because they have run out of building space. That is true of my university, for example. We cannot build further on our campus. We have used all available land and need to go outside the campus to develop initiatives. Often an industry location is the correct one to develop a research and development initiative.

We have been involved, as have a number of other institutions, in discussions around this, some of which have led to high profile investments. Trinity College has been a recent leader in one area. A number of actions are taking place in areas about which members have expressed concerns but strategic co-ordination is missing which, in part, perhaps reflects a number of the questions asked. There are satisfactory answers to these questions but there is no forum where these issues can be debated. Such national co-ordination between the institutions, Government and industry needs to be developed further.

Dr. John Hughes

Many issues have been covered. The issue of the declining interest in science and mathematics in schools and its impact was raised by a number of members. It is a serious issue. I recently moved from the United Kingdom to Ireland. I saw this happening in the United Kingdom and little has been done to address it. Ireland has not reached the crisis point that has been reached in the United Kingdom, particularly in regard to mathematics but also in regard to a number of basic science subjects. We must all work on this. The universities are doing a great deal. Reference was made to a number of innovations at DCU. Summer camps in science are provided by a number of universities but it is a basic problem. The teachers' scheme run by the SFI was a tremendous innovation but it needs to be expanded because it only involves 30 teachers. That is a major threat to the future of research and development in Ireland and must be addressed at all levels — schools, institutes of technology and universities.

Chairman

I thank all the representatives and members who contributed. It has been an enlightening meeting.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.30 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Thursday, 16 September 2004.