Research appointment extremely important for the future

The announcement that Máire Geoghegan Quinn has been made Commissioner for Research and Innovation in the European Commission sends a very positive signal about Ireland’s commitment and engagement with Science Technology Innovation. 

The fact that the Commission separates research and innovation from enterprise is perhaps a little surprising, but it has always been thus.  In the past the Research Commissioner had a relatively low key position in the ranking of Commissioners.  But this is changing rapidly.

The current budget for this directorate is over €8billion and growing.  Much more significant however is the fact that research, science and innovation can no longer be pigeonholed into a predominantly academic context.  The reality, which has not yet been fully appreciated is that research will be a component of all directorate’s in the Commission and all departments in Government.  The horizontal role of research will with time be viewed as similar to the horizontal role played by finance.  With this recognition the appointment of the Irish Commissioner to this directorate takes on a very high importance.  The topics which are covered currently within the EC framework programmes touch on all of the other directorates and for this reason I think that it is important that we recognise the significance and relevance of today’s appointment.

SIRG not SURGE: Growing Scientists

“You cannot call it something that sounds like SURGE even if it is spelled SIRG!” This was the reaction and major point of debate at an off-site meeting of the Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) management team. “Surge” sent a message of US policy decisions for the next phase of their helpful support for Iraq. SIRG stands for Starting Investigator Research Grant, and we had decided that this was a gap in the portfolio of programmes that we had on offer. Whatever the name or the echoes it awoke, we were pointed to the need for this grant scheme from our contacts with the researchers around Ireland. The growing problem was the number of Post-docs who were crucial to the work in a research group but got no help towards their own independence. I have had outstanding people in my own research group (disbanded when I moved to Ireland) who stayed with me for longer than was of obvious benefit to their careers. Such post-docs were the day-to-day managers of the research “we” performed and the mentors of graduate students in the lab. Often they were the ones who converted project ideas into applications for funding. They were recognised to the extent possible by having key positions on publications. But to most reviewers, when they themselves applied for a position, they were invisible. I recall an earlier stage in my career where, despite having the lead authorship position on papers, ‘my’ work would be referred to in lectures as “data from the Chambon group”. Being invisible is OK for a while, but when you apply for your first grant, the lack of a track record of obtaining competitive funding can be viewed negatively by external committees. 

Our SFI management discussions were informed also by the growth of the number of researchers in Ireland. The normal academic system could not and should not absorb all those that were part of a research programme, but the absorptive capacity of industry and other non-academic outlets is still ramping up. As people became more senior in the pre-faculty phase it became necessary to be concerned about their career development. We knew that they often were the ones that could best work with industry; present the activities of the group as a whole and who had a special value in the system. We felt that we should be concerned with all aspects of career development and the gap symbolised by the lack of a first independent grant was what we decided to fill with SIRG. In parallel the Advisory Science Council in Ireland were working on career development and came to the same conclusion. So happily as soon as that report was published, we were able to launch the call for proposals for SIRG.  When meeting the other heads of Research Councils in Europe recently I asked if any of them had an equivalent scheme in their countries and it would appear that SIRG is unique among national agencies, and was viewed as a ‘very interesting idea’.  Although the European Research Council does have Starting Investigator grant.

 Being aware of the Fixed Term Workers Act and the implied right that a SIRG contract would give when following on an earlier contract , we asked the HEIs to act as the conduit for the applications and to acknowledge the importance of the individual to the strategic plans of the institute. In the end we had 109 applications and the final list of 15 awardees resulted from a 2 stage assessment using international peer review.

 The announcement of the first series of SIRG awardees (SIRGees?), was made recently by the Minister for Science Technology and Innovation Conor Lenihan and now all those that were successful can recruit PhD students that will be co-supervised by a more senior academic such that there will be mentoring of the SIRGee by a faculty member, and of a Post-graduate student by the SIRGee.

Some of the statistics from the whole process are interesting, but the starkest is the fact that 12 of the 15 come from countries other than Ireland (10 of these were based in Irish HEI at the time of application). This is despite the fact that initially there were almost an equal number of Irish and non-Irish applicants.  The reasons for this are hard to fathom but one could ask if those that come to Ireland for research are better trained than those coming through the Irish system? Or is it that those that move generally are more motivated than those that stay close to a system they are familiar with.  Looking at the age-post-PhD data, there is no significant difference between the successful and the unsuccessful cohort, so the reason for the strange outcome is not simply due to seniority.  Personally I think it is very positive that such excellent people have come to Ireland and hope that, with continued funding, they will stay and develop their careers here.

The gender data also are of interest:  36% of the applicants versus 27% of the awardees were female; this is only a slight reduction but it is in the negative direction that is typical of all analyses of gender in the science world as careers progress.

It will be very interesting to see if these trends are confirmed in the next iteration of the scheme. Unfortunately we will have to skip a year with this programme due to funding constraints. Let’s hope that projected budgets are provided for and that we can continue a very novel and important scheme to consolidate the careers of the best early-stage researchers in Ireland.

