Frank Feighan (Sligo-Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

1655. To ask the Minister for Education and Skills the Research Ireland (RI) criteria for applications deemed 'high-risk' and the reasons for rejection without any constructive feedback on same (details supplied); the criteria for qualifications of those tasked to approve the applications relevant to the application itself; the RI policy, if any, in terms of awarding funding to technical universities (TUs) versus more established universities in Dublin/Galway, or if there are plans to re-open a ring-fenced funding option for TUs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29797/25]

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to assure the Deputy that there is no distinction made in terms of location or discipline in relation to Research Ireland competitive funding awards. The criteria for assessment are clearly laid out in the documentation which accompanies these calls and the excellence and quality of the proposal, as well as the proposed impact, are the core criteria.

I share the Deputy's wish to see continued development of research and innovation capacity in the TUs, which is a key priority for my Department. Under the TU RISE programme €83.68 million in technological university-oriented research funding has been secured over the period of the European Regional Development Fund to 2027.

This month, I announced a Higher Education Authority (HEA) call for applications for a Targeted Enhancement Fund (TEF) for the technological sector and publicly funded specialist colleges. The TEF will be worth up to €65.8m and provide funding over a 36-month period. This investment in our Technological Universities, Institutes of Technology and specialist colleges underpins one of my strategic objectives for my Department - to act as an economic enabler by investing in people, in research, and in regional capacity.

Taigdhe Éireann - Research Ireland funding calls described as "high risk, high gain" likely refers to the Frontiers for the Future Programme (FFP), which consists of two streams: Projects and Awards. The former supports ‘high risk, high reward’ projects by placing more emphasis on the proposed research and less on the potential for economic, societal and/or scientific impact that is indicated by the applicant in their ‘Impact Statement’. As noted in the FFP call document:

“Furthermore, due to the high-risk, high-reward nature of the Projects, the weighting of the review scores will mean that there is decreased emphasis on the impact criterion for Research Ireland Frontiers for the Future Programme Projects, compared to Awards.”

As such, proposals that include high-risk elements are encouraged, but it is important that applicants can demonstrate not only how well these risks are understood, but also how they might be mitigated.

Applicants are provided with guidance and resources on how to complete their Impact Statement. Applications to the FFP Projects stream are assessed by three reviewers within a ‘virtual panel’, which is comprised of international reviewers who are carefully selected to ensure the best-possible alignment of panel members in terms of qualifications, expertise and experience to each proposal under review. The FFP call document also outlines how reviewers are assigned:

“Frontiers for the Future Programme Projects will be reviewed by a ‘virtual panel’ comprised of a large number of international reviewers; where each member of the virtual panel receives a number of proposals, up to six, to review. The virtual panels are therefore more generalist in nature and reviewers may not be experts in the exact subject area of all the proposals which have been assigned to them”.

As such, applicants to this programme are made aware of the review process in advance and are specifically advised to prepare proposals with this process in mind. All reviewers are from the international research community – no competing Irish researchers nor any Research Ireland staff, are involved in the review process. In assessing proposals, reviewers may discuss risks in their reports and are encouraged to be clear in highlighting any issues that they feel are relevant to the delivery of proposed research.

Taigdhe Éireann - Research Ireland staff take considerable care to assess submitted reviews for any evidence of unfairness or bias, which includes any bias for or against any particular research body. There is no priority given to any research body over another. Taighde Éireann - Research Ireland grants funding on the basis of excellence, as determined through international peer review. Unless stated in the call documentation, the affiliation is not taken into account in funding decisions. Furthermore, Taighde Éireann - Research Ireland follows international best practice in using peer review to inform the agency on the merits and deficiencies of all proposals submitted to its calls.

The agency also provides extensive support, guidance and feedback throughout this process. Applicants are given detailed feedback on potential improvements or developments they could make to improve their chances of success in any future research funding proposals.

As you will appreciate, neither I, as Minister, nor my Department has a role in an award of competitive funding. Maintaining best international practice and the integrity of these calls through a rigorous competitive peer review process is of paramount importance.

Taighde Éireann- Research Ireland is currently engaging in extensive stakeholder engagement across all of the regions to develop their future agency planning and programme design. I will convey the Deputy’s proposal for a ring-fenced funding option for TUs to the agency for consideration in this process.