Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE debate -
Thursday, 31 Jan 2008

Role and Functions: Discussion with Science Foundation Ireland.

I welcome Professor Frank Gannon, chief executive officer, and Mr. Mattie McCabe, director of the office of secretariat and external relations at Science Foundation Ireland. I ask Professor Gannon to give a short presentation on the role and functions of the foundation. We have had some dealings with the foundation during the lifetime of the last committee and value its work very much.

I draw the attention of the delegation to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to those appearing before the committee. Members are once again 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 in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Time is running on so I do not propose to take questions from members of the committee unless they are very brief ten-second interventions. I ask Professor Gannon to begin his presentation.

Professor Frank Gannon

I thank the Chairman and the Senators and Deputies on the committee. It is a pleasure to be here at this meeting, which is my first opportunity to address the Oireachtas in any way like this. Having returned from Germany where I spent 15 years, it is great to have this opportunity to address the committee.

I wish to make it clear that we are an agency under the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. At the same time, we are totally interdependent with the higher education institutes because that is where much of our work is carried out. Hence the appropriateness of our being here today.

Science Foundation Ireland was set up to fill a gap in the system. There is a need in the increasingly sophisticated world in which industry is working to have higher quality people trained, more people with PhDs and higher quality research performed such that there are opportunities for spin-offs or intellectual property but, more specifically, to make high-quality industry with an interest in research more attracted to Ireland.

We have funding of the order of €1.4 billion in the national development plan up to 2013, so we have a major responsibility with the discharge of that money. We are not working in isolation. In particular, we work very closely with the IDA, Enterprise Ireland and the Higher Education Authority. We have made many strong linkages with those agencies to ensure we have a joined-up team Ireland approach to this.

We are asked to numerically deliver a certain number of PhDs and research groups. This is one of the aspects of the strategy for science technology and innovation, SSTI, the programme that is the basis of our work. We support about 300 groups around Ireland at a major level and a further 450 at a minor level as a component of their funding. We support about 700 postdocs and probably support about 1,500 PhDs in the system. Numerically, we are meeting all of our goals, which is an important aspect. In doing so, we work with the universities. Outcomes from that in the short term can be measured as papers, outcomes in the medium term can be measured as people and outcomes in the longer term in be measured in the industrial and economic consequences.

The industrial consequences are beginning to happen very rapidly. I will not quote chapter and verse on this but the document prepared for distribution gives some figures. We are dealing with up to 250 to 300 companies in the last year's report so there is considerable interaction that we would have expected from this funding that is happening.

Points that may be of particular interest to this committee include the question of space in the higher education institutes. There is a predictable requirement for space. If one multiplies the size of a group by the number of people by the square metres, one ends up with a figure. Getting that figure is the task of the Higher Education Authority, particularly through the programme for research in third-level institutions, the PRTLI, system. We have communicated as much as possible with the authority in terms of prediction. However, its decision are made for the long term. Our hope is that it will make them taking into account the requirements of the SSTI, which are, of course, competing with other requirements in third and fourth level education and research itself.

It is worthwhile being aware of the fact that the third-level education system is the cornerstone of many different things and we must nourish it well. If there is no adequate time and space for the research agenda, it will not be done anywhere else, other than perhaps some sections of Teagasc. This is something with which we are concerned.

Areas in which we are engaged to a lesser extent include the pipeline. This is a major question, relating as it does to from where the science will come. Some will come from outside but, of course, those who are developing in Ireland are the most important. We have a small input into that. Some of it comprises shared activity from the centres for science, engineering and technology, the CSETs. They spend about 5% of their budget on outreach. We launched a website during the week from one of them. We have had competitions and debates, all the things one wants to generate excitement and interest. We will continue to do that through those and other activities, targeting the secondary school teachers. There is much work to be done there and it is not only our work. However, we are very conscious of that.

This is a good opportunity to make some contact with the committee. We would like to reactivate an action called Friends of Science where we were available to talk to those Members of the Oireachtas who were interested in scientific topics. As it is now a cornerstone of the future economy beyond education, it is a very important topic and we will be coming back to the committee to present opportunities for it.

It can be resurrected and, no doubt, Mr. McCabe will work on that.

Professor Frank Gannon

Excellent.

Professor Gannon has finished his presentation early. I wish every Deputy could be like that. There is time for Senator Healy Eames.

I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question. I thank Professor Gannon for his time and presentation. As I understand it, there is little or no evidence of a link between the investment through the NDP — more than €600 million and €1.4 billion in the previous and current plans, respectively — and innovation. This is a serious claim to make. I am aware of research and possess a PhD. Often, there can be little linkage between study and theory and practice. The links may not be put into operation, but we need to see a result for this type of investment, as Professor Gannon will appreciate.