 

Soccer and Science

I am very enthusiastic sports fan. To be a supporter of Sligo Rovers is proof enough of that, but when I add Leicester City (where I did my PhD) to the list of team results I must have every week, it is clear that I am a sad case.   I have been attending soccer games since I was 8 years old and now that I am back in Dublin I get real pleasure from the possibility of seeing Soccer, Rugby and GAA games that were only dated newspaper reports when I lived in Germany, France or the USA. I was at the Ireland-Montenegro game last Wednesday. Those who commented wryly that it was as exciting as watching paint dry were wrong; you never know what the final colour of the paint will be when dry, where as last Wednesday you would have been surprised if there was a result other than a draw and it would have changed nothing in terms of the World cup qualifiers. To say that it was a dreadful game, therefore shows that even a fan can be a critic.

I was also at the Ireland-Italy game last Saturday. It was terrific from start to heartbreak end. Ireland scored two great goals. Italy got two that had a mix of skill and lack of concentration by Ireland. In between times the Irish side worked very hard to contain the World Champions.

 I went home feeling uplifted and dejected simultaneously and later looked at the recording of the game (always needed as goals are scored quickly and at a distance in the ground, and the replays in the ground always censor anything controversial and that annoys me!). I skipped quickly forward to the experts views at half time. I was stunned. I was told that those who know about football would see that this had been a disgraceful performance by Ireland. Well that put 80000 fans and me in our place. Perhaps we should not have chanted ‘Ole’ and ‘Stood up’ for the boys in Green? And the missing alchemic potion that would have converted this dross to gold, according to Eamon Dunphy was Andy Reid.  I fast forwarded after receiving that wisdom and enjoyed the joy and the pain of the last few minutes of the second half, before the experts started again.

The same theme continues, the same saviour was missing to make this an Irish team that could play football. Although Eamon Dunphy led the debate the other two experts and the chair did not tell him to “get a grip”. My reading is that the player in question has lost two stone recently and that suggests that he was two stone overweight when he was central to the campaign to have him in the side. He also has not been an automatic first team choice for Sunderland and when selected he is unlikely to play for the full 90 minutes. But he can play some wonderful passes that may make experts think that with him in the team we can be as good as Brazil. The fact is that will never be able to play as beautifully as Brazil, France, Portugal, Spain etc. But that does not mean we will always lose when we play those teams. It is just that we have to play to the maximum of our potential. In the case of soccer it means playing with players that cannot get onto second division teams. Yet we expect and occasionally get success. If world rankings were corrected for population I would think we are in the very top tier. 

Some of these thoughts are relevant also to science, knowledge based industries and other topics that really pre-occupy my mind and time (sport is the release of pressure valve). Here we also perform above our weight .Having ignored investing in the fundamentals of a high tech economy until less than a decade ago. We now expect to be world champions. Success in this arena needs young people (equivalent to players) trained at the highest level in top class laboratories, first class leaders of the research groups (equivalent to managers), the infra-structure (equivalent to grounds and training facilities) to allow the right experiments to be performed and an overall plan to get the best out of these elements (equivalent to Trapattoni). Success also needs some time and continuity of support of the plan. Stoke City, Hull City, Wolverhampton, Bolton did not get to the premiership by playing like Arsenal or Manchester United and if they tried now to do so they would drop quickly. Some will fail in any case because their best will not be good enough. Similarly, in the scientific domain some countries, like South Korea or Singapore invest very heavily to accelerate success (think Manchester City or Chelsea). We don’t do that. We are now close to the EU27 average in our financial investment and 50% below that of the average OECD country. So it is essential that we play to a plan that suits our means. I think the results show that we are being very successful. 

The international competitions are the best way to judge standards in both football and finance. Here the performance of the IDA is really outstanding. And part of their offerings when they go out to play for a company is the growing number of excellent skilled people in Ireland. Of course, as in football, there are those experts who think we should change our way of playing, who cheerfully point to inadequacies, who express doubts at half time even when we are performing well on the field of encounters and who would suggest that the plan should be changed. The one sport where Ireland is truly champion is begrudgery, so we and policy maker should not be swayed from our current plan by the dreamers. Of course there is a need to allow the plan to evolve, to shift emphasis, to learn from what is working and what is not. But consistency around a core plan is an essential part of delivering on an ambitious challenge and that is true whether it refers to the resources that are made available, the understanding that we need more skilled players or simply that it is not true that you can be a winner in the high tech world without a mixture of components from basic through to applied research, researchers and laboratories. Otherwise, for example supporting applied research only, would be akin to selecting a team of forwards and goal-scorers only. And both fans and experts would agree that that would be a silly plan even in the short term.

