John Crown (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I must declare an interest at the outset. While I derive no income or funds from SFI, I am the leader of a consortium funded by SFI, which will be in receipt of approximately ¤7.5 million worth of research funds over a five-year period. This has enabled us to build a unique nationwide consortium of cancer researchers working together to try to deal with the inconsistencies of a country that has a relatively small population but a relatively large number of academic institutions.

The leadership SFI provided in that regard was simply irreplaceable.

Let me proselytise for one second. As the Minister of State knows, science is not a pursuit carried out by eggheads in white coats with thick glasses. Science is knowledge; it is the language of the universe. We are all doing it every day of our lives. Our discoveries that fire is hot, that things fall down rather than up and that, as a baby, one should not go near stairs are all manifestations of the scientific process. I am a very firm believer in the necessity for democracies to have scientifically informed and sophisticated populations.

History is replete with examples of where a lack of knowledge of science was quickly plugged with ignorance. In certain circumstances, that ignorance was harnessed with very negative and anti-social consequences. I do not want to invoke Godwin's law, but I must mention the fact that the large and successful totalitarian states of the 20th century such as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany had at their core a willingness to subjugate the truth of science to ideological fervour. A famous case arose in the Soviet Union on foot on the now discredited genetic theories of a gentleman called Lysenko, whose crackpot theories on plant genetics were such that he was single-handedly responsible for several of the union's large famines. We do not have to go into detail about the crackpot ideological theories used by the Nazis to justify their wars of racial superiority and extermination.

Worryingly for a sophisticated country such as the United States, it has in the past 12 months seen evidence of the consequences of a lack of scientific knowledge. There are reports that perhaps as many as 50% of Americans believe dinosaurs and humans coexisted during the mere 6,000 years in which they believe our universe has existed. We have heard a US politician state rape could not result in pregnancy owing to a false understanding of biology. We have heard others state evolution is a lie from the pit of hell.

There is no doubt that it is good for society to be scientifically informed. I was delighted to see in SFI's strategic report such a heavy emphasis on curriculum development and the placement of science at the centre of society, commerce, etc.

The economists have criticised scientists, with whom I align myself loosely. I do a little scientific research, but I am primarily a clinician. The economists have criticised scientists for focusing on inputs rather than outputs. Let us for one second consider the relative outputs that have occurred in the past two centuries of science and economics. Scientists have worked out how to have clean water, how the universe and gravity work and how to free us from the shackles of gravity such that we can fly. They have given us information technology, conquered many, if not most, infectious diseases and have gone a long way towards curing cancer and understanding the basis of circulatory disease. They have increased life expectancy. In most western countries with access to the fruits of science life expectancy has increased from approximately 30 years to 75. There is a long way to go, but we have done well. During the past two centuries apparently no two economists agreed on anything. Economics schools may follow von Hayek, Friedman, Keynes, Marx or Adam Smith, but they might as well be talking about different disciplines. I mentioned this morning that if doctors were as consistent as economists, one doctor might say one should have an operation, while another, giving a second opinion, might say one should become an opera star. At least, the scientific method produces consistency.

Why should we conduct research and support science? Knowledge is good in its own right. If there was nothing else, having knowledge would be better than having none, as knowledge leads to tangible benefits. All the advances we have made in technology and health care, for example, have come from somebody's scientific discoveries five or, ultimately, 400 years ago. The pursuit of knowledge is good and has many collateral benefits. It increases the quality of education and training and what people do in the health service and the manufacturing sector.

Knowledge delivers enormous economic benefits. We are not blessed with considerable natural resources in Ireland, but we can ensure good leveraging of our national intelligence and skills base. SFI has been a great success. I was out of the country from 1985 until 1993. I became very involved in trying to set up research activities when I returned and have noted that the changes in the past decade, since SFI has been on the scene, have been colossal. In stark contrast with most other State agencies, SFI is highly effective. It is highly efficient and has a very good management structure. It believes in attracting the best international experts to assess what should be funded. If a project is good, it is funded and we get out of the way. We come back a couple of years later and ask for the report card and whether the job has been done. SFI does not micro-manage, which is the reason science in Ireland has accelerated to such an extraordinary degree in the past decade. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" - SFI is working well.

The idea of incentivising applied research while still holding basic research in esteem is valid. The distinction is blurring as time passes. Certainly in cancer care, concepts that once appeared incredibly philosophical and abstract have actually been translated into treatments in relatively short periods. Research that seemed very basic has actually become very applied to the real benefit of patients. Ireland, importantly, has had some role in this and other areas, principally immunology.

This is the wrong time to give anything other than a great message of support. We had a country that deluded itself into believing we could all get rich by selling one another houses and that we needed vast numbers operating in a regulatory capacity to try to build an economy. What we really need to do as we rebalance and reformat the economy is ensure there is a strong, technical engineering and scientific sector. The job SFI has done and will continue to do will aid in the process.