Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent) | Oireachtas source

While science and technology are playing an ever increasing role in our lives, whether at home, at work or in our leisure activities, there has remained a poor public awareness of science, the opportunity it presents for Ireland, our economy and people. I hope the one thing that comes out of the Covid-19 pandemic is a greater appreciation of the need for independent scientific advice in policy and decision-making in this country.

Science in Ireland is at a crossroads and the decisions made by the Government over the next 13 months have the potential to be transformative in scientific and societal impact for a generation to come. We are also at an economic crossroads with complex challenges facing Ireland in a post-Brexit, post pandemic environment and in an era where corporate tax will no longer be the incentive to encourage foreign direct investment into Ireland. Establishing an innovation-based economy is more important than before.

The Government's Creating our Future initiative is a very positive and significant step forward and is encouraging members of the public to provide their ideas on what public research should be funded to make Ireland a better country for everyone. This process of engagement with the public, particularly focusing on research co-creation, is innovative but it must be the start of a process and not just an end in itself. For this initiative to be truly a success it is important that the public engagement is a two-way process and that we find innovative ways to respond to communities and individuals so that we are not just capturing ideas but we are also communicating back on what we are doing with those ideas and the solutions that have emerged as a result of these ideas.

The next big decision by Government is on the appointment of a new chief scientific adviser. This is a critical appointment not just because of the individual who takes up the post but more importantly how that position is set to be structured and resourced within Government. We must have a decision-making process. We must have a Government decision-making ecosystem based on a critical analysis of all the options and this can only happen with the establishment of an independent, well-resourced scientific advisory office. The remit of the office of the chief scientific adviser needs to be expanded to become a three-lane bridge between policymakers and science, providing independent evidence-based insights into the Irish policymaking system including both Government and the Oireachtas. These three lanes must be Cabinet and science, Government Departments and science, and the Oireachtas and science.

To nail my colours to the mast, so to speak, I do not agree nor have I ever agreed with the view the director general of Science Foundation Ireland, SFI, and the chief scientific adviser post should be one and the same. This is not a reflection on Professor Mark Ferguson but I previously described the amalgamation of the two roles in this House as akin to the appointment of the CEO of the Health Service Executive as the Chief Medical Officer to the Government. This would not work in the health area and will not work in the science area either. That was seven years ago and I believe many can now fully relate to my analogy back then. I am glad the Minister has confirmed that one individual will no longer hold both offices. It is vital that if the Government is to rely on the advice of the chief scientific adviser, especially regarding a public crisis just as we have seen with the Covid-19 pandemic in health, then this office needs to be seen as independent and credible in public perception or else the decisions taken by the Government based on such advice will lack the authority they require to secure public support.

The chief scientific adviser must also be a bridge between Departments and science. While there are plenty of doctors in the Department of Health, there are very few technical postgraduates throughout our public service. We are far too reliant on external advice, which is important, but most complement expertise within the Government not replace it. Every time a complex decision must be made in Government or by a Department, a team of consultants that is accountable to absolutely nobody is hauled in. We exclude direct advice from experts in specialist fields who are funded by the public and whose individual academic reputation is based on providing impartial advice. Instead, we splash out more public funds to get a consultant’s interpretation of that evidence, evidence the public has already paid for in research grants. Right across our public service we need focused incentives for those within the public service to upskill and attract analytical skills into Departments, thus providing a better understanding of technical advice. This needs to be stitched into the public service reform programme or else we will continue to pay lip service to reform. We must allow public service policymakers an opportunity to step outside their daily role through secondment into academic institutions to undertake specific pieces of policy analysis informed by the professional expertise. Without the ingraining of critical thinking into public service reform we are just waiting for another groupthink disaster to happen and sadly we are all paying for that approach to our banking system.

Science and technology policy fellowships also provide opportunities to outstanding scientists and engineers to learn first-hand about policymaking and to contribute their knowledge and analytical skills in the policy realm. Fellowships for research should help them gain a better understanding of how Government works and how decisions are made. The research community needs to appreciate that policymakers need the best available advice at that point in time, not the perfect result in some academic paper in five years’ time. This two-way flow of expertise, connecting science with policy, will foster a network of science and engineering leaders who understand Government and policymaking and who are prepared to develop and execute solutions to address our side societal problems.

The chief scientific adviser must establish an Oireachtas office of science and technology just like the Parliamentary Budget Office which, as the Minister of State knows, was established after the financial crisis as an independent specialist and impartial financial budgetary information analysis and advisory service to the Oireachtas. Sadly, there are many instances of alternative thinking here in Dáil Éireann just being shot down, and often condescendingly so, purely because they are not in line with the agreed narrative on the issue. We must remind ourselves that when only one solution or answer is being presented to Parliament that makes for bad decisions regarding democracy. We need a proactive science advisory service that scans the political and technical horizon and provides summaries of rigorous research evidence. In the UK this is done by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. That office has pioneered rapid mobilisation of the research community to support the parliamentary scrutiny of government actions around Covid-19 in the UK. Interestingly, that office carried out research in 2017 that found the parliamentary system in the UK only infrequently availed of scientific advice on committee inquiries. I suspect the same happens here as well. Now more than ever the Oireachtas needs to properly scrutinise Government decisions with empirical evidence. It is in all our interests to strengthen the parliamentary democracy and the fundamental goal in this is to use diverse research evidence in all our parliamentary activities. Thankfully, we have started this process with the appointment of six fellows through SFI. That has commenced this process and now we need to build on that very first step.

See this speech in context