€3.8 Billion Investment in Science & Technology

ISAW

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I'm substantially correct in my analysis. This proposal is a waste of money initiated by people who are totally out of touch with Irish society, industry, technology, trends and the globalised economy. Do these people ever talk or read outside their immediate circle?

http://www.forfas.ie/icsti/statements/tforesight/overview/tforeire.htm

Technology Foresight is the process for bringing together in partnership scientists, engineers, industrialists, Government officials and others to identify areas of strategic research and the emerging technologies likely to yield the greatest economic and social benefit and which in the long term will sustain industrial competitiveness. (Martin, 1995)3

In the Technology Foresight process the participants develop consensus on research priorities, creating a shared vision of the future they would like to achieve. The process is concerned with constructing a desirable but achievable long term future for the country and with identifying the critical strategic decisions which must be taken now to make the achievement of this vision more probable. Technology Foresight is ambitious. Ultimately, it is about creating a change in mindset regarding the way a country approaches the future.

he sector areas covered by the Technology Foresight Ireland exercise were:

* Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals

* Information and Communication Technologies

* Materials and Manufacturing Processes

* Health and Life Sciences

* Natural Resources (Agri-food, Marine, Forestry)

* Energy

* Transport and Logistics

* Construction and Infrastructure

The Technology Foresight Ireland initiative was jointly supported by the Office of Science and Technology, Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Forfás.

Nanotechnology/biotechnology was a later addition.

Consider that "out of touch" point sufficiently demolished.

GuanYin

ISAW wrote:

How do you define "small"? how do you define "overall research area"?

You're playing at semantics.

How much research money was invested into medical devices compared to other scientific research areas. How much do you need it to be to classify it as big.

The point you made was that Ireland was not doing RDTI in Health. Ireland is!
One can not discount "killer applications" either. Windows and Viagra (though not patented in Ireland) are only two products with HUGE export figures.

Both produced, not researched. Can you show me the information and publications indicating that research was/is conducted on these in Ireland?

Such as?

Such as fundamental scientific research. Go get a book and look it up if you don't know what it is. I'll give you a head start. Cell Biology.

Wyatt, the old Digital employees, Intel, Locktite, Silicon devices, Plasma Ireland,
http://www.idaireland.com/home/index.aspx?id=682

http://www.sciencecouncil.ie/publications/forfas050525/index.html

Investment in Research and Development (R&D) performed by the business sector in Ireland increased to €1,076m in 2003 and up from €901m in 2001
http://www.forfas.ie/publications/show/pub204.html

Wyatt don't have their plant up and running yet.

Can you show me figures for actual employment for these centres? How many people have these companies hired, specifically to do research in the last 5 years.

Can you even show me current research positions in IReland being advertised by industry. Just out of interest how many research positions in industry are currently on offer in Ireland?

If a company says ithas 40 researchers, that could be anything from low level technicians to lab managers. It doesn't say that they are PhD positions and I'm betting they aren't. Of course if you can show otherwise....

This study looks at the regional distribution of skills and employment in six key sectors in Ireland. It traces the historical development of this employment profile and considers the future role of skills in contributing to regionally balanced economic growth and development.
http://www.forfas.ie/publications/show/pub230.html

Ermm, nice where exactly does that deal with PhD employment and postdoctoral job availability. Did you actually read the 93 page report or did you just put it up cos it looked like it might be useful?

The soft job with tenure as a lecturer is harder to get nowadays. More likely is a contract of indefinite duration in a research group.

who said anything about that? Tenure is being removed altogether from most institutes but what has tenured lectureships got to do with PhD graduates having positions? There are even less lecturships than postdocs!

You won't even get indefinite research positions because research groups run of research grants. You might be able to move from one grant to the next, but that isn't certain. Even if there were enough postdoc jobs in Ireland, a 4 year post is just about the best you can hope for. So you create an industry with undervalues pay, no job security, no pension, no benefits, no healthcare and limited advancement....

There are plenty of jobs for them. They just wont get paid what they want. which is why the State and industry have to find money to pay them.

Our research lab has 11 Postdocs graduating this year. Can you link me 11 postdoctoral research positions advertised in Ireland right now?

Prove there are the same amount of postdoc research jobs as Phd graduates in Ireland every year.

The theory is that the knowledge base creates the wealth which creates the jobs. They dont offer jobs and then try to find work for someone to do when the job is filled.

Very philosophical but also impractical.

We have knowledge and we have wealth but we put our wealth into the wrong areas.

Do you even know what you are arguing with me about here?

I'm not adverse to the government putting money into the area, its a really good thing. However "4th level education" is a buzz term at the moment and they seem to think creating a ton of PhD graduates will do wonders for us.

All it will do to saturate the already saturated area. What they SHOULD be doing is funding more postdoctoral positions. Creating career track awards and job security in the postdoctoral fields - something akin to the NIH set of awards in the US. Effectively, they want to offer postdocs job security and advancement. That will keep our researchers here and it will mean that when we do start increasing PhDs we will have people to train them and supervise them and we will have jobs for them when they graduate.

Maybe because postdocs are tied to teaching and tenured pensionable public money?

No they aren't. What postdoctoral researchers are tied to teaching? There are possibly 5-10 out of 100 postdoctoral researchers in UCD College of Life Science that regularly. What tenure positions are you on about? Researchers are almost totally paid from grants from private/public sources.

Maybe because they dont want to widen the base of their peers and dilute their own political power and earnings as maybe also in the case of medical consultants?

You are comparing researchers with medical consultants? Do you actually know anything at all about this bar what you've read in a paper?

What exactly does that mean? What political power?

And to fourth level research institutes within and outside third level campuses. and to emergent SME's which are knowledge centered. The idea of "we have a thousand PhD's now why do we need ten thousand?" smacks to me of the old leftie idea of the planned economy. Not predicting the trend. No growth. Creating jobs for people rather than getting quality people to create jobs etc.

I'm sure it does, but then you obviously haven't a clue about the area or environment you're posting about so your opinion doesn't exactly count for much.

In 1980 Us industrial output was thirty times Irelands. It is about seven times now. Over that period Italy went from ten times Ireland to twice,; Spain from x2 to parity; UK from x14 to <x3; Japan x20 to x5.

Development, not research. Do you know the difference?

High technology manufacturing in Ireland has had similar growth over the same period. The stats are there. Ireland compares well to other knowledge based economies.

My god, you don't seem to understand the concept differences between development and production and research.

But we can track the growth based on value added business which is based on PhD's!

No, you'll getthe same situation as in Spain, where there is a saturation of PhDs and the qualification is devalued.

Development of research is based on human capital and mobility. Researchers may well go abroad but they also return with more experience. The largest cohort of immigrants are not foreigners but Irish people. Surely you must know this?

Now can you show me the stats to prove that they return home. It is true that some notable scientists have returned, but they were lured and its an old boys system there, at least in life sciences.

I don't think either of us can show figure to prove either way that there are less/more emmigrating as returning, but I work in science research and I know the people we're talking about here. Even personally, none of my graduate class have returned home.

the knowledge base creates the employment when it reaches a "critical mass". There are various socio economic demographic and geographic models for this. One example is the ex DIGITAL workers in Galway. Abouyt 2500 jobs were lost when Digital closed. There were about 300-400 researchers who had experience. That base created several thousand jobs. Of course maybe not for the same 2000 workers but that is a differnt issue. Whether the knowledge base creates the jobs is the issue here.

Well Digital IT isn't an area I'd now about. I'm a life sciences person and the situation is very different.

You can't compare like with like it those examples.

Again that is a seperated though related issue covered in the report/policy. BOTH are targetted! Indeed there are a whole plethora of additions I could suggest about postgrads but they are side issues to the PhD knowledge base.

No, both aren't targetted. The investments and strategies in the report, do not develop scientific infrastructure sufficiently to cope with 1000 PhDs UNLESS they are mostly in non life science fields. The pharma/biotech industry just can't support an equal proportion of those graduates, they have a hard time supporting the current grads, otherwise there would beno brain drain.

mhenness

ISAW wrote:

I don't accept this! If public money is being used then the process should be transparent. If private money is used it should be moderated by public interest.

I totally agree that if public money is being used that the process should be transparent. The question is will this be in this case? How will the outputs from this investment be measured? I know that individual research centres do have to generate end of year reports showing numbers of papers published at various conferences and must also show any successes in getting their work out into the field through collaborations with industry. I also know there is a technology transfer initiative. This has been way under funded until now.

ISAW wrote:

But not ONLY for that reason. ther are other reasons. REsearch institutes are one. sports and cultural life are another. They are not only for education.

I didn't say universities were only for education :-). I also said they were there to do basic science research.

ISAW wrote:

Industry also needs links with cutting edge research and cultural content supplied by the Arts (whether in academe or outside).

Without a doubt.

ISAW wrote:

It is unlikely that fundamental scientific researchers would be unaware of existing applications of their work.

True. It is likely they would need to be involved in helping "users" of their research to understand it and also allows them to have an even stronger justification for funding if their work is seen as benefiting outside of the scientific community. That said in a field such as computer science it is very easy for a researcher to spend their time doing work that has only very theoretical outputs and it may not work under real world assumptions. In this way it can be similar to mathematics. That isn't to downplay the important role maths has in many fields such as engineering. I think when it comes to medical research, other physical sciences and engineering the assumptions used in research are always rooted in the real world and thus research must have tighter links with its users.

ISAW wrote:

Only if you view research as supplying products to a market. Research can also be viewed as being about finding new knowledge.