Funding to support the financial system

One of the first conversations I had with Seán Dorgan, then the CEO of the IDA when I started in SFI, was related to a proposal that had come from the Department of the Taoiseach that more research and training be carried out in the area of financial maths.  The IFSC is a spectacular success story but it needed an extra layer of activities to keep it as a world leading location for financial transactions.  The concern which had been expressed by the IFSC Clearing House Group and by an analysis of the future skills performed by Forfás was that the more routine administrative tasks at the IFSC would be moved to less expensive locations and hence that the IFSC should shift to higher levels skills in financial management as opposed to administration.

When you reflect on this transition a number of things become obvious: 1. Jobs which are routine and relatively low skilled are very mobile. 2. The higher education system had not spontaneously responded to the provision of skills which were required for financial services and hence the number of good quality third level and fourth level graduates were inadequate. 3. Even if they were graduates it would be inadequate if they were simply absorbing external research. They also needed to be involved in cutting edge research that would make Dublin the location for financial services in the future.

SFI is limited in the terrains that it can act in but we quickly decided that financial mathematics could be viewed correctly as a component of ICT. Although it would be fair to say that ICT as an industrial sector was the more normal target for investments in this area to date.  The steps from this decision through to the announcement yesterday of an SFI Strategic Research Cluster (SRC) into financial maths and computing led by Anthony Brabazon, UCD with the involvement of lead researchers from DCU and NUI Maynooth and an immediate engagement by Pioneer Investments, Ryan Capital and the Institute of Bankers in Ireland were multiple and complex.  SFI was founded to support top-level research and this will apply to this activity as all others.  Peer review was required to sort out the eloquent from the excellent and restructuring of the project occurred along the way.  The outcome is something extremely robust with top-class research groups engaged.  It is interesting to note that one of the participants Paulo Guasoni from DCU was attracted to Ireland in the first instance by the SFI Stokes Professorship scheme and hence our intention of strengthening skills in crucial economically relevant areas has already paid fruit in this case.

The topics that are being considered by the group are those that seemed familiar to all who worry about the economy: asset management, risk assessment, our major topics with other related areas also covered.  One might regret that these functions were not fully in place at an earlier stage but it is likely that the need to make wise decisions based on mathematical modeling derived from all of the information which is loaded daily onto the world system will not disappear.

This SRC is the nineteenth in the series established by SFI.  Each of them addresses a different specific research subject.  All of them engage multiple industries (typically four) and the research programme is set up following discussions with the industries.  It follows that these SRCs are industry led and the engagement of industry from the start of the project means not only that the concepts are of interest to industry but they also have an engagement because of their financial commitment which is obligatory after a start-up phase.

The financial mathematics SRC is a good example of mathematics which may sometimes seem esoteric been applied in fields of very practical need.  It was therefore very appropriate that the announcement was made by the Tánaiste, Mary Coughlan during Mathematics Week and, given the composition of the scientists involved and their location that it was part of the Innovation Dublin week.

Europe and Science and the Lisbon Vote

I had a research group in Galway from 1981 until 1994. Recalling that period today, when scientists in Ireland can now compete for significant levels of funding, seems similar to recalling the days when children went to school in their bare feet! There were some very modest funding schemes available at that time from the Health Research Board and from a precursor of Enterprise Ireland, but the real opportunities lay in the European Community Framework Programmes. Each announcement of an EC programme was read with the intensity of a gambling addict who scours the horse racing pages in the newspapers. Any topic that was even tangentially linked to the research or skill base of my group became a target. Applications required partners from elsewhere in Europe and hence the ability of the Irish to meet and greet strangers became very important. And the strangers became colleagues. Through this process, the embers of research were maintained in Ireland such that they could be brought into flame when funding began to flow through Science Foundation Ireland at the start of this decade.

Today, Irish research receives over a million Euro per week from the EC research programmes. But in this case money, while important, is not everything. Research needs to be enriched by the interactions with colleagues and the challenge of presenting the latest results to a critical and sceptical group of experts. This happens as part of the collaborative networks that are at the core of European Research funding. Similar enrichment comes from the planning of research projects where new ideas are formulated and a schedule for their delivery is developed. Irish science has learned many new skills in these processes and through them, slowly but surely a European Research Area is coming into existence. This respects the importance of national programmes (where over 80% of research is funded) but works to increase efficiency and impact while diminishing needless duplication. EU funding has ensured that, over the years, these research linkages are real and supported with the necessary funding, and not just a necessity to be eligible for funding.

Perversely, I suspect that the EU itself did not care too much about the research outcomes when the Framework Programmes were launched in the 1980s – it wanted to increase the mobility between the Member States. Here it has achieved its goal and, for example, 25% of the scientists in laboratories funded by SFI come from Europe. With the mobility and the structures put in place by the EU, the way we perform science has changed over the years. Although the reason might have been to meet a social policy goal within the EU, the creation of networks and clusters of scientists has paved the way for the predominant multi-disciplinary projects that are needed in today’s world of convergence. The most recent addition to the menu of programmes in the EU (the European Research Council Grants) has set a new high standard for selection of awardees. By basing its existence on an exclusion of any kind of ‘juste retour’ and attracting top scientists worldwide to perform peer review, many countries have learned that the “old-boys” network that dominated decision-making in the past was no longer to be tolerated.

