Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
€3.8 Billion Investment in Science & Technology
Options
Comments
-
-
psi wrote:Arguable, but I'll agree.
Noted. So you agree that I know at least something about the standard of research in Ireland.Thats just too simplified to be correct.
Which is why I referred to the Technology foresight exersies and the future skill needs report and accepted economic thought and the NSF view on the matter in their Science and Technology Indicators. And yes I have read them and I dont just quote them because I "think they might look good". I might also add the STIAC report.
Everything doesnt have to be complex. The economic theory IS simple. Knowledge driven economies have cultures investment and other elements which drive growth.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.
But this in itself isnt necessarily damaging the knowledge base. Was Bill Gates better off in research? Was he better as owner of Microsoft? Is he better as a philanthropist? These are utilititarian judgements. My point is that we foster a society that can offer the opportunity for Bill Gates to develop. Everyone does not have to have a PhD but as many as practicable is a good idea. All you are saying is that 1000 is not practical. I disagree but it is not to late to change it. If you put in a submission to any of the above reports or if you are in a political party advocacy group or union there are ways to directly and indirectly affect the implementation of policy. Indeed this discussion is one of these ways.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.
What did Ireland do in the fifties? It starved and put its children into institutioons! In the sixties Primary education was an accepted standard. Free primary and school busses gave a lot of people an advantage. Sure most of them emigrated. But Ireland was undeveloped and better for them to go with education than without it. The eighties was similar but a bet better and the twenties a bit worse. Anyway each time it DID change. The old "create the jobs and then train the people to fill them" suffers from "critical path analyis " problems and planning problems. I dont want to jargonise but isnt it better to do both and have the jobs ready when the training is finished. Just as it is better to build the roads hospital schools and houses and have all ready at the same time. But with schools it is easy to say "we need a school for 1000 kids because we expect 1000 because with 500 housed and an average for say 2 kids a house"
The complications come in with churches - how many muslims ? or hospitals - what are the current ilnessess what will happen in the future. Will restructuring the current hospitals elsewhere have a knock on effect?
When it comes to planning the future of the knowledge base it is even more complicated . But we have to start somewhere. One can argue bottom up about the number of PhD needed but the big picture is still to invest in the future based on knowledge.Incidently, that RCSI centre is an academic centre based in beaumont hospital. It is not a private industry company.
Sorry I forgot about it having to be in industry. I stand corrected. i was originally think about Galway companies like Medtronic and Boston scientific but they do not operate on disease although a heart valve/device could be thought of as a response to heart disease?
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.
the economic evidence form several reports would suggest that "start up" and seed capital is not where smart money goes. the lions share of venture capital and FDI goes into established enterprise. This is wht R&D became RTDI. The EU report on the R&D - "Challenged and opportunities for the next generation" - i think it was called (and yes I read it!) had a chapet on this ( Chapter 8 I think) on "turning growth into jobs" I think. the point is about the link between "innovation" and "research" . of course having more PhDs is not enough in itself.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.
Without fundamental research we are a dead duck! But this is not to say that twenty times more money should not be spent on applied research.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.
Fair comment. So other than stating that here have you actually done something about that?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.
You should share those thoughts with others.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 grant application system and student training system is different to the standard or quality of research. I have problems with the FAI but Irish footballers are still good.
In which campaigns have you been involved?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.
Please expand on these points. I am interested in each of them. I think the readers of this thread would like to know what you mean by the above fiascoes and how that are fiascoes.
Nope. I suggest that the employment should be there later. And I also claim that if someone who does a PhD takes up teaching then that is good for the education system. Indeed we need more scientists and science graduates in science teaching.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.
But that is a loaded question. You are assumeing that a PhD in second level teaching has the ultimate aim of further research. I know someone who did yearn to get back to research. he ended up in a research admin job which was partly rewarding but frustrating on the grant application/paperwork side. He is now over a non science faculty and is quite happy to be so. Many engineers also end up in senior management.Do you really think these people will be employed in research if we start funding postdocs later?
This assumes PhDs all ant to do post doc research. some may also want to be housewives.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.
It HAS exrtended the funding. Please dont ask about processes the beaurocrats may come in and create even more jobs for themselves.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.
I am not ignorant of the field. Nor am I an economist. I actually have a science background not an economics one. But what my background is does not matter. whether my opinion is supported matters. The "I have personal experience so I should be listened to more than you" is argument from authority. Brian Cowan has a legal background. He is providing the money. Bertie has a trade union background.