I don't view it as only supplying products to market. I thought we were talking about the value of spending 3.8 billion euro on research and whether the country is going to get an economic return on it's investment? Sure, knowledge generation in itself can be seen as a benefit to society and can be seen as a mark of an advanced society but this is less tangible than the economic return of making such investments in research which can be more easily measured in the number of new startups and existing companies using basic research to create new and useful applications.

ISAW wrote:

One can never justify finding new knowledge on the basis that ther is an application for it. On the other hand name a produce that did not requirer basic research at some time.

I wouldn't say never. I'm sure some application areas do drive the need for basic research to be done in order to see them realised. The basic research done can then feed into new applications as well as contribute to knowledge and understanding.

ISAW wrote:

I would have no doubt that the original contribution you will make will find application elsewhere. i would not worry about trying to find a "significance" for your work.

I hope so :-). I plan to go back to industry later on and see if I can contribute to solving problems there. It is likely to take the form of using basic research by me and others to help solve existing industry problems. Of course there is major scope to be more creative and use basic research to create brand new applications.

As an aside. May I ask you ISAW if you are involved in research yourself? I hope you don't mind me asking?

ISAW

psi wrote:

You're playing at semantics.

No I am not. You stated it so you define "small" and what is "overall" funding. It isnt for me to go and do your research for you.

How much research money was invested into medical devices compared to other scientific research areas. How much do you need it to be to classify it as big.

Hey! That is what I just asked you to do. go and get the figures and when ou come back with them we can discuss that.

Both produced, not researched. Can you show me the information and publications indicating that research was/is conducted on these in Ireland?

Hence the words about the patent base being elsewhere. It does not detract from the fact that if the base was here that one or two products could bring in several billions!

Such as fundamental scientific research. Go get a book and look it up if you don't know what it is. I'll give you a head start. Cell Biology.

You made the claim you back it up you claimed that "there is a large core of fundamental science in Ireland which is overlooked." Your only example so far is "cell biology". Please show something which supports the arguement that the funding for cell biology is paltry or non existant.

Wyatt don't have their plant up and running yet.

Not the point. The EXPENDITURE is related to basic research.

Can you show me figures for actual employment for these centres? How many people have these companies hired, specifically to do research in the last 5 years.

It is listed in the link. there are 18 companies listed in the first link I gave.

Can you even show me current research positions in Ireland being advertised by industry. Just out of interest how many research positions in industry are currently on offer in Ireland?

This is not really relevant. There are very few teacher jobs or call center jobs being advertised at the moment. Ther are also maybe no full time civil and public service Gardai Army being advertised. Ther are however maybe a million of them working here. Current jobs advertised are not an indicator of the sectoral employment.

Anyway this took two minutes:
http://www.biotechnologyireland.com/bfora/systems/xmlviewer/default.asp?arg=DS_BIR_JOBSART_29/_list.xsl/45

If a company says ithas 40 researchers, that could be anything from low level technicians to lab managers. It doesn't say that they are PhD positions and I'm betting they aren't. Of course if you can show otherwise....

this is a change from "if you can show me where all these industry research positions are, then please, point the way."

I could show. I did point. All the jobs are not in Third level. Business has a significant amount and needs to invest to get more of them.

Ermm, nice where exactly does that deal with PhD employment and postdoctoral job availability. Did you actually read the 93 page report or did you just put it up cos it looked like it might be useful?

Table 18 and 19 on Page 33.

539,000 graduates 192,000 science graduates.

Table 40 on page 63 suggsts 52,000 extra science graduates will be needed.

the NSF (US) Science and engineering indicators list 89 science PhD's per million population for Ireland in 2001 i.e about half the level of Switzerland the UK or Finland.

I think with 52,000 extra science graduates there would be jobs for more than 89 PhDs.

who said anything about that? Tenure is being removed altogether from most institutes but what has tenured lectureships got to do with PhD graduates having positions? There are even less lecturships than postdocs!

Eh? jyou said it remember "Ireland simply does not have enough PhD graduate research positions at present " . You already claimed that the overwhelming postdoc work was in Third level institutes. Ergo the doctoral and post doc research positions are in third level institutions. Given that I already pointed to the research teaching distinction is my comment any surprise.

So you create an industry with undervalues pay, no job security, no pension, no benefits, no healthcare and limited advancement....

Unlike the traditional "State will gve you a permanent pensionable job" senario.

Our research lab has 11 Postdocs graduating this year. Can you link me 11 postdoctoral research positions advertised in Ireland right now?

surely you mean eleven "doctoral graduands"?

Prove there are the same amount of postdoc research jobs as Phd graduates in Ireland every year.

Why should I have to? It isnt the job of the State to create cushy pensionable jobs here. The day of the trade union and workers party planned jobs economy is gone. That does not mean that the jobs will not be here. Also it does not mean Ireland should not educate Irish people. Nor is education ONLY about supplying the economy with workers.

Very philosophical but also impractical.

Some current economic theories would not agree with you . then there is always some economist or business man who will have some zany opinion isnt there. But you only need one of these zany guys to actually succeed for the other 99 to be paid for many times over.

We have knowledge and we have wealth but we put our wealth into the wrong areas.

How is investing in the knowledge base a "wrong area"? What is a "right" one?

Do you even know what you are arguing with me about here?

Is that a rhetorical question? Do you know what a "hanging preposition" is? If not then look it up before you write up your thesis will you?

I'm not adverse to the government putting money into the area, its a really good thing. However "4th level education" is a buzz term at the moment and they seem to think creating a ton of PhD graduates will do wonders for us.

That is not the only part of the plan.

All it will do to saturate the already saturated area. What they SHOULD be doing is funding more postdoctoral positions.

in the plan p. 29-30

Creating career track awards and job security in the postdoctoral fields

p. 32

Who was it suggested I didnt know what I was talking about?

No they aren't. What postdoctoral researchers are tied to teaching? There are possibly 5-10 out of 100 postdoctoral researchers in UCD College of Life Science that regularly. What tenure positions are you on about? Researchers are almost totally paid from grants from private/public sources.

II am talking about almost all college lecturers who do research. If you go back ten years before FP5, SFI PRTLI etc. the main bone of contention was that science researchers were paid to lecture and did research in their spare time. While new types of researchers who do not teach have been created all the ones who do teach are still there! Indeed most of the senior research staff in third level institutions have senior lectureships, senior administration jobs e.g. dean or vice president or chairs for which they are paid out of the public purse. Can ou name a senior science faculty member who doesn't do any research?

You are comparing researchers with medical consultants? Do you actually know anything at all about this bar what you've read in a paper?

apart from the fact that consultants actually do research and may well be defines as science researchers I was referring to the senior/junior ration. Look at this of rthe likes of UCD and TCD and to whom the "merit bar" is awarded.

What exactly does that mean? What political power?

How do you think the members of the IUA council get their positions? www.iua.ie

I'm sure it does, but then you obviously haven't a clue about the area or environment you're posting about so your opinion doesn't exactly count for much.

Gainsaying is not counter argument! Nor is ad hominem. Nor is a unsupported claim that I argue from authority or from ignorance.

Development, not research. Do you know the difference?

You are claiming that Irish growth was not based on science research at all. I beg to differ and claim that the knowledge base had a lot to do with our growth over the period.

My god, you don't seem to understand the concept differences between development and production and research.

Apparently neither does the NSF Science and technology Indicators from which I took the figures and the argument. My God the US economy must really be in trouble as far a science goes if the NSF have anything to do with it!

No,

sorry but YES. we can track growth and correlate it with the number of PhDs in several countries. Again the NSF indicators have the data.

ISAW

continued:

Now can you show me the stats to prove that they return home. It is true that some notable scientists have returned, but they were lured and its an old boys system there, at least in life sciences.

above there was no politics. Now ther is an "old boys system" ?
I know the membership profile of what was the largest science research group in Ireland. Data protection prevent me from putting anything here so I woudl suggest the Census might answer that question.

I don't think either of us can show figure to prove either way that there are less/more emmigrating as returning, but I work in science research and I know the people we're talking about here. Even personally, none of my graduate class have returned home.

You should know then that extrapolating from personal experience is not necessarily proof.

Well Digital IT isn't an area I'd [k]now about. I'm a life sciences person and the situation is very different.

"It isn't my speciality" is not counter arguement! I gave a general point and provided a particualr example of a critical mass creating jobs. The same ios true of Route 66 in Mass and Silicon Valley in Calif. The situation is not different in an economic senario.

You can't compare like with like it those examples.

If they both cose money to finacne and a knowledge base creates money then you CAN compare them as distinct examples of a general theory.

No, both aren't targetted. The investments and strategies in the report, do not develop scientific infrastructure sufficiently to cope with 1000 PhDs UNLESS they are mostly in non life science fields. The pharma/biotech industry just can't support an equal proportion of those graduates, they have a hard time supporting the current grads, otherwise there would beno brain drain.

You were arguing about the non PhD area not being targetted at all. In reply to my reference that both WERE targeted you claim they "are not sufficiently targeted" . This is switching the issue.

ISAW

mhenness wrote:

The question is will this be in this case?
That is up to the likes of you and I.
How will the outputs from this investment be measured?
By economic growth, triadic patents, publications ...

This has been way under funded until now.

Hmmm. Many smart industrial elements are already going back to the basic research as soon as itis published. Some even sooner

I didn't say universities were only for education :-). I also said they were there to do basic science research.

But nor are they there only for those two reasons.

