This meeting has been convened for the purpose of consideration by the committee of the value for money review of Science Foundation Ireland and the related documents submitted to the committee. From the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, I welcome Mr. Aidan Hodson, principal officer, and Ms Patricia Timmons, office of science, technology and innovation. From Science Foundation Ireland, I welcome Professor Frank Gannon, director general, Mr. Donal Keane, chief operations officer, and Dr. Paul Dodd, head of industry research development. I invite Mr. Hodson to proceed.
Value for Money Review: Discussion with Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and SFI.
Mr. Aidan Hodson
I am pleased, on behalf of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, to have this opportunity to address the Select Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment on the report on the value for money review of Science Foundation Ireland. Members of the committee will, no doubt, be aware that the value for money review was undertaken as part of the Government's value for money and policy review initiative which is part of a framework introduced to secure improved value for money from public expenditure. The objectives of the value for money and policy review initiative are to analyse Exchequer spending in a systematic manner and to provide a basis on which more informed decisions can be made on priorities within and between programmes.
The Science Foundation Ireland, SFI, value for money report is the culmination of a substantial evaluation process carried out during the past year by Indecon Consultants under the aegis of a steering committee comprising representatives of the Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Finance, Forfás, the Irish Universities Association and SFI. The Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment welcomes the report and in particular the important endorsement of SFI's core objective of funding research excellence in areas where Ireland can compete successfully on a global scale.
I will summarise the main provisions of the report, but before doing so I will briefly outline the wider context in which SFI operates. The role and remit of SFI is a key element in the implementation of the strategy for science, technology and innovation, SSTI, which was approved by Government in 2006. The objective of the strategy is to transform Ireland into a competitive knowledge economy and aims to ensure that, by 2013, Ireland will be placed firmly on the global map in terms of the excellence of our research and its application for the benefit of society. The strategy is an integrated whole-of-government approach involving Departments, advisory bodies, State agencies, including SFI, and the higher education institutions working closely together to successfully implement the strategy. The strategy involves investment funded through the NDP across a range of areas including human capital, physical infrastructure and commercialisation of research.
SFI's focus is on research excellence to enhance Ireland's human capital in strategic areas of scientific endeavour relevant to the future competitiveness of industry and enterprise. Since its establishment the remit of SFI has been in the areas of information and communications technologies, ICT, and biotechnology. In May of this year, its remit was expanded to include sustainable energy and energy efficient technologies.
SFI invests in building world-class research teams, increasing the number of high quality researchers in Ireland and, through these teams, the output of new knowledge, opportunities and talented people, including a stream of PhDs. Having regard to SFI's remit of funding research in areas linked to Ireland's economic development, SFI is connecting its funded research teams with industry through its centres for science, engineering and technology, CSETs, programme and the newly established programme of strategic research clusters. Overall, SFI-funded projects covering all its programmes involve partnerships with more than 300 distinct companies both indigenous and multinational. In linking academic researchers with industry partners, SRCs and CSETs are playing a significant role in building Ireland's new knowledge-driven economy. The value for money report recognises the role CSETs is playing in our efforts to attract further international investment in high-tech sectors.
Recent years have seen the ever-increasing leverage of Ireland's investment through SFI, which has been realised by IDA Ireland winning key research and development centres to locate here, due to the science base built up through the significant investments by SFI and by the Higher Education Authority's PRTLI programme. For example, in 2006, 54 research and development investment projects were supported by IDA Ireland involving a total investment of almost €470 million. This compares very favourably to the 2004 and 2005 values which were €140 million and €260 million, respectively. Multinational companies now believe Ireland is a good location to undertake their research and development activity and, importantly, this will help embed these companies in Ireland through high value-added activities.
Turning to the value for money report, the review examined SFI's major funding programmes and makes targeted comments and recommendations on the overall effectiveness of SFI's supports in building a world-class research system in Ireland, with a focus on whether the programmes, as operated, constitute value for money and efficient use of public funds.
As regards programme validity and consistency with relevant policies, the review concludes that SFI's programmes and activities remain valid and supportive of wider economic and innovation policy objectives, including the objectives of the strategy for science, technology and innovation. The report notes that there has been a significant ramp-up of research activity and outputs with the assembly of strong and growing research teams, including the attraction of highly regarded researchers to Ireland from overseas. The report also concludes that SFI has made an important contribution to the development of human capital in research in Ireland. The evidence from Indecon's assessment suggests SFI's funding has produced research outputs which can be measured among the highest in quality terms in the ICT and biotechnology fields internationally.
Having regard to SFI's remit of focusing on research in strategic areas relevant to Ireland's economic development, the report addresses the wider economic impacts of SFI's programmes. Indecon states in the report that it believes it is too early to deliver a definitive judgment on this due to the short period since SFI was established and the fact that research teams and outputs did not begin to emerge until 2004-05.
The report identifies a number of issues that warrant attention to ensure maximum performance in achieving SFI's goals. These include the need for SFI and the HEA to continue to drive effective co-ordination in the achievement of targets laid down in the strategy for science, technology and innovation with regard to the research base. Other issues are the focus on effective industry collaboration, the use of SFI funding to leverage EU and other international sources of funding for Irish research and the effective monitoring and reporting on programmes and mechanisms for ex-post review of programmes to facilitate assessment of economic as well as research impacts. The overall conclusion by Indecon is that the emerging picture is positive and that if the current level of progress is maintained and the emerging issues highlighted are addressed, SFI programmes hold out the prospect of delivering value for money.
Indecon makes a number of recommendations regarding a number of issues, including those I have just mentioned, aimed at, to quote the report: "maintaining the focus of existing SFI operations but designed to improve the ongoing implementation and management of SFI's programmes and to maximise the future impact and value for money from the substantial public resources invested in SFI-supported research in Ireland". The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment supports the recommendations and believes the review will assist in securing value for money and maximising the economic impact of SFI's investments.