If you make a claim and I doubt it and you fail to back it up then how do you think things will go when you come up against Brian and Bertie and Mary and Michael? Telling them "I know. I work in the field. You dont!" wont win you any points.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Well its arguable. I think our biggest asset is that we've used the money to attract some big foreign names and re-patriated some young scientist who have done well in their time away. Whether our system will allow them to prosper will be a different matter.ISAW wrote:Noted. So you agree that I know at least something about the standard of research in Ireland.Everything doesnt have to be complex. The economic theory IS simple. Knowledge driven economies have cultures investment and other elements which drive growth.
PErhaps, but this system here just does not support the "knowledge base" system you ar eproposing, for reasons I've repeatedly outlined.
And thats the issue. IT and Engineering is a different field for many reasons. Firstly the products of such research are more end user acessible and have obvious appeal. And its avery good thing that when SFI and IRCset cam ein, at least the funded these areas to a large degree.But this in itself isnt necessarily damaging the knowledge base. Was Bill Gates better off in research? Was he better as owner of Microsoft? Is he better as a philanthropist? These are utilititarian judgements. My point is that we foster a society that can offer the opportunity for Bill Gates to develop.
Health is a different issue and thats where the government has put alot of focus. Biotech and pharma produce therapies. They are less end user friendly, and no matter how novel your idea - if you have a product it has to pass FDA. Your research may be brilliant, your concept great. Your knowledge outstanding. You can't predict the outcome of clinical trials.Everyone does not have to have a PhD but as many as practicable is a good idea. All you are saying is that 1000 is not practical.
Only about 5 times now and I've outlined the reasons.I disagree but it is not to late to change it. If you put in a submission to any of the above reports or if you are in a political party advocacy group or union there are ways to directly and indirectly affect the implementation of policy. Indeed this discussion is one of these ways.
I sit on and have sat on university, industry and funding panels and reaised these issues. The biggest problem is the governments reports and their actions, like in so many areas, don't match. They follow through on whats easy and skip what isn't. In this case, making a load of funding available for PhD training is cheap and easy. Following through on a plan to have careers in research for them isn't.The old "create the jobs and then train the people to fill them" suffers from "critical path analyis " problems and planning problems. I dont want to jargonise but isnt it better to do both and have the jobs ready when the training is finished. Just as it is better to build the roads hospital schools and houses and have all ready at the same time. But with schools it is easy to say "we need a school for 1000 kids because we expect 1000 because with 500 housed and an average for say 2 kids a house"
But that she point, we don't have jobs for them when they are finished. This country and this government and thos before it have always gone for the short term fix, they never look long term or if they do, they don't follow through.
I never said create jobs and have people to fill them. I said if you have jobs for the people NOW, then you will be able to get more jobs for incoming graduates.
It is rare that a PhD student will actually create more work, except maybe for another PhD student. Postdocs are more likely to get grants for more postdocs and PhDs. Yet we push the money into PhDs. This is short sighted.
If you created even 100 more postdoc jobs, this would probably facilitate the training and through put of 500 PhDs while also allowing more Postdocs with extra grants. You just won't get that level of research from a PhD student lab (in most cases) because their standard of work is generally lower and they have their thesis to worry about.
The future of our knowledge base is in structures that facilitate PhDs - that means people to train them and bring in more money. Not in flooding the system with PhDs. Why is that hard to understand?When it comes to planning the future of the knowledge base it is even more complicated . But we have to start somewhere. One can argue bottom up about the number of PhD needed but the big picture is still to invest in the future based on knowledge.
None of them employ postdoctoral researchers in Ireland.Sorry I forgot about it having to be in industry. I stand corrected. i was originally think about Galway companies like Medtronic and Boston scientific but they do not operate on disease although a heart valve/device could be thought of as a response to heart disease?
Yet that is the only strategy that has been implimented by the government in the last two reviews.the economic evidence form several reports would suggest that "start up" and seed capital is not where smart money goes. the lions share of venture capital and FDI goes into established enterprise. This is wht R&D became RTDI. The EU report on the R&D - "Challenged and opportunities for the next generation" - i think it was called (and yes I read it!) had a chapet on this ( Chapter 8 I think) on "turning growth into jobs" I think. the point is about the link between "innovation" and "research" . of course having more PhDs is not enough in itself.
