The White Paper from the Minister for Science, Technology and Innovation may fall short of the expectations of those who hoped that, after considerable discussion, it would set out some clear targets and policies designed to embed science into the fabric of both educational and economic life in this State. It seems to try to anticipate such disappointment in its admission that, whereas governmental White Papers normally mark the end of a discussion process, this is a platform on which the Government hopes to raise a debate to heighten the public profile of science and technology and to ensure that the State derives maximum benefit from investment in science and technology. Frankly, that is not enough.
The document is discursive rather than decisive and, worryingly, there are sections of it in which it is by no means clear that it distinguishes between science on the one hand and technology on the other. The great majority of its content is backward, rather than forward-looking, reiterating the already well trodden ground of the Tierney Report delivered last year, and there are some modest words about what the Government has done financially about Tierney's recommendations. But there is no clarification of the overall policy within which those relatively small financial decisions have been taken.
The proposals also seem relatively modest, given the extent of the discussions that have already taken place and, again, there is no detailed evidence of any overall policy within which they are made. A national scientific advisory council comprising representatives from industry, the colleges and research bodies seems like a good idea, but where is the detail of how the advice will be received or what teeth the recommendations of such a council might have? And the announcement that there is to be yet another interdepartmental committee to work with the science subcommittee of the Cabinet to establish priorities on how and where Government money is to be spent does not instil great confidence.
There is too little in the document relating to the education process at any level. Basic education is the bedrock upon which ultimate scientific ability and imagination is built from primary school onwards. So third-level colleges are to be asked to publish a research charter for their institutions. But what of the primary and second-level institutions which just create the necessary human resources to feed into the research process which makes such charters possible? There is no mention of any educational input into the national scientific advisory council.
It could be that the language of this White Paper arrows some seeds that could grow into a coherent national science policy. But there is little or no concrete evidence in the document, as published, that the Government is even a few steps along the road that needs to be travelled to achieve such a policy. The scientists and the scientific community in the State have already travelled a long way up that road, and some industries are up there with them. It seems a pity that the Government appears still to be lagging behind, looking back more than forward, not clearly understanding the real issues, and fiddling with the periphery rather than getting to grips with the heart of the problems that must be faced.