With the Chairman's permission, I will hand over to Professor Gannon to give him an opportunity to present SFI's perspective on the review and report. I thank the committee for its attention.
Professor Frank Gannon
I am grateful to have the opportunity to address the committee. It is important that we have the opportunity to discuss what we are doing with taxpayers' money and, in particular, to tie it to an analysis of value for money. We are pleased to have this report by independent experts and pleased with its outcome. This is the second report on SFI since its establishment a few years ago.
The attention paid to SFI is well merited, given that we are in new territory and providing something that was missing within the Irish spectrum of activity. As we move towards a knowledge economy, it is important that the country has all the parts required to achieve that goal and that those parts are working in place. We are aware that we are working towards a knowledge economy and that the investment is not simply for knowledge. The word "economy" is important. Through that knowledge economy it is hoped we will move to a knowledge society, which is an even larger programme.
We have provided committee members with a prepared statement which is quite long. Perhaps I could use the time more effectively by paraphrasing its content. Members will note that all the items are addressed.
The crucial point in the Indecon report is that it is early. That is not an excuse, but it must be recognised. The report states at least 20 times that it is "too early", it is "early" and it is "premature" or variations of that. That means the conclusions have to be addressed at some future stage, and we are happy with this. It would be wrong to say everything is fine and that we do not need more attention. We are happy to have that but it is a case of tús maith leath na hoibre. We must work on getting this start built into something which is really good.
As Mr. Hodson said, SFI is part of what we call colloquially "team Ireland". It is part of an integrated plan put together under the aegis of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and with the overall guiding strategy of the SSTI. We know our role in this and I can summarise it under two general headings.
We have the dual task of increasing the capacity and quality of the scientists in Ireland and, in doing this, increasing the relevance of research to our economy. The SSTI programme sets out what is required in this domain and the longer version points to some figures in this. Ireland is under-populated with highly qualified scientists and engineers. We had of the order of five per 1,000 workers at the start of the SSTI and general practice would say that it should be at least ten. That is not just numbers for numbers sake but it is what industries require to do the more difficult innovative work they require. If we do not have the right number of highly and well qualified people, we will not be able to satisfy their needs. As industry, particularly multinationals, but also Irish companies, can find this wherever it needs it, we need to be able to provide it in Ireland.
Our primary task, which is the easiest one to measure, is whether we are getting capacity right. The answer to that comes from the Indecon report and it is that numerically we are getting the right numbers. However, that is not sufficient because we need scientists who are doing cutting edge research and who are judged to be excellent by the quality of their output but also by the quality as viewed by the reviewers. All of our reviews are carried out by international experts. Annually, we bring their attention to Irish scientists and their applications to advise us on what is to happen.
The Indecon report, with all the independent analysis it did, including bibliometric analysis going to international data sources and whatever, states that there are very good quality scientists. The challenge for SFI is to ensure that growth is correct. To put that in context, SFI is responsible for adding another 30 new research groups annually to the Irish pool of researchers. A research group would typically contain perhaps ten people. If there are 30 new groups coming in every year, it means one must be careful not to just accept the next 30. We are in the process of having a success rate in this area of approximately 25% to 30%. We are very selective on that and that is reflected in the quality which comes afterwards.
To put that in context also, at the end of the period to 2013, the number of active research groups in Ireland will be increased by 75%, so it is a massive realignment of the Irish workforce. Through these research groups, we are in a better position to handle the requirements of the knowledge based economy.
Underneath the research groups, there are PhDs who get training. The aim of the SSTI is to double the number of PhDs which is a nice soundbite but it is also a requirement to get to the right number of skilled people. We are also on target for that. We are on target numerically. That is just a factual analysis and the Indecon analysis took a number of different aspects into that.
I suspect relevance is closer to the question of value for money because having many highly skilled trained people is and will remain an important aspect but it cannot be in some sort of vacuum or unconnected to the requirements of industry. Again, we are faced with a time line. It takes approximately four years for somebody to do a PhD. It takes approximately ten years for a research group to get up and going, and all of these matters are within the timescale about which we are talking. That is not an excuse. It is just to say that it is realistic to look for indicators rather than a final point on this.
An agency like Science Foundation Ireland deals with the university sector because that is where research is carried out and a primary objective today is to reassure the committee that we are totally focussed on the fact that this research must be relevant. That is a statement which carries through all of our analysis. We have made some recent changes to ensure that this relevance and connectivity works well. For example, Dr. Paul Dodd has been specifically responsible for the interaction with industry and linking research with industry. Independently, and often with IDA Ireland he has met more than 40 companies already this year. In addition, he, I and other members of SFI meet IBEC and its various agencies and subgroups, showing that we are getting our message out there all of the time.
Working with IDA Ireland is one of the examples that come through in the report. There is a nice quote from IDA Ireland in the report, that there is evidence that the CSETS is playing an important role in building a world-class research system in Ireland as it links successfully with major multinationals as well as being used as a strong reference cell by IDA Ireland in its efforts to attract further international investment in high-tech sectors. That working together with IDA Ireland and with Enterprise Ireland is part and parcel of how our responsibility towards the knowledge economy is being fulfilled.
Last week I was in the States and used the opportunity to visit representatives of IDA Ireland in Silicon Valley, a number of companies and some Irish technology leaders to ensure that they are aware of what is happening, to help in selling Ireland as a location and to hear at first hand how the companies are reacting to that. Last night I was at another meeting where there were two major pharmaceutical companies that operate in Ireland and I had the opportunity of hearing at first hand what they think of us. It is a constant aspect of our activities. It is not that we must add it in every now and then.