So, as we face into the second vote on Lisbon, I see many similarities between the impact of the EU on science in Ireland and its more general impact on the country. Financially, there is a benefit not least because the EU used its Member States’ contributions to develop the research activities in Ireland at a time when this was not a key element of Irish government policy. Outside the world of science, today the support from the European Central Bank has been a life saver for Ireland. Because of our engaged membership in the EU, they were willing to put the money accumulated from the other Member States at our disposal. When I lived in Germany and the Celtic Tiger was alive, friends would often remind me, gently but without doubt, that Ireland had been rescued from a poor standard of living by “their money”. I know that there is much more to our erstwhile success than that, but the success of Ireland was undoubtedly linked to our membership and access to a very major market. It certainly was a major reason for multinational companies to establish their operations here. I hope that this will continue to be the case, that our own economy recovers and that I will face the embarrassment of similar comments from my German and French friends when we emerge from the current bad period.

Socially, research the way that research is conducted in Ireland benefitted because engagement in the EU forced us to move from a parochial view of the quality of our professors and made us compete on a bigger stage. To be accepted into an international consortium that was applying for EU research funding meant that you had something to offer and were more than a local (and often self-promoted) hero. Similarly, our general social legislation has been greatly influenced by the collective view on how society is best organised and by the best practices in other European countries. Indeed, it is very hard to imagine that Ireland would be engaged in a shift to renewable energy or be concerned about climate change and our responsibility for it, if our policy makers were not confronted with these challenges in EU meetings.

And just as the direct comparisons of research standards forced a realisation that we needed to do better in science (not least because this impacts on our economy), so too the performance of Ireland in all other spheres is driven by comparisons with our EU countries. To link this to research, we only have to look at the mismatch between the voices that say we are spending too much on R&D and the fact that we are only spending what an average country in Europe does. Knowing you are average in input is a help when you aspire to be the best in output.

For me a Yes vote for Lisbon is a matter of common sense and a way of protecting our country from an isolated future. Influence is something that Irish people know and simultaneously use and dislike. Getting a sympathetic hearing for the Irish perspective on any topic in the EU will be impossible after a second No vote…and yet we would be part of the system that would issue directives to which we would have to comply. I do not think that we could do this for a long period. We would be frozen out within the EU discussions and in due course would be forced back to being a small Island country on the periphery and outside the restructured Europe.

For transparency, I should declare that I am a member of the European Research Area Board (a 22-person group selected to advise the Commissioner for Research), a member of the European Heads of Research Organisation, former director of the European Molecular Biology Organisation (an inter-governmental, not EU, entity), have lived in Germany for 14 years, France for six years and England for three years. Some may say that this means I am biased in my views. I think it means that I have a good understanding of the topic.

Mendelssohn and Mussorgsky

Happily last Sunday night I’d booked to attend the first concert in the National Concert Hall International Orchestral Series. The Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra, who I am told are moving back up the rankings under the baton of Riccardo Chailly proposed a concert of two pieces by Mendelssohn and two by Moussorgsky.

Walking to the concert hall in Dublin, I mused if the two M composers would be followed later by two Ns. But I could only think of Nielsen, the fantastic Danish composer. At the concert hall I checked discretely at the music shop but they only had Nielsen on offer….plenty of Ms (Mozart and Mahler obviously) so the concept of the alphabetic series of concerts may not have a great future.

The tone of the orchestra was very mellow (and I should stress that I go to concerts as a fan not a critic) and you could see that the conductor had a good team of players. They swayed with the music to the left and then the right and then forward for strength and backwards for feeling. My neighbour followed the same pattern of movement and I got the impression that I was at sea close to Fingals cave. So I fixed my eye on the horizon to avoid an unpleasant incident. But the horizon in the concert hall is a rather hospital green. I wondered if the orchestra thought that pleasantly Irish or a relatively cold colour in an island with high humidity that removes few degrees from the official thermometer by the time it reaches your bones.

And the orchestra…probably a 100 of them all PhDs in their métier. A mixture of the serious and the drones. The blond haired violist that could be the next Nigel Kennedy if he supported a team with a scarf that was not claret and blue was in his element. The second violinist was great at the eye contact with the conductor and attentive at turning the pages of the score for the leader of the Orchestra. I noticed that, apart from that duo and the lead cellists, the musician on the outside turned the pages for the partner sharing the score. Was there a union rule or did everybody negotiate who took on that chore?

Then there was the inevitable intense musician who did not break into a shape of relaxation, or achievement or enjoyment all night. Just intensity. I wondered if there was some family problem, if she really should be elsewhere tonight, or if she was just a method player as Brando was a method actor.

