RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE IN IRELAND- BUILDING FOR … · 2018-01-17 · aquatic microbiological ecology. Dr. Pauli has been a member of several Nordic and European committees. She

1

FOREWORD 3

BIOGRAPHIES OF THE INTERNATIONAL STEERING COMMITTEE 5

PART 1 9

Report of the International Steering Committee 9

PART 2 21

Reports of International Site Visitors 21

Contribution from the Business Sector 45

Data and Information on Existing Research Infrastructure 51

APPENDICES 57

Appendix 1 Outline and Overview of the Process 58

Appendix 2 List of International Site Visitors 60

Appendix 3 List of Contributors to the Review 62

Appendix 4 Acronyms & Abbreviations 64

Appendix 5 Higher Education Authority Members 67

> Table of Contents

2

RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE IN IRELAND - BUILDING FOR TOMORROW

3

In early summer 2006, the Higher EducationAuthority (HEA) and Forfás agreed to conduct areview of the research infrastructure in Ireland.The purpose of the review was to internationallybenchmark the research infrastructure in thehigher-education sector in particular and toidentify gaps in the national platform of researchinfrastructure, which could be addressed in theshort to medium term. The review was conductedmindful of the goals, objectives and enhancedinvestment proposed in the Government’sStrategy for Science, Technology and Innovation,2006–2013 (SSTI) published in June, and of thenew National Development Plan 2007–2013 (NDP).

Review Process

A key feature of the process was the appointmentof an independent international SteeringCommittee, which had oversight of thecomprehensive process review of researchinfrastructures in ten broad disciplinary areascovering the spectrum of research activity inIreland. The review included the preparation of adatabase of the existing infrastructure in thehigher education sector, which built upon earlierwork of the Capital Review and PrioritisationGroup (‘Kelly Review’—September 2004). Aconsultation questionnaire was prepared andsubmissions were sought from a range ofstakeholders. An advertisement was also placed inthe national press welcoming submissions from allthose who wished to engage with the review.

Through this process inputs were received acrossthe spectrum of national research activity andacross a wide range of stakeholders (seeAppendix 3). The HEA and Forfás are grateful forthe many submissions received fromstakeholders, a significant effort having beenmade by researchers, higher-educationinstitutions, funders, policy bodies, governmentagencies and departments to provide detailedsubmissions in support of this exercise in a shorttime-frame.

In addition, thirty-four international expertsconducted visits across a sample of researchinfrastructures in the higher education sector. Inthe region of 50 per cent of all researchinfrastructure was visited. These visits providedthe independent international benchmark for ourresearch infrastructure and were invaluable to theprocess. We sincerely thank those internationalexperts who gave of their time and expertise toassist us with this important national exercise.

A special workshop was organised to obtain inputsfrom the business and enterprise sector withknowledge of the existing research infrastructurebase. There was a high level of congruencebetween the views of the enterprise sector on keygaps and needs, and that of the internationalreviewers.

The outcomes from the site visits and theemerging findings from the process werepresented and discussed at a specially convenedForum at Croke Park in late October. This eventprovided an opportunity for the internationalSteering Committee to get feedback and engagewith the Irish research community in advance ofthe conclusion of the process.

Findings and Conclusions

In short, the Steering Group’s key finding is thatnotwithstanding the significant investment offunds in research infrastructure since 1998, andthe remarkable transformation of the Irishresearch landscape since that time, weaknessesexist and gaps remain in the higher-education andnational research infrastructure. This finding, inthe context of the lack of investment prior to1998, means in effect that we are still in ‘catch up’mode whilst at the same time trying to competewith our international competitors. The gaps andweaknesses identified in the review require to beaddressed in the context of the enhancedinvestment in R&D announced by the Governmentin June 2006 under the SSTI if Ireland is toachieve its potential.

> Foreword

4 Encouragingly the Steering Group’s report hasdemonstrated that there is sufficient strength inmany areas to be used as a foundation on which tobuild critical mass but importantly raisesconcerns in a number of instances where therehas been a lack of investment in spite of thestrategic importance of the area nationally. Thebiosciences area has received significantinvestment in recent years, but is still in need ofinvestment in basic infrastructure requirements.This is also the case in the relation to chemistry.There are significant renewal requirements in theareas of physical sciences and mathematics, earthsciences and engineering. In the creative arts,humanities and social sciences, space provisionand data management and archiving facilitiesneed to be developed in way that promotescollaboration in research and excellence inscholarship. Similarly, there is urgent need forexpansion and upgrade of the HEANet researchsupport infrastructure to continue to support theever more complex needs of researchers.

There are of course also areas where the needwas not as clear from the range of stakeholdersand where further work will be required tovalidate needs. HEA and Forfás are committed tofacilitating further examinations of gaps andneeds at the micro level, and further stakeholderconsultation will be necessary. This review is thestart of an on-going process and subsequentrevisions will be vital to better define prioritiesfor sectors or cross-cutting themes identified forfurther investigation. Decisions will be made early

in 2007 on a number of areas due for furtherexamination.

This broad review of Ireland’s researchinfrastructure needs, and any future review, willalso have to be cognisant of developments andopportunities at the European level, whilst alsobuilding a strong national infrastructure which willattract and retain quality researchers.

Finally on behalf of the HEA and Forfás, we wouldlike to express our gratitude to the members ofthe Steering Committee, Professor Ken Pounds,Professor Roger Jowell, Dr. Anneli Pauli and MsEeva Ikonen, and in particular to the Chairman ofthe Group, Dr. Hans Chang. They have completed adifficult task in a limited period of time. Thanksalso to Dr. Tom Higgins, who was the Secretary tothe Committee, and to Dr. Eucharia Meehan (HEA)and Mr. Declan Hughes (Forfás), and theirrespective teams, who supported the process.

In conclusion this report will now become a keyguiding document for forthcoming cycles of thePRTLI and will be presented to Governmentthrough the implementation structures for theSSTI. We look forward to working with allstakeholders in moving forward to establish astrong research infrastructure for Ireland.

Michael Kelly / Martin Cronin

RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE IN IRELAND - BUILDING FOR TOMORROW

MICHAEL KELLY CHAIRMAN, HEA MARTIN CRONIN CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, FORFAS

RE

SEA

RC

H I

NF

RA

STR

UCT

UR

E I

N I

RE

LAN

DB

UIL

DIN

G F

OR

TO

MO

RR

OW

> >BIOGRAPHIES OF THEINTERNATIONALSTEERING COMMITTEE

5

6

DR. HANS CHANG CHAIRMAN

Dr. Hans Chang is Director of the Foundation forFundamental Research on Matter (FOM). FOM isthe national coordinating research organization inthe field of physics, mainly financed by the Dutchnational research council, NWO. The organisationruns four national laboratories and also acts as afunding agency for physics projects executed inthe science departments of Dutch universities.Hans Chang holds a Ph.D. in physics (condensedmatter, 1972) from the University of Amsterdam.Subsequent to the completion of this he publisheda number of studies dealing with scientific issues.Thereafter he moved into affairs of nationalscience policy at the Dutch Ministry of Educationand Science. Since 1985 he has occupied theposition of Director of FOM. In this capacity he isalso Director of the Physics Division of NWO. Hepublishes regularly on science policy matters.

He was the inaugural Chairman of the EuropeanUnion of Physics Research Organisations(EURPRO)—a union of the physics divisions ofEuropean national research councils; the firstChairman of the COST technical committee onphysics, a Vice-Chairman of the OECD GlobalScience Forum, and the inaugural Chairman of theEuropean Strategy Forum on ResearchInfrastructures (ESFRI). Within these bodies hecontinues to serve as the Dutch delegate. He hasbeen a member of international panels evaluatingresearch agencies and he is the Dutch delegate inseveral other international scientific bodies.

PROFESSOR KENNETH POUNDS, CBE

Professor Kenneth Alwyne Pounds, CBE, FRS isEmeritus Professor of Physics at the University ofLeicester.

He was born in Bradford, Yorkshire, and gained hisB.Sc. and Ph.D. from University College London. Hethen moved to the University of Leicester as anAssistant Lecturer in 1960. He became DeputyDirector of Space Research in 1967, and was one ofthe pioneers of using rockets and satellites forresearch in the U.K.. He subsequently became theinaugural Director of the X-ray Astronomy group in1974. His research is in the area of active galaxies,and one of his many discoveries is that black holesare common in the universe.

Ken Pounds became Professor of Space Physics atthe University of Leicester in 1973. He wasappointed Head of the Department of Physics in1986, and the following year he took the decisionto merge the Physics and the AstronomyDepartments to create the present Department ofPhysics and Astronomy.

He has been a member of the Science andEngineering Research Council, 1980–1984, andPresident of the Royal Astronomical Society,1990–2002, and he was seconded as the first ChiefExecutive of the newly-formed Particle Physicsand Astronomy Research Council, 1994–1998,following the restructuring of the ResearchCouncils. He then returned to the University ofLeicester as Head of Department until hisretirement in 2002. He remains active in theDepartment as a Research Fellow.

Ken Pounds was elected a Fellow of the RoyalSociety in 1981, and received a CBE in 1984. Heholds five honorary doctorates, including the raredistinction of an honorary degree from his owninstitution, the University of Leicester (2005).

RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE IN IRELAND - BUILDING FOR TOMORROWBiographies of the International Steering Committee

7

PROFESSOR ROGER JOWELL, CBE

Professor Roger Jowell is a British academicsocial scientist. He is a Research Professor at CityUniversity London from where he heads theCentre for Comparative Social Surveys. The Centrehouses the 30-nation European Social Survey, amulti-funded European time series, which heinitiated and still coordinates. Prior to joining CityUniversity he was the founder-Director of theNational Centre for Social Research, now Britain’slargest non-profit research institute which heheaded for over 30 years.

An elected member of the International StatisticalInstitute and a founding Academician of the U.K.Academy of Social Sciences, he was awarded aCBE in 2001 for services to social science. He isalso a recent Vice-President of the U.K.’s RoyalStatistical Society and a Descartes Prize Laureatein 2005 “for excellence in collaborative scientificresearch”.

His primary research interests are in social andpolitical attitudes and survey methodology. Hiswriting has focused primarily on Britain’s andEurope’s changing social condition, and hispublications include a text-book on surveymethods, eighteen edited books on changes inBritish social attitudes, and four co-authoredbooks on British electoral behaviour.

DR. ANNELI PAULI

Since 2001, Dr. Anneli Pauli has been Vice-President of the Academy of Finland, responsiblefor matters concerning science policy and fundingas well as for international cooperation. Beforethat she worked as Secretary General of theResearch Council for Environment and NaturalResources, and also had responsibility for theimplementation and development of the FinnishCentre of Excellence Programmes. Dr. Paulicompleted her doctoral thesis in 1994 at theUniversity of Helsinki. Her field of research isaquatic microbiological ecology.

Dr. Pauli has been a member of several Nordic andEuropean committees. She is Vice-Chair of theNordic Research Board, Finnish ESFRI delegate,Chair of the Network Steering Committee of ERA-NET project BONUS for the Baltic Sea ScienceNetwork of Funding Agencies, and member of theOECD Global Science Forum and its SteeringCommittee on Science Education. Within the EU4th and 5th Framework Programmes, she has beena member of the management committee of theprogrammes on environmental research. For manyyears, Dr. Pauli was also active in the JointCommittee of the Nordic Natural Science ResearchCouncils. In addition, Dr. Pauli works in numerousnational committees dealing with science andtechnology policy.

8

MS. EEVA IKONENASSOCIATE STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBER

Ms. Eeva Ikonen is a Senior Science Adviser at theAcademy of Finland and a Member of the ESFRIExecutive Board since 2005. She has lengthy andwide experience in Finnish research and higher-education policy, both at the ministerial level andin the funding agency (Academy of Finland) forbasic research, as well as in universityadministration. Her expertise in management andadministration has been put to good use in theResearch Council for Environment, the ResearchCouncil for Natural Sciences and Engineering, andin the International Relations Unit of the Academyof Finland. She had an active role when Finlandjoined EMBL, ESRF, CERN and ESA. When Japanjoined the EISCAT Scientific Association, and whenthe new EISCAT Svalbard radar was planned andconstructed, she acted as Chair of the FinanceCommittee of the Association.

Eeva Ikonen has also been a member of the Boardof Directors, Nordic Academy for Advanced Study,(1994–2001); a Finnish Delegate on the SciencePolicy Council of the European Space Agency,1995–1998; and the Representative of the Ministryof Education on the Advisory Board for SpaceResearch in Finland, 1992–1995. Ms. Ikonen hasalso been a member of the EU FrameworkProgramme committees, and of expert groups forthe training and mobility of researchers and forinfrastructures.

RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE IN IRELAND - BUILDING FOR TOMORROWBiographies of the International Steering Committee

RE

SEA

RC

H I

NF

RA

STR

UCT

UR

E I

N I

RE

LAN

DB

UIL

DIN

G F

OR

TO

MO

RR

OW

> PART 1REPORT OF THEINTERNATIONALSTEERING COMMITTEE

9

10

Our task has been to review the status of researchinfrastructure in the higher-education sector inIreland and make recommendations for futuresupport. We have received reports from site visitsand had oral and written evidence from across thesector.

We have found a research system in impressivetransition as a result of the major injection in fundsover the past few years. This investment is beginningto transform the research base in Ireland, supportinga growing influence and recognition in the now-globalresearch enterprise.

However given the historical deficits ininfrastructure funding, Ireland is still some waybehind other developed nations competing andcollaborating in international research programmes.Recent investments have had a strong positiveimpact, but these investments must be properlysupported and maintained. It is also important torecognize that the research base remains narrow atthe highest international level.

Building on the progress to date will require the Irishauthorities to balance several competing and criticaldemands on new investment funds. These cover:

• Consolidation of the investments recentlymade so as to ensure their full and effectiveexploitation

• Broadening the base of research in the Irishhigher-education sector

• Investing for rapid development in specific,high-priority areas

Accordingly we recommend for consideration by therelevant authorities:

• A restructured PRTLI that will accommodatesupport for new proposals and for existinginvestments, as well as for pre-determinedinfrastructures, disciplines or areas, on an opencompetitive basis

• Re-instatement of the mechanism formerlyoperated by the HEA for replacement, updatingand renewal of research equipment

• Discussion within research groups, and with theHEA and Forfás, of both the general and specificissues (identified in Section 3 below) pertainingto the development of proposals for futurerounds of infrastructure investment

• Establishment of a systematic and periodicprocess for infrastructure reviews in the future

RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE IN IRELAND - BUILDING FOR TOMORROWReport of the International Steering Committee

> Executive Summary

11

1. INTRODUCTION

We were invited by the Higher Education Authority(the higher-education policy and funding body)and Forfás (the science and technology policybody) of Ireland to assist in a review of researchinfrastructures in the Irish higher-educationsector. Our review is based on findings from sitevisits, carried out by international experts, to across-section of higher-education institutions; onsurvey results, and on inputs from funders, policybodies and other stakeholders in the researchdomain in Ireland.

We particularly appreciate the reports of the sitevisit teams and the contributions fromrepresentatives of a wide range of research andresearch-related bodies in attendance at aspecially-organised Consultation Forum at CrokePark on Monday 23rd October 2006.

Our task was to provide an overview of the qualityof facilities currently available to third-levelresearchers and to identify gaps in the existinginfrastructures that are most in need of attentionin forthcoming rounds of national infrastructurefunding under the SSTI (Strategy for Science,Technology and Innovation).1

The process adopted by the Committee for thispurpose is outlined in Appendix 1.

We are pleased to acknowledge the assistanceprovided by the joint HEA/Forfás project team infacilitating our work and the highly professionalmanner in which this assistance was provided.

The Committee comprised:

Dr. Hans Chang, Director of the Dutch physicsresearch organisation, FOM, and first Chairman ofthe European Strategy Forum on ResearchInfrastructures (ESFRI).

Professor Ken Pounds, Emeritus Professor ofPhysics, University of Leicester and former ChiefExecutive of the U.K. Particle Physics andAstronomy Research Council.

Professor Roger Jowell, Head of the Centrefor Comparative Social Surveys, City University,London.

Dr. Anneli Pauli, Vice President (Research),Academy of Finland, Finnish ESFRI delegate.

Ms. Eeva Ikonen (Associate member), SeniorScience Advisor, Academy of Finland, ESFRI Boardmember and Finnish delegate.

In order to meet the schedule established by theIrish authorities, our examination had to beundertaken within an unusually constrained timeframe. Thus while we have been able to addressour set agenda and make specificrecommendations, we feel that there are otherissues that would benefit from consultation withinthe various research groups and stakeholdercommunities in Ireland. These are identified in ourreport and we commend them for furtherdiscussion and analysis.

We have adopted the broadly based ESFRIdefinition of infrastructure.2 This covers bothphysical facilities and equipment, including theassociated human resources, as well as the softinfrastructure (collections, databases, archives,networks, processes etc) and includes the supportpersonnel and services required for exploitationof infrastructure.

We have been apprised of government ambitionsfor Irish research, as expressed in recent publicpolicy documents, and we applaud these. Thechallenges are formidable, but not beyondachievement. We hope that the outcome of thisinitial and broadly-based review will be of help.However we believe that a more detailedexamination and evaluation of requirements willbe necessary, sector by sector, to ensure that theessential further investments are soundly based.We recommend the establishment of systematicand periodic review processes for researchinfrastructure in the future.

Finally we wish to express our strongly-held viewthat, in any discussion about infrastructuremetrics and deficits, it is critical that the focus ison quality rather than quantity. Academicresearch is now a highly competitive globalenterprise and requires high-quality performance.Only the best research is good enough and, ofcourse, the best research and education require afirst-rate research infrastructure.

> Main Report

1Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation 2006–2013 (Government of Ireland, 2006)2European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures, European Roadmap for Research Infrastructures Report 2006(Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2006).

12

2. THE STORY SO FAR

The Committee is aware that it is examining awork in progress.

In recent years the Irish authorities have made amajor commitment to strengthening the researchbase in the higher-education sector and asubstantial capacity building process is nowunderway. The commitment was first givenexpression with the launch of the Programme forResearch in Third-Level Institutions (PRTLI) in1998, which was a landmark event. Subsequentfunding through this mechanism alone hasprovided in excess of €600 million, largely forsupport of new research infrastructure. We findevidence that this injection, together with newfunding following the establishment of ScienceFoundation Ireland (SFI) and the two newResearch Councils, is dramatically changing theresearch landscape in Ireland.

