JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENTERPRISE AND SMALL BUSINESS debate -
Thursday, 1 Feb 2007

Research Groups: Discussion with Science Foundation Ireland.

Chairman

I welcome Professor Mark Keane, director general, and Mr. Mattie McCabe, director secretariat and external relations, from Science Foundation Ireland.

Before inviting Professor Keane to commence his presentation, I draw attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not extend to witnesses. Members are also 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 Professor Keane and call on him to make his presentation.

Professor Mark Keane

I thank the Chairman and other members of the joint committee. It is an honour to be asked to talk to the committee about Science Foundation Ireland. We regularly meet quite a few Deputies and Senators in the Friends of Science group. Obviously, they are the people who are paying for all that we do so we are very interested to come here and present our views. I will talk briefly for approximately five or ten minutes. Members may interrupt me if they have any questions during my presentation. I will assume no deep knowledge about the topic.

Chairman

Professor Keane should make his presentation to the Chair first, after which we will have a question and answer session.

Professor Keane

Okay. I will talk a bit about the past to contextualise where we are and, before concluding, I will talk about the key issue the committee has raised about the retention of research groups. With regard to the past, members may or may not be aware that in 1999, we had a Foresight report which reviewed where Ireland was in the research and development space and where it should go in terms of scientific research. That group identified information and communications technologies, ICT, and biotechnologies as the two target areas in which we should work.

The first national development plan, NDP, between 2000 and 2005 invested €1.3 billion in science research, about half that being handled by the Higher Education Authority, HEA, for buildings and capital improvements in the third level sector, and the other half being spent on researchers. SFI has largely been responsible for the latter half in that period. Up to 2005, we disbursed about €650 million which has paid for about 1,200 researchers in 140 individual research groups. That constituency of 1,200 includes 200 lead scientists or principal investigators — PIs as we call them — 500 PhDs and 500 postdoctoral researchers, people who move on from a PhD to a research position for three to six years. That is the sort of group we are worrying about retaining in some way.

The second NDP programme was announced recently which, under the strategy for science, technology and innovation, SSTI, will spend €3.8 billion over the next five to seven years. SFI will be responsible for a lot of what could be called the people part of that, accounting for approximately €1.3 billion of that spend. The figures I have provided for 2005 have moved on a bit to a spend of approximately €750 million, funding 2,000 researchers at this stage. That is the general context within which we are working.

The key issue is attracting and retaining these people. The standard research group is a hierarchy in the medieval, feudal sense. At the top is a lead scientist or principal investigator, a PI. Beneath that are a number of post-doctoral people who are the middle management of the group. At the bottom, one has postgraduates, PhD and MA students. We are worrying about how one can allow people to build up such groups and retain the people in them over time.

There is no mystery as to how one does it. I would see three key things as being critical. The first and most important thing in science is always the international reputation of the researchers involved. If one does not have an international researcher, one will not attract people to, or retrain them in, the work one does. Science is a globalised business and one has to be the best in the world at it. If one is the best in the world, then people beat a path to one's door to work.

The second requirement is money to fund those people, so a stable and robust funding environment is needed. There must be an assurance that this country is committed to investing in the area, and that if people come here there will be a future for them. The third and final element that is important to the retention of such people is that there are prospects. Like anyone else, they will ask what the job prospects are. PhD students will look forward to see if there are postdoctoral opportunities for them. Postdoctoral researchers will examine whether there are academic possibilities for them. They will want to know if there are jobs in research and development companies in this country. Those three elements come together as the key attributes that will help us to attract and retain people. I see those as being the key factors.

One may step back and ask why are we doing all this. Members may wish to pose questions with regard to enterprise and I will elaborate on that later. It is similar to the Lemass-type investment in third level education in the 1960s through to the 1970s. There was a certain point at which we said that second level education should be free, which was important. There was another point at which we said that third level education should be free. Now we are looking at what is sometimes referred to as the fourth level, which is research and development at PhD level. We realise that to be an advanced, developed western economy, we must have a fully funded sector at that level as well. If we do not, there will be serious repercussions. Currently, we do not really look like a mature economy. We have certain things which are well developed while other areas are over-developed. The research and development part of it is an innovation and a key ideas generation for the enterprise sector. If we do not get it right soon, there will be long-term consequences for the robustness of our economy.

Chairman

I wish to raise two points. Professor Keane asked whether there were jobs. In yesterday's newspapers we read that 14,000 such positions cannot be filled. In one of the Sunday papers, I saw eight or nine pages of advertisements for well-paid positions. From that point of view, Ireland was never in such an advantageous position on the jobs front as it is now. I would like Professor Keane to comment on that.