Saleem Abboud Ashkar was the soloist for Mendelssohn’s 1st Piano Concerto. Described very politically correct, if not fully sensitive, as a Palestinian-Israeli pianist, was great. As I was sitting very close I could see the intensity of his engagement and the sound followed. Of course he did not have a score to follow….and then I wondered why did the orchestra members need a score? When in a choir decades ago I knew that we performed much better when we did not have the music to aid/save/distract us. And a forgetful moment by a soloist would have much greater consequences than one by the 4th row violinist. Still that’s the convention and I am a fan.

Moussorgsky followed the break with Night on Bald Mountain and Pictures at an Exhibition. The latter piece is terrific with changing moods. But then I got concerned when I started to think that perhaps the two pieces should change their titles…..the top of the mountain could accommodate the variations, perhaps better than an Exhibition. And the opening section of the Pictures sounded eerily like early post-revolution Chinese classical music.

What happens to my mind when enwrapped in a cocoon of wonderful artistic melody? It was a great evening, full of first level enjoyment and a stimulus for imaginative forays…and all of them away from Science!

A full weekend in Dublin

I often have to travel at the week-end but this time I could stay in Dublin. It was a great mix and one that makes me realise how lucky I am to have some time free in Ireland. Well not too free. Saturday morning I was at my desk until forced to leave because the building closes at noon (no exceptions for anybody!). There were slides to prepare for a talk next week, a summary to be made of the 50+ submissions sent to me in my role as a member of the Innovation Task Force, which was established by the Taoiseach, and a further document to be written on proposals for the same group arising from my own view of that world. All of those boxes got ticked and dispatched.

But the tricky bit was to fit that in with my non-professional interests. There was the Ireland Cyprus soccer game to be seen and analysed. We won but were very poor. The long ball hoofed out by Packy Bonner might have rescued us when in dire straits some years back, but when it is the only ‘tactic’ used, then even I could see that the opposition should be able to organize to null its effect.

And then there was the pain of Leinster losing having played ok and the embarrassment of Munster losing playing dreadfully. Their scrummaging seemed to be modeled on that of the Lions in the first test in South Africa and that is a poor mould to use…….more pain will follow and the collective that is the Irish team will have to work very hard to repeat last years heroics. With recording somethings, even I can manage that today, and then fast forwarding through the slow bits, all events got fitted in. As did the All Ireland hurling final and there were no boring bits there; a great game. I had been at the Tipp Limerick semi final and Tipp had that sewn up in ten minutes, so it was hard to see how good they were….and they made it a real match in the final. Kilkenny know how to win, as if it their right…just like See the Stars (that’s an amazing horse for those that are not sport addicts like me) who was stunning at Leopardstown.

I did not see them but suffered the pain of Connacht Rugby losing, Galway United losing and Sligo Rovers only getting a draw when more is needed. On Saturday night, I went to the last performance of the Noel Coward play, Present Laughter in the Gate Theatre. Fantastic acting by all involved, just as has been the case every time I have gone to the Gate. And Sunday night was music with Mendelssohn and Mussorgsky in the National Concert Hall with the Leipzig Orchestra. Again magical moments.

Add to all of that an inspiring talk by Garret FitzGerald (the medical scientist) on Friday night to students and ‘the general public’ in Alexandra College and the pleasure of cooking for oneself, when too often I have to be at working dinners, plus just enough dry time to treat the poor outdoor table that has suffered from neglect and it occurred to me that living in Ireland and Dublin can be great. But perhaps that was because I did not get involved in debates about NAMA, the Lisbon vote or the return on investment in research!

Synthetic Biology

A paper published in a recent edition Science magazine (VOL 325, pages 928 to 929) 21 August: focuses on progress in the area of Synthetic Biology.  As the name implies, Synthetic Biology involves the generation of organisms that have not emerged from evolution but rather they are designed by scientists to achieve particular goals.  There are two general approaches that can be involved in Synthetic Biology: in the first the DNA of an organism that has the potential to carry out a series of reactions that will give a new product that is useful or valuable, is trimmed down such that all functions that are not needed for the reactions of interest are removed from the organism.  This mini gene set can be viewed as the result of an artificially accelerated process of evolution towards achieving a particular goal.  The alternative is to design the organisms DNA content that is needed for a defined goal/product and then make a new organism de novo. 

This may seem like an esoteric topic that is of interest scientists only, but my reason for blogging on it is because it could have very major consequences.  One target that has been suggested for Synthetic Biology is to make a new organism that would be much more efficient than those that occur in nature, at fixing sunlight and hence providing a much needed new source of renewable energy.  It is too early to enter into discussions on the relative merits of solar panels or organisms that trap the energy, but it does help formulate why this debate is important.  The progress that has been made to date (particularly by Craig Venter who was a major force in sequencing the human genome) have shown that the DNA of an existing organism can be synthetically generated and introduced in to an envelope of a non-functioning organism to show that the synthetically generated organism can perform in the same way as the original natural organism.  If that is possible then it is equally possible to make derivatives of this that have other sequences that maybe obtained from diverse organisms and to place them all in the same “envelope”.  The task of getting the new DNA to divide was, as usual, more complex than had been anticipated originally but in the recent paper in Science, this problem has now been solved building on thousands of man years of research that leads to an understanding of how DNA divides in different organisms. 

