Irish Science BlogsPublished 29 September 2010
There are lots of Irish science blogs nowadays where you can keep up with what’s happening in the world of science and find out what issues people are discussing.
These bloggers range from scientists and science teachers to members of the public who have an interest in science.
To give you a flavour of what’s out there, have a look at these ones we’ve come across…
Antimatter, by physics lecturer and Science Ambassador Cormac O’Raifeartaigh
Chris Horn, leading Irish electronics engineer, entrepreneur and STEM policy expert
Communicate Science, by our Science Ambassador Eoin Lettice
The Frog Blog – St Columba’s College Science blog
Irish Science – this is by a group of contributors
James McInerney, evolutionary biologist
Karlin Lillington, technology journalist
Mary Mulvihill, science journalist
Michael Seery, lecturer in physical chemistry (his blog is called “Is This Going To Be On The Exam?”)
Science Communication Review by Diarmaid Mac Mathúna
The Science Gallery blog
Science Line by science journalist Cormac Sheridan
Science Spinning, by Seán Duke
The Strange Quark by Marie Boran
TeachNet Learning Blog
Think For Yourself by physics teacher Noel Cunningham
Using ICT in Further Education by Patricia Donaghy, ICT teacher
Last but not least, don’t forget to check out our own blog at MyScience.ie
On Facebook, the Employment Control Framework and root gardening | An eye on science and what makes it going
In 2003 Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook, an idea now worth 65 billions dollars that has changed the way people communicate. This is probably the most successful venture in the history of capitalism, hence in the history of modern economy.
Science and Innovation Policy in the ‘Towards Recovery: Programme for a National Government 2011-2016’
The Programme is available here.
The major section dealing with science and innovation policy reads as follows (pp 9 – 10):
Innovation and Commercialisation
We will implement innovation and commercialisation policies as outlined below subject to cost benefit analysis.
• We will progressively implement the recommendations in the Trading and Investing in the Smart Economy Report
• We will support our indigenous digital game industry by reforming R&D supports available to the industry, setting aside funding from Innovation Fund Ireland for a seed capital scheme for Irish digital gaming start-ups, introduce a digital media component to Transition Year programmes and promote Ireland as digital gaming hub.
• We will develop Ireland as a ‘digital island’ and first-mover when it comes to information technology by ensuring more progress on e-Government and moving Government services online, investing in ICT in schools, and investing in information technology in the healthcare sector.
• We will make Ireland a leader in the emerging I.T. market of cloud computing by promoting greater use of cloud computing in the public sector, organising existing State supports for cloud computing into a package to promote Ireland as a progressive place for I.T. investment, establishing an expert group to address new security and
privacy issues arising from the use of cloud computing and reviewing the adequacy of current legislation and identify what steps need to be taken to ensure a supportive regulatory environment.
• We will develop a National Intellectual Property (IP) protocol to give predictability about the terms on which business can access IP created in Higher Education Institutions and the wider digital sector.
• We will promote and support investment in technology research, development and commercialisation beyond basic research supported by Science Foundation Ireland, as well as removing barriers to innovation and accelerate exploitation of new technologies.
• We will target key technology areas and sectors where innovation can be applied including but not limited to high value manufacturing, advanced materials, nanotechnology, bioscience, electronics, photonics and electrical systems and information and communication technology. We will also focus on the application of technological innovation in established sectors of the economy like energy generation and supply, transport, creative industries, high-value services and architecture and construction by identifying challenges, establishing priorities and developing strategies which specify necessary actions to transition to more innovative approach.
• We will promote Ireland’s full engagement with the ‘Innovative Union’ proposals issued by the European Commission in October 2010 as one of the seven flagship initiatives under EU2020 Strategy, with the specific aim of refocusing R&D and innovation policy on major challenges and at turning inventions into products.
• The critical gap between basic research promoted and funded by Science Foundation Ireland and third level institutions and its subsequent development into commercial opportunity for investors can only be closed by making new technologies ‘investment ready’. We will establish a network of Technology Research Centres focused on
applied technological research in specific areas, to be linked to appropriate highereducation institutions. The centres will accelerate exploitation of new technologies by providing infrastructure that bridges gap between research and technology commercialisation. We will initially establish 3 additional centres foccussing on
biotechnology, nanotechnology and high value manufacturing. Further centres from a number of other areas will be selected at a later time.
• We will support the development of an International Content Services Centre to make Ireland world leader in managing intellectual property.
• We will pioneer within the EU a model of ‘fair use’ in European Copyright Law, like in the USA, which effectively permits the use of portions of a copyrighted work so long as the normal economic exploitation of the originating work is not undermined. This will allow internet companies and other digital innovators to bring their services
Subject to a cost benefit analysis, we will amend the R&D tax credit regime to make it more attractive and accessible to smaller businesses, in the following ways:
• Companies with R&D expenditures of under €100,000 will be entitled to full tax credit on those entire expenditures as opposed to just the increment over the base year, with marginal relief for companies with expenditure just over €100,000.