True. It is likely they would need to be involved in helping "users" of their research to understand it and also allows them to have an even stronger justification for funding if their work is seen as benefiting outside of the scientific community. That said in a field such as computer science it is very easy for a researcher to spend their time doing work that has only very theoretical outputs and it may not work under real world assumptions. In this way it can be similar to mathematics.

And one could have looked at fractals as a distraction until graphics came about?

That isn't to downplay the important role maths has in many fields such as engineering. I think when it comes to medical research, other physical sciences and engineering the assumptions used in research are always rooted in the real world and thus research must have tighter links with its users.

Yes but targeted basic cutting edge research in engineering may be old news if five years time. a publication in the arts may have significance in fifty years time.

I don't view it as only supplying products to market. I thought we were talking about the value of spending 3.8 billion euro on research and whether the country is going to get an economic return on it's investment?

Not only on research. On research infrastructure including human infrastructure. Also , on developing a research oriented culture. Also on the knowledge base.

Sure, knowledge generation in itself can be seen as a benefit to society and can be seen as a mark of an advanced society but this is less tangible than the economic return of making such investments in research which can be more easily measured in the number of new startups and existing companies using basic research to create new and useful applications.

True but even in 1987 with unemployment running at 19 per cent and emigration at 30,000 young people a year I would rather them leve with degrees than without them.

I wouldn't say never. I'm sure some application areas do drive the need for basic research to be done in order to see them realised. The basic research done can then feed into new applications as well as contribute to knowledge and understanding.

This is what people call "targetted basic" research and is along the lines of many EU funding programmes.

I hope so :-). I plan to go back to industry later on and see if I can contribute to solving problems there. It is likely to take the form of using basic research by me and others to help solve existing industry problems. Of course there is major scope to be more creative and use basic research to create brand new applications.

Very exciting work. If I can help out in any policy or publicity way PM me. this is exactly what SME's should be doing.

As an aside. May I ask you ISAW if you are involved in research yourself? I hope you don't mind me asking?

I am currently fairly much a fulltime housewife since I got into another unrelated dispute between my biological wellbeing and cancer.

The S in ISAW stands for science and the I for Irish. I dont do any direct science research anymore. I am only involved in science research in a peripheral way e.g. in funding policy, publicity, analysis etc.

GuanYin

ISAW wrote:

No I am not. You stated it so you define "small" and what is "overall" funding. It isnt for me to go and do your research for you.

Hey! That is what I just asked you to do. go and get the figures and when ou come back with them we can discuss that.

You have made the claim that medical devices have a substantial footingin Irish research industry and then ask me to show this?

I think not.

If you wish to stand by your claim, show the figures.

Hence the words about the patent base being elsewhere. It does not detract from the fact that if the base was here that one or two products could bring in several billions!

But my point is that not one PhD graduate based in Ireland contributed to the patent. So how does this support your claim that there are jobs in research in Ireland for postdocs?

You made the claim you back it up you claimed that "there is a large core of fundamental science in Ireland which is overlooked." Your only example so far is "cell biology". Please show something which supports the arguement that the funding for cell biology is paltry or non existant.

Go look up "fundamental science" basically research for research sake and not with a patent end.

I told you where to go to look for it. SFI grants. Its all public domain.

Not the point. The EXPENDITURE is related to basic research.

But your point is unrelated. My argument is that there aren't jobs.

So the plant is there with jobs or it isn't.

It is listed in the link. there are 18 companies listed in the first link I gave.

No it doesn't show how many PhD graduates are employed anywhere on that link.

This is not really relevant. There are very few teacher jobs or call center jobs being advertised at the moment. Ther are also maybe no full time civil and public service Gardai Army being advertised. Ther are however maybe a million of them working here. Current jobs advertised are not an indicator of the sectoral employment.

So you're saying that there are jobs, just no evidence of them.

There are none. I know because I have been watching the market. Now if you say they are there, please show evidence otherwise its just your opinion.

Anyway this took two minutes:
http://www.biotechnologyireland.com/bfora/systems/xmlviewer/default.asp?arg=DS_BIR_JOBSART_29/_list.xsl/45

One of those jobs is an actual research job and it is only part based in Ireland (it seems the research plant is in Luxumbourg). One is a troubleshooting position that isn't an actual research project.

The rest are all quality control/production related positions. So you haven't actually found 1 full time position in Ireland dedicated to research.

this is a change from "if you can show me where all these industry research positions are, then please, point the way."

I could show. I did point. All the jobs are not in Third level. Business has a significant amount and needs to invest to get more of them.

Hold on. My argument was inherently about postgraduate grad positons. That is clear from my initial post.

So if you took some other meaning then perhaps you should re-read the posts. If its still unclear, then my post may be unclear but you still have done nothing to challenge my argument. You've danced around it alot but you've shown nothing.

Table 18 and 19 on Page 33.

539,000 graduates 192,000 science graduates.

Table 40 on page 63 suggsts 52,000 extra science graduates will be needed.

I believe I specifically asked about PhD graduates.

the NSF (US) Science and engineering indicators list 89 science PhD's per million population for Ireland in 2001 i.e about half the level of Switzerland the UK or Finland.

Again this doesn't show that they are all happily employed in research jobs in Ireland.

I think with 52,000 extra science graduates there would be jobs for more than 89 PhDs.

89 per million isn't it? Which means ~360 PhDs and my point is (which you seem to be ignoring) there aren't enough RESEARCH jobs for them.

Eh? jyou said it remember "Ireland simply does not have enough PhD graduate research positions at present " . You already claimed that the overwhelming postdoc work was in Third level institutes. Ergo the doctoral and post doc research positions are in third level institutions. Given that I already pointed to the research teaching distinction is my comment any surprise.

Postdoctoral positions that exist aren't tenured and don't involve teaching so your comment is either wrong or unclear.

Unlike the traditional "State will gve you a permanent pensionable job" senario.

so?

surely you mean eleven "doctoral graduands"?

No, they are postdocs now, having finished there PhD and defended their thesis's, they will graduate (or more accurately be conferred) this year.

Whatever, I see you avoided my question. Good misdirection there.

Why should I have to? It isnt the job of the State to create cushy pensionable jobs here. The day of the trade union and workers party planned jobs economy is gone. That does not mean that the jobs will not be here. Also it does not mean Ireland should not educate Irish people. Nor is education ONLY about supplying the economy with workers.

In other words you can't.

I'm not entering into any argument bar the ones that says there is not enough industrial research to sustain the extra PhDs proposed. I maintain that there isn't currently enough research to maintain all our PhDs.

So you either conceed the point or prove otherwise?

If you want to waffle on about economics and socio-politics, fine, but its nothing to do with my argument.

How is investing in the knowledge base a "wrong area"? What is a "right" one?

I've stated this already.

Is that a rhetorical question? Do you know what a "hanging preposition" is? If not then look it up before you write up your thesis will you?

My thesis was written long long ago. And it was a serious question that was indirectly answered by the ignorance of the information in your posts.

That is not the only part of the plan.

in the plan p. 29-30


p. 32

Who was it suggested I didnt know what I was talking about?

Which were first proposed as part of a very similar plan (after Harney bungled the PRTLI funding). they have yet to materialise. Hence I suggest that it is what they should do. Not what they should plan or propose.

II am talking about almost all college lecturers who do research. If you go back ten years before FP5, SFI PRTLI etc. the main bone of contention was that science researchers were paid to lecture and did research in their spare time. While new types of researchers who do not teach have been created all the ones who do teach are still there! Indeed most of the senior research staff in third level institutions have senior lectureships, senior administration jobs e.g. dean or vice president or chairs for which they are paid out of the public purse. Can ou name a senior science faculty member who doesn't do any research?

Right so you are talking about academics who hold grants and facilitate research. Thats grand, you're right about what you say above.. Now what has it got to what the argument I'm making.

Are you unable or just unwilling to focus on the point someone makes or do you purposely go off in wanton tangents to make your argument look like it has substance?

I won't give you advice on your thesis writing, cos I'm fairly sure you never went near one, but clear and concise is good.

apart from the fact that consultants actually do research and may well be defines as science researchers I was referring to the senior/junior ration. Look at this of rthe likes of UCD and TCD and to whom the "merit bar" is awarded.

By doing research you mean putting names on grants, then you're openig a can of worms you know nothing about there.

Again, nothing to do with my argument on PhD numbers Vs. postdoctoral jobs, but hey! keep waffling.


Gah, I'm not arsed reading the rest.

If you want to actually edit out the crap and leave in the points that actually have anything to do with what I am saying, then I will respond.

If you want to cloud the waters to make it look like you have a point, then grand, off you go. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself.

mhenness

ISAW wrote:

Hmmm. Many smart industrial elements are already going back to the basic research as soon as itis published. Some even sooner

I'm interested in knowing about some good success stories that have come directly from research done in computer science in Ireland. Do you know of any off hand?

ISAW wrote:

But nor are they there only for those two reasons.

Very true!

ISAW wrote:

And one could have looked at fractals as a distraction until graphics came about?

True. This is why academic freedom is so important and often with basic research it is hard to know what we will gain from it unless it is carried out. Applications tend to drop out quite easily once the thinking work is done and the problems solved.

ISAW wrote:

Not only on research. On research infrastructure including human infrastructure. Also , on developing a research oriented culture. Also on the knowledge base.

Does research infrastructure also include suitable buildings as well as labs and materials?

ISAW wrote:

True but even in 1987 with unemployment running at 19 per cent and emigration at 30,000 young people a year I would rather them leve with degrees than without them.

