Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that we are taking the foot off the pedal in terms of basic research and moving into applied research. We are extending the remit but, as I said at the earlier committee meeting, one is the logical extension of the other. It is an almost impossible task and would require significant additional resources to be deployed within Science Foundation Ireland and also across the higher education sector and would be burdensome for the scientific community. In reality, such a proposal would add little value over and above the systems that Science Foundation Ireland has in place.

Perhaps I can explain it briefly. One needs to appreciate fully the nature and increasing complexity of the research continuum which is not just at the national level but is global. One needs to realise how it spans from the blue skies fundamental research through oriented basic research and on towards the applied research arena. Internationally, there is the ever-increasing convergence across different scientific disciplines as well as significantly different timelines in certain sectors. For example, ICT related research evolves far more rapidly than the life sciences and biosciences research areas, and the lines between pure fundamental research and truly applied research can be very difficult to distinguish. Research can often span different areas and across different types. For instance, ICT related research will cross over into the life sciences, energy and many other research areas and will typically encompass basic clinical translational and applied research.

Science Foundation Ireland administers more than 450 live research grants with an awards commitment value of €400 million spanning out to 2019. On top of these SFI commitment levels there are also industry contributions in excess of €100 million from a significant cohort of the 700 plus industry partners directly connected to SFI funded researchers. The SFI grants awards will have differing durations and review processes which means that the SFI funding model and grants commitments and expenditure process is constantly evolving. Invariably, there will also be a range of other funding streams in research teams that involve certain SFI supported scientists whereby the SFI element may be only one aspect, along with private industry funding, EU funding, contributions from other private sources or other national funders. Committee members will appreciate that in recent years, Science Foundation Ireland-funded teams leveraged in excess of €150 million per annum from sources other than its SFI grants, and usually close to 60% comes from non-Exchequer sources. In 2012, the amount leveraged from other sources was approximately €171 million.

There is a complexity involved when trying to analyse and breakdown the funding between the various points on the research continuum. There is the SFI provided element and we must also distinguish between the other funding sources within a year and in each year. Funding is a constantly evolving and highly complex process. SFI already manages the process very tightly and effectively with its small staffing cohort of about 45 persons. Furthermore, one must remember that SFI is one of our research funding agencies. Even if one was keen to undertake the very resource intensive ask arising from the amendment, one would still not have a full picture of Ireland's overall research landscape. Typically, SFI research investments account for just over 25% of Ireland's overall public research investments.

The proposal would also place an added burden on those in the scientific community if we were to constantly press them to categorise their various projects and associated funding between oriented, basic and applied research. Such an exercise would, most likely, also eat further into the Exchequer's research provision to the higher education institutions. It would mean that colleges would have to deploy additional administrative supports. We need to ease the administrative burden on the scientific community in order for them to do what they do best which is to undertake excellent research with impact and relevance. On that basis, I do not propose to accept the amendment.