• We will allow companies to offset the R&D credit against employers. PRSI as an alternative to corporation tax.
• To cut down on red tape in the applications process, companies in receipt of a Research, Technology and Innovation (RTI) grant from one of the development agencies will be automatically deemed as entitled to the R&D tax credit.
Other relevant pieces:
Investment priorities will include education, health and science and technology (p. 16)
Undertake a full review of the Hunt and OECD reports into third level funding before end of 2011. Our goal is to introduce a funding system that will provide third level institutions with reliable funding but does not impact access for students (p 17)
Maths and science teaching at second level will be reformed, including making science a compulsory Junior Cert subject by 2014. Professional development for maths and science teachers will be prioritised. (p 40)
Third Level Reform (p 43)
We will review the recommendations of Hunt report on higher education. A reform of third level will be driven by the need to improve learning outcomes of undergraduate degree students, as well as providing high quality research.
We will initiate a time-limited audit of level 8 qualifications on offer and learning outcomes for graduates of these courses.
We will introduce radical reform in third level institutions to maximise existing funding, in particular reform of academic contracts and will encourage greater specialisation by educational institutions.
We support the relocation of DIT to Grangegorman as resources permit.
We will explore the establishment of a multi campus Technical University in the South East.
We will extend the remit of Ombudsman to third level institutions.
We will merge the existing accreditation authorities; National Qualifications Authority, FETAC and HETAC to increase transparency.
The graphics are fantastic, and the plan itself is short and sweet.
Our animating ethos rests on the belief that major and fundamental research problems are best solved by combining research strengths across disciplines and levels of analysis.
Combining our strengths in this way will allow us to deliver major scientific discoveries of great consequence for human health, welfare and knowledge.
Table of Contents:
- Why Explore the Brain? [Our short, simple answer: ‘Understanding the structure and functions of our brains brings us a good way along the path of understanding ourselves as humans. Progress in understanding the nervous system materially benefits human health, welfare and knowledge.‘]
- Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience Mission
- Transformative Neuroscience
- Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience Today
- Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience Tomorrow
- Research Focus 1: Synapses, Cognition and Behaviour
- Research Focus 2: Neuropsychiatry and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
- Research Focus 3: Neurodegeneration, Neuroprotection and Neuroplasticity
- Platform Technologies: Imaging and Neural Engineering
- Contribution to Society and Outreach
- Future Opportunities
- Measuring Impact: Hard and Soft Metrics
- Final Thoughts
Science is Vital (a new UK organisation opposed to cuts in the science budget there) offer a very interesting economic rationale for investing in research on their site [post reproduced in full]. Many of these points are just as important here in Ireland. There are lots of links below to actual evidence on the importance of investment in R&D.
Point 1. Investment in science and engineering skills and research yields broad and historically proven economic returns. Such investment, if made now, could drive the growth needed to secure a strong economic recovery:
- By showing a strong and sustained commitment to science and engineering, the UK can attract and retain excellent and internationally mobile scientists and engineers and the industries that seek to employ them, which will give immediate gains through tax revenues and employment.
- The UK’s economic climate, funding, and the reputations of its universities, all help to attract more and more overseas students – 250,000 in 2008/09, who contributed about £5bn to the UK economy. (BIS SET statistics)
- 180,000 people gain from working in R&D. (BIS SET statistics)
- Finland and Korea responded to their economic crises in the 1990s by investing heavily in R&D while severely constraining public spending; these investments helped their strong regrowth in knowledge-based economies. The UK has not yet seized the opportunity, still available, to invest in science and engineering to accelerate the recovery
- Multifactor productivity (MFP) reflects the extent to which an economy can derive GDP growth from a certain level of labour and capital. A 2004 OECD analysis estimated that a 1% increase in business R&D increases MFP by 0.13% and a 1% increase in public R&D increases MFP by 0.17%.
- A 2008 medical research report estimated that every £1 spent on public or charitably funded research gave a return of 30p a year in perpetuity from direct or indirect GDP gains, on top of the direct gains of the research.
- Corporate investment in R&D brings a return of around 50% to the public. This compares to a private return of around 20% captured by investors themselves.
Point 2. The Government is keen to boost confidence in the UK by making decisive cuts. But cuts in the science and engineering sectors would have the opposite effect, damaging investor confidence, reducing levels of investment and impacting the quality of higher education:
- Science in the UK already operates as a ‘Big Society’, with public investment and private enterprise strongly interacting. Cuts to academia or innovation support could have unforseen and damaging consequences due to the links between them.
- Investment in science cannot simply be turned off and then turned back on again a few years later. As former Science Minister Lord Waldegrave said, “If we cut science now, just as the benefits of nearly twenty years of consistent policy are really beginning to bear fruit, we will seriously damage our economic prospects.”
- The total budget for R&D is an important signal to investors and researchers. If the UK is not perceived to support R&D then they move to more favourable countries, as UK business leaders have previously warned. The UK currently receives a very high proportion of its R&D funds from foreign owned firms (17%), which may be even more responsive to market conditions than UK-based companies.
- If research projects are cut short, this wastes money that has already been spent and risks mothballing large-scale projects such as the Diamond Light Source or Isis.
- Reducing investment in R&D would reduce the potential for economic growth. There will be fewer breakthroughs, and less development of them into beneficial products. The general public will notice falling productivity, given the level of media interest in and coverage of scientific and medical discoveries, as well as new (including green) technologies.
- The UK’s reputation in science and engineering has already been damaged (e.g. physics funding crisis, and cuts already announced). We can recover with prompt action, but if not done soon, it will be hard to regain our previously enviable reputation.
- Reduced funding for higher education teaching and research has already resulted in job losses. As the teaching of high-cost science and engineering courses is already under-resourced, and some universities have accepted unfunded places, further financial pressure is likely to lead to departmental closures.
- Universities increasingly bolster their finances by recruiting overseas students, who bring with them high levels of fees. If the UK becomes less desirable, then this income will fall.
- If the capacity and quality of the higher education system is reduced, a generation of less-skilled graduates is the result. Without enough people trained in science, technology, engineering and maths, it will be difficult to retain industrial investment in the UK.
- If university funding is lowered, universities will scale back on renewing and upgrading their teaching and research facilities, reducing the value of the skills of new graduates.
Point 3. UK science and engineering is already extremely efficient:
Nearly 30% of the UK’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is produced by sectors intensive in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Yet the UK government spends a smaller proportion of its GDP on research than any other nation in the G7, bar Italy. We rank 14th in the OECD under the same metric – just behind Belgium and Canada, and on par with the EU27 average. Despite this, the UK:
- Leads the world in a huge range of scientific disciplines.
- Produces 12% of global citations with around 1% of the population.
- Is home to 29 of the world’s top 200 universities, including three of the top ten (THE rankings).
This is possible through UK science being very efficient:
- The UK is 3rd in the world in terms of citations per researcher
- The UK is ranked first in the G8 for scientific papers produced as a proportion of GDP
- We overwhelmingly focus on world-class research. About 90% of research funds (£980m out of £1095m) from HEFCE go to 3* or 4* research (defined as ‘internationally excellent’ and ‘world-leading’, respectively).
- Research council grants are extremely competitive. For instance, success rates of 19% at the MRC (down from 21% in 2008-9) and 22% at the BBSRC mean that thousands of proposals are rejected. In 2003, the overall grant success rate across research councils was around 40% – it has now fallen to around 20% (in 2008).
While efficiency savings in R&D still need to be made, these savings must be reinvested in science and engineering.
Point 4. The Government needs to develop a long-term and stable policy framework to make the UK a country where people and companies want to do science and engineering, enabling researchers to innovate, and encouraging private investment:
- Analysis of over 100 UK case studies by the Russell Group found that it took an average of 9 years from an initial discovery to produce a license or other measurable impact (e.g., significant commercial investment in a spin-out company). Given that the research cycle can have a decades-long timeframe, the public environment in which research plans are made needs to be of the same order.
- Private investments, research programmes and careers are reliant on a long-term, coherent, and credible policy framework. Instability will reduce the ability of these individuals to do their most high-impact and valuable work.
- A lack of long-term investment framework will compound
- In spring 2010, the most important organisations in UK science urged the government to develop long-term plans. The Royal Society’s Scientific Century report urged the government to outline spending plans over a 15-year period to provide “a clear, long-term framework within which to plan, build, and compete globally”.
- The House of Lords Science & Technology Committee recommended that the government adopt and articulate a long-term vision for UK Research, and the Council for Science and Technology talked of a vision for the future in which the UK research base is successful and globally competitive 20 years out. They urged that, “the Government needs to develop consistent, focused long-term industrial strategies”.
Point 5. Investment in science must be increased, or at the very least maintained, it order for the UK to remain internationally competitive
- The UK invested 1.8% of its GDP in R&D in 2007. This is short of the UK’s own target of 2.5%, and further behind the EU target of 3%.8. The new Government needs to commit to the challenging goal of at least 2.5% of GDP to be spent on R&D from all sources by 2014.
