LA LABOR DE LOS DENOMINADOS “MAESTROS DE PICO” O “CUEVEROS”

Arguably the current government have attempted to address the imbalance be- tween research and innovation in policy emphasis, in particular with recent pub- lication of the Innovation Task Force Report [Irish Innovation Task Force, 2010]. Indeed aspects of the views expressed in this thesis, that are critical of the emphasis of Irish policy to date, were publicly expressed by Dr Chris Horn, an Irish computer science academic from Trinity College Dublin and a member of the Innovation Task Force. Dr Horn is also now the Chair of the governance board of the SFI-funded CSET (Centre for Science Engineering and Technology) CTVR (Centre for Telecommunications Value-Chain Research): [on his blog]

“in my own view, the Irish state agencies — and in particular Science Foundation Ireland — have insufficiently focussed on the opportunity to translate world class research undertaken in Ireland into innovative products and services for the global market. In my view, Science Foundation Ireland is myopically focussed on Science: but what we also need — perhaps need even more — is a focus on Engineering. Ireland needs to take the most interesting scientific results globally available to engineer innovative, new products and services for the world market.

I was surprised and concerned, for example, to learn that SFI reput- edly believes that the work at REMEDI is overly focussed on commer- cial exploitation and industry linkage, rather than as SFI reputedly believes what is more nationally strategic basic research: this seems to me to in fact be the antithesis of what the small open Irish economy, with limited financial resources by global standards, actually needs. I am surprised and disappointed, that SFI does not have, and a senior executive has actually told me that it does not see the need for, a na- tional showcase or centre for the outstanding scientific results which its sponsored researchers have already produced, and which are avail- able for uptake by national and multi-national industry at large. [. . . ] I am surprised and disappointed that SFI seems to think it can be just a shipyard launching ships, rather than an admiral not only building ships, but leading a complementary and mutually re-enforcing cohe- sive fleet to take on the world.”

[Horn, 2008]

Thus it seems the debate about the linkage between the new Irish basic re- search activity, funded by SFI and the HEA PRTLI programmes, and the eco- nomic exploitation of the research has now begun in earnest. The first concrete change since the publication of the Innovation Task Force Report was the cabinet reshuffle of March 2010. Here the Minister of Education and the Minister for En- terprise swapped portfolios, and the two departments were renamed: Enterprise Trade and Employment became Enterprise Trade and Innovation (DETI) ; Edu- cation and Science became Education and Skills. Perhaps most significantly for R&D policy, the HEA PRTLI programme was transferred from the Department of Education to Enterprise. This means that the new DETI has responsibility for al of the large research funding programmes in HEIs: PRTLI (basic research and capital investment), SFI (strategically oriented research), and Enterprise Ire- land (commercially focused research and development). The research councils (IRCSET and IRCHSS) remain within the Department of Education.

Perhaps the problem with the execution of the STI policy in Ireland is that the primary responsibility for reporting on the effectiveness of each programme of investment in R&D rests with each separate agency providing the funding. There has been a process to try and align the agencies involved, including the SSTI itself, and the setup of the joint cabinet committee that enables of the oversight of STI policy, but the reality on the ground has been an autonomy for the agencies, each with their own focus. As argued above, the strongest voice that has emerged as been the SFI, and so the interests of the other agencies, and the interests of integration, have suffered.

8.3 DISCUSSION 185 the most significant recent government report for this thesis, published since the cut off date of 2008, is the McCarthy Report, formally Report of the Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes but known col- loquially in Ireland as “An Board Snip Nua” (mixing Irish and English–the new snip board) [McCarthy, 2009], recommending to the government how to reduce public sector spending across the board. Thus the risk is that the PRTLI will simply cease to exist, and SFI and Enterprise Ireland will have severe cuts in their research programme budgets, as the funding will not be available to sustain them at the levels seen from 2008–2009. Indeed the McCarthy Report recommended rationalisation in the HEI sector, and in parallel the government has established a process to report on how best to do this, this new report, the Hunt Report, has not yet been published, though aspects have been leaked.

So, the changed economic climate has meant that every aspect of public sector expenditure has been questioned. However, innovation spending, linked to job creation, is being put forward as one of the possible ways to stimulate economic recovery and growth. It is within this new context, where direct links of research spending to economic returns are paramount, that STI debate is currently taking place in Ireland.