A robotic approach to generating novel DNA with improved functionality to perform a particular task has also been reported upon by George Church and his colleagues and the combination of the specific design of a DNA sequence, and clever mechanisms to have a high throughput of variations on what was available in nature and the possibility of getting this DNA to perform in a manner expected of any other organism has now all come together.

 It should be recognised that the Synthetic Biology potential is dependent upon and follows intellectually from the understanding of nature that comes from the Systems Biology approach.  It is also worthwhile pointing out that the research that has been performed to date has involved micro-organisms and that funding for research in microbiology has frequently been questioned by those who think that there is a very linear connection between research and the impact on human health which would lead to research being performed only on higher organisms or on human cells.

The promise and excitement of Synthetic Biology has to be balanced by a concern that has been well flagged in advance.  Obviously, any time that a new organism is generated in a laboratory there are unknowns about the consequences if freely released into the environment.  This is an extension of the standard discussion on the release of genetically modified organisms except that the scale of the unknown is significantly greater in Synthetic Biology as it’s not just one gene that is altered but the whole DNA content of an organism.  The need to handle such organisms with great attention and to ensure that they do not enter in to the environment is obvious and must be firmly adhered to.  The risk involved is not of the same order as the clearly defined inevitable negative consequences of nuclear radiation, but there is an unknown aspect in the new organisms that has to be recognised as a risk that has to be treated.

On balance therefore there is progress and a challenge simultaneously and of course that is what happens with all scientific advances.

Belief and Science Policy

How a Government spends and invests its money is of crucial importance.  This is obvious.  What is less obvious is that much of any annual budget allocation is earmarked for essential support systems for all citizens e.g. housing, social welfare, health and education.  A surprisingly smaller amount can be put towards developing the future of the country.  In Ireland the total capital expenditure per annum is of the order of 10%.  Some of that is for necessary infrastructure but other funding goes towards developing the country of the future.  That is the category that includes investment in research and development and innovation.  In Ireland that figure corresponds to about 1% of the total annual budget of the country.

It is from this slim foundation that the edifice that will generate new jobs and income is to be built.  It is interesting that the EU budget also has a small percentage targeted to growth lines with most of its funding (50%) going to supporting the Common Agricultural Policy.  But that is a different story. 

When it comes to science policy i.e. how to use the Government’s money in a sensible manner there are two different schools of thought: one believes that research is a motor for the development of the economy and therefore it is right to invest generously in Science Technology and Innovation (STI), while the other does not believe that there is any cause and effect between economic development and STI, and therefore it is not worth undertaking such investment.  The use of the word belief in such a point of decision is deliberate.  Unfortunately many prominent voices build their arguments against investment in R&D (or STI) from the subjective start point of “they do not believe” or “they are not convinced” or a simple assertion that there would be no significant impact or return on the investment.  Opinions based on such feelings, are frequently informed by an amalgam of anecdotes and very personal experiences.  They might have real value in the sport pages but they have to be challenged when they lead to a consequence that is greater than simply losing a bet on a horse race.  The challenge for those who believe that there is a basis for economic growth coming from investment is equally high. What is the evidence to support any such opinion?  There is no doubt that this is a topic which has engaged policymakers and strategists for very many years.  Vannevar Bush, wrote in 1945 a report to the President of the USA entitled The Endless Frontier.  In it he wrote (to quote from Wikipedia) that “basic research was: “the pacemaker of technological progress” and “New products and new processes do not appear full-grown. They are founded on new principles and new conceptions, which in turn are painstakingly developed by research in the purest realms of science!”  He recommended the creation of what would eventually become in 1950 the National Science Foundation (NSF). Very many would trace in the industrial strength of America to the decisions which were made based on that philosophy.

Another key strategic decision was made in 1990 in Finland.  Faced with a very negative economic future, the Finnish government decided to “bet” on science and technology as their way out of their problems.  They immediately increased the funding for science and technology to a level of 3% of their GDP.  They have maintained it at that level ever since and are currently in the process of increasing to an even higher level.  Finland had the prospect of becoming a backwater with a marginal economy.  Instead, because of its investment in STI it is a model for many countries who wish to improve their economic position.

