Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

It has a lot to do with it. Manual dexterity was actually the thing that created a dynamic interaction between the growth of the human brain so it was able to do things that no other species can do. That is the essence of research and innovation. If we boil that down to the issue of the poverty of our researchers, they cannot do very good research if they do not have a secure roof over their heads. If a researcher is literally hungry and living in poverty, it does not actually contribute to the advancement of those skills we uniquely have as a species to think about things that do not exist, to go down rabbit holes, to do blue sky research and to imagine different possibilities and futures. That is what is unique to human beings.

Critically, in that regard I want to emphasise that the question of arts and humanities and research in those areas has to be considered as equally important to what are narrowly considered the sciences. I have concerns in this area because the two go together. That is essentially what I am trying to argue here. It is often arts and the humanities and what would not often appear to have an immediate practical or commercial purpose and those slightly more blue sky imaginings or research that lead us to big scientific breakthroughs. The artistic imagination of human beings, which is unique to us, leads us on to practical breakthroughs and scientific discoveries and innovations that literally change the world in with we live and begin to change us in the process. That has been the dynamic dialectic of human evolution and history. It is very important we recognise that.

If things are too narrowly focused on what we imagine to be our immediate practical interests - it is not that they are not important - and we do not give equal opportunity to the human imagination in terms of research, innovation, study, investigation and so on, we will be cutting off our nose to spite our face.

In that regard, I have concerns about the centralisation of power in the hands of the Minister in terms of the appointment of the board members, and the fact that the only person that is specified as having to be on the board is somebody who "shall have experience and expertise relating to enterprise and shall be nominated for such appointment by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment". I accept that we need people who have expertise in enterprise. There is nothing wrong with that, but what about the researchers and the representatives of the staff and employees? Why are they not on the board? Why is that not fixed? Why is all the rest of it in the hands of the Minister who can direct this new body to do pretty much anything he wants? To my mind, that is of concern. We need input from the researchers, the people who may be specialists in particular areas, the staff and so on. It is interesting and slightly concerning that the only one who is specifically singled out as having to be there is the person with experience and expertise in enterprise. Of course, that leads into a more general concern that we end up with a sort of focus on blue chip research rather than blue sky research. In other words, it is about commercial objectives and what suits industry. It is not that these things are unimportant but that everything becomes focused on that rather than perhaps on what is good for science, culture, society and so on. I want to express those concerns and also my concern about the centralisation of power in the hands of the Minister rather than involving more stakeholders.

Critically, to go back where I started, we need far more to be invested in the first place, and it should not be narrowly focused. If it becomes too narrowly focused, it could come at the expense of other important areas of research, not just science in the very narrow sense or maths or whatever, but all the other areas, such as arts and humanities, which are critical for the advancement of the human species and human society.

See this speech in context