Higher-education research infrastructure inIreland in 1998 and prior to the PRTLI, wascharacterised by chronic public under-investmentand a consequent heavy reliance on support fromthe rest of Europe. We were told that researchershad to chase funding wherever they could find it,usually outside the country, and fiercely competewith one another for the meagre domestic fundingthat was available. It was apparently not unknownfor researchers to have to shift fields and

specialties more than once in order to qualify forfunding. As a result, the direction of research inIreland in this period was inchoate and set moreby international agendas than by domesticpriorities. Of necessity, Irish academic researchwas opportunistic rather than strategic in itsdirection. In effect, much depended on the ‘lonescholar’ model of research. There was inadequateopportunity for planning or priority setting or forstrategy formulation and little necessity for aplanned approach anyway, given the paucity ofnational funding available. As their counterpartinstitutions in Europe and beyond movedprogressively towards a more professional andstrategic basis for research investment, the Irishinstitutions were falling well behind. Theinstitutions themselves had too little influence onthe content or overall direction of the researchundertaken within them.3

In the PRTLI Impact Assessment (2004) Bandaand his team reported significant improvements inboth the volume and quality of research output, ininstitutional capacity, and in internationalcompetitiveness.4 Based on internationalcomparators, PRTLI-funded researchers werefound to be producing excellent work of a higherstandard than that of non-PRTLI-fundedresearchers. Banda detected a cultural shift inresearch planning and management at theinstitutions. He found that institutions weretaking a more strategic approach and adopting astronger corporate perspective on the research


13

function, especially in the way they planned andmanaged their research. Thus whilst, pre-1998,only one institution had a published researchstrategy, twelve such strategies were found byBanda in 2004. Similarly whilst, pre-1998, onlytwo institutions had a senior designated Vice-President or Dean for Research, seven suchposts had been established by 2004. We have theimpression now that virtually all third-levelinstitutions provide strategic plans for researchand have a high-level dedicated researchadministrator. Banda noted evidence of strongerinterdisciplinary and inter-institutionalcollaboration, concluding that the PRTLI wastransforming the higher-education researchlandscape in Ireland.

Based on the findings presented to us, we arepersuaded that the improvements noted byBanda and his team in 2004 are continuing andbecoming embedded in Ireland’s researchsystem. Today, as a result of the infrastructureinjection beginning in 1998, the situation hasbeen substantially transformed. Researchinstitutions in Ireland are now able to set theirresearch agendas and prioritise their strengths,while individual researchers and institutions cancollaborate on shared programmes for thebenefit of scholarship across Ireland. Acollaborative culture is establishing itself. As aresult, institutions and researchers havesignificantly more discretion in the choice ofresearch topics, and are thereby more able to

compete internationally in many fields. Inaddition Irish research groups are moreattractive international partners and are morepro-active in putting together teams forinternational competition.

In summary, progress over a relatively shortperiod has been extraordinary. It is however vitalthat the present momentum is maintained asthere is still much to do.

3Comparative International Assessment of the Organisation, Management and Funding of University Research in Ireland andEurope (The Higher Education Authority, 1996).

4PRTLI Impact Assessment: Report by the International Assessment Committee, 2 vols. (The Higher Education Authority, 2004).

14

3. WHERE IS IRELAND NOW—A REALITYCHECK

Based on the information received during ourReview, we have formulated a number of generaland specific conclusions as to the current state ofresearch infrastructure in Ireland. In developingthese conclusions we have had access to theviews and concerns of a wide cross-section ofsenior researchers at the institutions. We havebeen provided with the judgments of theinstitutions themselves on their existinginfrastructures. Our calibration of these views andopinions has been greatly assisted by the reportsfrom the international site visitors. We also hadavailable many written inputs from a wide rangeof stakeholders and the outcome of a debate atthe specially convened Enterprise Forum. Finally,we had the benefit of a day of dialogue with seniorrepresentatives of the research system at theaforementioned meeting at Croke Park.

Reports on the site visits by international expertsare provided in Part 2.

Based largely, but not exclusively, on these inputs,we have formed the following generalconclusions:

Facilities and Space

• There remains a patchy landscape ofresearch facilities, with new state-of-the-artfacilities co-existing in some locations withbuildings/facilities which are in poorcondition and not fit-for-purpose. Site layoutand usage of both new and old buildingsneeds to be addressed in many disciplineareas.

• Space limitations, even in some of the newerfacilities, mean that many are already attheir maximum capacity. Overcrowding wasparticularly identified in the physicalsciences and engineering, and is seen as abarrier to the attraction of internationalresearchers, even at a number of high-profile, successful centres. The spaceproblem is also causing the fragmentation ofexisting research groups.

• The current space allocation model isbelieved by many researchers to be out-dated and should be reviewed.

• More efficient space utilisation and spacemanagement in some newer facilities wouldalso be desirable.


15

Foundation Infrastructure

• IT systems, computing services, and e-infrastructure, and the maintenance thereof,are generally deficient. The lack of commonIT networks and platforms and of wirelessaccess were high-lighted. High-endcomputing capability is generally weak,affecting many research areas, especially inthe medical sciences, humanities, physicalsciences and mathematics. Site visitorsfrequently commented that computation anddata-analysis facilities were not adequatefor first-class research.

• Deficiencies in data-managementinfrastructure were noted in the lifesciences, medical sciences, physicalsciences, engineering, earth, atmosphericand ocean sciences, and in the socialsciences.

• Data archives and repositories remain at anearly developmental stage—data access (toexisting national and international sources)and data acquisition (storage and updatingacross the spectrum of disciplines/areas) isweak. These issues emerged strongly in themedical and social sciences areas.

• The absence of adequate library provision ingeneral was identified, but in particular inthe arts and humanities.

• On the positive side, HEANet, Ireland’sNational Education and Research Network,was cited consistently as a strength of thenational research infrastructure. It providesa high-speed national network with directconnectivity for its community (theeducational research sectors) to othernetworks world-wide.

Support infrastructure

• The technical and administrative supportsystems needed to underpin effectiveresearch performance were found to beinadequate in a majority of the sites visited.

• High-end technical support, frequently atPh.D. level, for servicing, maintenance andoperation of complex facilities andoperations is needed. The case forpermanent technical staff for this purposewas made during many site visits, especiallyin the areas of the physical sciences, earth,atmospheric and ocean sciences, andbiological sciences.

• It is a natural consequence of the investmentin improved research facilities thatmanagement and management systems havealso to be improved. There is need for betteradministrative support, especially for spacemanagement and strategic planning.

16

Equipment

• Whilst there is an expanding equipmentportfolio in the higher-educationinstitutions, much remains in urgent need ofreplacement. This issue was high-lightedparticularly in the areas of earth,atmospheric and ocean sciences and inchemistry, but is an issue across many areas.

• While very large equipment can be obtainedunder the PRTLI, and some small equipmentfrom other funders, there has been nodedicated equipment fund for newacquisitions and updating—especially ofsmall and middle-sized items—since theclosure of the earlier HEA fund (the LargeEquipment Grant). As most national fundingagencies nowadays have such a fund, theCommittee suggests new arrangements tocover these needs on an on-going basis.

• The flow of funds for the maintenance ofresearch equipment was also found to be amajor issue in many discipline areas. It wasparticularly critical in biological and medicalsciences and in physical sciences.

We also wish to draw the attention of localmanagement to the fact that in some of the sitevisit reports occupational health and safety issueswere raised which will need to be addressedurgently.

In addition to these general findings, we wish todraw attention to a number of issues that areassociated with specific disciplines, and haveformulated the following discipline-specificconclusions:5

Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences

• Although data archives and repositoriesneed attention, existing national researchcollections and data repositories in thehumanities were identified as a strong baseupon which to be built. There are, forexample, unique collections, such as the TCDLibrary, which in addition to its status as alegal deposit library for Ireland, has also hadU.K. legal deposit privilege since 1801.

• Instances where humanities’ researchers areengaged in innovative collaborative linkswith physical scientists in the use oftechnology were noted by visiting experts.However it was also found that interactionbetween researchers in the arts andhumanities, education, and creative arts andmedia, and other disciplines is held back bythe lack of designated, high-quality, fit-for-purpose research space.

• Notwithstanding severe under-investment inresearch infrastructure and researchcapabilities, recent successes by institutionsspecialising in media and creative arts werenoted. It was considered, however, thatthere remains a compelling need for anunderpinning infrastructure to enableresearchers to compete in this area. Spaceand obsolete equipment were problemsacross these disciplines.

• Key strengths in social sciences identifiedduring the site visits were some newinterdisciplinary research centres. The IrishSocial Science Data Archive (managed byone Dublin-based institution) has, in the viewof the expert visitors, the potential to be akey infrastructure resource, despite beingunder-resourced. Access to specific datawas identified as a serious problem, withdeficits in access to both national andinternational data sets. The absence of datastorage and archive facilities and theirability to be updated with fresh datasets is aserious and continuing impediment to high-quality social science research in Ireland.


5The disciplinary areas were: Arts and Humanities; Biological and Agricultural Sciences; Computer Sciences; Creative Arts andMedia; Earth, Atmospheric and Ocean Sciences; Engineering Sciences; Medical Sciences; Physical Sciences and Mathematics;and Social Sciences and Psychology. The visiting expert reports for each of these broad disciplinary areas can be found in Part2 of this report. Conclusions are presented here in discipline clusters.