I can't disagree with that. It would have made things much easier for them if they had been more educated. In fact right now many of my colleagues in my research centre are from France, UK and the Eastern European states. They came here because Ireland is offering them an opportunity. In this case it is Irelands gain.

ISAW wrote:

Very exciting work. If I can help out in any policy or publicity way PM me. this is exactly what SME's should be doing.

Thank you very much. It may be a while yet before anything comes to fruition but research takes time :-)

ISAW wrote:

I am currently fairly much a fulltime housewife since I got into another unrelated dispute between my biological wellbeing and cancer.

Sorry to hear about your illness. I hope you get well in the not too distant future.

ISAW wrote:

The S in ISAW stands for science and the I for Irish. I dont do any direct science research anymore. I am only involved in science research in a peripheral way e.g. in funding policy, publicity, analysis etc.

Thanks for the information. I appreciate you telling me. Actually, I was hoping to hear your opinion on how well the Irish education system prepares students for 4th level. From my experience I get the impression students from places like France are "more prepared" than students from Ireland when it comes to their readiness for doing research at PhD level. Also, I have heard something about the establishment of graduate schools. This sounds like a good idea. Generally, do you know what these entail?

ISAW

psi wrote:

You have made the claim that medical devices have a substantial footingin Irish research industry and then ask me to show this?

I think not.

If you wish to stand by your claim, show the figures.

This is called "shifting the burden"
In http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51575228&postcount=12
YOU stated emphasis added by me:

>While there is certainly a lack of R&D industry here in health, there is an R&D industry in other sciences.

i.e. YOU claimed there was a lack an R&D in the health industry. There is one in Galway I believe. You then switch from a "lack of an industry" to "not a substantial industry" which is why I asked you to define what you mean by "small" which is another term that crept in after you claimed the complete lack of Irish industrial R&D in the health sector.

Go look up "fundamental science" basically research for research sake and not with a patent end.

You claimed t "there is a large core of fundamental science in Ireland which is overlooked." You havent supported it. Asking me to google it is not supporting YOUR claim!

Go an look above at what you claimed about industrial R&D (which also takes in applied R&D
You original claim abiove does not mention "fundamental2 research. Actually it claims no R and D (you must know by now the difference between "R" and "D" since you asked me whether I knew the difference! Any it claims there is a lack of a medical R and D industry in Ireland. This claim takes in "development" and "industry". But now you try to switch to "fundamental" research in medical industry. Oddly this also happens. http://www.jurology.com/article/PIIS002253470563056X/abstract
This guy is a private consultant working also in a hospital.

I told you where to go to look for it. SFI grants. Its all public domain.

Not good enough! YOU make a claim then YOU have to back it up! You claimed fundamental science is overlooked for funding and you claimed a lack of research and development in the health industry.

But your point is unrelated. My argument is that there aren't jobs.
So the plant is there with jobs or it isn't.

Actually the plant is ther without the jobs when it is being built! FI you think Wyatt are just throwing away money by building such a plant in Ireland well they dont seem to think so! They actually think the Irish knowledge base contributes to industrial growth.

No it doesn't show how many PhD graduates are employed anywhere on that link.

It shows the skills need and the number of graduates. The NSF figures show the number of PhD per capita. One can also estimate the number of PhD per undergraduate. This is done in academic restructuring models when they weight the cost of postgrads (research and taught). But no it doesnt show the exact figure. Nor can we exactly measure the distence to stars which are thousands of light years away but it does not stop people from accepting indirect estimates.

So you're saying that there are jobs, just no evidence of them.

I already gave the evidence of the changing demographics in the workforce in knowledge based and emergent economies. They correlate with increased R and D and higher qualifications.

There are none. I know because I have been watching the market. Now if you say they are there, please show evidence otherwise its just your opinion.

You have been watching the market in a specific area. But even if I knew now I wouldnt post them and help you out. so I dont make any claim about where there are jobs to be found in any are in which you would be interested.

One of those jobs is an actual research job and it is only part based in Ireland (it seems the research plant is in Luxumbourg). One is a troubleshooting position that isn't an actual research project.

I regret posting that now. So you admit there are actual research jobs in Ireland (even if partly which has not been verified) in that field? Anyway forget about that and I wont post any other jobs I find out about either and am quite happy to accept you claim that there are no research jobs in your field in Ireland.

The rest are all quality control/production related positions. So you haven't actually found 1 full time position in Ireland dedicated to research.

I havent posted any more and I wouldnt if I knew of any.

Again this doesn't show that they are all happily employed in research jobs in Ireland.

I didnt claim they were. I cklaimed there is an economic view that having a more qualified knowledge base (and more PhDs are part of this) correlates with economic growth. It does! The theioory is that the knowledge base creates jobs. this is not only science PhDs it is broader and requires a "critical mass" of infrastructure both physical and human as well as a science/technology oriented culture but does not discount arts.

89 per million isn't it? Which means ~360 PhDs and my point is (which you seem to be ignoring) there aren't enough RESEARCH jobs for them.

Actually because Ireland is half the level of other countries it means at least twic e this i.e. about 750 PhDs.

Postdoctoral positions that exist aren't tenured and don't involve teaching so your comment is either wrong or unclear.

Yes they are. Pick any ten science departments at random. I will show you a post doctoral researcher from that department who is a tenured lecturer or a professor. I sopecifically referred to "post doctoral" in relation to "fourth level" research i.e the research which came after a doctoral qualification e.g. a PhD.

No, they are postdocs now, having finished there PhD and defended their thesis's, they will graduate (or more accurately be conferred) this year.

So your institute awards PhDs before they are conferred. Do these eleven people go around at the moment calling themselves "doctor"?

Whatever, I see you avoided my question. Good misdirection there.

You are accusing me of cheating to avoid a question now! Please withdraw that remark. I neither tried to avoid a question nor mis-direct you.

You asked me: Prove there are the same amount of postdoc research jobs as Phd graduates in Ireland every year.

I answered "why should I?" To me it is pointless. It is like asking for zero unemployment. I dont support statist ideals where any PhD should have to work in Ireland though I would prefer if they did. I believe that Ireland will have these jobs. It is not a paradigm of "spend the money to create the jobs" it is "invest in a knowledge culture and that will lead to growth"


You claimed:
> A knowledge base only works if you have employment to sustain the graduates produced.
and
> tenured people are not in the post doctoral research base.

you are wrong!

I'm not entering into any argument bar the ones that says there is not enough industrial research to sustain the extra PhDs proposed. I maintain that there isn't currently enough research to maintain all our PhDs.

so what? You dont simply say "here is 100 million throw it at a senior academic and get a few hundred PhD looking into whatever they feel like" Joined up thinking is needed. You are basically claiming that doing a PhD is only qualifying most people for jobs elsewhere outside Ireland. ! I do not agree with you.

So you either conceed the point or prove otherwise?
If you want to waffle on about economics and socio-politics, fine, but its nothing to do with my argument.

the argument is that a "Critical mass" of suitably qualified people form a knowledge base which creats and economic growth. It is an accepted model. Part of that knowledge base is concerned with PhDs. You may not like the theory but it is internationally accepted and will go ahead whwether you like it or not. I firmly believe it will create growth or I wouldnt back it. I believe this form personal experience and from a series of national and international reports and indicators over the last decade related to knowledge based economies.

My thesis was written long long ago. And it was a serious question that was indirectly answered by the ignorance of the information in your posts.

Look up the word "thesis". And you are now putting a elements into a null set. What is an "ignorance of information"?

By doing research you mean putting names on grants, then you're openig a can of worms you know nothing about there.

I didnt claim that is doing research. I claimed that tenured people in third level also do research. You denied this happens! You are wrong!

Again, nothing to do with my argument on PhD numbers Vs. postdoctoral jobs, but hey!

Also nothing to do with your claim that there was a total lack of medical R and D was in Irish industry and when pointed out you were wrong switched you claim.

Many people who are tenured in college are postdoctoral fourth level workers. Just as if you are paid to teach in UCD and also do research. As opposed to NONE of the teachinf postdoctoral staff doing research as you claimed.

Gah, I'm not arsed reading the rest.
If you want to cloud the waters to make it look like you have a point, then grand, off you go. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself.

You are accusing me of personally trying to avoid issues and you have claimed I was ignorant of the whole field of the economics of research. You are claiming I am tryiong to fool people.

Withdraw that insult please.

ISAW

mhenness wrote:

I'm interested in knowing about some good success stories that have come directly from research done in computer science in Ireland. Do you know of any off hand?

Here are two from TCD :
An independent spin-out company from the Department of Computer Science in TCD, and located in Dublin, is Telekinesys Ltd : under the name Havoc.com, it has developed new games engine technology and launched its product in San Jose, California in March 2000.

Neos Interactive Ltd is a London based start-up developing digital video technology, originally researched in the Department of Computer Science, and its R&D Centre is at present recruiting staff for a start-up in Dublin in Summer of 2000.

There is also the Irish professor in the Us on the East coast who invented the applet and got 5000 million dollars out of Microsoft last year.

Does research infrastructure also include suitable buildings as well as labs and materials?

Yes buit academic institutions are beginning to charge for their own space.

I can't disagree with that. It would have made things much easier for them if they had been more educated. In fact right now many of my colleagues in my research centre are from France, UK and the Eastern European states. They came here because Ireland is offering them an opportunity. In this case it is Irelands gain.

apparently according to another poster ther is no future from them here either. I dont go along with that.

Thank you very much. It may be a while yet before anything comes to fruition but research takes time :-)

Well i dont plan on dying in the meantime. In what institution are you studying?