We believe in our logos, "Research with Consequences" and "From Brains to Business". These are important for us. IDA Ireland is perhaps a reference to how effective we are, apart from the fact that we talk with people. The figures were given by Mr. Hodson. Some 40% of IDA Ireland's investments last year were in the RDI area. As one can imagine, this is quite a change from the manufacturing dominated investments in the past. As this investment is mobile, it is important that we are able to capture it.
Enterprise Ireland represents those companies owned by and developed in Ireland. We have frequent meetings with Enterprise Ireland. I meet the CEOs of Enterprise Ireland, Forfás, IDA Ireland, HRB and HEA to ensure we are well connected and my colleagues and others meet on an executive basis regularly with them to have this cross fertilisation, sharing of information and best practice. We have representatives on the Enterprise Ireland grants committee that give money for start-up companies and we use Enterprise Ireland, IDA Ireland and other agencies in strategic analysis of the programmes in which we are investing — the CSETS, in particular.
The impact of that was evident when what used to be called River Deep, the new company Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, was deciding where to make an investment. It committed €350 million in research and development investment in Ireland with the backing of Enterprise Ireland. The company stated that one of the reasons for investing in Ireland was the Government support of research, the academic industry collaboration supported by SFI and the high quality of academic researchers now based here. These are a little flavour of what is going on, which addresses directly and with specific examples the question of value for money.
The report would be poor if it did not contain recommendations. I will share these with members and indicate how they will fit in with and assist our plans. Before that, however, I wish to outline some of the key findings that emerged from the assessment.
The Indecon report states that the foundation has been in the process, mainly through its principal investigator programme, of building strong research teams, including through the attraction of significant numbers of leading researchers from overseas. Approximately 30% of the new groups that were analysed by Indecon for its report come from outside Ireland. The number of non-Irish groups is increasing and almost 50% of those carrying out research in Ireland come from elsewhere. This is evidence of the attractiveness of Ireland as a location in which to carry out research and is typical of a country that is becoming stronger in the area of research. The Indecon report recommends that achieving and maintaining critical mass will be vital in this regard.
On researcher productivity, Indecon's report states that evidence to date points to a steady increase in the volume of research outputs funded by the principal investigator programme, although further evidence on research performance going forward, including bibliometric assessment of research quality, will be required before more definitive conclusions can be drawn. It takes time for the value of work to be measured by references to such work by the scientific community. This is normally measured over a two-year period. It is too early to say but the work to which I refer is being referenced in the right places in the right journals.
Indecon's report points out that SFI funding provided through the CSET mechanism has helped to create research centres of international excellence. In the absence of such funding, these centres would be unlikely to be present in Ireland. The CSETs are a major target of our funding and we have nine of them in very strategically selected areas. The strategic analysis carried out with partner agencies is an indicator that this is an important component of our process. A requirement relating to the CSETs is that there be a 25% cash and equivalent input by the companies partnering them. There is an engagement by the companies in these activities. We recently introduced a scaled down version of this in the form of strategic research clusters. The latter are also attracting much interest from industry. More than 80 companies — the names of which members would recognise — are engaged directly with these cost-sharing activities. There is no need to stress that companies have a choice with regard to where they invest their money. That they are engaging in this research, which involves mutual interest, is an important indicator that things are being done right.
The report also states that SFI-funded research centres have forged partnerships and networking arrangements with a wide range of industrial and academic partners. However, of key importance are the outcomes that emerge from these collaborative linkages in the context of research and commercialisation activities and wider economic impacts. We will be obliged to wait and see with regard to developments in this regard but things are going in the right direction.
The report highlights that SFI research centres, especially the CSETs, have acted as a reference sell for companies visiting Ireland at the invitation of IDA Ireland. The foundation is increasingly involved in discussions with such companies. We occupy the same building as IDA Ireland and are readily able to interact with the representatives of the companies to which I refer. We are, therefore, part of the sales effort for Ireland.
The Indecon report observes that while a number of researchers and research centres have been successful in securing funds from non-SFI sources, in general, further progress is required to maximise the leverage from SFI and PRTLI funding, particularly in respect of non-State, EU and other international sources, and industry funding. That is true. We are sensitive to the fact that there would be a bad outcome if the investment on the part of SFI and other agencies were to result in a lack of enthusiasm for garnishing grants elsewhere. The facts are slightly different. The total amount of funding has increased but our percentage draw-down from the EU is not. We are aware that the CSETs are very effective in obtaining that and some of them are leading EU projects, etc. In general, however, a census we carried out at the end of last year, following the publication of the Indecon report, showed that, on average, each of the groups doubled the funding it was obtaining from elsewhere. There is leveraging in many ways from various sources which is appreciated by us. We wish to encourage it. We make this point directly to the various people we fund specifically by asking them, "Have you got any new funding?" They know we are monitoring this metric, which should have an effect.
The final general point made is that the CSETs are involved in a range of outreach activities, including education programmes, developing links with students at first and second level and wider public awareness raising activities. Of importance, however, is the extent to which the research groups achieve wider dissemination of research among the public generally and industry, in particular. It is an ongoing task. It is very important we ensure taxpayers are aware of what we are involved in, learn the stories of success and the exciting things happening and, in that way, are supportive of this major transition in the way Ireland performs its business.
We are very comfortable with the Indecon recommendations. They are helpful and in line with our choices. The first is that SFI should continue to implement its core mission of funding research excellence in areas in which Ireland can compete effectively on a global scale. We have three focal areas: the life sciences, including biotechnology, which represents, therefore, the pharmaceutical industry; ICT, which covers all those areas, including telecommunications; and the latest addition, sustainable energy and energy efficient technologies. That was only added this year arising from the new programme for Government and we appreciate and welcome it. It is a challenge for Ireland. It is new but we are not necessarily fully behind the field and there are many opportunities in business related areas. We are working with a good awareness of what is happening in the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and its energy research council to ensure we are engaged in the right activities. Our role relative to Sustainable Energy Ireland is clearly defined and we are ensuring it is retained in the same way as our boundaries with other agencies. We totally agree with this recommendation and look forward to building on the work done so far.