17

Biological and Medical Sciences

• The strength and future potential of Irishhospitals as part of the national researchinfrastructure, and the recent award by theWellcome Trust and the HRB for a newClinical Research Facility, were noted.However it was the view of the experts thatthere remains a significant gap in theinteraction between the academiccommunity and the medical community.

Physical Sciences, Mathematics andEnvironmental Sciences

• The strength of the existing network offacilities in the West of Ireland in marine andenvironmental sciences was noted byvisiting experts. However investment inequipment and technical support is a barrierto progress in this area.

• In the environmental sciences, researchershave access to the Mace Head AtmosphericResearch Station in Connemara. It is aninternationally recognised coastal site andpart of the global air chemistry monitoringnetwork. However experts noted the lack ofadequate investment in atmospheric sciencefacilities to exploit this potential.Fragmentation of effort was also high-lighted.

• Geology was identified as an area in whichthere are very severe short-comings both inbuildings and equipment.

• The success of one institution in integratingmaterials and engineering research withinone location was noted by the visitingexperts. The level of interdisciplinarityobserved in the physical sciences, inparticular in two Dublin institutions, was alsodeemed impressive.

• In addition to evident strengths innanoscience found in two national centres, itwas observed that a wide range of space-intensive ‘Nano’ projects were also

underway at a number of other institutions.Overall these projects are rather small-scaleand the achievement of the critical massrequired for their success may be asignificant challenge. It was felt that Irelandwill need to consider the value of this workand avoid duplication across the sector,perhaps through the encouragement of acollaborative approach.

We recommend further discussion of all theseissues, general and specific, within the relevantresearch groups, and with the HEA and Forfás, inthe development of proposals for future rounds ofinfrastructure funding.

The Committee also noted that Ireland is notparticipating in a number of the large Europeanresearch organisations. The Committee realisesthat here choices have to be made. As an examplewe draw attention to the fact that with acommunity of 150 academic researchers in thefields of astronomy/ astrophysics, the possibilityof membership of the European SouthernObservatory (ESO) is an issue to be discussed atgovernmental level. However it should be notedthat such a membership requires a simultaneouscommitment from the government/funding bodiesof Ireland to proper research funding in this field.Otherwise the expensive membership cannot beutilized to its full potential.

18

4. SUGGESTIONS FOR THE FUTURE

The landmark event of the commencement of thePRTLI dramatically changed the researchlandscape in Ireland. However momentum has tobe maintained as there is still much to do. Whilstformulating research policies, the authoritiesshould address ‘balance questions’ dealing with:

• Consolidation of the investments recentlymade, so as to ensure full exploitation ofthose investments.

• Further broadening of the base of academicresearch in Ireland.

• Investing for rapid development in specificpriority areas.

The Committee realizes that the question of howmuch extra funding is needed is a matter ofpolitical debate. Since 1998 Ireland has beenclosing the gap with OECD/EU but is still short oftheir average investment levels. In 2004 the IrishHERD (Higher-Education Expenditure on R&D) was0.40% of GNP compared with an average OECD/EUfigure of 0.43%, ranking Ireland in 14th positionout of 30 countries.6 At the upper end, Sweden,with a higher-education system somewhatcomparable to that in Ireland, allocates 0.83% ofGDP, more than twice the Irish level. Otherrelevant comparators are Finland 0.67%,Denmark 0.60% and Austria 0.57%. We suggestthese, rather than the EU average figures, providethe appropriate targets for Ireland.

Clearly the investment gap is still too large.Higher levels of funding will be required if Irelandis to achieve the stated government policyobjective of matching the top institutions in theOECD. Indeed the HEA’s own stated strategy is tomatch the top decile of OECD countries, anachievement which would represent a substantialshift from Ireland’s current position.7 Given thehistorical deficits in infrastructure funding thataccumulated over many years, we find a researchsystem in transition, still at a relatively immaturestage, and lacking the scale and critical mass ofits realistic international competitors. There is nodeficit of intellectual capacity in the Irishresearch system, only a deficit of opportunities.We consider the case for increased and sustainedinvestment is very strong.

An appropriate mix of top-down and bottom-upfunding decisions could address the issues ofbalance mentioned above. Thus a top-downdecision might be made to selectively add broadareas or disciplines in which importantdeficiencies exist. Perhaps a ring-fenced summight be set aside for supporting or enhancingexisting investments. Within both these pools,however, institutions and researchers shouldpresumably still have to compete for funds.Previous recipients of funds ought not, in ourview, to be privileged, but equally they should notbe penalized. Thus previous recipients of fundingmight be subject to a performance appraisal,based on the use they have made of that funding.

In sum, we suggest that the mechanism forfunding infrastructures on the next occasionmight have two elements:

• An open element, which would call forproposals for both new and existinginfrastructures, including upgrades ofexisting facilities, and would be allocated ona competitive basis.

• A selective element, which would bereserved for certain HEA/Forfás-nominatedinfrastructures or disciplines, such as accessto and replenishment of databases, ITsystems, computing, etc also to be allocatedon a competitive basis. The consolidatedreports at the Forum, questionnaire resultsand the site visit findings would providevaluable evidence for the selection ofappropriate subject areas.

Overall we believe that this will provide amechanism that will help to broaden the Irishresearch base. Its open and competitive basisallows all researchers to apply for support, underthe open element, and be selected on the basis ofexcellence. Its selective element allows theauthorities to specify important aspects of thebase that need support and invite suitablecompetitive proposals from all interestedresearchers and institutions. This fundingstructure will, we believe, help the Irishauthorities to address the balance issues that wedescribed above.


6OECD, Main Science and Technology Indicators, 2004.

19

Both elements of the model should, in our view,favour collaborative proposals, as the PRTLIcurrently does, and proposals which demonstratethe fullest exploitation of existing and proposednew facilities. This includes considerations aboutaccess. New facilities should offer access for allinterested and competent researchers,irrespective of their institutional location, and notjust for the benefit of particular institutions.

Irish researchers have a long tradition ofinternational (particularly EU) collaboration.8 Weunderstand that it was precisely these links thatsustained the research system during earlierdecades of under-investment. Such internationalcollaboration will continue to be extremelyimportant for Ireland in an age of increasingglobalisation. So the existence of internationallinks should also be a factor in awarding newinfrastructures. Whereas Irish researchers have inthe past looked abroad for opportunities, ascaled-up and higher quality researchinfrastructure at home will provide newopportunities for attracting researchers fromabroad who seek access to state-of-the-artfacilities for high-calibre research. Irishresearchers will also be able to play anincreasingly prominent role in EU researchframeworks.

In this context, it is opportune that after twoyears of intensive work, ESFRI has recentlypresented the first European ‘road-map’ for new,large-scale research infrastructures, based oninternational peer-review. The road-map includesa short description of each of the projectstogether with an estimate for construction costs.Some are evolving projects while others need firmfinancial commitments very soon. Also, Irishministers responsible for research have beeninvited by ESFRI to embark on national discussions

about which projects Ireland could join.Discussions and decisions at a national level willtherefore also be critical in influencing the focusof future European research infrastructures. Weanticipate that these discussions might alsoencourage the development of national road-maps and the ear-marking of dedicated nationalbudgets for the construction of researchinfrastructures with a European/internationaldimension.There are important opportunities here forIreland. Research communities that are currentlyless well structured than those appearing in thefirst ESFRI road-map will be stimulated toparticipate more effectively in the process fromnow on. National representatives will be able toparticipate in discussions about the realisation ofthese Europe-wide infrastructures. Theseopportunities will enable Irish policy-makers andresearchers not only to engage with nominatedESFRI projects, but also to begin formulatingprojects of Irish origin in which prominent Irishresearchers could play the lead role in futureinfrastructures.

Selected investments in research infrastructuresshould be viewed as investments for capacitybuilding in strategic areas of research and careerdevelopment of young people. Internationalcollaboration and researchers’ mobility betweeninstitutions and participation in internationalresearch infrastructure projects provide wideropportunities for researcher training and careerdevelopment of Irish researchers. High-qualityresearch infrastructures are a necessaryprerequisite in attracting foreign researchers and

7Don Thornhill, Chairman, Higher Education Authority, 8th September 2004 in Review and Prioritisation of Capital Projects inthe Higher Education Sector: Report of the Review Group (The Higher Education Authority, 2004).

8A recent example of the universities’ commitment to international collaboration is their proposal for a new digital repository ofpublications that would facilitate easy discovery, increase citation rates and make Irish research output easily availableinternationally. This would follow similar initiatives in the Netherlands, and the U.K..

20

good collaborations in Ireland. Qualityinfrastructure is also essential in retaining thebest Irish research talent in Irish institutions.

Investments in infrastructures must be viewed ina national, as well as an institutional context.Thus, issues of access, sharing and transparency,nationally and internationally, will have to bemore formally addressed than in the past,including access to existing national databases.

Although particular institutions or groups ofinstitutions are given the privilege of hostingparticular infrastructures and national databases,they should not be given exclusive or proprietaryrights to the infrastructures themselves or totheir products. Indeed proposals forinfrastructures should be judged on the basis oftheir quality, their inclusiveness and theirenvisaged utilization.

In addition to national-level investments inresearch infrastructures, research institutionsneed to have funding mechanisms available thatwill help to secure long-term investments inresearch facilities and equipment.