Sorry to hear about your illness. I hope you get well in the not too distant future.

I dont know if one is ever well . One is maybe permaneltly "in remission". Anyway it doesnt seem to be troubling me and I dont plan on it returning. A little chemo isnt the worst thing in life. Actually it is far from it.

Thanks for the information. I appreciate you telling me. Actually, I was hoping to hear your opinion on how well the Irish education system prepares students for 4th level. From my experience I get the impression students from places like France are "more prepared" than students from Ireland when it comes to their readiness for doing research at PhD level. Also, I have heard something about the establishment of graduate schools. This sounds like a good idea. Generally, do you know what these entail?

They are starting thenm in medicine for the $'s if you ask me. As regards 4th level one doesent do history and philosophy of science, in science, and I always think that bad. Multidisciplinaty studies have been tried at undergrat with varying success, I do like the idea of physicists doing drama say for example.

The French system seemds to specialised to me and I like the Irish "broad liberal education" at second level. Mind you I think the best education is on the playing fields and in the debating society and Vincent De Paul and the Like. One can get stuck in an lonely academic rut. I also note there are more "professional doctorates" happening. the PhD was one-to -one learning a bit Jedi in structure. Newer coruses take in co operative learning and peer group learning and one to many. Neiother is necessarily better but "learning styles" may come into it. for further info you might try DCUs poatgrad in science journalism, TCD one in science education A group of science teachers/ education researchers called FIRST or Science and Engineering Ireland.

Jackie laughlin

ISAW, Every best wish for a speedy recovery or a long, long, long remission.


Wow! I think, looking back, that I started this row. I questioned the current fashionable orthodoxy. The debate here is - for me at least - becoming chaotic and nasty.

Can we accept that everyone has read THE report and masses of other material?

Can we accept that there is an urgent need to distinguish between research and development?


Can we accept that it is soul destroying to spend a career working beneath one's education?

Can we accept that a manager who employed such a person would need his or her head examined?

Can we accept that there are career advantages in writing favourable reports on Ireland's "knowledge economy" and "fourth level education" and that expressing doubts is career suicide?

Can we accept that glib policy initiatives must be criticised by those who occupy positions in industry AND who also keep abreast of socio-economic trends and writing?

Why did I get involved here? Well, it seemed to me that we have a neo-liberal, pro-business government about to embark on a state plan of old-style soviet scale and there wasn't a whisper of criticism. Indeed, the conventional media don't seem interested or able to ask basic questions.

ISAW

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Can we accept that everyone has read THE report and masses of other material?

I don't think many people will do so. they should though.

Can we accept that there is an urgent need to distinguish between research and development?

I think quite a lot of people are aware of fundamental finding new knowledge with no strings attached and developing a product for market. I prefer to draw the line at a patented product though others might claime the EU programmes are "trageted" basic research.

Can we accept that it is soul destroying to spend a career working beneath one's education?

Not necessarily. A world class research medic may well go to Africa and get satisfaction from runing a small clinic. Or he may quit medicine and go into politics or the media. But I do accept the point generally. Mind you why then do we not offer work permits to suitably qualified foreigners?

Can we accept that a manager who employed such a person would need his or her head examined?

Tell that to the manager with the Russian and Chinese etc. doctors you may meet working in pubs.

Can we accept that there are career advantages in writing favourable reports on Ireland's "knowledge economy" and "fourth level education" and that expressing doubts is career suicide?

Not if you are an econmist and you turn out to be corect
Miond you I do take the point. Burbridge for years has been attacking the "expanding universe" theory in cosmology. It is anethema to speak ill of the accepted patched together "Big Bang" theory.

Can we accept that glib policy initiatives must be criticised by those who occupy positions in industry AND who also keep abreast of socio-economic trends and writing?

We I can accept that since that is what I do and I am not a hypocrit. The plan isnt glib but a track has to be kept on what is spent and where it is spent. Industry contributes money also but that is not souly in the public interest.

Why did I get involved here? Well, it seemed to me that we have a neo-liberal, pro-business government about to embark on a state plan of old-style soviet scale and there wasn't a whisper of criticism. Indeed, the conventional media don't seem interested or able to ask basic questions.

This I agree wioth 100 per cent. One is more likely to publish a journal article about the issue than place something in the press.

GuanYin

ISAW wrote:

Withdraw that insult please.

Nope, mainly because you haven't and won't address the points I make but come on expectingme to supply information I didn't put forth.

So, I stand my my accusation.

mhenness

ISAW wrote:

Here are two from TCD :
An independent spin-out company from the Department of Computer Science in TCD, and located in Dublin, is Telekinesys Ltd : under the name Havoc.com, it has developed new games engine technology and launched its product in San Jose, California in March 2000.

Neos Interactive Ltd is a London based start-up developing digital video technology, originally researched in the Department of Computer Science, and its R&D Centre is at present recruiting staff for a start-up in Dublin in Summer of 2000.

There is also the Irish professor in the Us on the East coast who invented the applet and got 5000 million dollars out of Microsoft last year.

I have heard of a lot about Havok. They seem to have done very well indeed! I guess we should include Iona Technologies in the list.

ISAW wrote:

apparently according to another poster ther is no future from them here either. I dont go along with that.

There is the issue of career progression but from what you were saying to the other poster this is addressed in the plan. I know people who are looking for extensions to their existing contracts in order to continue to do research here. I hope the issue of career progression is dealt with soon so we don't loose good people.

ISAW wrote:

Well i dont plan on dying in the meantime. In what institution are you studying?

I am studying in a research centre in UCC.

ISAW wrote:

I dont know if one is ever well . One is maybe permaneltly "in remission". Anyway it doesnt seem to be troubling me and I dont plan on it returning. A little chemo isnt the worst thing in life. Actually it is far from it.

I like your attitude.

ISAW wrote:

They are starting thenm in medicine for the $'s if you ask me. As regards 4th level one doesent do history and philosophy of science, in science, and I always think that bad. Multidisciplinaty studies have been tried at undergrat with varying success, I do like the idea of physicists doing drama say for example.

Do you think they are a bad idea in science because it should be research based and independent of too much industry influence?

ISAW wrote:

The French system seemds to specialised to me and I like the Irish "broad liberal education" at second level.

Yes, there are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. Irelands education system does seem to be held in high regard by industry. This is because it creates a flexible workforce. I have heard a number of comments by some individuals in my research centre that the education system here is of relatively poor quality and does not produce people ready to do hardcore computer science. These same people would have come through a more specialized system and they seem to have a very narrow view. This of course may be better for advancing the highly theoretical aspects of the area being studied but tends to have made them blind sighted to anything outside of their area.

ISAW wrote:

Mind you I think the best education is on the playing fields and in the debating society and Vincent De Paul and the Like. One can get stuck in an lonely academic rut.

I believe that anyone involved in academia should see the world outside of it. Personally, I have found it quite frustrating dealing with some individuals in my own research centre. I guess it is the clash of the view of someone who has had a practical view of technology and someone who has a pure academic view and to a high degree shuns any practical aspects to their research. Doing research that creates new knowledge and that can be of practical use can be hard in the specific area in which I work.

ISAW wrote:

I also note there are more "professional doctorates" happening.

Professional Doctorates? I presume these are not research oriented or have a smaller research element and are more taught?

ISAW wrote:

the PhD was one-to -one learning a bit Jedi in structure. Newer coruses take in co operative learning and peer group learning and one to many. Neiother is necessarily better but "learning styles" may come into it. for further info you might try DCUs poatgrad in science journalism, TCD one in science education A group of science teachers/ education researchers called FIRST or Science and Engineering Ireland.

I guess a combination of these approaches is good. The student may require each of them at different points in their self development.

ISAW

mhenness wrote:

Do you think they are a bad idea in science because it should be research based and independent of too much industry influence?

As opposed to totally insulated academics paid from public money and part of a beaurocracy who on that basis can call themselves "independent"? No I dont think industry shouldnt have an influence?

Yes, there are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. Irelands education system does seem to be held in high regard by industry. This is because it creates a flexible workforce.

Oddly having campaigned ten years ago to base research science in third level and fought for the industry links I recently found myself arguing with scientists putting together their current policy on the basis that research science is not all about economic growth and education for the workforce

I believe that anyone involved in academia should see the world outside of it.
...Doing research that creates new knowledge and that can be of practical use can be hard in the specific area in which I work.

The best scientists I have come across have had consuming interests outside of their work. Polymaths are all the more rarer nowadays i think.

Professional Doctorates? I presume these are not research oriented or have a smaller research element and are more taught?

I mean like this: http://www.tcd.ie/Education/courses/ded.php

One criticism of this type of thing is that you can see it is set up for part timers. Then a load of Civil servants can do them and get more qualifications and demand more money (their 40 per cent higher pay compared to the private sector was justified on this basis). The Institute for Public Administration http://www.ipa.ie/?id=59 also do a doctorate Doctorate in Governance (DGov) which costs E45,000 ! Normal mortals would not have the money but my guess is that the poople doing this don't pay for it either. to be hyper critical the tax payer is paying for specialists on permanent pensionable jobs to be even better at giving the excuses when another project goes over budget or another billion in compensation is to be paid out. Then again maybe this will prevent such disasters from happening. somehow I dont think so.

I guess a combination of these approaches is good. The student may require each of them at different points in their self development.

Yes but look ata the people doing the ED D above? Are they science teachers or Principal Officers in the Dept. of education? Frankly I dont know.

ISAW

psi wrote:

Nope, mainly because you haven't and won't address the points I make but come on expectingme to supply information I didn't put forth.

