OPINION:THE STATE FUNDING system that feeds scientific research here is in a precarious situation as the year draws to a close.

It is not about Government commitment to the smart economy model, or cutbacks, or a likely change of government in the new year. All of these serve to put pressure on the system and cause the research community to worry about what 2011 might hold, but these are only contributors to the current problem.

Rather, the issue is instability – the possibility that focus will be lost and the system that has worked well over the past decade will start to unravel. There are a number of things that could cause this, but all of them serve to create uncertainty amongst the scientists and research students who have to make career -altering choices, depending on how the funding system performs.

If their choices are increasingly to go where there is funding stability in universities and laboratories abroad, then we can give up on the smart economy. And just to be completely clear about this, it is not really about the size of the research spend, which is expected to rise not fall next year, despite the parlous state of State finances. The Government seems as determined as ever to keep the smart economy rolling.

The potential for instability within key funder Science Foundation Ireland is a major problem as 2010 winds down. Director general Frank Gannon finished up there just two weeks ago as he prepares to take up a new position in Australia. Former Forfás head John Travers takes over for an interim period of six months.

But why was an interim appointment thought necessary? Gannon’s departure was no secret – the Government knew as long ago as last May that he was leaving at the end of the year. Yet, remarkably, by early December even as Gannon was clearing his desk, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment had not got around to advertising for a full -time replacement.

With such an emphasis currently being placed by Government on the smart economy and the commercialisation of research to grow high tech companies and jobs, it seems astounding that a full-time replacement had not been agreed before Gannon left.

There is nothing inherently wrong with creating an interim appointment, but why not have a full-time replacement named and in situ, given the importance of research to the national economy?

Unless of course there are plans to change the system. Alterations to the funding mechanisms for research have been under discussion for some time.

The McCarthy report called for a single funding body to streamline the disbursement of State monies for research. And both Minister of Enterprise Batt O’Keeffe and Minister of State Conor Lenihan have indicated that a single funding body is an agreed concept.

The creation of a single funding entity is already underway to an extent, with the transfer of the Programme for Research in Third-Level Institutions (PRTLI) from its base in the Department of Education and Skills to Enterprise, along with the science and the humanities research councils. Even so, we don’t have the details of what this new body might look like, something that would clarify Government policy on this issue, and the lack of clarity adds to the instability.

Where does this leave Science Foundation Ireland, the team that has been built up over the past 10 years? The uncertainty may begin to erode morale and cause this dedicated group to lose interest, or head for where they can find more stability.

Similar pressures must have been felt by those directly involved in the PRTLI for the past decade as its functions were transferred between departments.

New teams can be built and, with the right kind of leader, a reconfigured science funding body can keep Ireland’s research community going, supporting their efforts to build the much-lauded “smart economy”.

But what will its role be, in light of the Government’s drive to commercialise research discoveries? Are we going to move away from where this all began – supporting the best people with the best ideas – and gravitate instead towards translational research, where the goal is not discovery but making money?

I am all for making money, particularly if it shortens the dole queues, but we also need a clear vision of where we are going with scientific research. Unfortunately, clarity will be in very short supply if, as expected, we see an election next March. Where are we going to find stability in such an environment?