With the passage of time country after country has increased its investment in R&D.  In some cases such as South Korea it is too early to say if this has paid off.  In others, such as Switzerland and the Netherlands, their economic strength is very much linked to the skill and understanding and engagement in high-quality research such that they are inevitable leaders in most charts that monitor the economic success of countries as well as scientific quality.  Ireland cannot be immune or isolated from such general trends.  In the mid-90s discussions had already started on the reasons for supporting investment in STI and this process grew ultimately from analysis, report, expert opinion and case history studies, until Science Foundation Ireland(SFI) was established in 2001.  A recurrent theme at that time was that Ireland had moved up the scale of salaries such that companies which could move their operation to cheaper locations would do so.  The closure, for example of Fruit of the Loom in Donegal 2004 and their transfer of jobs to Morocco can be seen as an early but continuing trend that shows that such an analysis was correct.  Prior to the decision to establish SFI, consultation engaged not only those close to science policy but the economists who have a different perspective on such investments.  The report of ESRI at the time was very supportive of this development.  They ‘believed’ having seen the evidence which was presented.

Following an early phase of establishing its programmes and structures, SFI started serious funding in 2003.  Discussions on science strategy now can be informed by the impact of the considerable investment that SFI have made to date.  This allows both those who argued with hand waving evangelical fervour in favour STI investment and those who headshake in disbelieving rejection of the proposition, to check on some realities.  I contend that the data point unambiguously in the direction of the investment having a positive impact not only on scientific quality but also on the Irish economy.  The easiest question to ask is has there been a replacement for the Fruit of the Loom-type industries?  Here, the essential benefit to Ireland would be shown if the high-quality manufacturing companies that are the backbone of exports at present were retained and moved up the technology chain in Ireland. If they are merely allowing their capital investment to be depreciated before they move then the outcome is negative.  The facts point in a different direction.  The majority of investments made by such companies in Ireland in the past two years were to start or consolidate their R&D activities.  This is not what you do if you’re planning to leave the country.  The IDA figures in their annual reports for the past years point to a truly dramatic change in the profile of the companies that they are attracting or retaining.  I have frequently used the figures but they are worthwhile repeating: over 40% of the IDA agreements entered into in the past year and in the previous year are categorised as R&D.  Indigenous industry is also growing as R&D activities, with Enterprise Ireland reporting increases in the investments in R&D in their section.  On face value then the only data which are available point to a positive outcome.  It should be noted that this is earlier than had been expected by many, even the most optimistic, as the impact of R&D investment is usually after a period of 10 years.  In Ireland we seem to have invested in a way which has reduced this time lag.

If new industries are adding R&D to their activities then inevitably it follows that people would be required to work in those companies.  This is the reason why much emphasis was put initially in the Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation (SSTI) 2006-2013 on increasing the number of fourth level graduates (or PhD’s and MScs).  The areas, in which these are being trained, using SFI funding, are aligned with the industrial areas that come from the IDA activities and were originally described in broad strokes in a Technology Foresight exercise when SFI was established.  A PhD is not simply a mechanic who can use one set of tools: he/she is somebody who is equipped with training to allow them to work in a team, to address and solve problems, analyse data critically and have a broad knowledge of their research area.  In other words they very malleable and hence appropriate for industry needs.  There can of course be a lag between the training of a PhD and their employment by industry and it is into this timeframe that the sceptics leap.  They point to first movement data of PhDs and not surprisingly, from those who are familiar with research careers, many of these move from Ireland or do not move into industry.  Nonetheless the data would suggest that approximately 30% of those that are qualifying end up in industry after a very short time period.  Those reaching negative conclusions about these STI investments seemed to anticipate that it would be possible for a higher percentage to arrive in industries that are just beginning to start their road into R&D within a time period of approximately 2 years (a classical chicken and egg situation). It should be recognized that the first major wave PhD’s emerged from the system in 2005 and 2006.  To achieve a transformation of the economy in Ireland within a shorter time period was never promised nor should it have been anticipated and it certainly isn’t a basis for reaching a conclusion that the investment in SFI is ill judged.

The third benefit of the investment had been defined at all times as Ireland becoming a location for “world class research”.  SFI has invested in and developed a number of teams that fit into this stratum.  Of course quality judgments based on publications and invitations to international meetings could be a sterile academic exercise but the data again points the opposite reaction.  SFI’s insistence on a linkage between research and the consequences of research has always been strong and has been consolidated in the last two years.  Because of this the research groups that are the leaders in terms of publications are also the first point of call for the many industries that are now looking at Ireland’s capabilities in research.  They are also the point of contact for that we increasingly record between indigenous companies and the researchers.  These teams have a value in the depth of knowledge and understanding which they have, their linkages to the leading researchers worldwide and the specific tasks that they can perform in conjunction with industry.  Again the numbers (facts should trump belief!) are important.  Over 300 industries interacted with Irish scientists last year (and the previous year).  Over a hundred of these are SMEs, giving lie to the assertion that SFI funded research is only a benefit to multinational companies.

