Address to the Royal Irish Academy by An Tanaiste and Minister for Trade, Enterprise, and Employment, Mary Harney, T.D.

`Towards a Civic Science: A Mission for the 21st Century'

Let me tell you the story of one Irish scientist.

A friend referred to her as the `Unknown.'¹ She was extremely shy, and she worked almost entirely by herself. To other scientists, she was a dark horse. In 1885, at a time when women in science, let alone Irish women in science, were rare, she published a book entitled, A Popular History of Astronomy during the Nineteenth Century.

The book showed her literary and scientific talents. She became famous internationally and her book became indispensable in the history of astrophysics.

Agnes Mary Clerke, born in Skibbereen in 1842, was an inspiration. And it is time that we in Ireland inspired a new generation of her kind, women and men.

We need citizens whose imagination grips them with an interest in science. We need people who are not only compelled to explore that interest, but much more, are encouraged and supported in doing so.

In 1885 science was about to experience the transformations of industrialization and 20th-century physics. The pace of change in our own time may even be greater. It is gripping and exciting.

No gathering of scholars in 2003 has to be reminded of the marvels of modern discovery. Through science, engineering, and technology, we are exploring the depths of the ocean and finding life forms that Jules Verne hardly imagined. We are mapping the genome of human beings. We are performing laser surgery that heals wounds inside but leaves the flesh unscathed. And, as Agnes Mary Clerke would surely admire, we are studying and recording images and sounds from places light years away.

People are inspired by these advances. A small example: when NASA's web site broadcast images from Pathfinder's visit to Mars in 1997, it got 46 million hits the first day.

Economists say we overestimate the effect of technological change in the short term, but in the long term, we massively underestimate it. Whichever way, the influence of science and technology on the economy and on our working lives is pervasive. We all see the dramatic shift in communications, the basic means by which humans interact and transact. Virtual reality, instantaneous global communication, touch-screens, and telecommuting are no longer the talk merely of science fiction. They are the very stuff of the way we relate to each other in our economy.

Ireland as a contributor to scientific advances

Ireland has contributed technological achievements too. The science of our time is the science being applied at countless industrial sites across Ireland. We are both a contributor and participant in scientific change, as a developed, Western country. We are not a mere recipient of change in the technological West. Nationwide, in universities, institutes of technology, and industry sophisticated research is underway in cutting-edge areas from genomics to photonics.

The strong focus on the role of science and technology in our economic and social life indicates that we have embarked on a new direction in industrial policy. This policy aims to foster clusters of world-class technology-based companies, both Irish and foreign-owned, that work in new knowledge areas in collaboration with the university research initiatives. Together, they will generate maximum value for Ireland by commercialising research output, creating high-level jobs for our people, and building a new entrepreneurial environment in which new technology-based businesses prosper.

The question for our economy now is whether the research base will achieve the depth and breadth necessary for a successful 21st-century knowledge-driven economy. Even more, the question is whether science will assume a central place in our culture. Today, I would like to explore with you why it should, and how we can together bring this about.

Embedding science in our culture

In politics, in science, and in most debate, people often limit themselves by `either or' thinking, instead of the more open, `both-and' approach.

The debate between science and culture has often showed this up.

It would be absurd to claim that nature or nurture solely dictate human behaviour. Human personality is influenced by both.

Likewise, it would be absurd to claim that either cultural traditions or scientific knowledge alone should guide a nation's life. Both of them influence individuals as well as countries.

Ireland has transformed artistic exploration in drama, painting, music, and poetry, and our appreciation for these creative worlds is equally alive.

Indeed, art, music and literature continue evolving and embedding themselves in each new age, most recently by finding new outlets and shaping digital content in the 21st century.

In that same spirit, it is time that Ireland, so rich in its artistic heritage set out to renew its scientific heritage.

It is time, I believe, that we created a civic science.²

By a civic science, I mean a science engaged with and invited into the national dialogue.

I mean a science responsive to the public and worthy of the public trust.

I mean a science embraced and valued by students, parents, educators, industry and communities, and yes, the government.

As Agnes Mary Clerke and many Irish researchers have shown, a civic science can produce new knowledge, strengthen our culture, and inspire the creativity of new generations.

I include the full range of scientific pursuits, from basic to applied science, from fundamental research to engineering innovations that become working technology.

I also speak of creating a civic science with deference to Ireland's scholars in the humanities, arts, and social sciences. There can be no doubt about the intrinsic role these scholars play in the culture and betterment of Ireland.

Indeed, our challenges require the insights of the academy's entire body of scholars.

