Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the presenters. I would like to go back a little bit into the language of the Bill because, of course, that is where we are in strengthening it. I can see there is excitement around the potential but the detail also matters. I will pick up on a couple of points, and in particular I want to expand upon the recommendations around head 8 and head 9, which I found very interesting.

Professor Taylor referred to the international piece. In the general scheme we hear a lot about the world class and the competitive frame, but what of the international collaborative piece? At one point it refers to the national, environmental, and social piece and all of these good things, but when it gets down to head 9 on functions, it becomes a little more about the competitiveness of the Irish State, which is a slightly different thing, whereas in some of these areas we know it is the collaboration that is going to be key, especially in the context of the areas such as health and medicine development and in areas around climate action.

Reference was made specifically to the sustainable development goals, SDGs. Do the witnesses believe it is important that, within head 8 in terms of the objects or within head 9 around the functions, there would be a stronger reference to the point around international collaboration? I am really thinking about climate when I refer to this. I sit on the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action. On climate, much as we argue about it, we actually cannot afford to be fully competitive because the actions we must take need to be scaled up so quickly and there is a climate justice component to it. Will the witnesses comment on the sustainable development goals?

In the area of SDGs, another interesting point was raised that the heads of the Bill do not currently reference the key issue of ethical research or research integrity. That is a missing piece within either the objects or the functions, when we would hope this would give guidance. In this regard, we are losing the Irish Research Council. It is to be hoped we are not losing its members as they are going to be wonderfully represented within this new structure. The Irish Research Council, however, has been key in that it has had funding on the SDGs and has led the way on the Athena SWAN charter. I would welcome any comments on that. The council has also led in driving best practice around gender diversity by putting a condition on the money, whereby the recipient would have to have achieved a certain level within the Athena SWAN charter. That was a substantial innovation from the Irish Research Council. Is this an example of why we might need to put in something around the ethical research and research integrity? This aspect is really crucial in the sciences at the moment given the issues with artificial intelligence and elsewhere. I am very interested in the witnesses' thoughts on the ethics point, the international problem solving, and the international collaboration point, and not just the world-class competitiveness.

Another piece, which I believe was raised by Professor Kelly-Holmes, is that part of the ethics is around how people working in the sector are treated and how we can strengthen the references in the Bill to the all-career stages, to the career track, and to the best practice for those working in research, so we are looking to ensure there are good terms and conditions for those from postgraduate positions right the way up. Where do the witnesses see this being strengthened in the Bill?

Reference was made to the wide variety of stakeholders in addition to those listed in paragraph (c) of head 8. I raised this concern with the previous witnesses. The general scheme refers to a collaborative approach, but when referencing developing this new agenda, it looks at collaborating with other funders specifically. The importance of collaboration is not solely with funders; it is also about the thought leadership space. What kinds of stakeholders are key that should be listed, much as fellow research funders are listed in head 9?

I would like the witnesses to elaborate on a wider definition of innovation. It is something I am interested in. Coming from a climate perspective, we hear a lot about tech solutions but sometimes it is about heritage crafts. Time-intensive heritage crafts are often one of the most important ways in which we can manage our resources effectively. In terms of history the example was given about how history has been reframed from a colonial or gender role perspective. There is a lot to be discovered. I would like to hear about how the witnesses think that definition of innovation might be strengthened in a concrete way. I am looking for ways in which we can improve the Bill.

My final question is for Professor Livesey. I see the excitement around the links and the potential. Professor Livesey mentioned competitive funding and issues around that. Actually, I do not know to whom I am referring as I came from another committee. A point was made about ensuring research integrity. I have an interesting question on that. A huge amount of funding the State has for research and development comes through the form of tax reliefs for the tech sector, the pharma sector and so on. As such, a huge amount of research and development funding is effectively given indirectly by the State through tax relief. When the knowledge development box legislation was going through the Houses, I raised whether there was potential to ask more about that research and development funding. Is it partnering with universities and education institutions? How is it feeding back into the wider research picture in the State? Professor Livesey mentioned there is scope there. I would be interested to hear his thoughts on that.