WHITE PAPER ON SCIENCE

Sir, Your coverage of the White Paper on science, technology and innovation was extensive and welcome - a political correspondent…

Sir, Your coverage of the White Paper on science, technology and innovation was extensive and welcome - a political correspondent, education correspondent, science reporter etc. and a leading article. This for a topic that unfortunately does not loom large in the public mind or in the national culture.

I might quibble with some of the line taken in your reporting, but I won't. As for your leader, however, I found it disappointing and frustrating. I expect an editorial to be opinionated, provocative, one-sided, to take a line. However, a line should be argued. There certainly was a line, but it was asserted; there was no argument.

It is repeatedly asserted that there is no evidence of any overall policy within which decisions announced are made. But Part One of the White Paper is about nothing else. It locates STI policy firmly within the overall public policy framework - necessary because of the tendency of the S&T constituency, in common with all constituencies, to think only of itself when it comes to pleading for public spending. Government, on the other hand, must deal with everything, strike balances, face what are competing claims and operate with limited resources, The White Paper proposes applying a contractarian philosophy to the resolution of dilemmas and conflicts.

S&T policy is also located as a subset of industrial policy generally - the view is that public policy cannot support science simply for itself. As far as government is concerned, funding of science has a social purpose. The White Paper contends that industrial policy must be driven by the object of building a strong national system of innovation - this is, as it were, the central intrinsic goal or ambition and STI policy must fit into it, which is why the White Paper talks of science, technology and innovation.

READ MORE

The contention that the document is too backward-looking, reiterating the Tierney report, foils to understand the public policy process. Tierney had no standing other than as an advisory council. The question that arose was what to do about its recommendations. They could have been left on the shelf; they were not. They were assessed, evaluated, costed, ranked - and now we have a White Paper, the process of implementing decisions arising out of government consideration of Tierney.

The charge is levelled that there too little said about education and, in particular, primary and secondary education. It is not an education White Paper and does not emanate from that department. However it constantly acknowledges the central role of the education system in the national system of innovation, and also its centrality to the task of building a strong, vibrant national innovation system. There are separate chapters dealing with third-level (chapter 11) and also with primary and secondary education, and training (chapter 12).

The editorial charges that the White Paper is unclear as to the distinction between science and technology. It is very clear as to the distinction between the two - and the connection between them, Simply put and to borrow from the TV commercial, technology is the appliance of science.

Finally, the editorial concludes with the bald assertion that the Government appears to be "fiddling with the periphery rather than getting to grips with the heart of the problems that must be faced," What, if anything, does this assertion mean?

Among the problems faced by the White Paper is the fact that the public S&T budget is now enormous, but spread between a myriad of departments and agencies. The Government is imposing a coherent and rational structure on this and yes, part of the structure is an interdepartmental committee, Not "another" interdepartmental committee, but a new one that will, among other things, impose ex ante and ex post accounting on the Budget. At the heart of the White Paper is a desire for rationality, logic and value for money in relation to almost £800m of public spending. Fiddling at the periphery? - Yours, etc.,

Special Adviser to Pat Rabbitte, TD., Minister for Commerce, Science and Technology, Department of Enterprise and Employment. Kildare Street, Dublin 2.