We are told that 60% of our workforce will have to be upskilled to meet the demands in 2020. As Professor Keane quite correctly said, research and development is very important. In representing this committee, I accompanied the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, on a trade mission to China, India and the Middle East. I have learned a lot about the challenges that face our country, especially from low-wage economies. In such areas, one can employ 20 people for the cost of one wage in Ireland. As a small country, we have achieved more in the past 20 years than any other country in the world. Everywhere we go they all want to know how Ireland turned its economy around and how they can achieve the same results.

What can Ireland do to attract the innovative scientific brains of Europe to come here and use this country as a base? I will explain why I am posing the question. I went to Waterloo University outside Toronto in Canada where the BlackBerry technology was created by three young men. One of their fathers loaned them 100,000 Canadian dollars, which is roughly €50,000. They invented the most dynamic piece of technology that anyone who wants to be efficient now possesses.

I further researched how Waterloo University's campus was created. It was created simply by changing the regulations and the law on intellectual property. I did not have the privilege of attending university, but I understand that when one takes a science course in any university, one must sign over one's intellectual property rights to that particular educational institution. That is not the case in Waterloo University, however, which allows its creative innovators to be the owners of the intellectual property in perpetuity. However, the university requests that over the first 15, 25 or 30 years, it will be given an opportunity to acquire 30% to 50%. The chances are the technology will be out of date within that time. The underlying fact is that campus is attracting the brains of America and Canada. The success rate is much higher and the country is benefiting. The Canadian Parliament is very close to the Irish one, given that more than 25% of its members are less than fourth generation Irish. I ask Professor Keane that question because this is his field and he is the expert. We only act as the conduit for Government to Science Foundation Ireland. As parliamentarians, we want to do the right thing. There have never been as many resources available to help.

Surely, there is some strategy we could adopt or direction in which we could go. We face challenges from India, China and other such destinations in terms of the cost of wages and remaining competitive. A major change in policy is required and I suggested inviting the brains of Europe to come to Ireland. Why should all these eminent scientists from Europe not come to Ireland if it becomes an attractive base in which the intellectual property rights of their creations will be in their ownership and that of their families for 70 years after the product has been created? I would like to hear Professor Keane's views in that regard.

Professor Keane

When we learned about industries in geography, we used to talk about the important factors for the location of industry. In Lancashire, the damp climate and the availability of large numbers of sheep were mentioned. Those types of locational factors do not exist anymore. There is really one resource, that is, talent and brainpower. Every country realises this and the focus of activity in the world economy will be in the places which can muster the best brain power, attract the best people and show they are the generators of the key ideas and then exploit them in some way.

The Chairman is right that we must create sets of incentives which give us some type of edge over other places. We are doing many of the right types of things. One of the key things Science Foundation Ireland does is to try to keep the bureaucracy to a minimum in respect of the research awards we fund. We evaluate them very tightly and quickly but we ensure researchers do not spend all their time filling out forms and so on. That gives us quite an edge over many of the longer-established research bodies which exist throughout Europe. In that sense, this is increasingly a more attractive location.

There is always room to do other things. The Chairman is right to pick on the IP issue, and Waterloo is increasingly a case in point. What distinguishes Waterloo as a university is that it is a very entrepreneurial innovation base. It is a very different type of university to most of the others, even in Canada. Part of our view has always been to try to develop a similar ethos across the Irish system. We are starting to see change in that direction.

The issue of IP is central. There have been proposals in the past about centralising the handling of IP in some way. At present, most of the institutions do so themselves. This is an area in which significant expertise is important. It is possibly an area in which we, as a small country, could get an edge by handling it in a deep, central way and, as the Chairman said, by creating incentives for the inventors as well. There are incentives in the third level system at present. Some people argue they are not sufficient. The inventors get a percentage of the royalties. I am not sure whether that is driving the system forward as quickly as we would like.

Deputy Quinn

It is good to see both gentlemen again. I am one of the breakfast club that occasionally meets in Buswell's Hotel and at which we get fascinating presentations. This year's Young Scientist of the Year is the son of a Somalian refugee and attends Synge Street, which would be classified as a disadvantaged school area. I do not understand what he did but it was clearly brilliant and very sophisticated. What happens to a guy like that? Does Science Foundation Ireland have a special fund which ensures he gets to the right type of place and that he and his family are supported? If, for example, he has a grandmother in Somalia who is trying to get into this country, God love her because she will not get past the praetorian guard in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and we could lose that person as a result.

My second question is based on briefings with industrialists. We have an immigration work permit system but even allowing for the recent improvement, it can take up to six to nine months to get an Indian research scientist into any IT company, Irish or international. If any of us applied for Irish citizenship, we would have to wait six months if we were lucky. Professor Keane might outline his experience in this regard because international talent will flow elsewhere. The United States of America has the most open door in terms of attracting people.

The IDA, when head hunting companies to invest in Ireland, went down the "Paddy" list. It looked at Irish names in Fortune 500 companies and cold called companies with which it had no connection but in which it could see an Irish name among the top three or four senior management people. It made a call on St. Patrick's Day or on another day to try to access the company. The person could have been fourth generation American and three quarters German but his or her surname was Murphy. Is there any merit in doing something similar in the intellectual research world, asking people if they want to come home and perhaps offering an IP job if they qualified for it?

Professor Keane

There is much merit in it. Enterprise Ireland, for example, funds a group called TechLink in the UK which has generated quite a flow of leading scientists back to Ireland. It is critical and important to support anything to do with such networks. It never seems like an obvious thing to do. However, the gains can be considerable. We should do more in that regard. One of the main measures at which people look in regard to excellence in the innovation science field is mobility, that is, the mobility of people in and out of the country and the building of international networks around that.

In regard to immigration, five years ago the situation was difficult but it has become appreciably better. We are sometimes helped at the postgraduate level because people are students and it is much easier for them. However, if one looks at our cohort of the 500 or so postdoctoral people, approximately 60% of them have come from abroad in the past while. It is always an area in which improvements can be made. The problem is establishing the criteria in such a way that it does not result in mistakes being made. We probably have a system which is slightly more conservative than it needs to be.

Deputy Quinn

Perhaps Professor Keane could write to us or elaborate on that at some future date because time is tight.

Professor Keane

Yes.

In regard to the Young Scientist of the Year, I noticed the exact same thing last year. One of the winning groups was from Synge Street — again working in the area of algorithms and so on. There was one Russian, two Indians and a Somalian. This is a concrete case of what we are talking about in terms of flows of talent.

Immigration is generating a flow of people into the country who will be part of the future of what we do. We have spoken about specifically supporting young scientists by perhaps bringing them into Science Foundation Ireland for a day or two and introducing them to people. One of the important issues, which is not to be sniffed at, is free education at third level. While it could be better targeted at times in terms of who benefits from it, it is a very important benefit relative to many other places in the world. I hope someone like that young scientist will find a place in our third level sector.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Professor Keane is a skilled person in his area. I did not have the privilege of third level. When I was going to college there were only six universities in Ireland and there are many more now.

A company called Amgen is coming to my constituency and it requires high level graduates with doctorate degrees. I understand that there will not be sufficient skilled people on the island of Ireland to meet the company's demands. Attracting this type of industry to Ireland will pose quite a difficulty for IDA Ireland. It is obvious that there is a significant number of such graduates and professionals with the necessary skills in India, which we would have classed until recently as a Third World country. How will Ireland compete in that market in the future? IDA Ireland, for which Deputy Quinn was responsible as Minister at one time, is negotiating with industry throughout the world to come to Ireland. Deputy Quinn was the Minister at a difficult time and he did not do too badly. If we are to attract such industries to Ireland, from where will we get the people with the skills and knowledge to operate in them?

Professor Keane

The simple version of the current plan under the SSTI is to double the growth we built up to 2005, in other words, double the PhD numbers again. The key aspect of Amgen, which is in the biotechnology area, is that it shows how we were correct in 1999 when we picked biotechnology as one of the key areas.

The key change occurring in the pharmacological industry is essentially a move from dry pill producing factories to something that is much more like a brewery. The idea in this biotechnology sector is that they are fermenting things and growing things.

One keeps ahead by predicting trends and key areas and by trying to build particular skills in that area. We will now be producing a cohort of PhD students who will be good in that space.

IDA Ireland has funded the National Institute for Bioprocessing and Training, NIBERT, which is being built at UCD. Put simply, it is like an entire chemical plant in which students will be trained and then will be able to move quickly into the real chemical plant where this work is being done.

That is how one gets an edge. One identifies the trends and develops the infrastructure to support education in that area. Hopefully, one does it a few years ahead of everyone else but it is a race which does not stop.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

My problem is with the numbers of people available. I understand there is a significant number of people coming out of Indian universities with this kind of experience and knowledge, whereas there is only a small number in Ireland. How do we attract more to study biotechnology at universities to PhD level?

Professor Keane

We operate internationally in a big way and attract people from abroad. While we obviously also must increase and improve the perception of science at primary, second and third levels, the experience to date is that we are managing to do so.