The final output is the one that those looking for evidence for a non-return on investment focus on-the number of start-up companies. I could point to a small but growing number of new Irish companies that arose from funding including that from SFI. And I could show a graph that points upwards for new patents that are often the precursors to a new company. But the figures for this metric are always going to be small and will fail to impress. The world average is that it costs almost 100 million Euro per company formed. Based on the SFI budget this would yield 1 or 2 per annum. More are being started but that is almost irrelevant. What is more difficult to measure or predict is the number of companies that will be formed by those that were trained through SFI funding, and I would not put that figure as being very high. What is needed, of course is not a large number of companies but some small number of very successful ones. Here my position is no stronger than that of those who do not believe it will happen; I have no evidence that it will. I am merely expressing an optimism that matches the pessimism of others. But what I would insist is that strengthening the activities of the companies that are already in Ireland and thereby retaining them or consolidating them and attracting others to come here are much more relevant metrics that should be monitored and as outlined above, the evidence points to that being a positive outcome already.

It follows from all of the above that the evidence shows that investment in STI is working in Ireland as it has previously elsewhere in the world.  This is not a matter of belief it is a matter of accepting the data as presented.  The need to continuously pay attention to the targets for the investment by SFI is well recognised by this organisation.  We should point out that SFI is responsible for only 20% of the total ST&I budget spent annually here so others share the credit or the blame for injudicious spending of resources.  All of our decisions at SFI are made on the basis of critical international peer review analysis allied to national assessment of the strategic benefit of the research project.  In its short time in existence, the organisation has been examined twice to-date by external experts.  The first probed at the quality of the research that was been funded and the manner in which SFI was functioning and found that it was doing the right thing.  The second specifically looked at the important question of value for money and concluded that all of the indicators pointed that SFI was delivering value for money.  SFI has established a portfolio of programmes that are changing not only the quality of the research in Ireland but also the culture in a sub-set of the Higher Education laboratories.  The SFI Centres for Science and Engineering Technologies (CSETs) and the SFI Strategic Research Clusters (SRCs) are very good examples of the determination of SFI to link research funding to the needs of industry.  The programmes that are carried out in the SFI CSETs are driven to a large extent by the roadmaps of the industries that are engaged in them and hence reflect industries needs at present. The impact of the CSETs is well recognized and we are confident that the same will be true of the SRCs in a short time. In fact, the surprising result that SFI can report is that its investments when looked at as a portfolio have yielded positive commercial results in a 3-5 year period

The future directions for Ireland seem to be inevitably connected with decisions which we are going to make in the area of STI investment.  The need for a discussion that is informed, factual and evidence based on this is very important.  Faith and beliefs have a prime role in some sectors of our lives.  However, I would argue that this does not extend into making decisions on whether or not to contract or expand investment in STI.

More on Peru – The Incas

A visit to Machu-Piccha in Peru is truly awesome. To spend time in the Andes and absorb the stunning setting and the amazing buildings was a real privilege. While there, we read and heard a lot about the Incas. It is a spectacular story with telling lessons. The Incas quickly grew to a position of dominance, took over leadership of a large tract of Peru and neighbouring countries and then lost everything in as little as 20 years once the Spaniards moved in to colonise the area. And the Europeans did so with a very small number of men.

As told today in Peru (Ecuador had a slightly less glowing version) the Incas were the sort of leaders you would want. They were a meritocracy, there was movement between the classes, women were viewed as important, they were very well organized, they had accumulated much wisdom about agriculture, engineering, materials and the cures for illness that were to be found in nature. Does that not sound idyllic? But some men on horses with a few hundred rifles and some unusual diseases were able to topple all of that very quickly.

My initial reaction was disappointment that the utopia described must be flawed and that the core assumptions of what is needed for society (e.g. equality for women and opportunity to move between ‘classes’ based on ability rather than inheritance and marriage) might be incorrect. But, as pointed out to me by a fellow- traveler, these facts of history do not show that some of the ideals that were part of the Inca culture are not valid. It just had not anticipated the paradigm shift represented by the colonizers. It just means that it is not sufficient to do what is right and that is a hard lesson.

The tactics of the Spaniards are instructive. Use force to overcome the local team and follow that up with the religious certainties carried by the Franciscans, Jesuits and Dominicans to replace the existing culture. Looking at the churches dripping in gold that were built and sited by the conquerors to ensure the destruction of the Inca places of worship, it was hard not to be reflective and concerned.

In a society that is still today very poor, the ornate extravaganzas seem very inappropriate. Similar displays of ostentation are found all over the world. Each time the clash between the now and the hereafter ends with a victory for the latter. But then another lesson from history is that those societies that are poor have to place their faith and bets on an improvement in the after-life. Should we question that particular balance of options as we travel through the wonders that it created and destroyed? The Incas promised one future in the after-life, the Christians another but both linked behaviour and sacrifices today with a reciprocal benefit in the future. And where today, are there similar paradigm shifts occurring in mankind’s history? Did 9/11 herald a change where the Inca-like certainty of the dominance and security of the western world was shown to be more fragile than anticipated?  The Incas spent most of the period of their dominance building the sites that we visit with awe today. They were there for the long haul, they believed. And so do we!