RE

SEA

RC

H I

NF

RA

STR

UCT

UR

E I

N I

RE

LAN

DB

UIL

DIN

G F

OR

TO

MO

RR

OW

> PART 2REPORTS OF THEINTERNATIONAL SITE VISITORS

21

22

1. INTRODUCTION

A key component of the Review was theinfrastructure site visits. A total of 34international experts were invited to visit asample of sites in Irish higher-educationinstitutions (see Appendix 2). Owing to timeconstraints of this Review, not all facilities couldbe visited. As a result, a selection was made onthe basis of the relative amount of research spacein a given discipline area. In addition, facilities inboth good and poor condition were selected torepresent the national picture in a particularresearch field, this selection being informed byinformation submitted by individual institutionson the condition of facilities. It is anticipated thatfuture national reviews will focus in more detail onindividual research areas. A total of 14 differentinstitutions were visited, with just under half ofthe research space in Irish higher-educationinstitutions captured by the visits. During theReview, in the region of 95 facilities were visited.In addition, two visits to national libraries werecarried out as part of the arts and humanities’ sitevisits. Visits took approximately one half-day perinstitution per discipline area. A breakdown of thescope of the site visits is given in Table 1 below.

Individual reports from different discipline areaswere submitted to the Steering Committee for theReview and summaries of these reports arepublished here. The reports have been grouped asfollows:

• Arts & Humanities, Education, and CreativeArts & Media.

• Psychology and Social Sciences• Biological and Medical Science

(including Agricultural Sciences andChemistry*)

Clinical Research Facilities• Computer Sciences• Earth, Atmospheric, and Ocean Sciences• Engineering• Physical Sciences and Mathematics

* Chemistry facilities were also visited under thecategory of ‘Physical Sciences’

RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE IN IRELAND - BUILDING FOR TOMORROWReports of the International Site Visitors

*Two of these site visitors also carried out a site visit in the thematic area of physical sciences and mathematics

Table 1. Breakdown of the scope of the site visits conducted as part of the ResearchInfrastructure Review.

Discipline Clusters Sub-disciplines Number of Number of % Total Research Number ofInternational Institutions Visited Facilities Visited Visited (approximate) Site Visitors

Biological and Biological Sciences 5 16 Bio/Agri 43% 10Medical Sciences (including Agricultural 15 Preclin/Clin

Sciences and Chemistry), Preclinical in vivofacilities, Clinical Research Facilities

Arts, Humanities & Humanities, Social 7 19 30% 10Social Sciences Sciences & Psychology,

Education, Creative Media & Arts

Physical Sciences Physical Sciences & 6 11 Phys Sci/Maths 48% 8Mathematics, Engineering 12 Engineering

Earth, Atmospheric, Earth, Atmospheric, 3 9 42% 4and Ocean Sciences and Ocean Sciences

Computer Sciences Computer Sciences 4 13 54% 4*

23

2. ARTS & HUMANITIES, EDUCATION,AND CREATIVE ARTS & MEDIA

Overall Observations

• The space allocation model used is out-dated; it may be time to reassess needsacross institutions. Good quality, fit-for-purpose research space is needed. The lackof space provision is problematic in that itprecludes a sense of belonging or ownershipwhich is important when trying to encouragecommitment and contribution from Ph.D.candidates. Supervisory arrangements arealso challenging, as it can often be difficultto locate candidates who are mostly situatedoff-campus as a result of lack of provision. Itis suspected this also has a detrimentaleffect on completion rates.

• Research centres appear to work inisolation. Physical grouping of centres incognate areas could facilitate a differentarrangement of space more conducive to thesharing and stimulation of ideas, explorationof solutions to common problems, and thecreation of an integrated support network ofpeople not systems. Bringing together ofcentres would also allow a more integratedprovision of administrative support—particularly in the case of secretarialassistance—and also provide a more co-ordinated approach to IT.

• In the field of education in particular, thelack of postgraduate seminar rooms wasnoted and, in the rare cases where thesefacilities do exist, there was an absence ofAVC equipment. Generally the infrastructurefor research in the areas of education andadult/continuing education is non-existent.Neither site visited in this area, because ofspace restrictions, facilitates the interactionof researchers. In general researchers in theareas of creative arts & media, arts &humanities, and education were not locatedin proximity to each other

• There is a clear lack of anyacknowledgement of the creative arts anddesign fields as an important element of thenational strategy for research andinnovation. Facilities are totally unfit forpurpose, dangerous and certainly unsuitablefor use as a premier creative artspostgraduate research facility. The

equipment provided in film and video studiosis woefully out of date. Digitisation isurgently required if those researchersproduced in this field are to serve a purposein industry. Those institutes successfulunder the National Digital Research Centre(NDRC) programme have highlighted theneed to progress this project. Opportunityfor the provision of a springboard for thecreative arts is being wasted by long delaysin NDRC start-up. In addition, The NationalCollege of Art and Design is limited by theoutdated provisions of the 1971 legislationunder which it functions.

• In addition to its status as a legal depositlibrary for Ireland, the Library of TrinityCollege Dublin was given U.K. legal depositprivilege in 1801. It continues to receivecopies of all material published in the BritishIsles. The storage space for early printedbooks/manuscripts is full and extensive useis already being made of off-campus storage.A strategic decision, at national level, isrequired to decide on the future expansionof this major national research resource.

• The lack of major data repositories andnational depository for qualitative data andrepository for research papers is asignificant gap.

• Absence of an adequate library provisionneeds to be addressed. Where this resourceexists, there is a need for dedicatedresearch space. Library provision as a wholeis as an undergraduate resource and isgenerally unsuitable for postgraduate use.

• The increasing availability of electronicbooks and journals means the IReLelectronic library initiative should be rapidlyextended to the humanities and indeed theInstitute of Technology sector.

• Enhanced administrative support andfunding for research offices is needed.

• The intellectual capacity is certainly herebut the physical support required to achievethe step-change necessary is not present.Once again genuine willingness wasdemonstrated but not the physical resourcesrequired.

24

Summary of Findings

Building Condition and Space

The institutions visited presented something of adichotomy. In some cases the quality of spacewas generally good and fit-for-purpose, butinsufficient in quantity and not of world-classcalibre. In other cases it was very poor, borderingon the dangerous, and certainly no longeradequate.There is a clear need for good quality, fit-for-purpose, dynamic and community-enhancingspace to serve the needs of a vibrant andsuccessful research community. Ireland isuniquely positioned to engage in this type ofresearch at world-class level if the facilities wereavailable.In many cases research space currently needs tobe carved out of the undergraduate provision, asthe specific funding models do not supportprovision of research space.

Equipment

Equipment where available was adequate andreasonably up-to-date, in other places it was non-existent and centres had to strive to keep up-to-date with very limited budgets. In the context ofthe humanities capital intensive equipment is nota necessity in most areas. However in other areasthe data access issue identified earlier is clearlyof major concern.


Foundation Infrastructure deficits include lack ofaccess to high-end computing facilities to handlethe large data-sets of information from surveys,focus groups and interviews. However this accessto high-performance computing is a constraintacross the research landscape in Ireland.Access to specific data was identified as a seriousproblem. Large data sets are collected by suchgovernment agencies as Forfás and the CentralStatistics Office (CSO), and by independententities such as ESRI, and could be of tremendoususe to researches in this field. The data collated isvery current and could be invaluable even atmacro level. Lack of ‘in progress’ access to thisdata has been cited as restrictive as availability iscommon in other EU states. Restricted accessprecludes Irish academics from participation in

international research programmes. Specificaccess problems appear to be a result of lack ofsupport staff in these agencies or specific rulesand policies.Provision for the storage and dissemination ofresearch data (in particular from fundedprogrammes such as the PRTLI) has not beenmade. As many projects will run for a specific termand have significant outputs provision for datahosting, mining, updating and access should bemade at a national level.

Technical Support

Information technology support was an issue.There appears to be little IT support and thespecialised staff in place are ‘overwhelmed’ andprimarily employed to support teaching. Whilesupport is available, this is mostly located incentralised system support offices andgeographic distance can result in slow responserates. The support system is extended topostgraduates more through personal support ofthe tasks being carried out rather than as aspecific support role. Software provision andsupport was also problematic in certain areas.

Management

Little formal administrative support on the scalenecessary to support the activity required. Mostexisting efforts are dependent on the time andefforts of the individual. In other cases support is‘borrowed’ through good will and is taken from theundergraduate provision. A dedicated resource(secretarial and administrative support) at locallevel to facilitate research is absent. There appeared to be a lack of overall directionfrom the management in terms of teaching,learning, and research in respect of the utilisationof resources. As mentioned above, the teamsraised the question of how space and equipmentwere distributed throughout institutions andacross disciplines cognate to the arts andhumanities in particular.


25

Access to large scale or multi-user facilities

A library lending exchange provision is requiredacross all higher-education institution libraries.

Site layout and accessibility

The dispersion of academic staff and researchersover a number of buildings is not conducive togood interaction. Of the sites visited, thosedesigned and built with grant monies and aspecific mission are good. However other re-allocated spaces, which are generally located inundergraduate and teaching and resource centres,are less suitable to the provision of a positiveatmosphere.There appeared to be a fragmentation ofcommunication across sites and no means ofexchanging information. As mentioned above,building layout does not facilitate collegiality. Inspite of this general observation, reviewerscommended the innovative collaborative linksthat have been established between physicalscientists and humanities’ researchers. Space is required for visiting researchers,including in libraries. Some ‘hot desks’ areavailable in certain institutions but on a first-come first-served basis. In certain cases there isno central administrative support in relation tothe provision of library and computer access. Eachcentre has to address its own requirements.