When you cant win the argument attack the person eh?

Your personal opinion as to whether or not I will address point is in no way justification for insult or innuendo.

As to who made the claim:

This is called "shifting the burden"
In http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...8&postcount=12
YOU stated:

While there is certainly a lack of R&D industry here in health, there is an R&D industry in other sciences.

i.e. YOU claimed there was a lack an R&D in the health industry. You then later switch from a "lack of an industry" to "not a substantial industry" which is why I asked you to define what you mean by "small" which is another term that crept in after you claimed the complete lack of Irish industrial R&D in the health sector.

I claimed about knowledge base (which correlates with PhD's) creating jobs and you switched this to a claim that all the PhD in your field should be getting jobs in Ireland. I never claimed PhDs should all get jobs in Ireland! I claimed that a counrty investing in PhDs is investing (among other things) in job creation. I dont think we should say what the research should be about and allot the money and then advertise for the PhDs to fill the spaces. Apparently you do since you claim we have not the jobs for the PhDs to fill and that creating more PhD is a waste of money.

But you have made other claims and then in reply switched the claim to something else and have not supported your original claim. It is ther for all to see in the above link where you stated

While there is certainly a lack of R&D industry here in health, there is an R&D industry in other sciences.

There IS R&D done in the health industry in Ireland. Substiantial R&D. Research which saves and prolongs lives! you were WRONG!

GuanYin

ISAW wrote:

When you cant win the argument attack the person eh?

Your personal opinion as to whether or not I will address point is in no way justification for insult or innuendo.

I didn't attack you I just commented on your actions.

If you want to start sulking, I'll point to all your sly underhand comments about my english abilities (not my first language) and my career.

Noone buys it, you pull the same "fog of war" here you do on other forums, which makes you think you're "winning" some argument. You fool only yourself.

If you want to lie about it, go ahead.

As to who made the claim:

This is called "shifting the burden"
In http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...8&postcount=12
YOU stated:

What are you on.
I maintain that there is a lack of Research in Industry in Ireland.
There is not enough research here to employ the Healthcare PhD graduates.
There aren't enough jobs. There are plants opening, but whether these will in turn offer enough positions remains to be seen. I seriously doubt it.

There are PhD positions in production, QA, management and regulatory WITHIN research companies, but these are not research jobs.

To suggest so would be akin to suggesting that working as an office admin in a hospital was the same as being a medical professional.

What is hard to understand about that?

i.e. YOU claimed there was a lack an R&D in the health industry. You then later switch from a "lack of an industry" to "not a substantial industry" which is why I asked you to define what you mean by "small" which is another term that crept in after you claimed the complete lack of Irish industrial R&D in the health sector.

Small being not large.

The number of jobs on offer in industry is small compared to the number of people qualified to take the jobs.

There is no R&D centre in Ireland at present. Ther emay be small scale research going on, but there is no research industry, ie. there is no plant set up dedicated to researching therapies and diseases. The number of people employed to do research in production companies is negligable to the number of positions.

Now, that is a simple truth. If you don't want to believe it, don't. If you feel you can disprove it, show me the details. But if you think that "if you can't prove it I win" is an argument that counts for anything in the face of the truth, believe away, fog of war strikes again.

I claimed about knowledge base (which correlates with PhD's) creating jobs and you switched this to a claim that all the PhD in your field should be getting jobs in Ireland. I never claimed PhDs should all get jobs in Ireland! I claimed that a counrty investing in PhDs is investing (among other things) in job creation. I dont think we should say what the research should be about and allot the money and then advertise for the PhDs to fill the spaces. Apparently you do since you claim we have not the jobs for the PhDs to fill and that creating more PhD is a waste of money.

I won't correct the obvious errors in what you said above and I'll go along with it.

Currently we cannot keep our best Biomedical/Health PhD graduates. This is a simple fact. I don't know what it is like in other disciplines, but I do know that some go abroad and unless someone in the know (ie. not you) can tell me otherwise, I imagine it is much the same. The reason is there isn't enough money invested in labs for hiring postdocs and for lab infrastructure.

Even when that isn't the case, why stay and work on a project here as a lone postdoc (while simultaneously training 4 new PhD students) when you can join a team of 4-5 postdocs in another country? You'll publish at a much greater rate and thus progress faster.

While some return, the fact of the matter is, the money and time invested in these people is being lost to us. The more expertise we lose, the less we grow in the area. Its a simple truth, but to be fair, its vaguely true of individual labs in all countries, but not so true of other countries as a whole.

When we lose these postdocs we lose part of our expertise and it slows are development as a research nation. Already our postdoc:postgrad ratio is heavily stacked in postgrads favour and a cursory look at any research institute in Ireland will tell you that. Postgrads are cheaper and easier to get money for.

Adding more PhDs, even while keeping the status quo in postdoc:postgrad ration will not develop us any. Our institutes will still have the same fundamental problems and the same brain drain as before.

IF they were to instead, try and bring the country in line with US and othe rmajor research countries, by funding and focusing on the postdoc, we then get better training for our PhDs, better research, and THIS will create jobs because it is the postdocs who will do the better work and more importantly, it is postdocs who are in a position to write grants to bring in more funding.

Upping the postdocs in favour of PhD graduates means that we can slow or stop the brain drain and we can create a research environment that is self sustaining - that is something that will grow and create jobs.

If on the other hand they start bringing in more graduates without a significant number of jobs for them, then the system will just get worse and the PhD will devalue.

While I think Wyeth and J&J are welcome and great to see, 2 companies providing research centres will not suffice.

Incidently, I thin you are using terminology to suit your own means.

Postdoc = researcher employed as a PhD graduate in a grant/instutute funded contract position that is not perm.

If there is teaching/lecturing positions, while they are technically postdocs(ie. it is post their doctoral thesis work) they are not what the industry calls postdoctoral researchers.

Whether this is a misconception on your part or simply more fudging to try make an argument I don't know.

But you have made other claims and then in reply switched the claim to something else and have not supported your original claim. It is ther for all to see in the above link where you stated[/quote[


YAWN. Whatever, I've made on argument which is all inclusive in this post. Anything else is off the wall tangents fudged and fog by you in your attempt to "win" an argument you are ill suited in information to argue, never mind know anything about.

There IS R&D done in the health industry in Ireland. Substiantial R&D. Research which saves and prolongs lives! you were WRONG!

What do you mean by "substantial"

How many PhD graduates are employed?

Hwo many people over all are employed?

How much money per year is spent?

Yet you've been unable to show that it employs PhD graduates. I have admitted (before you came on to spin things off in tangents) that there is research here, but there isn't very much and I maintain you won't find many postdocs employed to do industry research in Ireland.

If you can prove that there are substantial numbers by all means go ahead and I'll conceed the point.

DublinWriter

ISAW wrote:

Where else do you suggest the money should go?
most of the research done is done by third level researchers. the last 3 billion witnessed a research/teaching distinction and colleges have changed along these lines.

What will surely happen is that it will be pissed away like the €35 million of our money the Government gave to the now wound-up Media Lap Europe project.

Yet another excuse for a photo-op only to crash and burn years down the road when the responsible Ministers have either retired or shuffled quietly into other positions.

I haven't seen once half-decent concept some out of Academia in the last 10 years. Most innovation now is done in the R&D labs of big corporates or by specialised start-ups, particularly in the area of computing (e.g. LEP technology).

The best thing the govt. could do (AND it would cost them nothing, it even would save them millions!) would be to make it easier for Irish Software companies to tender for public sector contract work.

Right now, the process is an EU-dictated basket-case and only the big players (Accenture, Bull, BearingPoint, etc) have a shot because they have dedicated teams of people who know how to navigate the EU tendering process.

Do you think we'd have the mess known as PPARS if Irish Software SME's were on the job?

MisterAnarchy

€3.8 Bn to fritter away.
I worked in Academia at an NUI college for over 5 years then left it due to the malaise and sheer laziness of my peers.
If I made public what I encountered I'm sure many people would be shocked at the shambles that is College Research in Ireland.
I'm sure most of the funding given is spent on coffee and donuts.
Many companies that sponsored projects would have their eyes opened as to where their money went.
Most of the research being carried out is outdated and irrelevant.
I worked primarily in the Science and Technology field.
I've since returned to industry and if I had my way most of the funding given to the colleges by the Govt should be reassessed.
People should be productive and accountable.
I'll never go back to Academia .Most people in it dont know the meaning of a hard days work.
This idea of a 4th level of education smacks of elitism .

DublinWriter

MisterAnarchy wrote:

€3.8 Bn to fritter away.
I worked in Academia at an NUI college for over 5 years then left it due to the malaise and sheer laziness of my peers.
If I made public what I encountered I'm sure many people would be shocked at the shambles that is College Research in Ireland.
I'm sure most of the funding given is spent on coffee and donuts.

...and for all expense trips for senior lecturers and professors to attend week-long symposia in far flung exotic places.

I'm doing my Masters part-time, I won't name the place, but let's just say that it's one of Ireland's oldest Universities.

I initially took up the MSc with a eye to basically 'retiring' into academia, but the masters has been an eye-opener into how academia really functions.

Most of the research areas are so arcane and obscure that they'll never have any practical impact and seem like excuses for someone to chase a PhD, or funding, or both.

The politics and infighting within in the Department make the backstabbing traders I once worked with in several leading London City-based investment banks look like pacifist Buddhists.

And at the end of the day, nothing is ever achieved. They don't seek knowledge; it's just a little circus for drama and professional jealousy.