I have a practical proposal. The BT Young Scientist and Technology Exhibition is successful every year. Involved this year were 14 or 15 schools from County Galway. The excitement and peer interaction was palpable in the RDS. Considering how we are trying to build a knowledge society and we have had difficulty attracting people into the sciences, it would have been exciting had every school in Ireland participated. My proposal is to devolve the model to a county or regional level. I have discussed this matter previously, but resources at either of those levels are required to give support. Science Foundation Ireland could not engage secondary schools in a better way than to make investment in that regard. Would our guests consider it?

Professor Frank Gannon

As someone from Galway, it was good to hear some of the Senator's questions, two of which were important. I will deal with the second question first. I am aware of the Galway science week, representatives of which I met last week. They had the idea for an exploratorium or something of that nature. Capturing the magic of the BT Young Scientist and Technology Exhibition, which I attended, is essential. We must ask ourselves what puts the light out. I do not know whether it is the curriculum because I am not in the system. Is it the shift of emphasis or is it the magic of competition that drives people to do things? This is not what the exhibition is supposed to be about, but it works. We should be fully engaged in this matter, but it is not our task alone and we should work with the Department of Education and Science. There is a question of where the boundaries are, but we will answer it.

On the substantive question regarding the lack of a link with innovation, the Senator's comments are based on a recent study by economists for which I have a response in press. To say there is no link with innovation is an unusual outcome and is against the trends of every Government. If there is no link, why are the industries coming to work with all of the scientists with whom we deal? As an extreme, it could be the case that the scientists with whom we work are doing fine whereas the industry is not making the connection. Approximately 250 industries work with our scientists and 45 are engaged in putting money into joint scientific projects in the established C-Sets. A further 48 industries have joined the new series of strategic research clusters, of which we announced 12 last year. The industries are acting as if it is not true that there is no connection with innovation.

Perhaps its outcomes are not seen or it is not being pushed out.

Professor Frank Gannon

That may or may not be true. The survey was conducted in 2004, when funding for science was just starting. There is a direct link between many things, but an indirect link between science and the outcome. There is a cause and effect in one case, but there is a cause, a pause and an effect in science. Scientific strength must be grown first through skill and people to have an output. I could twist that report on its head and ask whether it states such a situation would occur were there no support for science, namely, a third level sector that is not sufficiently strong, robust or adequate for the task of providing the transfer into the industries. In 2004, that was the approximate situation.

The connections exist. The judgment about whether innovation occurs may be subjective, which was the survey's. The timing was early and every evidence points in the other direction. The conclusion people have drawn that Ireland should not follow this road is challenging for every Government. Industries in Ireland are no worse or better than industries around the world. Statistics have shown that, as with funding, we are better than the world average in terms of the people conducting research. It is an unusual and early survey and more robust analysis is necessary before we draw strategic conclusions.

I am a strong supporter of the need for research and development. For this reason, I was disappointed with the result. While I welcome Professor Gannon's comments — he is on the button in that sense — we must measure the results of our investment carefully.

Professor Frank Gannon

I agree with the Senator. Careful and correct measurement comprise one aspect. If the Senator gets the opportunity, she should examine Enterprise Ireland and, in particular, IDA reports. Their major incoming growth areas are research, development and innovation. Companies are coming in and consolidating existing companies through the research agenda, which is matched by the Irish scientists we support.

Regarding the measurement of innovation, did anything change in that industry because of a contact with a university? Maybe, maybe not, but people have been trained, moved into industries and are innovating internally. One cannot take away that credit.

I thank Professor Gannon for his response and Mr. McCabe for his attendance and ongoing support of science within the Houses of the Oireachtas. I thank Senator Healy Eames, to whom I showed leeway given her professional background.

There will be further opportunities for a more robust examination of science and research and development, not just within the education system but under the Department's remit. I do not doubt that Professor Gannon will be in attendance again. Given his recent appointment, it was important that he introduce himself to committee members. I hope this meeting was early enough — it was our first after the recess. I thank Professor Gannon for being so brief and for being comprehensive and I wish him and his colleagues well.

Professor Frank Gannon

It was a pleasure.

The committee will adjourn until 14 February when Department of Education and Science officials will brief it on the new model of primary school education, a briefing we have long awaited, and on the progress made in the Department's recently established buildings unit.

The joint committee adjourned at 12.10 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 14 February 2008.
Top
Share