The scientific community is badly in need of reassurance from the Government, writes Garret A. FitzGerald
It is with dismay that those of us in the scientific community outside Ireland read of the Government decision to cut support for the Programme for Research in Third-Level Institutions (PRTLI).
The Government made an enlightened commitment to the development of a scientific infrastructure in the late 1990s which has been sustained, until recently. A substantial fiscal investment - more than €2 billion - was dedicated in the National Development Plan in 2000 to the development of the human capital and physical infrastructure necessary for us to compete in modern science.
The Government channelled these investments particularly to the universities and research institutes via two statutory bodies. Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) was established to fund the doing of science. Almost €650 million was committed from 2000 to 2006. The Higher Education Authority was funded via the PRTLI programme to address the deficiencies in infrastructure. Its €150 million budget for 2003 has been frozen and financial uncertainty will continue "in 2004 and in future years".
Initially the division of this effort between two organisations and, perhaps more importantly, two departments - SFI in Trade and Enterprise and PRTLI in Education and Science - suggested a split before the movement had been formed. However, both organisations have pursued their mandates in a remarkably effective and reasonably co-ordinated fashion, such that the scientific enterprise in Ireland has been transformed within 10 years.
It was not always so. In the mid- 1980s, I wrote to the then Taoiseach, Mr Haughey, to suggest that he might afford tax relief to aspects of the scientific infrastructure in much the same way that he had fostered the more traditional literary endeavour.
This led to a meeting with a junior member of Cabinet, now a Minister, who explained to me the politics of the Midland five-seater. How would investment in science attract the transfers?
It was an attitude which afforded a deal of amusement abroad. Leading scientific journals such as Nature and Science ran prominent articles on the dire state of Irish science; the loss of talent, the absent infrastructure, the total failure of the governments of the day even to recognise a problem.
The Economist suggested that our best economic hope was to play on our lack of development by fostering green tourism.
Candour was not encouraged. An international meeting focusing on the contribution of the pharmaceutical industry to the economy was held in Dublin at the time. However, although pharmaceutical exports, even before Viagra, contributed a little over 15 per cent of GDP, investment in research by the industry was paltry.
Nonetheless, we congratulated ourselves on becoming a European Puerto Rico. We had used our tax breaks to lure the most environmentally hazardous, fiscally upstream and structurally mobile element of the industry - production. Still, when I delivered a lecture on why the decision not to invest in research in Ireland was entirely rational - no critical mass of scientists, no postdoctoral trainees, no infrastructure, no Government policy on science - I was told by representatives of the IDA that I had been unpatriotic for airing such views in public.
Given this background, the achievements of the past decade have been remarkable. The number of young people pursuing postdoctoral research has increased greatly; contributions from Irish research groups to scientific journals attract notice by virtue of their quality, rather than their rarity; creative international collaborations have been formed; some prominent scientists from abroad have been attracted to relocate in Ireland.
Science is becoming, slowly, a part of the national culture. The lonely prominence of the Young Scientist Competition has been bolstered by many awards, books and programmes on science in the media. And yet, it is a fragile flower.
These are the first steps to greatness. But the critical mass of leadership is still extremely small. The few areas in which Ireland can emerge as a world leader have yet to become defined. The translation of Irish discoveries into novel medicines, the emergence of an indigenous biotechnology industry, even the location in Ireland of a substantial research endeavour by a major pharmaceutical company, have yet to occur.
This is unsurprising. This is a multi-generational commitment. The investment is substantial, but the rewards are lasting, transforming and durable. Interruption of the development of infrastructure by freezing the PRTLI programme is akin to ploughing the furrow without planting the seeds.
Biomedical science has become a highly expensive and fiercely competitive international game. The reason is obvious - the pay-off is enormous. Upstream, opportunity is created for the best and the brightest leadership to enliven higher education, spin off companies from academic research and attract external investment by industry and multinational funding bodies. Downstream, the critical mass is created with which pharmaceutical industry researchers need to interact; postdoctoral students whom they can hire are educated and retained in Ireland and an expanding opportunity is created for local manufacturers and builders to supply scientific infrastructure.
The competition is well financed, aggressive and pervasive. It includes countries with well-established track records of excellence in science such as the US, Germany, Britain and Japan, and emerging powers such as Singapore, Taiwan, Korea and India.
However important the euros are, the lifeblood of success in science is human capital. Scientists are among the most mobile and wired of professionals. We need to attract the best people, those few likely and necessary to bring science in Ireland to the next level.
However, if established, they already have well-funded and productive laboratories in a stable environment or, if early in their careers, can afford to choose on a global scale.
Much has been made, appropriately, of how SFI now offers among the largest grants in biomedical research. However, such individuals still take a risk in coming to Ireland. Transferring a laboratory to Ireland is a major undertaking; its subsequent removal exhausting, expensive and a monumental gamble.
Thus, the common question is how long will the Government's commitment to science last? If scientists move their reputations and all their earthly goods to Ireland, can they rely on a committed partner, or are these just the sweet come-hithers of the good times?
The word is out on the Government retraction of the PRTLI programme in the global scientific community. Given our context, some substantial damage has been done. This must be corrected before it undermines considerably all that has been achieved. Mary Harney understood the need to articulate early her continuing support for SFI, especially during times of economic contraction.
We need to hear a similar reassurance concerning the PRTLI from Mr Dempsey, or better still, a statement of continuing commitment to science from the Taoiseach. Otherwise, those whom we can attract and those who can leave are left to contemplate the words of Derek Mahon:
Mediocrity, they say
Consoles itself
With the reflection
That genius so often
Comes to a bad end
Ovid in Tomis.
• Garret A. FitzGerald is the chair of pharmacology at the University of Pennsylvania and has previously held a chair in medicine and therapeutics in UCD. He is on sabbatical at The Scripps Research Institute