The second recommendation is that there should be an increased focus on effective industry collaboration and that measures to enhance commercialisation of research should form part of future management of the next phases of SFI. This is important to us as we are aware we are part of team Ireland but part of the commercialisation is the task of other agencies, particularly Enterprise Ireland and the IDA. I have referred adequately to how we are working with them. In addition to the 80 companies I mentioned, we have a census of the activities of those funded by us under all our programmes and there is a good degree of interconnectivity between the researchers and industry. More than 220 SFI researchers interact with an Irish industry. We also have knowledge of the frequency of the interaction and it is effective. There is something happening below the radar in terms of individual scientists talking with industries which are coming back and supplying them with information, which means they are getting the feed from industry and vice versa, as required by the recommendation which we welcome. Our commitment to it was illustrated by many of the points I made.
The third recommendation is that an increased focus is required to align the collaborations by SFI funded researchers with the requirements of industry based in Ireland. This is one of the harder ones because the requirements of industry are in the future, not the present. Companies setting up in Ireland do so to engage in research and development activities for their next round of products. Companies which were typically fixed in one sector such as ICT are in convergence mode and working perhaps with the health care sector also. Therefore, aligning the activities means we must move a layer back from the name of the company and what it does into where the company is going. This, because of the timeline, requires that we support research that is highly relevant for the evolution of industries as well as existing industries. We are very aware of this and our international team of reviewers is well placed to see whether something is relevant or not. Also, the strategic analyses carried out with our partner agencies for the larger funding ensure we are as well aligned as one can be, given the variations and trend changes that take place. The feed-in to us from the IDA and Enterprise Ireland and our engagement with their early stage discussions allow us to be highly sensitive to this. However, there is a core requirement that we have highly skilled people trained in a variety of areas and that is where capacity building is taking place. These people must be doing top class research because they will not be doing what they are doing currently in five years time. The basis is, therefore, that people move, change and evolve and it is in that context that we accept this recommendation.
Mechanisms to ensure SFI funding maximise the leverage of EU and other international sources of funding for Irish research should be introduced. I have addressed this issue in terms of how we are presenting this and how we are dealing with it internally. For example, we have a weighting system in terms of the amount of funding and if people ignore this mechanism, there is a black mark against them.
There was a recommendation that the development agencies, including IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland, should intensify efforts to engage new and existing client companies with SFI-funded research teams and centres and this is being done. The Indecon report was issued on the basis of what was happening in 2007 and we have moved forward aggressively in that regard. The IDA and Enterprise Ireland are also aware of this recommendation.
The sixth recommendation of the review was that SFI should consider the merits of a centrally managed database of inputs and outputs related to SFI-funded projects that would track a range of input-output and impact indicators. We admit we have not been perfect in this regard. We have had the teething problems of starting up and putting more emphasis on selection at the input side. We also had a manpower problem and shortage, but have been able to address this recently. Therefore, we are in a better position now to recognise what outputs we must measure and get these individually, as we are doing on each of the grants as they come in for renewal. We must also do this collectively so we get an overall view. This is something we are putting in place. We are in the process of improving our data management system as we speak. We have also introduced an annual census of researchers because this gives us a pen picture on a year to year basis and will help us monitor trends. We publish this information on our website.
The seventh recommendation is related to this area and suggests a system of ex post review which would combine elements of existing ex ante peer review, interim review processes and place greater emphasis on the assessment of economic impact and value for money. This should be put in place for completed SFI funding research. The terms ”ex post” and “ex ante” are a little highfalutin. The former concerns what happens afterwards and the latter what happens before, but these are the terms used in this terrain. We need more reviews of this nature. We have an important action in place which means that any major project, such as a CSET, has a site visit half way through where we bring in experts to review it. There must also be a quarterly report on what is happening so we can monitor what is going on from the perspective of those involved in the project. This means some review is taking place on an ongoing basis. Anybody who is coming up for renewal also gets a site visit or review to see whether they have spent their money as they should. We have a number of actions now that at the time of the Indecon report were not as tightly aligned to ex post analysis in the classical sense as would be required, but this is under way.
Continued efforts are required to ensure effective inter-agency interaction and co-ordination, including, in particular, between SFI and the HEA. The reference to the HEA is made because it, through the PRTLI programme, is the provider of the research infrastructure — the space for the groups. If we are growing the number of groups, we need this.
We have had very detailed discussions with the HEA in preparation for the under consideration PRTLI programme, PRTLI5, to ensure there is an alignment. There is also a realisation that there is a deficit with regard to space. As we increase the number of groups coming in, it will be very important to have that infrastructure in place. That co-ordination is ongoing, including having the chief executive of the HEA on the SFI board.
Recommendation No. 9 states we should carry out regular systematic bibliometric analysis of our SFI-funded outputs and publish the highlights of this analysis, which we will do. Indecon pointed out that it had done this as a once off but we need to do it more.
The final point proposed that measures to enhance the likelihood of top-ranking researchers remaining in Ireland should be given high priority. We are very aware of that matter. In order to respond we need to ascertain what is required to keep a good group here. First, there needs to be a good level of funding because research groups are very mobile and can go anywhere. They are being embedded in Ireland. Second, we need to improve our high quality infrastructure in order that they can carry out their work and say this is a good place to be. Third, we need to have a critical mass of scientific activities relevant to these scientists such that they have colleagues with whom they can interact. All these matters are being addressed through the collective of the SFI-funded projects. All those who have come in the first instance can apply for further funding. However, it is not a given. We analyse them carefully and they come through after a peer review.
