Tom Clonan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 9, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:“(4)In this Act, nothing should violate and instead seek to uphold the principles of parity of esteem (between disciples) and of academic freedom cited in Impact 2030,Ireland’s Research and Innovation Strategy and European standards of good practice.”.

I want to explain a little about the reason for proposing these amendments. I am speaking to these amendments as an academic of 22 years' experience in DIT, now the Technological University of Dublin, and also as a researcher who did research in the area of the human sciences, which led to transformative change for Óglaigh na hÉireann and that revealed highly disturbing and shocking levels of sexual violence within our Naval Service, Army and Air Corps. The reason I highlight that is it was the work of one researcher and, when my findings were published, I was accused of having fabricated the findings because they were disruptive. I was accused by the military authorities of falsifying the research. I was also threatened with criminal prosecution for breaching the Official Secrets Act 1963. I almost lost my job as a probationer lecturer in TU Dublin. That is because the research was provocative, and it was disruptive.

One of the issues I want to address by way of my amendments is that academic freedom would be very explicitly preserved in the wording of the Bill because it is lacking in that area. As we move forward as a society, and as a strong, independent, neutral voice in Europe and in the world, we must ensure that we have a research environment that is holistic and that encourages provocative and disruptive research, particularly in the human sciences. The reason I say that is the Bill mentions "science and innovation" hundreds of times, but it mentions "arts and humanities" less than ten times. There is a kind of inbuilt bias or set of domain assumptions within the wording that imply a hierarchy of knowledge that prefers the natural sciences associated with research and innovation in the industrial sphere. In many respects, it reminds me of the wording of the Hunt report, which is the national strategy for higher education to 2030. It saw the universities in the aftermath of the financial crash as being engines of economic recovery. I agree that the third level sector and universities and researchers should play a role in our economic recovery and growth, but more importantly, our universities should be engines of ethical recovery and growth because, as Senator Higgins pointed out, our economy is one thing, but we do live in a republic and we have a society and many areas of our society, quite frankly, are broken. I just want to provide the context for the rationale for my submitting these amendments. I am not going to speak to each amendment in any great detail.

I also come here as a Trinity College Dublin, TCD, Senator. TCD has made submissions to the Minister. It is one of the oldest universities and one of the largest research institutes in the State. It has expressed some concerns about the agency and the manner in which Taighde Éireann or the research and innovation entity, whatever it may look like, has been brought into being. It talks about a lack of consultation and a set of truncated timelines. TCD is asking that when it comes to amendments, whether on Committee or Report Stages, that the Minister would take on board its views.

I know that not everybody who is going to input into the research and innovation decisions we make as a society needs to have a PhD or some sort of a postdoctoral qualification. Trinity College Dublin is a community of practice, one of some considerable expertise, both nationally and internationally, as highlighted by Senator Higgins, so we should take on board its concerns. One of the points it makes, which is very reasonable, is that Impact 2030 proposes a budget in the region of €270 million for the new agency, and that is only going to grow. It is more than a quarter of a billion euro and, therefore, issues around governance, consultation and accountability are really important.

Like Senator Higgins, some of the amendments I propose speak to the constitution of the board and the oversight and governance mechanisms in place there. It is very important that we have the proper governance because it is going to be of such vital importance to our future. The amendments I suggest are very modest in that regard. I ask that there would be some engagement on that. The amendments also talk about research excellence that is evidence-based. Again, ideas such as having active researchers as members of the board are very important. We must have reflective practitioners who have expertise and experience at the coalface of research, whether it be in the human sciences or the natural sciences, so that they are part of the decision-making process.

Finally, I refer to attracting and retaining talent. Fundamentally, TCD's submission talks about three values. The first one is ambition. The Bill, as currently worded, lacks ambition. Again, Senator Higgins pointed out this almost, dare I say, parochial kind of parameter that we look at the research interests of the State. We are a global interconnected community. Ireland has an open knowledge-based society that really needs a diverse research ecosystem that is interoperable with other research agencies on the European stage and internationally.Academic freedom is something which is very close to my heart. The Universities Act very explicitly sets out the rights of academics and researchers to be provocative and offensive. We have had a lot of debate in the Chamber about the proposed incitement to hatred legislation that is coming forward. We expressed some concerns about the lack of a definition of hatred. One of my concerns about that legislation is the chilling effect it might have on academics who seek to upset the status quoand challenge very dearly held received and culturally important beliefs that may not be useful and, in fact, may be harmful or toxic in society. Trinity College said there needs to be specific wording and I have suggested a number of amendments that reinforce that concept of academic freedom. This is not to assume that there is an implied academic freedom; rather, we need to actively and explicitly state that.

I refer to curiosity driven basic research. I echo the main assumptions of the national strategy for higher education, as set out in the Hunt report. We have to have an explicit recognition of and parity of esteem for blue-sky thinking and ground-breaking research for which there is no prior contribution to knowledge. We cannot build on what we know; we have to explore the unknown in order to contribute to knowledge and generate new insights and understandings that might dramatically change the world that we live in. That informs some of the amendments I have submitted.

Over a thousand senior academics and researchers wrote to the then Minister and current Taoiseach, Deputy Simon Harris, about the Bill last year and set out a number of key concerns. They include Professors Luke O'Neill and Jane Ohlmeyer from Trinity College, Professor Kingston Mills from the Trinity school of biochemistry and so on. The list is a who's who of research and expertise across the Republic. They all share similar concerns. In their submission, they said in an era of misinformation and disinformation, it is important that we have evidence-based criteria for the way in which we identify areas of research interest that are of value to society. This is the key to our economic and social survival and the antidote to a period of anti-intellectualism, misinformation and disinformation.

Those on the list also highlighted that expenditure in Ireland in terms of funding for research is very low, at in or around 1.2% or 1.3% of GDP. They state that there should be some sort of aspiration to at least meet the European average of 2.32% of GDP, in terms of the ambition of the Bill. At the moment, we are highly dependent on foreign direct investment. We need to be able to grow our own capacity and self-reliance. That will principally happen through research and innovation. It is well worth investing in those.

The other concerns are brief. I will then move on to the amendments. There needs to be a meaningful definition of research and it must be inclusive of every sector of knowledge and career stage. There must be balance, something which is not currently present, between science, technology, engineering and maths, STEM, and health sciences, arts, humanities and the social sciences. As I said, there are hundreds of references to the natural sciences and innovation in the Bill, but a bare few mentions of the arts and humanities. That is where some of the most ground-breaking research is going to take place, because of some of the principal threats to our survival as a species, as embodied by people like Vladimir Putin and, God help us, Donald Trump. Those problems are human and highly behaviouristic and can only be addressed through evidence-based research in the human sciences. We need an emphasis to be placed on that research.

I refer to the principles of parity of esteem between disciplines and academic freedom, something I will not rehearse again. One thousand academics are concerned about academic freedom. Strong, accountable and independent governance is required. This is a body that will control 75% of the research funding. It is a hugely powerful instrument and there needs to be robust, accountable and independent governance. Like the amendments proposed by Senator Higgins, my amendments will address some of the concerns. The European standards of good practice in terms of the fair allocation of funding and transparency and a commitment to meet the EU average of GDP investment are also factors.

I propose to run through the amendments briefly. Senator O'Hara has left; I must have bored him out of the Chamber. I am no longer the newest Senator, but I am relatively new to this. I will try to be as succinct as I can. Amendment No. 5-----