Scientists fight for full share of Tiger droppings

It's the single biggest investment in scientific research in the history of the State - £560 million in the National Development Plan to make Ireland a world leader in computer and biotechnology research. But it is, like all windfalls, unexpected, and it will take time to decide just how and where it should be spent.

The Cabinet meets in the next week or two to decide between the third-level colleges, stand-alone research institutes and industry on how, and in what combination, the funds should be allocated.

Meanwhile, opinions rage. Mattie McCabe of the Office of Science and Technology insists that third-level institutions - universities and institutes of technology - will be involved whatever decision is made.

Dr John O'Donovan of the Irish Research Scientists Association says there are enough good scientists around to absorb the funding that is available. "The money should be spent on research. Forget about the bricks and mortar - there is plenty of bricks and mortar around."

Michael McGrath of the Conference of Heads of Irish Universities says that what is needed is a command centre where there is a virtual display of projects and researchers, not a showcase akin to the old "advance factory ideas from the Seventies".

"There is so much at stake and so much money. It has to complement what is already there in the universities and the institutes of technology," says Dr Dick Kavanagh of the Irish Research Development Group.

The focus of the debate is on the possible creation of two institutes, one for computer research and one for biotechnology. The key issue - which has caused the delay in making the decision - is whether the State should build two brand new, stand-alone institutes or create the institutes within the confines of the universities, expanding the remit of existing facilities and researchers.

Vigorous, if genteel, battles are being fought over this question involving Government departments, outside research interests in the universities and institutes of technology and industrial interests including IBEC and companies which conduct research. It has meant that ministers at Cabinet have been receiving conflicting messages about which way to decide.

The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, with the Office of Science and Technology, and Forfas, the State agency charged with developing science and industry, strongly recommend that Ireland build genuinely worldclass stand-alone centres where we could showcase what Ireland has to offer. They have impressed this on their Minister, the Tanaiste, Mary Harney.

Officials in the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Health, and their related bodies, the Health Research Board and the Higher Education Authority, prefer the idea of using the substantial and unprecedented funding to broaden and deepen the quality of research done by third-level scientists.

A stand-alone institute is believed to have been recommended in a memorandum, circulated to Government departments and to related State bodies, and meant to focus thinking on the issue.

As with all State secrets, the news was out like a shot to the tight and inter-related research community and the e-mails started to fly. Soon after, the intensive lobbying began, with leading researchers writing to Harney, expressing their dismay at what they thought might happen to university- and IT- based research if the institutes were created away from campus.

What all sides agree on with no dissenting voice is the importance of spending the money wisely. The £560 million is but one element of a planned £1.9 billion to be invested in science between now and 2006 under the National Plan, more than was spent on roads in the last national plan. Science has never had this level of funding available to it and Government is rightly cautious about how it is to be invested.

The onslaught on Government was swift and fierce and involved some of Ireland's top scientists and most influential advocates for Irish-conducted research. Happily and perhaps most importantly, the Office for Science and Technology (OST) - which is organising these exchanges for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (DETE), the Department controlling the "foresight" money - and the Cabinet have left the door open for continued debate and discussion. (See panel).

Nor has the opportunity for discussion ended. Those close to the exchanges have suggested that a new flexibility has emerged compared with the initial memorandum recommendations.

WHAT HAS BEEN agreed so far is that the £560 million will be administered by an independent foundation, which, according to sources close to Government, will have total control and be based on international peer review. The foundation would "ring-fence" the money so it couldn't be used for other purposes, the source said. "The idea is to keep the focus on excellence."

Working titles have included the Schrodinger or Walton Foundation, but these famous names are linked to specific institutions. Another neutral title, the source said, was the National Strategic Research Foundation.

The head of the OST, Mattie McCabe, points out that however the money was used, existing researchers would still benefit. "What we are doing is taking the foresight recommendations and looking at possible delivery mechanisms. Even if the foundation does set up its own labs, they will have to be linked very closely to the universities."

The Industry Research Development Group (IRDG) - which represents companies conducting research - and IBEC, the IRDG's sister body, agreed a formal position on the issue and met the ministers to get industry's own message across. So too did the Committee of Heads of Irish Universities (CHIU), which represents university presidents.

The IRDG and IBEC joint submission welcomed the State investment in Irish research, explained IRDG's managing director, Dick Kavanagh. "Our concerns would relate to the structure. It has to complement what is already there in the universities and the institutes of technology," he says.

The group has argued that it should be industry-led, competitive and world-class and carry good branding for "Ireland Inc". "There is merit in setting up a foundation, but it should work with the colleges as well."

The OST planners should examine how the third-level institutions might be able to meet the aims of the foresight programme through collaboration, states Professor Art Cosgrove, president of UCD. "It may well be that some of the objectives of the programme can be achieved more easily and more cost-effectively through such co-operation and collaboration," he says.