Malcolm Byrne (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I can appreciate some of the principles that have informed Senator Clonan's amendment. I noted the typo. He previously proposed what we called the Homer amendments, but now seems to seek biblical influence.

I understand where he is coming from and one of the challenges is understanding the role of this agency. I am speaking specifically to the amendment. A lot of the focus of the debate has been on funding schemes in higher education institutions. We need to be careful about being overly prescriptive. The agency is not just about the funding of certain schemes in our higher education institutions; it is also about a new research agency designed to make us a research-centred and innovative society and economy. That is broader than our higher education institutions.

Our universities will be very much the driving force for a lot of this. I agree with the Senator that research and innovation is not all found in one particular area or another. In fact, it is increasingly about interdisciplinarity and disciplines co-operating. I do not like the idea of ring-fencing funding for particular areas or disciplines. The function should be much more about meeting global challenges. It should be about saying to the new agency that some of the major global challenges we face are climate change and the biodiversity crisis and asking what the research and innovation community more widely is doing to address that. Those solutions will come as much from environmental scientists as from lawyers and architects. Solutions will require such an approach.

I am conscious about ring-fencing funding. I have seen what has happened with research agencies when this happens. One of the difficulties in the past with Science Foundation Ireland was that when it engaged in a research prioritisation exercise and picked 14 areas on which Irish research should focus, from a variety of disciplines, that came at the expense of other areas. We need to support applied research, but at the same time there has to be an emphasis on blue sky research and support for interdisciplinarity. I appreciate where the Senator is coming from, but I am worried that he thinks parity of esteem means we have to have parity of funding between various disciplines. I am not necessarily in favour of that.

There is no reason, if there is a particularly solid proposal from the humanities or a humanities background, that it cannot receive the bulk of funding ahead of something coming from what might be regarded as a STEM background. Increasingly, the barriers between disciplines are breaking down, especially when we are considering how we are going to try to solve some of our global problems.

It is critical that we have academic freedom for those who are engaged in research and innovation. It has to be evidence-based. I am particularly glad to see the president of UCD, Professor Orla Feely, make it very clear that when it comes to academic freedom that is non-negotiable. It is important that the work of the new agency is free from political interference or lobbying, whether that comes from a Minister or any other external interests, including those connected to a geopolitical conflict. There should always be the right and ability of those engaged in the research community to be able to co-operate more closely.This legislation allows for a lot of that to happen. I accept that a lot of this is going to be in the schemes as they are developed and operate. However, I am very concerned about the idea that parity of esteem is interpreted to mean that if we give X amount to one discipline, we have to give Y amount to another discipline. This is about being as innovative and research-centred as possible and letting the best proposals, from wherever they come, come forward and be recognised.

I am glad the Chair referred to people who cannot defend themselves in this House. There are allegations that have been made. I think it is wrong to attempt in some way to traduce particular individuals when we do not know the full circumstances.