RIA condemns lack of funds for scientific research

SCIENTIFIC research in Ireland will "stagnate, atrophy and die" unless the Government begins to fund it properly, the Royal Irish Academy warns.

The message from the RIA's formal response to the Government's White Paper on Science, Technology and Innovation is straightforward and unequivocal support scientific endeavour properly or industrial development will wither, jobs will be lost and the best research students will leave.

This is uncharacteristically tough talking for the academy. Its role for the past 200 years has been to foster scholarship and research in Ireland in all fields of study. As a body of senior academics it usually remains staid, dignified and quiet no matter what the provocation. So the Government and the Minister of State for Commerce, Science and Technology, Mr Pat Rabbitte, will undoubtedly read the RIA's response with some surprise.

"The language is uncharacteristic of the academy and is a measure of the gravity with which it views the whole question of science policy," according to a member of the research committee which drew up the document. It was the "first time ever" that the academy has responded so quickly to a Government policy issue, he said.

For all that, it still took the academy six months to put together its thoughts following the introduction last October of the White Paper by Mr Rabbitte.

It is an accurate reflection, however, of the strength of feeling among Ireland's scientific community which in recent years, and in particular following the White Paper, has begun to feel like an endangered species.

It presses home its view from the first page, written by the academy's president, Prof Michael Herity, that the State must take better care of this academic natural resource. Ireland's "economic, social and cultural development depends on the recognition" of this view, he argues.

In the main this means more money, hardly a surprising position, but it argues powerfully for this financial support using simple comparisons. Ireland, the document points out, was described by the science journal, Nature, as being among the black sheep of Europe in terms of State support for research.

The Republic shares the last three rungs of the European ladder with Greece and Portugal. Nature also cites the Tierney report which indicated that basic research funding by the State was about 10 per cent of the OECD average.

It offers an unflattering comparison of State funding with that provided here by the UK based Wellcome Trust. Discretionary basic research funding arising via schemes operated by Forbairt provide a total of £2.5 million a year to researchers. Wellcome in 1995-96 spent £2.792 million in the biology area alone.

This, the academy says, "illustrates the Wellcome Trust's stunning endorsement of the quality of Irish researchers" and points out Wellcome "has a reputation for carefully appraising all research proposals" to ensure "maximum value is obtained from the research funds expended".

It also compares funding for physics research at Queen's University, Belfast with funding "in all university (physics) departments in the Republic of Ireland", and again State support comes out poorly. The State, via Forbairt's £2.5 million, puts an annual £500,000 into basic physics research. Queen's more than doubles this at £1.1 million via the UK Science Research Council.

"We are particularly disappointed at the apparent unwillingness of the Minister to accept that his Government should move quickly towards a more realistic level of funding, especially since the sums of money needed are quite small," the report says. "In effect, the White Paper does not address in any meaningful way these serious indicators of the continuing underfunding of all aspects of research in Ireland."

The report deals with the contentious issue of support for basic versus applied research. The White Paper dismissively described this debate as generating "more heat and less light" than other issues, adding that while there should be basic research it "must reflect the pressures of prioritisation and relevance".

The academy describes this view as "ambivalent". It adds. "We believe that this is a very short sighted view and difficult to understand." It quotes the American Nobel scientist, Victor Weiskopl, as saying. "Fundamental science is at the roots of applied science cut the roots and the tree will wither."

It also dismisses the suggestion that research must be directed towards commercial gain. "The relationship between applied and basic research is quintessentially one of symbiosis it is not possible, for long, to maintain progress in applied research without a parallel and vibrant programme of basic research.

It expresses concern about the poor level of support given to student researchers, pointing out that the £2,000 on offer per student per year is less than the money available with a FAS grant or on the lowest level of dole.