One must remember that it is not just about gross numbers. One aspect pointed out about India, where it has a problem, is that its 1.3 billion people produce 500,000 engineers a year, only 10% of whom are industry-grade developed to a world-class level. People speak of the advanced state-of-the-art Indian institutes of technology, but they take in a few hundred people a year. There is a real issue of quality and numbers. It is easy to have the numbers. It is very difficult to have the quality around it.

I was part of a group from UCD that set up a joint degree course with Fudan University in Shanghai. We jointly teach on their degree course in software engineering. When we were negotiating it with them, they wanted to teach 500 in year one. We had this long discussion with them outlining that one cannot do that. One must get all of the teaching procedures correct and provide quality assurance for the courses, and one starts with 50. That course is now in its fourth or fifth year. It is only producing 50 or 60 graduates a year, but they are of a very good quality.

Chairman

They have 50,000 students.

Professor Keane

They do, and they have approximately 3 million students graduating from the equivalent of the leaving certificate every year.

Chairman

I had the privilege of attending there. We were welcomed to the 50,000 student campus. That university celebrated its centenary two years ago, did it not?

Professor Keane

Yes. It is one of the older universities.

Chairman

The Taoiseach officially opened the centenary celebrations there.

Deputy Callanan

I welcome the delegation and congratulate Science Foundation Ireland on its great work. I stated here previously that the future would not look too bright for any company not involved in research and development, and it is important that they would be so involved.

The area I want to mention is upskilling of workers. As I see it, there are some well educated people in this country who are doing well. There are also what one might call the manufacturing workforce which would not be as highly qualified. The biggest problem at present is that the cost of manufacturing here is very high and it is hard to retain that manufacturing workforce. Will we be able to upskill those people to take on the type of jobs of which Professor Keane spoke? There is a high proportion of such employees working in the construction sector and there is no guarantee that in the future the construction sector can sustain current employment levels. What is SFI doing to upskill those people or to create employment for that skill level?

Professor Keane

It is not exactly our brief to do that sort of activity but we would hope to support it. Deputy Callanan is correct that it is a major problem area, which is probably being hidden to some degree by the activity in the economy. One can see that there is a turn ongoing in the manufacturing sector where it is clear that the general number employed there is continuing to decrease.

There is a major set of activities that needs to be carried out by all the agencies, including FÁS, Enterprise Ireland, the information technology sector and the university sector. We are starting to think about it but we need a more unitary national view of it, first as being problem and then of some set of solutions to it. The solutions are not obvious or easy. The experience around the world is that one must put a great deal of effort into it, that it is a hands-on process and that success is not often guaranteed.

Senator Leyden

I welcome Professor Keane and Mr. McCabe to the meeting and compliment them on their work. When Science Foundation Ireland was established it was ahead of the posse. The Government deserves credit for being so innovative to create it.

SFI has an awards scheme. I note it has awarded scholarships to ten young females under the SFI-Dell scholarship Young Women in Engineering. That is a welcome innovation. It is a small investment but it could create tremendous opportunity for young women and, particularly, encourage women into engineering.

The report indicates the kind of investment SFI is making. This indicates clearly that SFI is at the cutting edge of the business. That is where Ireland is ahead of the world in a sense. As a small country, we have invested in education and no doubt it is the secret of our success. We did not experience an industrial revolution in the past, but we are certainly there now at the right time and place. SFI is very much a part of the advancement of the country. I compliment SFI on its work and ask it to continue and be as innovative as possible.

I agree with Deputy Quinn's view on the young scientist award. This year's winner is a reminder to ensure that we do not lose that type of entrepreneur. I do not know how much involvement SFI has in the young scientist award and whether it invests in it, but I would encourage involvement in it by SFI. Throughout the country the competition fosters the interest of young people who are looking at research at a certain level. The young scientist of the year award is a brilliant innovative approach. Incidentally, Aer Lingus was the first sponsor of the award. I presume SFI is deeply involved in it. I agree with Deputy Quinn in that regard. We want to encourage young people to come and stay here. For instance, it is a great boost for immigrants that this young man won the award. It showed the way that they can contribute so much to this society. It is a great boost to his family and his country. We send our congratulations to him.

Chairman

Mullingar enjoyed success two or three years ago when one of the eminent doctors at the local hospital won the Young Scientist of the Year competition.

I thank Professor Keane and Mr. McCabe for coming before the committee and providing an informative briefing. As there is no further business, I shall adjourn the meeting.

The joint committee adjourned at 10.20 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 14 February 2007.