I used to think the phrase 'those who can't, teach' a little cruel. Now I think it's totally mild.

ISAW

psi wrote:

I didn't attack you I just commented on your actions.

No you didnt! You made comments which were insults and I told you were insults and asked you to withdraw. You accepted that you had made them and you refused to withdraw them. At no point did you say that any offence was unintended.

If you want to start sulking, I'll point to all your sly underhand comments about my english abilities (not my first language) and my career.

This is besuide the point. The point is about what YOU stated. If you think I attacked you personally in any way I can only assure you that that is neither my style nor my intention.

You are now calling me "sly and underhanded" which I also find insulting.

If I correct your english it is so that we may be clear about what you actually stated. I am not a spelling nor a grammar nazi and it may also be that you argued from authority by allegding I was not a fit person to write a thesis because i was ignorant and/or stupid. You have admitted it is not your first language so you have as much as admitted that you may not write what you meant to. I am happy to acceopt it if you say you didnt mean that ther was a lack of medical research and development in the irish health sector and if you clarify what you did mean. But you did NOT do that! You changed the emphasis without stating it and you rebuke me for not backing up a counter point when my counter point was there IS medical research and development in the Irish health industry. Your "lack" was srong and when pointed out you also rebuked my for asking what y0ou meant by your change to "small".

Noone buys it, you pull the same "fog of war" here you do on other forums, which makes you think you're "winning" some argument. You fool only yourself.

This is complete ad hominem. You are suggesting that I have a particular dishonest tactic on other forums. Even if I did it had nothing to do with this issue here. as it happens I dont avoid issues. You opinion as to whether I am "winning" is only that. It is for others to assess for themselves whether they believe I am correct in my analysis and whether you support your own claims. But alledging I personally adopt "underhanded" tactics elsewhere is absolutly nothing to do with the issue here!

If you want to lie about it, go ahead.

Now you are calling me a liar!

What are you on.

Now you are claiming I am on drugs!

I maintain that there is a lack of Research in Industry in Ireland.
There is not enough research here to employ the Healthcare PhD graduates.
There aren't enough jobs.

This is a DIFFERENT and specific claim to your general claim above.

There are plants opening, but whether these will in turn offer enough positions remains to be seen. I seriously doubt it.

I have already mentioned world class R&D in health in industry in Galway (i.e. your original claim) As regards PhD s in the health sector and whether they will get jobs the following PhDs are in a high demand area -nursing
http://www.rhw.ul.ie/nm/index.php?phd_nursin
http://www.nursing-midwifery.tcd.ie/courses/postgrad_research.php
http://www.ucd.ie/nmhs/postgraduate.htm (see under mode I)

there are plenty more examples. do you think ireland will export all of these when we are getting Philipino nurses?

There are PhD positions in production, QA, management and regulatory WITHIN research companies, but these are not research jobs.

Ther are PhD in senior administrative positions in research institutions. So what? They still contribute to the knowledge base. there are also non PhD and non doctors who do research and publish papers. My point is that research is done (wheter all doctors do it or not) and that having post doctorll workers is a good thing because it contributes to the knowledge base.

To suggest so would be akin to suggesting that working as an office admin in a hospital was the same as being a medical professional.

I didnt suggest the job was the same but both benefit from someone who has done or worked in research. If you go to CERN even the tour guides have PhDs. They have to re train researchers in tourism so they can explain the various works there! You may consider it a waste of an education. CERN dont!

Small being not large.

Still in relatives I note. what is a "large" budget? How much? what is "small"?
I perfer to deal in absolutes. Ther are companieds in the health industry in Galway which designed developed and market products for the circulatory system and heart. they sell world-wide. they save lives.THAT is substantial.

The number of jobs on offer in industry is small compared to the number of people qualified to take the jobs.

for PhDs in some sectors of industry maybe. that doesnt mean the same people couldnt develop their own business. Nor does it mean they are not contributing to the knowledge base. They could teach science at second level for example and get 50,000 a year and three months off in the summer.

There is no R&D centre in Ireland at present. Ther emay be small scale research going on, but there is no research industry, ie. there is no plant set up dedicated to researching therapies and diseases.

This is in a specific area of health
I dont know but i think ther is a center in Meath. there is aslo this:
http://www.clinicaltrials-ireland.com/

RCSI is the only medical institution in Ireland to develop its own Clinical Research Centre (CRC).

Now you already admitted that industry does applied research or develops the basic research. again I dont know . Certainly in other fields of health there is research and development in industry.

The number of people employed to do research in production companies is negligable to the number of positions.

Which supports my point! the knowledge base creats jobs!

... fog of war strikes again.

another insult.

Currently we cannot keep our best Biomedical/Health PhD graduates. This is a simple fact. I don't know what it is like in other disciplines,

Are nurses with PhDs not working in the Health industry?
And you now admit that you cant apply the argument you base in one specific field to the general point about the knowledge base creating growth!

While some return, the fact of the matter is, the money and time invested in these people is being lost to us.

You are extrapolating from a sample of eleven PhD graduates whom you claim will not find work in ireland. this is as yet unproven.

Adding more PhDs, even while keeping the status quo in postdoc:postgrad ration will not develop us any. Our institutes will still have the same fundamental problems and the same brain drain as before.

But the problems of institutes are wholly seperate from whether knowledge creates growth! thats the whole basis of the £3.8 Bn investment!

furthermore many industries are happy to employ masters level graduates.

ISAW

continued:

IF they were to instead, try and bring the country in line with US and othe rmajor research countries, by funding and focusing on the postdoc, we then get better training for our PhDs, better research, and THIS will create jobs because it is the postdocs who will do the better work and more importantly, it is postdocs who are in a position to write grants to bring in more funding.

A fair point but the idea isnt about the begging bowl out to the EU SFI Welcome etc It is about ireland creating their own winners.
Furthermore, much of the Irish strategy is based on the US model already.

If on the other hand they start bringing in more graduates without a significant number of jobs for them, then the system will just get worse and the PhD will devalue.

But are PhDs not judged by internatinal peer review? I dont understand.. Are you saying that we will have bad quality candidates and so the reviewers will have to drop the bar?

If you refer to industry then as I already said this type of comment is for the old school communist planned economy idealogues.

While I think Wyeth and J&J are welcome and great to see, 2 companies providing research centres will not suffice.

The vast majority of pharmachem companied (the largest market sector in the world) base their Eu headquarters in Ireland. It is true that some so called "high tech" companies have little or no Rand D in Ireland but others do! Our life sciences and bio sciences exports to the Us are not only based on transfer pricing.

Postdoc = researcher employed as a PhD graduate in a grant/instutute funded contract position that is not perm.

that is your definition. I quite clearly stated "fourth level" research when I came into this discussion. that encompassed your "postdoc" definition but it includes more than that. I also stated that. But I did state that PhD numbers "correlate" with the knowledge base (which I already stated extended much further than PhDs).

And you are only arguing against yourself on this point. If you define postdocs as people in non permanent jobs then how can you argue about them not being able to get permanent research jobs if you have already defined themas people WITHOUT permanant research jobs?

If there is teaching/lecturing positions, while they are technically postdocs(ie. it is post their doctoral thesis work) they are not what the industry calls postdoctoral researchers.

i.e. my terminology was correct and flagged as so before use. again if you refer to industrial non permanent researcher then how can you argue about them not getting jobs when defined as such. On a related note EU legislation does not allow contract work to continue. Either the fulltime job is offered or the post ceases to exist.

Whether this is a misconception on your part or simply more fudging to try make an argument I don't know.

It certainly isnt fudging for the reasons of stating "fourth level" and in flagging the issue and in by your own admission on the technical definition being "technically correct"
I suppose you may want to again call me a liar on this issue.

By the way on a technical note "fog of war" is a term you used to accuse me of trying to hide the truth and use underhanded tactics. If I recall the term "fog of battle" comes from Napeoleonic battelfields and the like where the use of ordanance caused smoke to obscure observation. As such due to what happened those directing the event did not have all the information they could have had. It was not a term denoting intentional concealment of the truth so I would suggest your use of it is wrong in this case as you are suggesting I intentionally tried to lie or hide the truth. In spite of being a misplaces phrase the assumptions you make also happens to be untrue.

YAWN. Whatever, I've made on argument which is all inclusive in this post. Anything else is off the wall tangents fudged and fog by you in your attempt to "win" an argument you are ill suited in information to argue, never mind know anything about.

I note you snipped the quote which you used in the beginning of your postings to this discusion and BEFORE any exchange with me. Which means it couldnt be an "off the wall tangent" could it? It couldnt be since it was part of your opening remarks from message 12 in this discussion! Here it is again:

While there is certainly a lack of R&D industry here in health, there is an R&D industry in other sciences.

Yet you use your own opening remarks and my request that you back it up with evidence to suggest that I am purposly trying to drag the issue into another area. I am simply telling you are wrong and asking you to provide backup.

Yet you've been unable to show that it employs PhD graduates

A change for your original claim.

I have admitted ... that there is research here, but there isn't very much and I maintain you won't find many postdocs employed to do industry research in Ireland.

If you can prove that there are substantial numbers by all means go ahead and I'll conceed the point.

Where did you admit that the claim of a lack of R&D in the health industry as compared to other science research? If you did so then I lost wher you did and I will withdraw any remarks where I said you had not done so. Care to please show me where you admitted it?

Also, you already above defined "postdocs" as part time contracts and not permanent jobs! How can I then prove your definition wrong? How can I prove there are permanent research jobs in a field when the jobs as defined by you are non permanent?