3. PSYCHOLOGY AND SOCIAL SCIENCES


• There are striking contrasts betweenfacilities for psychology and other socialsciences. Whilst research in psychology andsociology is being conducted in buildingsthat are simply not suitable for modernresearch methods, research in other socialsciences is being conducted in new buildings.

• The absence of an adequate national dataarchive is a serious impediment to socialscience research in Ireland, as well as toresearch undertaken in other countries thatis inclusive of data pertaining to Ireland. UCDhas established the basis for developing anational archive but lacks the resources toproceed.

• Absence of adequate library provision needsto be addressed.

• All of the sites visited are planning to expandtheir research activity, aiming to doublePh.D. output by 2013 in line with the nationalresearch strategy. Space constraints alonemake this aim unrealistic. Each universityshould identify its research priorities andfocus on those.

• A key issue is the continuity of funding fortop-class facilities. A particular problem ishow to deal with major research groupsestablished, usually on a five-yearcontractual basis, and the uncertainty aboutfuture funding is a major problem whentrying to retain researchers in Ireland.

26

Summary of Findings


The condition of buildings varies from excellent toadequate or no longer fit-for-purpose. Even newerfacilities are now approaching capacity as theambitious increases in postgraduate studentsenvisaged in the new National S&T strategy werenot anticipated when the buildings were designed.Most psychology research facilities were not fit-for-purpose. Such research necessitates access tospecialised research laboratories which are notcurrently available and which, it seems, cannot beaccommodated in existing buildings.

Equipment

No particular equipment problems were noted.However the absence of a clear mechanism forequipment maintenance and renewal is a concern.


The major issue here is the availability of dataarchives for social science research. There is, onthe one hand, the need to establish a nationalarchive, exemplified by the fact that the ESRI hasa mine of useful data, both current and from thepre-electronic age, that is not covered by the UCDarchive. On the other hand, there is the need (nowlacking) to access international data archivessuch as the ICPSR in Ann Arbour, the DataDocumentation Initiative (DDI), the LuxembourgIncome Survey (LIS) and the Cross NationalEquivalent File (CNEF at Cornell University).The Social Science Data Archive in UCD should bea key infrastructural resource for the Irish socialsciences community as well as for internationalresearchers. Only if data pertaining to Ireland isavailable through a data archive can researchersfrom other countries include Ireland in theirstudies. Archives in general need much greaterresources and better research capacity (in orderto know what researchers really want), whichmust result in wider promotion and ease of accessto the academic community in all fields of socialand behavioural sciences.On some sites, the inadequacies of the libraryprovision, particularly for research, wereobserved. Access is a problem, in addition to thefact that the range of books available forscholarship and research is narrow and out-of-

date—issues which the reviewers did not addressin detail on these visits.

Technical Support

With the exception of research in psychology,there are no serious issues with technical supportfor research. However this probably reflects theabsence of an adequate data archive; should thislack be rectified then technical support will needto be expanded also.

Management

Management of space is critical. Space shortagesare evident in a number of areas. There could bepotential for more effective management of spaceacross the campuses but this issue was not reallyfully addressed. Likewise there is neither roomnor resources for expansion across all disciplines,and research prioritisation is necessary.


The newer buildings and social science researchcentres are designed to encourage interactionbetween researchers and good interdisciplinarywork was observed at most sites. However theolder buildings are completely unsuited for this;some buildings house a multitude of departmentsand activities, making access by visiting scholarsdifficult.

Other Comments

It was considered that the social sciences’research observed is close to or at world-class.There are some infrastructural issues to beaddressed (e.g. national data archive), but themajor barriers to further progress are elsewhere.In the other areas visited—psychology andsociology—the infrastructural issues verge on theinsurmountable in terms of the amount andquality of space available in the existing buildings.


27

4. BIOLOGICAL AND MEDICAL SCIENCES


• The reviewers considered that world-classresearch is being conducted in particularareas. It appears that this has been achievedthrough the development of a clearinstitutional strategy to attain internationalstandards of excellence. However thereremains a great need to invest in people.Without the provision of more long-termcontracts, high-quality staff will not beattracted. Critically important is the absenceof both administrative and technical supportfor researchers in the biosciences.

• The demand for monitoring and reportingfrom research funding agencies has beenpassed directly to the research performers,diverting them from research into routineadministration. Technical officers, usually atPh.D. level, are needed to operate andmaintain complex and expensive equipment.

• Good equipment quickly becomes obsoleteand the absence of resources for on-goingmaintenance, upgrades and renewalexacerbates the situation and preventslaboratories remaining at the cutting-edgeof experimental science. The absence of amechanism for replacing equipment on aregular basis is a barrier to progress.

• There are serious health and safety issues ina significant number of the laboratoriesvisited.

• The biosciences, in general, need to beclosely aligned with the medical arena toexploit the synergies from closely relatedareas of fundamental science

Summary of Findings


There is a huge variation in the quality of buildingsin the life sciences. New buildings are in excellentcondition, and would have no difficulty attractinginternational students and researchers. Althoughstaff are making valiant efforts in the very oldfacilities, these are, in the main, not fit-for-purpose. In general, it is preferable to re-buildrather than refurbish existing buildings.

In some cases there appeared to be a grossimbalance between the usage of space in thevarious parts of the buildings, some areas ofwhich are facing serious over-crowding. Evensome new buildings failed to anticipate theincreased demand for space for both staff andstudents which has resulted from dramatic rises inresearch income and performance.

Basic requirements such as temperature control,air conditioning, suitable ceilings and benches areneeded in some facilities.

The food processing hall visited is unique, mostsimilar facilities having been dismantled but itspotential is not exploited. For example, withgreater collaboration between the various partiessome of the research equipment could also beused for training in food process engineering.

The GMP facility visited was considered as anambitious undertaking but small and under-resourced in comparison with similar facilitieselsewhere. Its activities will be subjected tointernational quality control as it aims to generatematerials for use in clinical trials. Although otherGMP facilities were not visited as part of thisreview it was stated by reviewers that GMPfacilities would be required to support growingneeds in translational research. This need wouldneed to be investigated further.

28

Equipment

The majority of equipment in newer facilities wasconsidered as adequate. Within that there was arange from good to excellent. In older facilitiesthere was a lot of antiquated equipment, whichneeds to be replaced.

Some specific requirements include highresolution TEM, rheometers, calorimeters, solidstate NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) or lowresolution NMR.Priority must be given to generating a policy forupgrading equipment.

In chemistry, there appears to be a great need forsome basic analytical equipment and evenrelevant modern equipment is not being properlymaintained because of the absence of anadequate maintenance contract budget and thelack of suitable technicians.It would appear that the discontinuation of theHEA’s Large Equipment Fund removed amechanism which was found very useful forreplacing obsolete equipment. The reviewers feltthat this or a similar mechanism for funding needsto be reinstated.


Generally the foundation infrastructure wasconsidered adequate even in the most inadequateof buildings. Access to electronic journals hasimproved enormously in recent years; howevermany journals are still unavailable and this is anissue for some researchers.

There is a lack of access to high-performancecomputing capacity for such areas asbioinformatics.

Technical Support

The absence of a suitable career structure forhighly qualified research technicians and forresearch administrators is a serous weakness inthe Irish biosciences system.There is an insufficient number of highly qualifiedtechnicians. As a result, many sophisticated andexpensive pieces of equipment are under-utilisedor not operating at maximum efficiency and thisimpacts on the quality and efficiency of theresearch effort. There is a need for sustainablelong-term funding to support technical expertise.

Management

There is a critical need for administrative support.Administrative tasks, both reporting on researchinputs and outputs as well as preparing newresearch proposals, is a very arduous task in aresearch environment. The absence ofadministrative support staff is a severe hindranceto the development of a research environmentwhich is both attractive to leading researchersand conducive to the efficient and effectiveperformance of the research itself.

There are serious health and safety issues in asignificant number of the laboratories visited andthese need to be addressed and rectified at a locallevel.


29


Research groups should have access to Europeanfacilities as required. Establishing lines ofcollaboration with centres of excellence aroundthe world would allow for instant access tofacilities that are currently wanting within thehigher-education system. Programmes forexchange of students, postdoctoral fellows andfaculty could enhance the research potential.Ireland needs a generic national transgenicfacility for the research community. Furthermore,access to large animal facilities is needed.Improved imaging facilities were also identified asbeing a specific need.


The newer facilities have been set up to beinterdisciplinary and they seem to be working wellin this regard. To encourage inter-institutionalwork the use of two-way video conferencingfacilities might be of benefit. Linking with otherinstitutions and hospitals would certainlyfacilitate such interactions. An initiative such asthis would be welcomed by many researchers.

The layout of older buildings does not facilitateand encourage interaction of researchers.

Other Comments

The classification of food science as part ofagriculture reflects the old view of the subject asbeing producer-led, whereas the modern view,such as that proposed in EU funding, is towardsconsumer-led work; it may be that this changeneeds to be reflected within the structure of Irishscience. Nevertheless the food groups couldbenefit from better links with agriculture.

5. PRECLINICAL IN VIVO FACILITIES


• There is a great need to establish either ahigh-capacity national central preclinicalfacility or some regional medium-capacityfacilities.

