Dissenting views have emerged among members of a commission set up to advise the Government on the best way to handle the State's €2.5 billion science budget.
The commission's recommendations, seen by The Irish Times, are also likely to cause disagreement between Government Departments over control of the substantial budget. The Tánaiste, Ms Harney, will shortly bring the commission report to Cabinet for approval. The dissenting position on aspects of the report taken by two members of the 11-person commission was unexpected and surprised some commission members.
The Government asked independent advisers, the Irish Council for Science, Technology and Innovation in March 2002 to set up a commission and develop plans for an "appropriate framework" for controlling the Republic's unprecedented 2000-2006 National Development Plan investment in scientific research. This was submitted to Ms Harney's Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment at the end of 2002.
The report makes far-reaching recommendations to Government on how it should marshal State funding in order to maximise the return on this investment in science. "A feature of the system must be the ability to continuously monitor, review and clearly demonstrate that cost effectiveness, efficiency and coherence are being achieved in all aspects of science, technology and innovation policy formulation and implementation," the report states.
Key recommendations include the creation of a "chief adviser" for science policy and a science, technology and innovation office to support the adviser's work. In effect, the adviser would act as the State's science supremo.
Significantly, the commission recommended that the chief adviser and his or her office be "hosted" in Ms Harney's Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. This recommendation caused two members of the commission to issue a counter position on the issue. It is also likely to raise concerns within some Departments that control of their own research spending might drift away towards Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
The report recommends the creation of a special Cabinet committee on science to be chaired by either the Taoiseach or Tánaiste and involving all Departments that have research-related budgets. These would include Agriculture and Food; Enterprise, Trade and Employment; Education and Science; Health and Children; Environment and Local Government; Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and Finance.
The chief adviser would attend these meetings. The report envisages that the chief adviser would be "highly visible and personally accountable" for the creation of a culture of science.
The adviser's post and the associated office would be established on a statutory basis to formulate science policy, advise Government and promote public understanding of science.
The report also recommends the creation of a "trans-Departmental committee" including senior officials from the various Departments; and a "forum of funders" to help towards a coherent approach to funding policies and financial allocations to scientific research.
Late in December when the commission's report was near completion two members, Dr Ruth Barrington, chief executive of the Health Research Board, and Dr Don Thornhill, chairman of the Higher Education Authority, circulated a "statement" to commission members. It raised specific concerns about aspects of the commission's report.
While they agreed with the broad thrust of the report, they said the adviser should be seen to act "in the context of broad Government policy rather than on the views of a Department or group of Departments". The adviser should be in a position to provide impartial advice to Government. Involvement within a single Department could work against this. "It is essential that the source of such advice be independent and seen to be so," their statement says.
They expressed concern that proposed legal and administrative provisions would not be sufficient to provide this independence. It was "an essential requirement" that the separation of the adviser and his or her office "from the executive functions of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment be provided for in legislation and not simply be an administrative matter".
It would also be a mistake to have the adviser and office created under Forfás legislation. "To do so would undermine their credibility in their transcending role." They recommend that the Department of the Taoiseach would be a better "host" for the new office.