Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

7. To ask the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the steps he plans to take in response to the unprecedented move by over 900 scientists expressing concern regarding the Government's research policy and over-concentration on commercial research. [11965/15]

Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is essentially the same question that was asked earlier by Deputy Calleary. I listened to the Minister’s answer then and I hope he is not going to give the same answer to me now. When he said those looking for funding will always look for more means he is entirely missing the point. Practically the entire scientific community has publicly said the Government’s approach to research funding is wrong. It did not say the Government is not putting enough money into research. It is asking the Government to rebalance its distribution. This is a very serious scenario and I am surprised at how dismissive the Minister has been of the opinions of the scientific community.

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Policy is focused on building excellence in scientific research and maximising its impact on jobs, as well as in economic and social progress. Neither I nor the Government make any apology for putting an extra emphasis on research that can help create more jobs. The Government introduced several policy initiatives targeted at accelerating the economic and societal return on our investment in this area. Among these was the implementation of the proposals of the research prioritisation group. It narrowed down to 14 priority areas around which the majority of competitive funding should be targeted. There will be a two gateway approach, namely excellence in science and relevance to what can be delivered. We also have invested considerably in improving that capacity to deliver. We have established a new group in Enterprise Ireland, Knowledge Transfer Ireland, which is seeking to take commercial research and bring it to the point it can be spun out in licences or new start-ups.

We are also investing heavily in commercialisation funds. Close to €100 million is being put into that phase to take and bring forward good ideas in order that they will have an impact on research.

As I said in my earlier reply, we have sustained the budget within Science Foundation Ireland, SFI, which funds roughly €150 million out the total of €700 million. From its very inception, the mandate of SFI has been oriented towards basic research, but it must have relevance to Irish society. That is the approach we are taking. The letter objects to oriented research which is at the core of SFI's mandate. Excellent science and relevance have been in harness from the outset of the strategy. As I sought to illustrate in the earlier answers, it is having an impact. We are recognised as being good at undertaking research and making an impact. I point the Deputy to the 12 research centres which are detailed in really important documents. I can refer the Deputy to them.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will let the Minister back in as his time is up.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am well aware of the Government's approach, but the point the Minister seems to be diminishing is that it is the core of the Government's strategy that is being objected to by the entire scientific community. While the Government is funding basic research, as the Minister notes, it is funding oriented basic research. Best practice tells us that this will not be good enough in the long run. I think the scientists used the very good example of how a cure for diabetes had been discovered. If one undertakes targeted, oriented basic research, one is examining one aspect only, but if scientists are given free rein to take a wide berth, they can come up with something new which can be applied in a different field. The statistics show that what the scientists are saying is correct. PhD numbers are down and our university ratings are falling. The numbers involved in the scientific area in Trinity College Dublin are down by 50%. We are losing out on the best people precisely because of that approach. On a visit to Ireland the UK Nobel Laureate Sir Paul Nurse was on record as saying we had it the wrong way around and that it was unbalanced. It is not that we are doing everything wrong, but it is unbalanced and we need to co-ordinate the strategy better.

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are opening up the strategy to scrutiny by inviting submissions. If the Deputy reads the scientists' submission, much of their criticism is not directed at SFI's approach but at matters such as pressure on teaching time and other general issues. The founding principle of SFI was to promote oriented research; therefore, it must be connected. There is no point in undertaking ivory tower research that has no relevance to the Irish scene. SFI applies two tests. One is excellent science that is internationally peer reviewed, while the second is relevance. It is up to those bidding for money to demonstrate relevance.

It is instructive that really important areas crucial to our future are being developed. They include big data, software development, pharmaceuticals, the marine, infant health and advanced materials. We are strong in those areas and building on their strengths. If the Deputy would like to submit her own views, we would be happy to take them, but these are examples of excellent science.

Outside the research centres, there are many principal investigators undertaking basic research. What is very interesting is that we have more researchers in industry than we had five years ago. There has been a big increase in the number of people involved in industry who are taking on researchers within their companies to drive their businesses, which is very important for employment creation.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a contradiction in what the Minister is saying. On the one hand, he is saying he is open to listening, but his comments in response to questions have been really dismissive of what the entire scientific community is saying. At the heart of this is the fact that scientists are not businesspeople or entrepreneurs. Of course, we hope the outcome of their research will lead to job creation, as it often does.

Why is the Government listening to the chief scientific adviser in the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation? There should be an independent scientific adviser to the Government directing in areas of health and education if we are to prioritise societal gain and, ultimately, long-term jobs through it. That is the approach used in Denmark, Germany and Austria, which are ahead of us. This would be better in the long term both in terms of job creation and a societal impact. If the Minister is really saying he is interested in and listening to what the scientists are saying, he should call them in and possibly adapt some of his responses to take account of what they are saying, which is that the long-term benefits would be more preferable in that regard.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I asked the Minister earlier to outline the consultation process and who had been invited to participate, but he did not do so. I also think it is significant that the Minister for State, Deputy Damien English, is not here to take this question because he is also attached to the Department of Education and Skills. The fact that the Minister took this question might be proof of what the 900 scientists are taking about.

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is attending a funeral; that is the reason why I am taking this question. The consultation period continues to be open.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who is involved in it?

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To return to Deputy Clare Daly's points, the areas we have prioritised are food for health, micro-electronics, bio-refining and bioenergy, IT innovation, applied nanotechnology, composite materials, manufacturing research, energy efficiency, international energy research, learning technologies, financial services, cloud computing, data analytics and pharmaceutical manufacturing. It is not a narrow list but includes many areas that offer potential opportunities. We have 12 excellent research centres in specific areas. They have been competitively chosen by means of an international peer review, not by some individual. The Deputy can read about them because the information on them is very conveniently published. Their ambitions and the research they are conducting are set out. By any description, the research being conducted by the Tyndall National Institute, the National Institute for Bioprocessing Research and Training or INSIGHT, and the Centre for Data Analytics is basic research that will have a fundamental impact on our capacity to grow various sectors.

Choices must be made when funds are being allocated. There will always be a debate about basic versus oriented and applied research. There has been more emphasis in recent times on applied research, but we are delivering internationally benchmarked good results from our research investment. The review must look at the hard numbers and opinions and weigh them up. That is what we are doing. We are engaged in a wide consultation process in which everyone is welcome to participate.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The relevant Deputy is not present to take Question No. 8.