A civic vision of science must embrace input from scholars in the arts, humanities and social science. Achievement in these fields is vital to Ireland's culture and living standards. The challenge of developing a broad civic science can only be met by drawing on the work of scholars as a whole.

I would like to explore three ideas around making this vision real.

• First, effective focus within our research agencies is necessary now, at the outset. Our recent investments in science and innovation must be only the beginning.

• Second, a strong culture of science calls for special involvement by our institutions of higher learning.

• And third, by emphasising the civic role of science, we can help inspire a new national commitment to supporting a lasting scientific culture.

Recent investment in science

To begin, I would ask, could any of us have imagined the changes Ireland would experience in our lifetimes? [[About the only thing that still seems the same is our unique Irish weather.]]

In 1960, agriculture provided 36 percent of the jobs in the Republic. Today, the figure is 9 percent. In 1960, services provided 40 percent of the jobs. Today, the figure is 60 percent.

Thousands of our emigrants have returned, while young people have stayed as never before. 750,000 more people are working here than ten years ago.

More than that, our people now work here in some of the world's finest research-driven enterprises. Ireland is home to 1,000 companies in the IT sector. We also have nine of the top ten pharmaceutical companies and thirteen of the top twenty medical devices companies.

The National Development Plan 2000-2006 is investing 2.54 billion euro in research, technological development and innovation. This is Ireland's largest investment ever in these areas. It will help build [capitalises on the potential for] the new base of talent to help build Ireland's future. As part of the process, we founded Science Foundation Ireland two years ago.

The prospects are certainly encouraging. Science Foundation Ireland is already using NDP funds to support more than 80 outstanding researchers - many of them from Ireland - with some of the largest government grants for scientists in the world. With SFI's support, our universities and institutes of technology are bringing great researchers to Ireland from Belgium, Canada, England, Japan, Scotland, Switzerland, and the United States.

This blend of talent from inside and outside Ireland will speed up our scientific competitiveness. The marketplace for ideas doesn't end at the edge of our island, anymore than it does at the edge of the European continent. Good science, as you know, is judged by the global scientific community.

The challenge now is to show that we are capable of achievement at that global level. For one thing, we must maintain and enhance Ireland's favourable fiscal and regulatory environment. We must also increase national investments in research, development and innovation.

But that is not enough. We must also look for leadership to the State agencies charged with building our scientific culture. As the new support for science becomes a reality, these agencies must direct their resources in a manner worthy of public confidence. These public investments express a civic trust. To uphold this trust, the agencies must strike a sound balance in funding undirected and directed research.

I'd describe directed research as work that is agreed between the sponsor and the researcher aimed at achieving a specific application of science. In broad terms, I understand undirected research to mean the search for knowledge without a specific outcome sought by a sponsor.

Only excellence in both areas can generate the sustained critical mass of talent and innovation that will create a strong national scientific culture.

Microelectronics, for example, did not emerge from researchers trying to develop microelectronics. It emerged from solid-state physics and chemistry, just as genetic engineering emerged from molecular biology.

The state agencies, along with third level education institutions, must act as driving partners in boosting scientific innovation in knowledge and applications.

I see this dual commitment at Enterprise Ireland. I see it at Science Foundation Ireland, in its comprehensive funding approach for grants and awards. And I see it outside areas of my specific responsibility, in agriculture, marine life and the strategic approach to health research that was announced at the end of 2001.

Many organisations are partners in the new national effort to boost scientific innovation in Ireland in a permanent way. From the Higher Education Authority; IDA Ireland; the Irish Research Council for Science, Engineering and Technology; the universities and institutes of technology and this Academy itself, we can work together for this shared goal.

An innovative country

We certainly have the capacity to be innovative in our country. In literature, Joyce is recognised as the father of 20^th century English prose. Yeats and Heaney are towering figures in modern poetry. Shaw was a major influence on modern drama. They were innovators and inventors, [still happily so in the case of Seamus Heaney].

These and other famous Irish artists are but one part of a culture that has been inventing all along.

Royal Irish Academy publications have reminded us of Ellen Hutchins of County Cork, who discovered and classified various non-flowering plants that are among the rarest of their kind. From this academy, we know that the term "electron" was coined by Irishman George Stoney. George Boole was a Professor of Mathematics in Cork when he developed the algebra that is now at the heart of the computer. You are also very familiar with the achievements of William Rowan Hamilton or E.T.S. Walton.

However, in an age when scientific discovery shapes societies more than ever before and faster, the `Eureka' of the individual genius is not enough. The research infrastructure must provide for discovery beyond the vagaries of individual fate or fortune.

Working in partnership, the research agencies must build the enduring, broad-based educational and research system on which the future of innovative Ireland depends.

