11 February 2003
Dr. Henry: Like Senator O'Toole, I am concerned about the phraseology in this area. I also presume that "oriented" means "focused". I referred to the need to support basic research on Second Stage. I was anxious that we recognise the value of basic research because it appears that the foundation is very much geared, as in section 7 (1)(a), to looking at scientific endeavour which concerns the future development and competitiveness of industry and enterprise in this State. While I am glad that basic research is mentioned in this regard, I am grateful to Senator O'Toole for pointing out the difficulties we have with the word "oriented" preceding it. When one is performing basic research, it is frequently difficult to know on what it will be focused. The whole basis of such research is that it is something which can fan out in many directions. We need to consider this matter carefully. We need a clear explanation of what it means. This is one of the most important sections of the Bill and, if necessary, it perhaps can be changed before Report Stage.
Dr. Henry: We need to be sure what "oriented" means, as it is mentioned twice in this section, in case it should cause confusion or trouble in the future.
Mr. M. Ahern: Oriented basic research is carried out with the expectation that it will produce a broad base of knowledge likely to form the background to the solution of recognised or expected current or future problems or possibilities.
Mr. O'Toole: That is the point. I accept that explanation; it makes sense. However, it is going to produce something broad. That is the opposite to my understanding of oriented. There is a simple way to deal with this. Would it be possible at some stage to insert a description? I am not an expert in this area but "oriented basic research" might have a scientific meaning. If it has, the solution is simple. We should just insert a definition or explanation and leave it at that.
Dr. Henry: Could we look at it between now and Report Stage? If the word means nothing, it could be removed. If it means something, it should be explained.
Dr. Henry: I am dismayed that only four of the 21 members are women. I wonder what I have been doing for the last 30 years - obviously not half enough. Women have done a great deal of work in technology and science organisations and many students of scientific disciplines are women, including 60% of those in medicine and a high proportion in genetics. Role models are important so people can aspire to these positions. Science Foundation Ireland will be at the pinnacle of what one could hope to get into in terms of scientific research. Will the Minister of State tell the Minister, Deputy Harney, that we are dismayed by the composition of the board and that we hold out great hopes for the future? Senator O' Toole's idea about a body being able to nominate two people is an important one, but I do not know how it would sit with the Minister of State and the Minister.
Dr. Henry: It is quite instructive to see who, other than elected politicians, is disbarred from membership of the board. Section 9(6) lists the only others to be disbarred:
A member of the Board shall be disqualified from being such a member where he or she-
(a) is adjudicated bankrupt,
(b) makes a composition or arrangement with creditors,
(c) is convicted of an indictable offence in relation to a company,
(d) is convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty, or
(e) is disqualified or restricted from being a director of any company (within the meaning of the Companies Acts, 1963 to 2001.
There is no other specification of who can be on the board. Only politicians and the people I have listed are disbarred; it is a funny group to have put together. This does not even say that members of the board should have science or business backgrounds.
Dr. Henry: Senator Quinn and I have objected to this stipulation in other Bills. Like Senator McCarthy, I cannot understand why a well qualified person, whose advice is worthwhile, should be appointed if that person cannot question or express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government or a Minister, or on the merits of the objectives of such a policy. It might be vital that this person who has the expertise should be in the position to make his or her views known. I support all that Senator McCarthy has said.
Dr. Henry: On previous occasions when we have disputed this, I remember Senator Quinn saying that this person is not a civil servant. If the board disagrees with what he or she is doing, he or she can be fired.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 14 agreed to.
Section 15 agreed to.
Dr. Henry: I thank the Minister of State for accepting my amendment to amendment No. 12. Although this is an important section, it will be difficult to implement. It is probably advisable that a quorum of the board consists of five and that its committees may include members other than members of the board. The reason I take this view relates to my efforts to try to keep up to date with medical research. A few years ago, Dr. Mary Angel, the then editor of a journal about which I am particularly enthusiastic, the New England Journal of Medicine, introduced a policy by which the findings of drug trials would not be published if anyone involved in them had a beneficial interest in the drug under examination. However, after about two years the journal found it impossible to keep to its policy because so many people had some involvement with the companies which owned the drugs under examination. Science Foundation Ireland will have considerable difficulty in ensuring that the people involved on the fringes - employees and so forth - or connected relatives do not have a beneficial ownership in companies, particularly as so many people own shares.
The Bill states that small amounts of money or distant connections to companies, for example, through a pension fund, which could not be regarded as influencing the decision of a person, are acceptable. While I accept the need for this section, I do not underestimate the problems people will encounter in trying to avoid falling foul of it. In the past, Harvard researchers could not own more than $50 dollars of stock in a product or drug on which they were undertaking research. Right or wrong, this threshold was increased. One has to be concerned by the possibility that people will be influenced by personal investments they hold in companies manufacturing a device, drug, or development which they are examining. This is a difficult area.
I welcome the decision to accept my amendment. I am slightly concerned, however, by the use of the word "sibling" in the definition of "connected relative". I recall a similar discussion on family connections during the debate on a Bill being taken by the previous Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, which did not include the word "sibling" in its definition of connected relative. The Minister pointed out it would be impossible for him to know about everything in which his ten siblings were involved. It could easily arise that a person's siblings are involved in enterprises without that person's knowledge.
This provision may prove difficult to police in practice. Nevertheless, I accept the spirit of the section and agree that it is necessary. I welcome the arrangements for committees which provide that people other than board members may be appointed. Without this provision, one could have trouble ensuring their composition is sufficiently broad.
Dr. Henry: I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 12:
In the proposed new subsection (7), to delete "the spouse," and substitute "the parent, spouse,".
Amendment to amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 12, as amended, agreed to.
Section 16, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Government amendment No. 13:
In page 14, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following new subsection:
"(4) In this section 'confidential information' includes information that is expressed by the Foundation or a committee to be confidential either as regards particular information or as regards information of a particular class or description.".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 17, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Dr. Henry: I am delighted with the first part of the amendment which states that the accounts for each financial year have to be brought forward not later than four months after the end of the financial year to which they relate. When I first came into this House accounts were so long coming forward that by the time they arrived they were historical documents.
I am a little concerned, however, to see the old phrase "as soon as is practicable" in subsection (4) which states: "... as soon as is practicable, be presented to the Minister who shall cause copies of the accounts and the report to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas". Why can they not be brought forward immediately after they have been seen by the Comptroller and Auditor General? Why have the words "as soon as is practicable" been included?
Dr. Henry: "Oriented basic research" leaps from the page here again but the Minister will be pleased to know that I have been able to contact my advisers, who have told me to leave it in the section. Researchers are always trying to go off to do research and I gather it is better to include it than take it out.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 25 agreed to.
SECTION 26.
Government amendment No. 16:
In page 18, subsection (3), line 8, after "research laboratory" to insert "that is independent of any institute, college or university".
Dr. Henry: I congratulate the Minister of State on getting the Bill through the House this afternoon. If he had not explained it so carefully we might have been here much longer. I congratulate him on the way he dealt with the Bill. It is wonderful that it is going through. The Tánaiste, the Minister of State and the Government are to be congratulated on ringfencing the money for this research and development, which is so important for our future.
However, we cannot stop with what we have now. I do not read the International Herald Tribune very often but the other day it carried the results of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development survey on 15 year old students. It is the Programme for International Student Assessment, or PISA, and it looks at the assessment of students' average reading, mathematics and scientific literacy in the 21 most developed countries in the world. We are well above the OECD average but why are Japan, South Korea, Finland, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Britain ahead of us? We must improve and get up there. It is fine to be well above the average - the United State and Germany are below the average - but we have to ensure our 15 year old are at the top of the tree.
5 o'clock
We are putting a huge emphasis and investment into this area. We should not just look at what we have established today, we should consider what is going on in all areas of education and science. I have been pressing the Department about the establishment of a science museum for as long as I can remember. We talk about getting children interested in physics, chemistry and mathematics, but there must be something tangible that we can show them. Members must have seen the announcement about the giraffe being stuffed at the Museum of Natural History. Scores of children and adults visit that museum every day. If something is interesting for people to look at, they will go to see it and become enthusiastic. It is essential that we build from the bottom, not only in terms of launching the science foundation but also in terms of establishing a science museum which children can visit and which will interest people.
We must encourage our schools to look closely at science. We are concerned about the drop in numbers taking chemistry, physics and mathematics at higher level. We must consider all these areas in order that we do not have a science foundation with nothing to back it up. I congratulate the Government and the Minister of State for all they have done to establish the foundation.
Visit the Irish Government Website for the full text of this speech: Click Here
