2026-07-02

85. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science whether he will intervene urgently to address the concerns raised by petitioners, unions and academic bodies in a recently published open letter (details supplied), by immediately providing ring-fenced funding for non-commercial research. [50756/26]

I am sure the Minister is aware of it but I want to draw his attention to the open letter signed by more than 2,300 academics and researchers, which rings the alarm bell about Research Ireland's 2026 to 2030 strategy. The letter states, "The new strategy is structurally, rhetorically and materially focused on commercially translatable research and economic impact rather than supporting bedrock, fundamental, discovery research and research for the public good." Will the Minister take this on board and meet the petitioners? Will he intervene?

As the Deputy is aware, Taighde Éireann - Research Ireland - was established in 2024 with the legislative remit to promote excellence and research across all activity fields and disciplines. Its first strategy was published this March following extensive consultation. I am satisfied that the strategy meets the legislative remit of the agency. The strategy and the publicly available programme plan accord with my own central philosophy, which applies just two very simple criteria to all disciplines: research should be excellent and impactful. What "impactful" means is not defined narrowly, but very broadly. It can mean many things. It can be societal resilience, economic impact or a long-term, slow-burn project that manifests in an entirely different way than how it was first conceived, as with all basic and frontier research. Impact is not a narrow metric at all; it is quite a wide one. I have also codified into my Department's strategy as one of its four central pillars that curiosity and the pursuit of knowledge are a public good, which speaks to the benefit of discovery research a priori without any particular exit conditions or targets at the start. The strategy has a balanced portfolio across all disciplines and career stages, with funding across different areas of study, from the arts, humanities and social sciences, AHSS, through to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, STEM - and across the spectrum of funding. I am very familiar with the letter. Obviously, I have read it but I also met the petitioners and the lead authors of it very recently. I am engaging with them. The Deputy quoted one line from the letter. I think they have actually resiled from that line because when we met, they refocused their attention on one or two particular items. I dare say there is a level of rhetoric or subjectivity in the letter - that is their prerogative. Some of the arguments do not stand up to scrutiny but others have more merit and I am engaging with them on those. I was open to engaging with them on all of the arguments but a number of those are perhaps a little bit political or subjective. Having said that, there certainly are some very good people involved and I have been engaging with them. I have asked Research Ireland to have a structured engagement with the group going forward to ensure the petitioners' concerns are heard and reflected in the new plan.

It seems to me that what has happened is effectively a corporate or partially corporate capture of our research programme. If it continues, this is going to be to the detriment of all of us and the detriment of our education system and society, which will lose out on research that does not have an immediate commercial application and, therefore, is not being prioritised under the new strategy. The petitioners emphasise that there was a lack of participatory process in the development of this strategy. It was not based on evidence. They emphasise that what we see here is industry-centred, commercially-focused, profit-seeking priorities at the expense of arts, humanities and social sciences. In particular, they warn about the dismantling of the current PhD scholarship and postdoctoral fellowship programmes. That is what is being proposed, with a prioritisation of research that is profit related and commercially driven by corporations. This would be to the detriment of us all.

There were seven bullet points in the letter. I think six of them have been accepted as perhaps not being of the same level of concern as they were. The engagement was helpful in that regard because of the engagement with the authors on a number of those points. I strongly reject the assertion of a corporate culture. Again, maybe it is a little bit political and subjective. I appreciate that the Deputy is entitled to say it but I do not think it is a fair characterisation. There is no requirement whatsoever that there be an immediate, or any, economic impact. In fact, the strategy is very wide-ranging and allows for significant funding of discovery research, which I have always argued for. There are no metrics tied to corporate outputs, as the Deputy might have suggested. That was probably more than a little unfair. I take the point on the Government of Ireland scholarship. That is the one that we agree needs to be revisited and examined. There are certainly merits in the proposed new approach but I also accept that there are legitimate concerns raised as well. There is engagement under way, facilitated by myself but ultimately between Research Ireland and the research community. I have had a number of meetings on that in recent weeks and will continue to do so.

Just to confirm, the Minister is saying that he is open to changes continuing to take place to this strategy. That would obviously be welcome. I ask the Minister to commit to prioritising research that is for the public good. "Research on economic inequities, democratic participation, mental health, housing injustices, climate justice, education, and the full range of human experiences and societal processes must be valued on its own terms". That is a quote from the petition, which I think is very important. The current proposal suggests that non-applied research has to demonstrate its future economic utility in order to qualify for funding. That is precisely the problem with a short-term economic utility focus, which then leads to a downgrading of humanities, social sciences and so on in favour of those that have a more immediate commercial application, which would be a real problem.

I do not think it actually does say that. I say that in a genuine spirit of partnership. I am not trying to catch the Deputy out or correct him. If he can find where it says that and bring it to my attention, I would welcome him doing so and we will have a look at it. I know the letter makes those claims but I do not think they are borne out in a detailed study of the strategy. If they are, it is not something I would support. I have been on the record of this House for many years saying that we need to support research across the full technology readiness level, TRL, spectrum from discovery and frontier research right through to applied. Of course, applied research has a really strong place in economic engagement and driving our enterprise and our knowledge economy is at the core. That creates jobs, talent and knowledge that can support both our economy and our society. Equally, discovery research is ultimately at the heart of all knowledge. Most of the leading, significant progressions of society and civilisation have come about through discovery research. In terms of funding for the arts, humanities and so on, that is ring-fenced within the strategy. It is proportionate to international comparisons and benchmarks, and certainly on a par with the historic funding of arts, humanities and so on through different research agencies such as the Irish Research Council, Science Foundation Ireland or the previous organisations. There is no reduction in that at all in the strategy or elsewhere. In fact, it is actually a ring-fenced fund.