The report is a timely review of how SFI is fulfilling its duties to the State, how it fulfils them in the context of other organisations, how we respect and support those other organisations, and how we are on target to achieve genuine fully measurable value for money in the near future.
I thank Professor Gannon for his comprehensive submission. We will have a short question and answer session. Questions will be grouped, starting with Deputy Clune.
I thank Professor Gannon and Mr. Hodson for their contributions. I had read the executive summary of the Indecon report and I am delighted that the delegates have addressed the recommendations, which is what we would expect. In reading the documentation a few points struck me. I appreciate that SFI is new and that it would welcome a review such as this to ascertain where we are going. In an article, Dr. Boyle of the IPA stated that in 2006 there seemed to be a drop in consultative articles. Was that a blip? Are we back on track in 2008?
The delegates have stated how important it is to attract researchers and establish research groups. Professor Gannon said we had in the order of five highly qualified scientists and engineers per 1,000 workers but that it should be at least ten per 1,000. How important is it for Ireland's knowledge economy to have a pool of individuals attracted into the sciences? He also stated that some researchers had come from abroad to establish here. I hope we can hold onto them. How important is this? Professor Gannon seems to suggest we could attract them from abroad, which I would not like to see. The idea would be to transfer that knowledge into business. How important is this? It is an area in which the country is failing. Should we be looking at the figure of ten per 1,000 or can we exceed that number because we can attract overseas researchers?
I thank the delegation for coming and making a very helpful presentation. It is refreshing to see a value for money study and audit undertaken. It is in sharp contrast to other announcements we heard in this morning's news and very welcome.
In an area as vast as that covered by Science Foundation Ireland, it must be very difficult to maintain a focus on value for money. Over the years, the foundation appears to have achieved that. I commend everyone involved in that process. The report's recommendations are quite telling. It is indicative that nothing in the report could be construed as scorching.
Members on these benches normally have a go at the Government. On this occasion, I commend it on its gutsy decision to make available the level of funding that needed to be invested over a long period to get this project up and running. I welcome that.
Who set the terms of reference for the Indecon report? Was a committee established to do that? Deputy Clune asked about the number of scientists and researchers here. The OECD average is seven. Can the representatives of Science Foundation Ireland indicate when this country will meet the OECD average and begin to surpass it? I understand that it takes some time for these figures to increase. That is not an implied criticism. I am curious about this matter.
This State lacks the culture usually associated with research and development. Do the witnesses believe that such a culture is beginning to take hold? Do the clients of IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland seek out researchers from Science Foundation Ireland? It has been recommended that IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland refer some of their clients to Science Foundation Ireland. Does it also happen the other way around? Are those involved in industry and enterprise making contact with Science Foundation Ireland?
Is any area beginning to sparkle? A scatter-gun approach, which involves a wide range of targets, can make it difficult to achieve success in a specific area. We would expect to take a grip in the pharmaceutical and renewable energy sectors, for example. Can the delegations comment on that?
On Science Foundation Ireland's collaboration with other agencies such as the Higher Education Authority, IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland, like a number of members of this committee, including Deputy English, I believe the various job creation agencies should be merged as a single entity. Each of the areas of specialty should be maintained within that structure. I commend Science Foundation Ireland for initiating contact with IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland. Do the representatives of the foundation believe that method is adequate? Do they think it could be improved? I certainly believe it could.
Will Science Foundation Ireland examine its auditing systems on foot of this report to ensure that the research being undertaken does what it says on the tin? While I would like to ask several other questions, I will give way to other members of the committee. I appreciate the report and am delighted with the outcome. I hope we can sustain the advances being made.
I ask Professor Gannon to respond to Deputies Clune and Morgan.
Professor Frank Gannon
I thank the Deputies for their questions, which will enable us to expand on what we have already said. I will try to answer the questions in order. They should not hesitate to correct me if I skip one of their questions.
Deputy Clune asked about what she described as the "drop in the consultative articles" in 2006. She may be a little misinformed in that regard. The report was based on the annual reports of people who received funding in that year. If one received funding at the start of that year, one's report should have been available to Indecon when it compiled its data. That was not the case, however. Many of the previous drafts of the report contained an asterisk to point to the fact that certain data were incomplete. The final version of the report did not contain such an asterisk. I would not refer to it as a technical blip in the report — I would merely ask members to note that the report is incomplete in this respect. That is partially Science Foundation Ireland's fault, as it indicates that our collection of information was not as robust as it should have been. We are trying to correct that by adopting a census approach, whereby we will have all the information by the end of each year. We know how many papers were completed last year, although we have not analysed them in the way Indecon did for 2006. Indecon examined the number of papers per principal investigator, or papers per centre for science, engineering and technology. However, it should be noted that in 2006 many of those who received funding at the start were coming back in for funding. This may have caused a degree of distraction. We will monitor and examine this issue.
A secondary point needs to be made in this regard. I would prefer to have fewer publications of higher quality than more publications of lower quality. There are tactics involved in the area of publications. One can lash out publications left, right and centre and while one will look great, it will have a low impact. This is not good for Ireland or scientists. For this reason, we need to be careful to ensure we do not focus solely on numbers. We will analyse this issue.
Was the number of publications a measure used in the report?
Professor Frank Gannon
Deputy Clune is correct.
I accept Professor Gannon's point about quality.
Professor Frank Gannon
That was a secondary point.
The number of publications and patents were measures.
Professor Frank Gannon
Yes. We need to ascertain whether the figures are increasing. As I indicated, the data may have been incomplete and we will provide the relevant data on an ongoing basis, including on quality.