Among other features, such a globally competitive scientific culture will have

• a workforce that is educated, trained, and flexible in finding technological and competitive advantage; and
• a financial environment that encourages long-term investment in scientific exploration.

These are largely a government's responsibility. But a culture strong in science also requires

• a higher educational system conducive to science, research and innovation;
• a critical mass of well-funded researchers funded who can pursue bold ideas and generate results valuable to the extended research community;
• systems that rapidly convert research discoveries into high-quality technologies and manufactured products, and that produce spin-off companies; and
• a research infrastructure cooperative enough to share information fast and effectively so that the investments serve the long-term public good.

These challenges rest with the agencies that direct State funds to our knowledge-building enterprises.

With that in mind, I asked Government to allow the Irish Council for Science, Technology, and Innovation to set up an expert commission. It job was to study and report on how we could best improve the framework, structures and mechanisms for research policy development.

I am pleased that this Academy submitted its recommendations to the commission. These, and many ideas suggested from throughout the country, have been assessed fully by the commission.

I have now received the Commission's report from the ICSTI. And I am confident it will provide Government with valuable insights on how best to achieve cohesion and synergy from our substantial National Development Plan investment.

Our research and development structure must create the best possible context for science and innovation. More than that, it must generate value to the public. Ultimately, our R&D system can ensure that Irish science and innovation are not left to the chance of individual genius, but become broader and deeper elements of the country's national life.

Institutions of higher learning

This leads to my second point: a strong culture of science calls for a special role for our institutions of higher learning.

The reason for this is plain. In today's economy, neither natural resources, cheap labour, nor capital stock are as important to national comparative advantage as innovation built on new ideas and new knowledge.³

Government investment is aimed at building up that comparative advantage. So are well-run State agencies managing the investment. But higher education is probably the most important place for building the scientific infrastructure.

In industrialized countries, industry performs the majority of R&D and employs the majority of scientists and engineers. However, the continued success of this R&D depends upon the abilities and ideas that students form while in third-level and advanced courses.

No wonder that in the U.S., innovative industries on the east coast have built themselves along the Miracle Mile around Harvard, MIT, and Boston University. And on the west coast, Silicon Valley, the hub of the information age, grew from the culture and graduates of Stanford University.

On the other hand, for example, Latin America has an unfortunately low rate of innovation. A major reason for the problem appears to be the university system's disengagement from science as well as from industry.⁴

Ireland is no less vulnerable. Industry wants to know what level of skill and innovation graduates will bring to the workplace. They want to know if universities are focusing on societal goals, including science. And they want to know if that focus is supported. They ask what percentage of the budget supports scientific education and competitively driven research.

Our universities and institutes of technology must continue to address these questions. For this reason, I support Enterprise Ireland's effort to promote innovation partnerships, and I applaud SFI's investment in new campus-industry centres.

I would hope that every institution is exploring how it might participate in these programmes.

Institutions of higher education should also explore how to build their own academic research clusters with industry. Successful clusters have changed communities around the world. Finland has a world-leading cluster in the wireless industry. New York has one in financial services. Boston has one in software and networking.

In Ireland, such clusters can emerge around higher education. I know partnerships across these institutions are growing. Government expects the institutions to initiate and pursue them. But we do not direct you how to do so, nor should we.

Societal priorities must be considered because of the trust between the public and the institutions that receive public funds. These priorities include the unbridled search for scientific knowledge. They also include investments for specific national benefit, by which I mean, innovation.

Recognising these priorities poses practical questions. For example, what criteria do institutions use to decide how potential scientists as well as active researchers are supported? How should the need for fundamental research and applied innovation be balanced? What incentives exist or should be created to encourage industry to join in scientific research? What processes inside and across institutions would most improve our science base?

Other questions raise an even more potent civic dimension. Science brings us demanding and even provocative issues on a regular basis, whether in stem cell research, wind farms, or artificial organs. If technology and science have introduced opportunities never before imagined, they also must meet their responsibilities.

We have moved so rapidly from the era of Agnes Mary Clerke. From forging industries through fire, we are now witnessing the birth of nanotechnology that could well forge living material into industrial uses.

Now, as then, it is easy to embrace the convenience of technology, but fear losing control over it.

It is easy to seek out the comforts of technology, but fear sacrificing independence to it.

Technology and science give us unprecedented power, but also magnify our wonder about unknown consequences. Contemporary science raises some of the most challenging ethical issues of our time.

Better science in Ireland will not give moral force to one side or another on these issues. But it will help us judge better the possible impact of the choices we could make.

Likewise, science and engineering must help us judge which research is most urgent and useful for Ireland. They also might provide valuable insight into laws and policies that could best govern how society responds to new scientific developments sourced here and abroad.

With the value of that guidance in mind, I applaud you for establishing the Irish Council for Bioethics. It can be an important forum for counsel and advice in matters related to biological research and medicine.

We should try to be very well-informed, and even a step-ahead, of the ethical issues that good sciences raises in all areas of scientific exploration.

Good scientific research, by its nature, brings us new knowledge, and new knowledge by its nature challenges what has come before it. Handling change well requires considerable wisdom.

For example, technology has raised questions about personal privacy. Genetics has given humankind new powers to alter basic building blocks of human and other life. We have also grown more aware of our responsibilities to our natural resources, to cite only the most obvious areas.

As we push the boundaries of scientific understanding in Ireland as never before, we will also require wisdom as never before. Scientific knowledge is constantly changing, which means scientific knowledge is constantly offering us new choices. Each choice brings new societal concerns. The public has a hunger for thoroughly and accurately presented facts.

Fortunately, there is a high level of public trust already in Ireland. In the most recent study of the public's attitude to science and technology, in 2000, two-thirds of Irish people said they had fairly high, or very high, respect for scientists and engineers.

We can build on this as our research investments go forward. But we shouldn't take it for granted. Now is the time to consider if our system is best prepared to keep the public's trust. The greater the level of activity, the greater the likelihood that surprises will emerge. These could challenge the capacity of science and government alike to respond well and thereby uphold the public's confidence in these investments.

In various countries, including the U.K. and the U.S., bodies of leading scientists serve as checkpoints and touchstones for the rules of scientific practice, technology development, and technology implementation.

I am referring specifically to the Royal Society in the U.K. and, in the U.S., the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. I visited the National Academy of Engineering last September. I was most impressed with its operations and its importance to science in America. I was pleased to learn that the NAE had been encouraged by that meeting to reach out to your academy. Your president, I know, has spent considerable time exploring further the mission and role of the NAE.

As you know, bodies such as these U.S. academies or the U.K.'s Royal Society do not decide government policy related to science and technology. Rather, the insight they offer serves government institutions in their responsibilities to represent and meet public concerns in a forthright and direct manner. This could be over cloning or electro-magnetic frequency waves, for example. Such bodies also seem good for science, since they assure the community that scientific practice and principles deserve the public trust.

With our increased investment in science, we should now consider whether an advisory body should be introduced to advise the Government on related ethical issues.

Alternatively, perhaps a current body should have its brief expanded to incorporate advice from our best scientists whenever research and technology of any kind may have ethical implications for Ireland.

I would be interested in your opinion.

Clearly, the culture of science is not detached from public values. All the more so in a culture that promotes a civic science. Perhaps you believe an ethics advisory body would help ensure that our investments in research meet the highest standards required by the public and thereby keep their confidence.

This issue leads to perhaps our most pressing obligation, to inspire an enduring national commitment to science. I would like to conclude my remarks on this challenge.

Enduring national commitment

In recent years, we have heard the facts about the declining student interest in science. I know you are familiar with these studies. I would recall one observation from the Science, Technology, and Innovation Awareness Programme of Forfás, which recently studied the issue.

Their report showed that the largest percentage of secondary school students explained that they didn't take physics or chemistry for this reason: because they were not interested.⁵

Somehow, the excitement and joy of working in science and engineering are not reaching our students. When students respond that they are not interested, it is of concern to everyone who cares about the future, not only of science and technology, but also of our country.

In 2003, even a cursory review of research activity in Ireland begs the question, why are they not interested? The quality of the research, let alone its promise, is fantastic.

Irish scientists are examining how climate change is affecting the flora and fauna of Great Britain and Ireland. They are investigating wearable technologies that could improve the role of clothing in good health. They are studying factors that affect loss of cattle embryos and thus greatly affect our cattle industry.

In Irish universities and institutes of technology, researchers are studying how to use molecules as transistors. This would make it possible to fit today's personal computer into a space no bigger than a sugar cube.

They are studying whether chemicals in certain medicinal herbs may help people fight off cancerous tumors.

Sphagnum moss, so richly available in our bogs, may make possible more environmentally friendly industrial growth because of its capacity to absorb various ions. Research in Ireland is also advancing our knowledge of how marine aerosols and clouds may generate global cooling, not global warming.

As Agnes Mary Clerke would appreciate, Irish researchers are also examining new methods of managing complex problems to help us optimise the use of satellites. As befits our growing excellence in the fields of biotechnology and information technology, Irish researchers are exploring pivotal questions in these areas too.⁶

In every area of life, for every research area I have mentioned, there are hundreds of other challenges that our scientists can help us address.