• There is a great need to increase the numberand capacity of small animal facilities and ofGLP surgical space in dedicated institutes.

• More specialised capabilities are needed, inparticular robust transgenic production at alocal and/or national level, includingschooling Irish junior staff for future centraland regional facilities.

• Absolute need to move toward the closure ofsubstandard facilities.

• Absolute need for transparency regardingaims and perspectives of the on-going andplanned experimental research, in order toavoid anti-lobbyism.

Summary of Findings


The condition of preclinical in vivo facilities in thesample of sites visited was mixed. Recentlycommissioned facilities were in very goodcondition, up-to-date and adequate for theresearch being conducted. A total of eleven unitswere visited. Seven of these were in goodcondition, one needed some remediation, andthree were inadequate and were not consideredfit-for-purpose. For the latter the reviewersconsidered that while refurbishment might bepossible, this was unlikely to be a cost-effectiveapproach and that replacement facilities wererequired.

Overall where facilities were of a high standard,lack of sufficient capacity and room for growthwas highlighted as a key issue. Specifically, somespecialised facilities (SPF or clean conventional)were being compromised to house animals thatdid not require these conditions. In addition, morenon-holding space was required, in particular foradvanced surgical procedures that were beingconducted to a high standard but in modifiedanimal housing rooms, owing to an overall lack ofspace.

Furthermore researchers were either currentlybeing impeded by the lack of sufficient housingspace or had identified that, if the situation didnot change considerably, in 2–5 years there wouldbe a significant negative effect on theadvancement of research using thesetechnologies. In certain cases the units weredispersed but were working well and thereviewers did not consider this a disadvantage.The reviewers agreed that, from a hygienic pointof view, dispersed units offer safer conditions

30

against epidemic contaminations with specificpathogens than a single central high-capacityanimal facility within a university.

Moreover it was highlighted that there is a needfor holding space for experimental purposeswithin committed institutions in addition tocentral medium- to high-capacity facilities sharedby all institutions. The key recommendation onbuilding condition and space was that there needsto be a move toward the closure of substandardfacilities and a significant increase in the capacityof small animal units.

All of the institutions visited were aware of thespace issues and have individually explored theneeds of researchers for the future and appearedto be at an advanced stage of thinking with regardto the design of proposed new facilities.

Equipment

Equipment in the main was considered to beadequate. Apart from the need for microinjectorequipment, it was felt that specialised clinicalresearch equipment for large animal studiesincluding imaging equipment needed someinvestment. Where specialised facilities do exist,it is imperative that appropriate structures areput in place to facilitate effective access to otherresearchers nationally. Reviewers suggested thatsome form of access funding might assist thisfacilitation.

Technical Support

Technical support services and availability ofservice personnel was not adequate in all cases. Ingeneral the team felt that skills and expertisewere present but that in some cases thisexpertise was not being invested in coreinstitutional staff but rather in transient contract

researchers. As more specialised facilities aredeveloped in the future it is imperative that theseare run and maintained by core technical staff toensure continuity of in house expertise. Hiring ofsuitably trained staff from abroad may be requiredas necessary expansion takes place. Thisapproach had been taken in some cases and hasbeen effectively demonstrated. Long-term aim,however, was felt to be that schooling by technicalstaff should help ensuring availability of suitabletrained Irish junior staff in the future.

Research Capabilities

The issue of specialised capabilities within theanimal facilities was also addressed at each site.Overall there is a strong need for increasedtransgenic production capabilities. Limitedcapability does exist and there are plans for theintroduction of more on other sites, and this willgo part of the way to addressing this need. On anational scale, the reviewers considered that thisexpertise should be widely available at a locallevel to supply the needs of researchers. Thistechnology is essential for many Irish researchersto compete internationally and to attractresearchers here. In addition it was felt that thecosts for microinjection set-up were notprohibitive.


31


The reviewers considered that a major hurdle tothe research activities in this area was the issueof animal importation. With the current set up allsmall animals are sourced from abroad. This isexpensive and has serious timing issues, forcingresearchers to house animals ahead of time inholding areas that could be more effectivelyemployed. As a result researchers are payingmore than their European counterparts. Thereviewers recommended that this issue beexplored further, potentially with the involvementof a commercial partner. As Irish researchersincrease the demand, a centralised nationalsource would perhaps be a viable approach. Whilstit was stressed that certain specialisedexperiments be conducted at a local level, it wasfelt that certain services could be effectively runcentrally. This might for example include routinebreeding, backcrossing, cryopreservation (as aneffective means to retaining genetically modifiedlines) and long-term housing.

Other Comments

Clinical Research

An issue highlighted by reviewers and researcherswas the future trend in the advancement oftranslational research in Ireland. As the movetoward clinical trials and clinical testing isencouraged and advanced, so too will the need forhigh-standard GLP animal facilities as the stepprior to clinical research. This is in keeping withthe move toward the commercialisation ofresearch and the ability of researchers in Irelandto effectively translate research.

Regulatory Issues

Although somewhat removed from the remit ofthis visit, the reviewers noted that the regulatorysystem in Ireland needs to be addressed. Projectand personal licences were reported to take up totwelve months in cases and this was consideredexcessive. It was admitted that this process wasalso now adapting to changes in the researchsystem.

6. CLINICAL RESEARCH FACILITIES


• Different clinical research facilities acrossIreland need to adopt standard operatingprocedures and have similar effectivemanagement structures in order tomaximise the co-ordination of researchactivities. Although steps have been takentowards the development of significantclinical research infrastructure, thereviewers felt that these steps had not yetbeen co-ordinated to a consistently highstandard. The reviewers could not overstatethe need for oversight in the development ofthis infrastructure in order to avoid thecreation of under-used and over-specifiedfacilities. A co-ordinated strategic approachwith national equity is vital. Surveillanceprocedures should be put in place to ensureclose adherence to this recommendation.

• Technical support does not currently meetrequirements. There is a great need toincrease core personnel to run the clinicalresearch facilities (CRFs). Fostering of“institutional memory” is critical to success.Key functions include core management,research nursing, statistical and study designsupport.

• The establishment of a network of nursemanagers will play an important part in thesetting-up of new clinical research facilities.They should develop and sustain close linkswith the nurse manager network alreadyestablished in the U.K..

• There is a need for dedicated resources fordata acquisition, visualisation and analysis.National data archives (paper, electronic andbiological) need to be stored in safe andsecure environments.

• Appropriate national networks and corefacilities need to establish a commoninformation technology platform capable ofproviding comparable data sets across allfacilities (which will also enable multi-centretrials), common regulatory and trial support,and a common GMP facility to support clinicalresearch activities.

• The reviewers proposed that a balance atindividual centres between disease specificapproaches and methodologicalspecialisation be struck. Certain corefacilities should be centralised to reinforcethe high quality of projects put forward.Requirements would depend upon research

32

approaches but examples of core facilitiescould include genotyping, GMP production,mass spectrometry, image analysis (differenttypes could be located at prime sites) andphysiological laboratories.

• New facilities need to be informed andeducated by existing facilities to avoid anyunnecessary duplication of efforts orresources. There should be a co-ordinateddevelopment of new facilities.

• The reviewers recommend that, unlessalready undertaken, a programme of formalvisits to facilities in the U.K. (or elsewhere)be conducted by a dedicated team,representing clinical research facilities inIreland, in order to learn from theexperiences of others in establishingautonomous facilities that adhere to commonprocedures.

Summary of Findings


Within the Dublin area, there are currently threeCRFs, at various stages of development: fullyoperational, recently commissioned, and yet to becommissioned. In addition the reviewers were toldof plans for an additional larger facility withinDublin, to be funded jointly by the Wellcome Trustand the Health Research Board (HRB). Outside ofthe greater Dublin area, there are currently nopurpose-built CRFs although there are plans forthe development of at least two additionalfacilities. The reviewers agreed that, if betweenfour and six state-of-the-art facilities were to berun successfully in Ireland, then these should berun in parallel so as to guard against over-provision.

With respect to facilities in existence, it wasconcluded that building conditions were generallyvery good but that there were examples wherespace was not being used for the purposeoriginally intended. The layout of rooms should beoptimal for the flow of operations and the trackingof a linear data trail. There was insufficientstorage space and as a result data were beingstored inappropriately; for example lead-linedlaboratories (built for specialist applications)were, on one site, used to archive paper records.

Underpinning these observations was thereviewers’ perception that the design of existing

Irish CRFs had not been informed by a carefulprior analysis of the structural and functionalrelationships within the proposed CRF.

There is a need to plan carefully in advance howresearch data gathered in the CRF is to behandled, checked and open to verification,perhaps for many years. In general, the reviewersconcluded that data storage was insufficient at allsites. This is a critical constraint on the conduct ofclinical trials (probably relevant to many otherdomains) for which there are strict regulatoryrequirements for data validation, storage andindependent audit for up to fifteen years followingacquisition. The reviewers advised that hard andsoft copies of data should be stored in fire-proof,limited-access areas.In addition the secure storage of biologicalmaterials must also be established with systemsin place that provide clear records of who hasobtained access to these, their subsequentactions, and of when specific samples areremoved from storage (ideally employing bar codereaders). It was acknowledged that, in certaincases, there were plans to introduce thesesystems.

The reviewers emphasised the importance ofretaining patient/human subject written recordsof consent and records of the precise nature ofuse to which archived materials might be put.They also stressed that these records should beopen to future inspection by ethics or researchcommittees. Failure to facilitate this might, inlater unspecified circumstances, preclude the fullexploitation of archived materials.