- The UK has an excellent track record, with four of the world’s top 30 research universities. But this excellence is threatened by rapidly increasing investment overseas, particularly in countries such as Brazil, Russia, India and China, that could grow into research giants. Indeed, the UK’s share of scientific publications fell over the last decade, while China’s quadrupled.
- Other world leaders have set out the case for investing in science and engineering.
The advantages that the UK built upon – including an early scientific and industrial base, the English language, and openness to international investors and workers – will not sustain our excellence without a strong new commitment to the future.
Another nice follow-up to the post below from Chris Dillow on the forthcoming cuts to the UK science budget.
[blogpost reproduced in full]
Forget for one moment the fall out of Vince Cable’s speech on science funding.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/08/vincent-cable-science-budget-cutsForget the fact the government has ignored the recommendations of last parliaments Science & Technology committee.
Forget the fact that a Liberal Democrat Secretary of State with a remit for science has utterly reneged on Liberal Democrat commitments to science that were made to the electorate.
Forget even the fact that the Secretary of State does not appear to understand the criteria used for assessing the research that his department is responsible for.
Forget all this. For it is not the most weird thing about the speech.
Superstition and irrational prejudice about the natural world are rarely far from the surface and scientists help inoculate society against them – a far from risk-free task as Simon Singh and others have discovered.
Is Cable saying scientists are inherently more rational and less prejudiced than other members of society? This would be contentious. Or does he mean that science can provide rational reasons for events and occurrences once attributed to supernatural forces and that evidence undermines prejudice. This would be true, but you only have too look at the public’s understanding of genetic modification, climate change or immigration to see that in practice throwing facts in somebody’s face is not always the most efficacious way of changing their mind.
And what has Simon Singh got to do with anything? He was sued by a bunch of quacks whose reputation now lies in tatters. This was a terrible abuse of libel law and it needs to be reformed, but this is not the remit of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation & Skills. Perhaps Cable was worried that libel law can stifle science based criticisms? It can, but I suspect that focussing science on fields that generate short term profit against all the evidence may in fact represent a far greater threat.
Did Cable really think that a poorly conceived nod to skeptical activism and libel reform would sweeten the bitter taste this renunciation of his party’s purported principles has left in the mouths of most scientists?
Chris Dillow makes a very important set of points regarding scientific research in the post reproduced below. We occasionally hear similar gibberish here, as in the phrase ‘research to retail’, which apart from the shared consonants is devoid of meaning but has the happy property of short-circuiting your synapses, and prevents thinking about the actual progress of research findings to the market. The problem here of course is that of not knowing what you don’t know.
Post reproduced in full:
One of the more unpleasant aspects of the New Labour government was its anti-Hayekian pretence that central government could acquire knowledge which, in fact, is unobtainable. The coalition has inherited this boneheaded idea.
Take Vince Cable’s recent speech:
There is no justification for taxpayers money being used to support research which is neither commercially useful nor theoretically outstanding.
The problem here is that it is impossible to predict what research will be commercially useful. History is full of examples of businessmen and scientists – let alone politicians – utterly failing to anticipate commercial uses, for example:
“There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable”
“The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value.”
“Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax.”
“While theoretically and technically television may be feasible, commercially and financially it is an impossibility.”
“There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.”
“This ‘telephone’ has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us.”
The notion that government can cut only “useless” science funding is an egregious pretence to know things that cannot be known. Instead, such cuts operate much as financial constraints for business operate: they diminish the ecology upon which natural selection operates.
The only reason I hesitate to call Cable a witless imbecile is that I doubt that he actually believes what he says.
Speaking of witless imbeciles brings me seamlessly to Gideon Osborne. He says:
People who are disabled, people who are vulnerable, people who need protection will get our protection, and more.
“But people who think it’s a lifestyle choice to just sit on out-of-work benefits – that lifestyle choice is going to come to an end.
Now, leave aside the hypocrisy of the heir to a multi-million fortune whining about folk getting something for nothing. Leave aside the fact that there’s little point encouraging people to find work if there’s none to be had. And leave aside the fact that the unemployed are, on average, significantly unhappier than those in work.
Even if we ignore all this, there’s still a problem here. It is, practically speaking, almost impossible for the state to distinguish between the “vulnerable” and the “workshy”. A more intrusive benefits system will bear heavily upon those with poor mental health, low IQ and poor social skills, whilst “scroungers” will continue to game the system. The distinction between deserving and undeserving poor might seem clear to bar-room bigots. But it is almost impossible to apply it to millions of individual people, except by creating a bureaucracy so large as to offset any savings on benefits.
Osborne is doing just what Cable and New Labour did. He’s assuming the state can know things which in fact it cannot.
Good Hayekians should be sceptical of what Osborne and Cable are claiming. Sadly, though, I suspect that the majority of people who claim to admire Hayek are wedded more to class war than to Hayek’s actual ideas.