Not at all, I agree that we need both.Without fundamental research we are a dead duck! But this is not to say that twenty times more money should not be spent on applied research.
Of course. As I said above. I've even spoken to Harney and Enda Kenny over it.Fair comment. So other than stating that here have you actually done something about that?
You should share those thoughts with others.
Fair point, but do you want to run a football team with only a youth academy or do you need a pro first team to help blend the youth in and eventually promote the youth to the first team.the grant application system and student training system is different to the standard or quality of research. I have problems with the FAI but Irish footballers are still good.
Essentially the governments plan is akin to putting all its money into the youth team and expecting them all to step up when they all turn 17 and go win something.In which campaigns have you been involved?
Specifically I was on a board that lobied IRCset for a review of its funding procedures but as some of the stuff is public record, I'm not willing to give out details more than that. I value my privacy.Please expand on these points. I am interested in each of them. I think the readers of this thread would like to know what you mean by the above fiascoes and how that are fiascoes.
IRCset funding is flawed in many ways. Mostly it tends to fund only salary, which means that it is a funding option only open to labs who have grants already, as the cost of a PhD or Postdoc in bench fees and consumables is quite high. This pretty much alienates young investigators recently entering Prinicpal Investigator status and smaller lab groups. In otherwords, IRCset have put all their eggs in one basket. On top of that, the funding criteria doesn't accurately reflect the quality of the work proposed or the potential of the candidate.
Incidently, here is the report the Royal Irish Academy put forward in its review. RIA Report. While ther eis obviously some overlap, the key focuses are different from those put forward in an IRCset autumn conference and in this latest proposal.
The PRTLI funding cut in 2003, withholding promised money specifically earmarked for third level research prompted intervention from the US patron who had donated money, most notably Chuck Feeney. In the end the Government bowed to the pressure and reinstated the funding, but only after Feeney and others threathened to withhold all future donations. Had this not happened, they would have shafted the very researchers they had stood before just months earlier with their promise of a brave new world.
Fair enough, but a PhD still need to go through the grad dip in teaching. I'm not quite sure how you make 3-4 years with an expected yearly Net Salary of 15K followed by 6-12 months teacher training an attractive career prospect.Nope. I suggest that the employment should be there later. And I also claim that if someone who does a PhD takes up teaching then that is good for the education system. Indeed we need more scientists and science graduates in science teaching.
Well I think a 4 year training in expertise of research is a little wasted in a teaching job, but thats just my opinion.But that is a loaded question. You are assumeing that a PhD in second level teaching has the ultimate aim of further research. I know someone who did yearn to get back to research. he ended up in a research admin job which was partly rewarding but frustrating on the grant application/paperwork side. He is now over a non science faculty and is quite happy to be so. Many engineers also end up in senior management.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
ISAW wrote: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.
With post-doc positions funding tends to be for an average of 2 - 3 years, once the funding runs out there is a scramble for more money. If you are fortunate to get more funding you are safe for another short period. You will still be sitting in the same office, working at the same bench, but it is technically a different contract thus bypassing the magic 5 year then permanent position EU legislation.
There is no career progression for research post-docs in academia at the moment, no pension, healthcare etc. Publish or perish is a phrase usually used but just because you work hard doesn't mean you get the funding. As there are few alternatives for someone interested in research (biological) outside of academia there is a constant scramble to secure money to pay for your salary. Not a nice prospect. I do, however, agree that competition is necessary to create value for the money invested.
Permanent positions in academia are things of the past (excluding those that already have them). Many of my friends who got PhDs have left research for product development roles or other non-research positions e.g. Abbott. Personally I would love to get a research position in industry in this country but they are few and far between.
It has to be remembered that doing a PhD is a huge commitment taking anywhere from 3 - 5 years on poor money in addition to the time required for the basic degree (at least there is money for salaries in science compared to other disciplines). It is not something to be entered into lightly. If there are limited opportunities for 4th level graduates coupled with relatively poor pay how are we going to entice people to commit this additional time (apart from love of research ). A carrot is needed at the other end of 4th level.
Hopefully this €3.8 billion will help address this.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Please read the NSF report I referenced above.Jackie laughlin wrote:Please see the thread "Whistling Past the Graveyard". 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement