Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Barrett. I will respond in general to some of the points raised by him.

Senator Barrett's points are valid and we are conscious of them because we want to ensure we have the best research landscape in the world. That is our ambition and with the meagre resources we have, given we are borrowing ¤300 million per week, we want to prioritise. I take the Senator's point on the word "strategic" but the sense of the word for the purpose of this legislation is that we have a strategy that is mapped out through the national research prioritisation exercise. The steering group has reported on 14 key areas the State will fund.

That is not the end. The State's resources that are applied to this are a portion of the overall spend on research and innovation in this State. We need to have context here. The HEA block grant is ¤1.02 billion and research prioritisation amounts to ¤440 million. There are other research funders through private enterprise and entities such as the Health Research Board, Teagasc and the IRC. If we send a signal about this legislation to the research community, it must say that in times of economic constraint, we have built up the capacity in recent years and now we want to sharpen the focus. That does not mean that botanists, for instance, cannot be funded within the Irish landscape. It is not true to say that if they are not within research prioritisation, they will not be funded. It is unfair for anyone to make that assumption. There are imaginative ways where if people can prove an economic or social impact, and there are clear metrics set out by SFI in the area, I see no reason that area of research cannot be funded.

If a project does not fit into prioritisation, it does not mean the area will be an outlier in the system. Talking of mathematics, which underpins all of the best science, there is no reason that mathematicians cannot map on to the prioritisation exercise. There is a mechanism for them to do that.

We are thinking long term and in terms of the next generation. We want to come up with a research infrastructure to ensure that we can attract the sort of world class researchers who are so necessary for the system we have and to measure up to that excellence and have a long-term goal of excellence. This legislation is part of that process and is necessary.

There is within the prioritisation exercise a clear pathway to measuring outputs. We are in the midst of completing a metrics paper with the assistance of Forfás, which I thank for its work so far, that will measure outputs and impact. It is important to measure on behalf of the taxpayer where funding is being funnelled and the impact it is having. That process is ongoing and I am conscious of the Senator's point.

I also agree with the Senator about the role of industry. Sometimes we get stark messages from industry but we are engaged in a process at present whereby we are putting together a group of people, some from the HEI and some from industry, so we can map out what is happening in the stem cell area. There are two aspects to that. We must ensure we have the continuing professional development that is so vital at primary and secondary level so we have the through-put into the tertiary education sphere. We also must ensure that where disparate initiatives are taking place in industry, if there is a way to map them, we will do so to see how they can be replicated across the system. Every child at primary and post-primary level should have access to that industrial engagement in the area of promoting science, technology, engineering and maths.

All of this inhabits the educational sphere. Regarding the legislation, section 3 of the Bill will insert a definition of "applied research" and define "strategic areas of opportunity for the State which shall be construed in accordance with section 7(6). "Applied research" means original investigation undertaken to acquire new knowledge directed primarily towards a specific practical aim or objective. Applied research is usually undertaken either to determine possible uses for the findings of basic research or to determine new methods or ways of creating practical applications. This amendment is necessary to enable Science Foundation Ireland to support applied research as well as continuing to support oriented basic research.

The other amendment to section 3 will help to refocus the foundation's efforts in areas of opportunity by adding the term "strategic areas of opportunity for the State". This revised definition relates to the revision of Science Foundation Ireland's functions provided for in section 4 of the Bill. The amendment relating to strategic areas of opportunity will allow for Science Foundation Ireland to realign its programme portfolio in line with the recommendations arising from the national research prioritisation steering group, which was chaired by Mr. Jim O'Hara, formerly of Intel.

The group identified 14 priority areas of opportunity for Ireland and six underpinning technologies and infrastructure. To support these priority areas on the basis of existing strengths of the enterprise base, opportunities that exist in the global market place and those most likely to deliver economic and societal impact and, ultimately, jobs, the Government approved the recommendations arising from the group's recommendations. The aim is to align the majority of public STI investment with 14 areas of opportunity identified in the report, as well as the underpinning technologies and infrastructure. The report also acknowledged the important role of research for policy and research for knowledge, and recommended the remaining funding be channelled to support these two areas. A number of measures were also recommended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the STI system. It is in the context that the Bill provides for the refocusing of the research themes to be funded by the SFI towards the priority areas of opportunity.