On the questions about the importance of having a pool, when we will increase the figure from five to seven and whether seven is adequate, we are dealing here with secondary analysis. If every country that is actively trying to build up its high-tech industries has come to the conclusion that approximately ten such industries are required, they may have a point. Ireland started at a figure of fewer than five such industries. I understand the figure is now close to seven. Recently, I spoke to representatives of Forfás to ascertain the current position. According to Forfás, the current figure may be around seven. While it takes time for the numbers to increase, we are confident we will reach a figure of ten.
As Deputies will have noted from the written submission, the equivalent figure in other countries is up to 15 per 1,000. In this regard, it is a question of chickens and eggs, in other words, having too many people before the industry causes a problem while not having sufficient people means one will not have the industry. We are trying to synchronise. This appears to be the right thing to do, as is increasing the level of funding. While I appreciate Deputy Morgan's comments about the funding committed by the Government, funding was zero.
To put this issue into an international context — the only context of relevance to industry — in a different Lisbon declaration the Heads of State and Government, including the Taoiseach, decided the average European Union commitment to research and development should be 3%. This figure is viewed as best practice. In the United States the figure stands at 2.8%, while the figure for Israel is 4.5% and in Singapore it is rising rapidly and currently stands at 2.4%. The European Union average is close to 1.9% and Ireland is below this average. We must, therefore, recognise that while we are committing a substantial sum — we do not use the word "billions" lightly in this context — it is bringing us up the scale. Although Ireland is increasing its rate of investment more rapidly than nearly any other country, it is doing so against a lower baseline. Scientists and, more importantly, industries ask whether Ireland is serious about what it is doing in this area. It is very important, therefore, to increase the percentage of GDP invested.
There are two aspects of this investment, namely, public investment by the Government and private investment by industries. It is reassuring in the Irish context that the BERD, business expenditure on research and development, is increasing to the extent that we are maintaining what is viewed as the ideal investment combination, namely, two thirds from the private sector and one third from public sources. We are ramping up and leveraging investment by industry.
If all plans are adhered to Irish expenditure will be of the order of 2.4% of GDP by the end of 2013. While this is below the 3% target, it would not be wise to dump money into research and development because we must build up capacity. We have a long-term plan which allows for the building of capacity in order that we can increase investment with time. The funding aspect is important.
Mr. Hodson will answer the question about the terms of reference. An important question was asked about the culture of research and development. Transitions are taking place in this area. Research from the funding we provide is carried out in the third level institutes, predominately the universities because they win the competitions. We do not exclude the institutes of technology.
The university sector has the charge of doing third level education and fourth level, in other words post-doctoral research, and beyond that into making things work in an economic context. The transition within the universities and the higher education institutes generally is one that embraces the research not just as an add-on to the teaching but as an important component of the job of the individuals in universities. That is very significant and without such a commitment the efforts that are being made would not work at all. The culture of linking that to industry is one for which one cannot legislate as it has to do with a number of factors, including the attitude of the researchers. Happily or unhappily, Ireland had a period when there was so little funding available — I worked here during that time — that one did anything to get funding to keep the flame of research activities alive. That meant we developed a strong experience in talking to, dealing with and working with various industries and that has been maintained at every level, as is evident from the statistics I cited earlier. We have a community in the research world that knows it is not just about knowledge but about the knowledge economy. It is aware that we are coming from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and not just the Department of Education and Science.
In reply to the question about where is the sparkle, Ireland has a general strength that others are beginning to recognise. I referred to the example of convergence where because we are a small island and very highly socially networked, as we meet people readily, the companies that are here that could be in a silo in other countries are meeting each other. Ireland has a strong engagement with most of the leading companies in the pharmaceutical industry and with major ICT companies, most of which are based in Ireland also. In particular, the convergence is bringing those two sectors together and we have lots of examples of that. I gave a talk about the subject recently at a meeting organised by Enterprise Ireland. I will provide one or two examples that will show what is involved. One of our CSETS is in the area of sensor technology and relates to sensors measuring something but, in addition to that, it uses software and transmission such that if an athlete is running around the measurements can be conveyed without a piece of wire hanging out of her or him back to somebody who can monitor what is happening. Alternatively, one can measure what is happening in the environment without having to put one's finger into it. They are distance sensors. That sort of convergence between the sensing technology and the capture and analysis of the data is one example.
Nanotechnology and nanobiotechnology are areas where Ireland is very strong. Last week I met with HP in Silicon Valley and it was very pleased with what is happening in this area. I also met with IBM, which is interested in other areas of cloud computing and related technologies that come together in different clusters in Ireland. Two major industries, HP and Intel, are involved in nanotechnology in Ireland. At the recent review both companies said they could not have a better environment or groups to interact with worldwide. These should then pop into something else.
Energy, which was mentioned as an opportunity, is new to us and that is something we will address in the future. The final point was about working together for job creation and the point was picked up that we are seriously committed to that.
One aspect I did not mention is that Enterprise Ireland has invested significantly in technology transfer in the higher education institutes. A total of €26 million has been committed to that. New people are working in the research institutes and we are interacting with them in order to get full value so that they capture what is going on in the institutes and draw it in through Enterprise Ireland. We feed that back again into our people and say we had better be doing that. Interconnectivity is working well but it seems to me from the discussions that we have nearly every month that we find another flavour in which we can do better and we are continually adding them on.
Mr. Aidan Hodson
I will deal with the point on the terms of reference, which were drawn up by the steering committee that oversaw the review. The terms of reference were heavily modelled on the guidance manual produced by the Department of Finance, which governs the value for money process.
I thank the delegation for its presentation. It is heartening that the spending of 1.6% of gross domestic product on any project results in a good report. It is clearly very important to co-ordinate the different bodies, including the IDA and Enterprise Ireland which do excellent work. Is there a challenge in ensuring bureaucracy is not built up or an overlapping of objectives does not occur? How can one prevent bureaucracy from getting out of control?