If our students are not interested in being part of this work, we must be doing something wrong. I know programmes already underway around the country are addressing the problem. We have to solve it. In our time, the link between scientific discovery, economic opportunity, innovation, and, ultimately, quality of life is more than unbroken. It is getting stronger.

Like you, I hope the public will be prepared to support achievement in science and technology far beyond this generation. For decades, scientists in this country have worked against the tide, struggling to keep research programmes afloat when the resources and national commitment were not there. I believe the tide has now turned.

This does not mean that all the necessary resources are now available or that the infrastructure is near where it must be. But it does mean that the public, through the government, has found in recent economic growth the will to make science and innovation national priorities. Our challenge is to ensure that this commitment has a comprehensive and lasting place in the public vision.

We must strive to ensure that the educational system, starting with the primary level, inculcates an understanding of science sufficient to meet students' needs and the national challenges ahead.

Perhaps the third-level faculty could also engage itself further in boosting science.

How might this academy, for example, suggest that the third level faculty would help create a scientifically strong educational system at every level?

This would be a positive way to win public support and commitment to science. It would also help guard against complacency and any taking of public support for granted.

On this note, I want to mention a study released last year by the British House of Lords. It was entitled Science and Society. The committee that produced it was comprised not only of members of the House of Lords but also of learned societies, scientific businesses, lay groups, and academics. These came from from sociology, social psychology, science education, and media studies.

They confronted what we all frequently term "the public understanding of science." They pointed out that public understanding of science isn't really what leads to support for science.

What does determine the public's view of science is trust. People who are not scientists do not want to make scientific decisions. Whether in law, medicine, or agriculture, we want experts to make the decisions encompassed by their areas of expertise.

But the public believes that the scientific community should be responsive to the social context and moral environment of science policy and spending. And it should be. This means informing the public of the value and nature of scientific and engineering endeavour. It also means engaging with the community to listen and explain, and to build the bond that comes from civic dialogue.

Again, this challenge raises issues perhaps worthy of your attention. For example, should grant holders have to supply project summaries in plain language? Should they have to provide strategies for sharing their results in ways the public can appreciate? Should grant holders and even post-graduate students be supported in learning how to communicate with the media and the public? In at least some publicly funded research, should we invest in outreach activities? Can we afford not to?

The time to address these matters is now. The new support for Irish science is making it possible for scientific discovery to emerge from a systematic and sustained investment.

From the outset, the agencies, the academy, the researchers, the educators, and the government must ensure that we make clear how and why this investment is of value, not only to researchers but also to the society of which they are part.

When a government provides the funding, science is obligated by definition to become a civic science. And a civic science invokes a civic trust that all of us involved must earn.

Conclusion

For more than two hundred years, this Academy has sought to fulfill this responsibility. As your constitution says, the academy was founded "to extend the boundaries of knowledge by observation and experiment."

As never before, you and researchers engaged in this work across the country are not alone. But also as never before, the full public engagement of the research community is required. For all of us who value the future of Irish discovery, a civic science matters.

At the start of these remarks, I mentioned Agnes Mary Clerke's popular history of 19^th century astronomy. Of that important book, one Irish scientist said, it "ministered to those who long to know."⁷

I hope it will be said in years to come that our actions and our partnership now set the stage for a new era of exploration and understanding. I hope we will minister to those who long to use science to know, to innovate, and to discover, today and tomorrow. Let it be said that the new beginning of Irish science in our time was worthy of the public trust. In our time, the time for creating a civic science for Ireland has come.

Footnotes

¹ With thanks to Máire T. Brück, "Bringing the heavens down to earth," p.68, in Starshells and Bluebells. Women in Irish Science, ed. Michelle Kearney, pp. 67-73.

² With thanks to Dr. Neal Lane, the U.S. President's Assistant for Science and Technology, who, in meetings with the U.K. Parliament's Select Committee on Science and Technology, referred to civic scientists, Third Report, chapter 3, p. 2.

³ Barrie Axford, "The World Economy," pp. 43-60, Society, Ethics, and Technology, eds. Mort Winston and Ralph Edelbach (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1999), p. 57.

⁴ Michael E. Porter and Scott Stern, "Innovation: Location Matters," pp. 28-36, MIT Sloan Management Review (Summer 2002), p. 33.

⁵ The Irish Scientist 2002 Yearbook, ed. Charles Mollan, p. 9.

⁶ Ibid, references respectively to work noted on pp. 51, 79, 44, various, 135, 125, 206, and 155.

⁷ Brück, ibid, p. 69.