But as to going off on a tangent. Here is my main points:

World class research is being done in ireland.
The research base is tied to the knowledge base. A knowledge base creates economic growth.

Noe ther are other factors. I mentioned some. A "critical mass" of research. High education. Investment. A culture which melds well with the idea of a knowledge economy. These are fairly much agreed to have cause the celtic tiger. Investiong in a knowledge base is only a variation on the theme. I believe it will work. We will get publications then patents then products.

I regret you do not like my debating style but any more insults and I will ignore you.

MisterAnarchy

DublinWriter wrote:

...and for all expense trips for senior lecturers and professors to attend week-long symposia in far flung exotic places.

I'm doing my Masters part-time, I won't name the place, but let's just say that it's one of Ireland's oldest Universities.

I initially took up the MSc with a eye to basically 'retiring' into academia, but the masters has been an eye-opener into how academia really functions.

Most of the research areas are so arcane and obscure that they'll never have any practical impact and seem like excuses for someone to chase a PhD, or funding, or both.

The politics and infighting within in the Department make the backstabbing traders I once worked with in several leading London City-based investment banks look like pacifist Buddhists.

And at the end of the day, nothing is ever achieved. They don't seek knowledge; it's just a little circus for drama and professional jealousy.

I used to think the phrase 'those who can't, teach' a little cruel. Now I think it's totally mild.

Spot on !:D
You have had the exact same experience as me and many others.
I've seen so many people get Phd's in such nonsense that I dont respect them professionally.
4 years spent analysing nothing.
Sad ,very sad.

sceptre

Mod note: stop getting personal, stop feeling persecuted, discuss in reasonable manner or I'll shut down the thread and ban the person who made me feel like closing it. Thanks.

Jackie laughlin

Sceptre,
By all means appeal for moderation and respect but don't you dare threaten to end or otherwise censor the thread. I don't approve of the tone of this debate but it's the first true on-line debate I've ever seen!

When inappropriate terms borrowed from many disciplines (e.g. "critical mass", "knowledge base", "culture", "climate", "knowledge economy") begin to appear, I first become suspicious, then I realise there is a familiar and dangerous lack of intellectual rigour around the use of buzz words/phrases. By the way, what became of the "information economy"?

There were some interesting opening comments on "professional doctorates". Should a new thread be opened? A taught doctorate is an oxymoron. These are partly taught, partly give "credits" for experience, and allow some very doubful writing - sometimes an account of "experience" - to appear as theses. In short, the "professional doctorate" is a scam that threatens the integrity of Irish universities. Essentially, these are doctorates for sale to senior managers who will not be paying the enormous fees with their own money but they will have the pleasure of being addressed as "doctor". Now, remind me why that guy who wrote up his experience and bought a doctorate from a US college had to resign!

GuanYin

ISAW wrote:

World class research is being done in ireland.

Arguable, but I'll agree.

The research base is tied to the knowledge base. A knowledge base creates economic growth.

Thats just too simplified to be correct.

We can train people in research all we like, but if we don't give them postdoctoral experience in the field, we'll lose them to non-research pursuits.

You can't just train alot of people and send them into a country with no jobs. We have an employment leak. We lose our PhDs because we don't have jobs. If we train more, PhDs without having places in research for them to go. That won't change.

Incidently, that RCSI centre is an academic centre based in beaumont hospital. It is not a private industry company.

Noe ther are other factors. I mentioned some. A "critical mass" of research. High education. Investment. A culture which melds well with the idea of a knowledge economy. These are fairly much agreed to have cause the celtic tiger. Investiong in a knowledge base is only a variation on the theme. I believe it will work. We will get publications then patents then products.

Publications or publications in high impact journals? There is an important difference. Patents we produce and this is good and I've already said that its good we'll get funding for start ups. What I'm worried about is that this will inspire a trend away from fundamental research and a focus on therapy/patant based research. This is good in moderation, but because of the relatively low hit rate with teh research, a dead end if done en masse.

By and large I'm happy the money is gone in. I've gone through the points and stated why. Its the lack of thought in focusing the money and saturating the market I worry about.

It doesn't bother me personally, I'm employed and secure with an out of state employer, but I work closely with Irish research and what I see boggles the mind at times.

I'll forgive you your ignorance on the topic because you've never worked in the field, but the current system just doesn't work. I 've been 7 years in it, writing grants, training students and campaigning for changes. The government introduces schemes and promises time and time again that just don't work. The fiascos are there for all to see. IRCset, Harneys slap over PRTLI, and the failure to bring in career track progression despite mooting the idea 5 years ago (and again 2 years ago, and again last week). I've watched as they continue to fund PhDs, usually in a manner that benefits only the large research groups, and put all their eggs (funding) in one basket (large labs). Thankfully, I've been in that basket, but I know and appreciate that their processes are shortsighted.

Creating a knowledge base and sustaining it are too different things. If we can't employ PhDs now, you suggest we let them teach secondary schools. Do you really think these people will be employed in research if we start funding postdocs later? Any employer or investigator will take someone actively involved in research, with a publication record over someone teaching at second level. They won't even have to be Irish.

Our trend towards the US system is in set up of core facilities and restructuring of universities. It has not (so far) extended to our research funding process.

I regret you do not like my debating style but any more insults and I will ignore you.

I don't care much for your debating style because it avoids the issues at hands as you try and win points, but its the fact that you try impose your economics background onto a field you are clearly ignorant of in practice, that I object to.

GuanYin

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Spot on !:D
You have had the exact same experience as me and many others.
I've seen so many people get Phd's in such nonsense that I dont respect them professionally.
4 years spent analysing nothing.
Sad ,very sad.

Which is what I meant by devalued PhDs.

If you have no research being pushed by postdocs, your lab effectively becomes a large training facility that revolves around how much knowledge the PI has.

When the PI starts running out of ideas, but the only grants available are PhD grants, you start getting devalued PhDs.

Effectively you geta situation like some european countries where PhD unemployment is high and the qualification means little.

mhenness

DublinWriter wrote:

...and for all expense trips for senior lecturers and professors to attend week-long symposia in far flung exotic places.

I'm doing my Masters part-time, I won't name the place, but let's just say that it's one of Ireland's oldest Universities.

I initially took up the MSc with a eye to basically 'retiring' into academia, but the masters has been an eye-opener into how academia really functions.

Most of the research areas are so arcane and obscure that they'll never have any practical impact and seem like excuses for someone to chase a PhD, or funding, or both.

The politics and infighting within in the Department make the backstabbing traders I once worked with in several leading London City-based investment banks look like pacifist Buddhists.

And at the end of the day, nothing is ever achieved. They don't seek knowledge; it's just a little circus for drama and professional jealousy.

I used to think the phrase 'those who can't, teach' a little cruel. Now I think it's totally mild.

My expereince of being in academia is similar and I do really wonder sometimes if taking time out of industry has been worth it. I don't respect my so called advisor and I know he is a bluffer. I know of many bluffers. There seems to be very little accountability as to how students are treated and dealt with. From my experience there is a level of conspiring (at least where I am) to keep it this way. Has anyone else had a problem with poor advisors? That said I ran into a bit of luck and I'm now working with someone I do respect and who has one eye on research and another on trying to make it useful. It is a pleasure to work with someone who works in this way.

While I hope all this research is going to pay off for us all (I include the Irish people in this), I am kind of skeptical that it will in certain fields. I think research in the physical and human sciences is worth it as good research will always find an outlet.

DublinWriter

Jackie laughlin wrote:

A taught doctorate is an oxymoron. These are partly taught, partly give "credits" for experience, and allow some very doubful writing - sometimes an account of "experience" - to appear as theses.

You're kidding! Surely that goes directly against the definition of what a PhD is? (adding new understanding to the subject, etc, etc).

Do you have any examples of such courses being run in Irish Universities?

ISAW

Jackie laughlin wrote:

When inappropriate terms borrowed from many disciplines (e.g. "critical mass", "knowledge base", "culture", "climate", "knowledge economy") begin to appear, I first become suspicious, then I realise there is a familiar and dangerous lack of intellectual rigour around the use of buzz words/phrases. By the way, what became of the "information economy"?

I explained what I meant by "critical Mass" when I first used it. Ditto for "knowledge base". "Culture" is the generally accepted explanation. "Climate" I didnt use AFAIK. "Knowledge economy " is somethinng I am very unlikely to use because I believe it does not exist in any country yet i.e. an economy where knowledge is the commodity traded.

There were some interesting opening comments on "professional doctorates". Should a new thread be opened? A taught doctorate is an oxymoron. These are partly taught, partly give "credits" for experience, and allow some very doubful writing - sometimes an account of "experience" - to appear as theses. In short, the "professional doctorate" is a scam that threatens the integrity of Irish universities.

I wouldn't go the whole hog on that but I would have my critique. The peer group learning from each as opposed to "one to one" is not a bad idea. Of course the admin like it because it reduces unit costs.

Essentially, these are doctorates for sale to senior managers who will not be paying the enormous fees with their own money but they will have the pleasure of being addressed as "doctor". Now, remind me why that guy who wrote up his experience and bought a doctorate from a US college had to resign!

Mind you I think he could have got a doctorate based on his publications record. But your point is exactly what I was getting at. Elsewhere I mentioned a college which was transferring to Sligo. Some teachers are on one hour a week oand one even on zero hours. They are on full pay. They can do doctorates or other qualifications possibly at the tax payers expense and then based on their extra qualifications get paid more. that isnt right is it?