Energy was referred to. Obviously Science Foundation Ireland has been very successful regarding cutting-edge technology and there has been considerable success in the pharmaceutical sector. Are other areas being considered with a view to going on to the next level of expertise?
Reference was made to embedding and to the fact that researchers are very mobile. What sorts of practical steps are taken to embed a group of researchers?
I thank Professor Gannon and his team for attending and for their very comprehensive report. I am no expert in this field. This is a difficult area to measure in terms of economics and value for money. On this side of the table we would not be experts in the professor's field.
Grades in mathematics and algebra, which are so important to the development of science and other areas, comprise quite an issue at present in the post-primary education system. There is a considerable falling off in grades. How can we address this in our education system? If we do not address it, we will be importing an increasing number of overseas researchers at a time when we should be able to provide our own. Over the years, we have been very boastful regarding the success of our colleges in attracting foreign industry and investment to Ireland. We will see a decline in this area if we do not address this, regardless of the economic outlook.
The Indecon report is very comprehensive and informative. Reference was made to the percentage of funding derived from North America. Will the delegates break this down according to the different states in the US that are involved in research? California, for example, is one of the leading states in this area. Silicon Valley, which was mentioned, is one of the leading high-tech and research places in the world, followed by Japan or Hong Kong, for example.
Annex 2 on page 160 of the Indecon report refers to case studies on centres for science, engineering and technologies. Will the delegates explain the term "metronics" and the role of the Health Research Board with regard to UCD? Can the professor elaborate on the role of Enterprise Ireland with respect to Georgia Tech Ireland and Smith & Nephew? What progress is being made in this country regarding stem cell research which is very relevant to medical and industrial science? I admit I am not good at research and depend on Professor Gannon to brief me.
The Deputy certainly has other talents.
Professor Frank Gannon
On the question of co-ordination and the challenge of not becoming excessively bureaucratic, a very effective body called Technology Ireland, run from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, brings together all the different bodies. It is a very forthright group where any new or good idea is brought forth and discussed by different parties. It fulfils the dual role of challenging an idea and ensuring everyone knows about it and how it fits into their arrangements. It is not bureaucratic but more a meeting every now and then.
Deputy Morgan referred to culture and being too bureaucratic. I, like most of my colleagues, have come from a culture which is not bureaucratic. We challenge ourselves to become a little more bureaucratic and correct in our daily procedures. However, there is an impatience which we would share with Deputy Chris Andrews on this. We are very keen not to become too bureaucratic. One aspect of our work for which we receive consistent compliments from reviewers and scientists is on our speed, efficiency and delivery. We would keep this as one of our measures for challenges in future statement strategies. We will do our best to avoid getting bogged down in a culture which is not appropriate for such a high, fast-moving and nimble area. If we become bureaucratic, then we will be in bad shape.
Regarding future directions, we have a legal remit, defined by statute, which covers biotechnology, ICT and energy. We feel that covers a large number of opportunities. We would examine the sub-niches in these areas rather than matters outside of them. That is what happens organically through the engagement of research groups. They push out their tentacles to see where the limits are. Every now and then, one finds a rich seam and develops it. Some of these areas are unpredictable which is a problem related to research generally. What the next area of impact in research and development will be cannot be predicted. Through the combination of the high science and industry interactions, scientists are able to steer their evolving research when a proposal has a slightly different slant to it.
Mathematics is a major question to which we are sensitive. I am aware the curriculum committee has introduced a new programme in mathematics with much buy-in by all parties. The committee is chaired by an industry appointment. It will bring in a variation on the maths project on a pilot basis in 26 schools which seems reasonable. The committee has worked out how to implement this through best practice. There is no dalliance on this matter. It is not our job but we are dependent on it being worked out right.
Recently I read a statistic that Ireland has more graduates in science and engineering in the 25 to 34 years age group than most other countries. It is 11 per 1,000 graduates compared with Germany at 4.5 per 1,000. We do not have many of these going on to fourth level but there are a number of people coming through. The number of Irish graduates who go abroad to pursue postgraduate courses is also high. There may be a case of not counting everything that could be counted. However, this is not an excuse for being complacent. We need to ensure a career as a scientist is better understood because it is not well enough understood by parents and even career counsellors. They must realise the diversity of jobs in this area and that it does not just mean another white-coated assistant in a research laboratory in academia. The census shows that in 2007 approximately 30% of those who finished their PhDs went into industry.
On the point about stem cell research, this relates to the remedy centres in the science, engineering and technology programme based in Galway. The table on page 160 outlines the industrial and academic partnerships, but does not mention the partnership in Galway, which is the predominant one. The industrial partners have joined because they see the potential in stem cell research, which, by the way, deals with non-embryonic, adult stem cells and their derivatives.
The programme is very ambitious and working its way through the system. Like every programme, it is beginning to ramp up and currently there are about 100 people working on it. Our challenge is to work with the remedy to ensure the scientific activities match the excellent industrial activities and interact with the funding and public agencies. They are also in the process of putting in place a quality production unit in order that when the time is right, they will be in a position to move into partnership with companies to establish activities. Smith & Nephew was mentioned. The company was not engaged in any research activity here, it only had a marketing office but has now joined in the activities of the programme. Medtronic is also very important, not just as a local industry, but also in convergence. Its business is stents, which are effectively pieces of metal. Stem cells are not metal, but the idea is to deliver into the heart, via the stent, cells to help reparation.
In spite of all this, I have to give a warning. This takes a long time and the amount of money going into it worldwide attests to the fact that we are a long way from developing compounds. However, the team in Galway and their colleauges in Maynooth and DCU are working very well on this. The science has to be consolidated before it can move forward, but it is also an indication that we are in a field that has captured attention across the world, especially in California.
The Deputy's question on the breakdown across the United States is a good one, but I do not have the figures for California. However, I know from various countries that the maximum is about 4.5%. Beyond that, there does not seem to be much value. The figure we arrive at should be divided by the number of active scientists to see how much money is available per individual. There are many scientists in California, which explains its succcess. That is what we are trying to emulate here. As Ireland is a relatively small country, we could see it as being a green Silicon Valley.
I want to ask some questions about universities and institutes of technology. Are we doing enough at career guidance level to attract young people to science and technology? I have spoken to a few career guidance counsellors who tell me that the number of students taking science at second level has been decreasing.
I tried to read the report in front of us and it is excellent. It is a report for the future rather than today. There are a lot of bones in it and it is up to the delegates and those who do the research to put meat on them. The report is timely and we all welcome it. We are in the early stages of developing the science and technology sector in Ireland and have a very good base on which to build. The report outlines the involvement of private industry with the State in the development of the sector. Anything we can do to build on that would be helpful to us.
I have tried to read the report, although I have not been able to get it all into my head. It is not a report for the shelf or one that should gather dust. It is a great reference and I hope it is widely used.
Like other speakers, I thank the witnesses for enlightening the committee. While we were asking the questions, the witnesses have enlightened us on the field of science and technology.
The Minister was in Strasbourg yesterday fighting our case with regard to the European city of science in 2012. Does Science Foundation Ireland believe this will be of great benefit in the future? What do we need to get to that point?
With regard to Deputy Fitzpatrick's point on primary education, is there a case for introducing science as a subject at primary level to attract students? We hear anecdotal evidence that universities are not in a position to attract as many to study the sciences. With regard to Medtronic in particular, I would like to hear about the relationship between engineering and science and how this can be built on into the future. I would also be very interested to hear views on the European city of science application and whether it is of any benefit to us.
With regard to attracting people to science as a career, what is the view on salary and pay levels? I hear anecdotal evidence and read letters to newspapers suggesting that parents have a major input into career choices, and science is not seen as an attractive area from a remuneration perspective. Would the witnesses care to comment?
Professor Frank Gannon
As we may be approaching the end of the discussion, this is not only an opportunity for the committee to hear from us but it is a great opportunity for us to interact with the members, obtain their views and amplify some of the messages which are more obscure in daily discourse. It is a positive aspect of this meeting.
To refer to the specific question on career guidance and related aspects concerning the different levels, we are aware that this is not our primary job. That is to restate the obvious. A subset of Forfás, Discover Science and Engineering, is responsible for this area and is engaged in working through schools to bring the excitement of science to students. Perhaps Mr. Hodson will be able to say more on this area but I know it is under review and an analysis is ongoing.
The fact is we cannot do enough to ensure people make informed decisions, and such decisions are related to the point made by Deputy Clune about salary levels. I do not have a figure for these levels, although it would be useful for us to discover the average starting salary and to compare it with others. However, we must be careful with such comparisons because a scientist can become involved in a very wide range of topics, whether research, industry, non-industry consultancy, patent law or journalism. We need to have more case histories that would show what has happened.
To give one stunning example, I met the first winner of the Irish young scientist award, John Monahan, in California last week. He arrived in his yellow Lamborghini which, while not typical, shows what is possible.
I am not sure what the yellow colour tells us.
That might be very successful in attracting young people.
Professor Frank Gannon
It was quite a statement, despite him being quite a shy man. He had moved through core research to standard post-doctoral research. Eventually he moved to work in industry and then set up his own enterprise, etc. While getting an actual figure is difficult, we need to get out more Lamborghini stories in order that parents recognise one does not have to be a — I had better not use another example or I will be in trouble. We must work on this aspect and we are actively trying to get our message into the media. Unfortunately, however, two things happen. First, we end up in the science pages and as some people throw out the property section, others the health section and others skip over the sports pages, it is hard if we are in there all the time. Second, a story usually goes out in respect of science but we do not receive a mention although it would not be there without Science Foundation Ireland. Consequently, the cumulative effort gets lost in little points. We must work on this and have done so through the media.
A supportive programme on RTE, "The Investigators", humanised the scientists, showed people what their lives were like and what was driving them. We must do much more of that; this must become normal. It pertains to people showing all parts of their lives, including the science, as well as the music and sports in which they are interested in order that people can see this as a career because there are not enough good models around.
The final question related to Dublin hosting the European city of science in 2012, which is being championed by the chief adviser to the Government, Professor Paddy Cunningham. I am one of the vice-chairs in this regard and have been much engaged in it. The proposal, which was launched in Strasbourg yesterday, will be considered by the group that allocates the European city of science. I refer to the Euroscience Open Forum, which meets on an annual basis. My view on this issue is that while it is important, it is not enough. It would be a pity were everything to be focused into a one-week effort. Were the decision-making, which is as much to do with geography and connectivity as other aspects, to be negative, it would be a pity if this was viewed negatively. In some ways it is like going for the Olympics. I have been advocating, and my colleagues agree with me, that regardless of whether we are successful, we ourselves should declare Dublin to be a city of science. Moreover, it should not then be restricted to Dublin but should be organised on a national basis with activities throughout the country. The year 2012 is at the limit of when that should be. While having it earlier might be appropriate, 2012 is when the slot is available and we must see how that works out. However, a greater understanding has emerged among many different partners of the event's importance and their engagement in it and I hope we will be able to build on it.
On behalf of the committee I thank Professor Gannon, Mr. Hodson and their teams for a particularly informative presentation. In the absence of other business, the meeting is concluded.
The select committee adjourned at 11.33 a.m. sine die.