In order to scale-up significant research activitiesat existing sites, a radical rethink of layout androom usage needs to be implemented. Thereviewers did recognise the strength inmaximising intellectual synergies by locatingacademic research adjacent to clinical research.However should space be a limiting factor, thenpriority should be assigned to activities that canonly take place adjacent to the hospital, withlower priority given to activities that might, inoptimum circumstances, be near to clinicalfacilities. Currently, the reviewers suggested thatresearchers were not yet in a position to exploitfully the fact that they were located close to ahospital, as the role of clinicians was oftenminimal. The CRF should provide an environmentin which health professionals can be trained and


33

exposed to research.

On several sites the laboratories conducting basicresearch in hospitals were not fit for purpose andwere in great need of redevelopment, in line withthe development of a new CRF. Overall,laboratories based in the main body of hospitalsvisited were sub-optimal and in need of significantdevelopment. These researchers were, in themain, conducting research on samples obtainedfrom in-patient studies.

Equipment

The availability of appropriate researchequipment did not feature high on the wish-list ofresearchers. In general, where a CRF wasoperational, the appropriate equipment wasavailable. Wet laboratories that were up andrunning and conducting basic research appearedto be well equipped (a detailed appraisal of eachpiece of equipment was not made by thereviewers). The lack of sufficient equipmentfunding for new facilities was raised.

The positioning of a research MRI scanner on auniversity campus as opposed to adjacent to ahospital was noted. The reviewers felt that forsuch a major investment, location was suboptimaland may compromise research applications, owingto the lack of nearby clinical capabilities. Whilstnot necessarily a current issue, this factor wouldneed to be considered as research progresses inspecific clinical areas. It was acknowledged thatplans were in place for an additional researchscanner on hospital grounds.

Where specialised equipment (e.g. theaforementioned experimental MRI) has thepotential for national use it was anticipated by thereviewers that such equipment carried asignificant risk of running at a loss. It would beimportant (and perhaps critical to researchplanning) that costing needed to be carefully

reviewed going forward. Where activities aredistant from the local CRF, there should be stronglinks with the CRF with adherence to standardoperating procedures that are open to audit(research governance). In addition, compatibleset-up and software should be employed at allsites if the full potential of the researchequipment is to be realised.

Foundation Infrastructure: Data Management

Data management is an enormous, recurring issuediscussed on all sites. It is imperative that asource of funding for this type of infrastructure iscontinued and developed further.

Data acquisition and storage requires robust ITsystems that are universal across the country.Data storage for hard-copy and electronicdocuments needs to be safe and secure. Datastorage for biological materials also needs to beproperly resourced and aligned with standardoperating procedures that are the same in everyCRF. A common approach would enhancecollaboration and facilitate data sharing in aefficient and productive manner. This is critical ifIreland is to compete internationally. Thepossibility of having a core facility to fullyintegrate the IT requirements of each CRF wasproposed. It should be possible to have shareddata acquisition from local sites with a commonfacility for data mining and data analysis. Thiswould be very attractive to potential researchpartners in translational research who see thislevel of organisation on a national scale as astrong indicator of the potential for rapid resultsfrom an efficient and productive researchcollaboration.

Centralised off-site archive facilities for bothclinical research paperwork and the storage ofbiological samples should also be considered.Storage was identified as an unsolved problem atall sites visited.

34

Basic IT systems currently in place within thehospital (clinical) infrastructure were recognisedto be a barrier to progress in linking clinical(especially outcome) data to research laboratoryfindings. Links with academic institutions werecumbersome and in need of updating. Scope wasidentified from knowledge of data miningstrategies under development elsewhere forIreland to contribute to and learn from theseinnovations in complex data analysis. Theexistence of productive internationalcollaborations of this type would be a hugepotential long-term asset.

Technical Support and other personnel

An investment in core staff in existing and futurefacilities is critical. Personnel required includeclinical facility directors, research nurses,statisticians and clinical trial support staff. Therole of nurses in the day-to-day running of the CRFwas felt by the reviewers to be a critical andintegral prerequisite of success. Investment intheir selection, training and retention would beparamount. Core staff are essential for themaintenance of the “institutional memory” thatensures continuity of services. Reviewers wereinformed of training provided by the RCSI for thetraining of research nurses and this approachshould, in their view, be encouraged andenhanced. The reviewers were informed that thelack of a career path for research nurses in clinicalresearch meant that they were difficult to retainin hospital-based research.

Support staff are needed to assist researchers inthe design and implementation of clinical testsand clinical trials. Currently this expertise lieswith individual researchers and may not be an

efficient process. The lack of such core supportstaff may prevent clinical researchers frompartaking in research. Given the limited time thatphysicians can currently give to research, it wasrecommended that investment be made in supportsystems designed to facilitate the smooth runningof the CRF with clear, comprehensible anduniversal operating procedures.

Clinical Scientists

The reviewers agreed that there was no shortageof “brain power” to run CRFs in Ireland and toconduct world-class research. Whilst the focus ofthis exercise was to review the facilities and toolsavailable to perform “cutting-edge” research, thereviewers also felt strongly the need to commenton broader policy issues that may be barriers toadvancement in this area. These issues will,therefore, also be summarised.

On all sites the reviewers lamented the universallack of protected research time for clinicalscientists; they strongly recommended that (1)this is a major barrier to the advancement ofclinical research and to the forging of linksbetween academia and clinical practice and (2)that it is not an option for the present lack ofresearch time to continue if Irish aspirations tobecome “internationally competitive” are to berealised. The introduction of funding for clinicalscientists by the Health Research Board was seenas a move in the right direction, but so farinsufficient to meet the national need.Translational medicine is patient-led with clinicianand hospital involvement vital for success.

The reviewers felt that current Irish medicalemployment practices make success unlikely in


35

the face of intense competing, clinical pressures.Health services will not volunteer to do researchunless incentives are available. The introductionof an incentive scheme was suggested. Suchincentives currently exist elsewhere, where thereis slight extra (“ring-fenced /seed corn”) fundingfor a hospital conducting research with muchgreater rewards for peer-reviewed publicationsand external research funds awarded throughcompetitive processes to hospitals. Eventually, iffinancial rewards were sufficient, hospitals mightregard such funding schemes as highlyprestigious, enhancing the standing of their seniormedical personnel both in the local and widercommunity. In turn, they might then beencouraged to make specific appointmentsdesigned to improve both their clinicaleffectiveness and research performance,analogous to the set up in Irish university-basedresearch.

Other Comments

Strategic national approach

The reviewers felt strongly that in a country thesize of Ireland, it is of paramount importance thatan organised and co-ordinated approach is takento the running of each CRF. The reviewers wereinformed during the visit of the recently formedICRIN (Irish Clinical Research InfrastructureNetwork) and of the role of the Dublin MolecularMedicine Centre in both the acquisition of the newDublin facility and the co-ordination of otherDublin facilities. The expansion of this clinicalresearch network to include other partners,namely UCC and NUIG was mentioned, as was thefuture membership in the European counterpart(ECRIN). However the reviewers felt that a co-

ordinated approach had not been taken to dateand, from speaking with researchers at individualsites, that a national strategy and approach wasnot yet evident, although it is acknowledged thatprogress is being made in this regard.

Funding

The researchers found that the funding stream forclinical research was not clearly defined and opento public scrutiny, apart from the HRB, and thatthis did not assist researchers to plan for futureactivities. Much of the recurrent funds were froman array of charities and infrastructure fundingwas also from several sources. Whilst this is notconsiderably different from other discipline areas,it was felt by the reviewers that to competesuccessfully in this area that (1) completetransparency of all sources of funds available wasessential and (2) translational research needs tobe funded in its own right.

36

7. COMPUTER SCIENCES


• The space allocation model used is out-dated; it may be time to reassess needsacross institutions. The challenge seems tobe the provision of quality, fit-for-purpose,dynamic and community-enhancing space.Overall, specific staff (or a staff member) tomanage resources and space at faculty levelwould be beneficial as the high-level modelcurrently in use does not seem to work insome institutions visited.

• Current support infrastructure is inadequateto sustain first-class research in a newlydeveloping system. Technical, and to agreater extent, administrative support isurgently required. Lack of support leads tosenior researchers having to carry outadministrative or technical supportactivities. This deflects researchers awayfrom their core work, an obvious waste of avaluable resource.

• Clear and strategic choices need to be made.A wide range of space-intensive ‘Nano’projects seem to be underway at a numberof institutions. Ireland will need to considerthe value of this work and avoid duplicationacross the sector through theencouragement of a collaborative approach.

• Research activity in the Institute ofTechnology sector has been limited in thepast due to the sector’s remit inundergraduate training and the lack offunding ear-marked specifically for researchactivity.

• Research resources in the form of physicallibrary provision and the extension of theIReL electronic journal resource arenecessary, the latter being a particularrequirement of the Institute of Technologysector. A national approach to thedevelopment of an electronic depository fortheses was also cited as a usefulinfrastructural project.

• Provision of software was well regarded.HEAnet service provision was also positivelyreviewed. However upgraded or morereliable video-conferencing facilities wererequired as was further development of thefibre network.

• An approach to the provision of national andindeed international access through thedevelopment of innovative middle-waresystems for user authentication on anational platform would significantlyimprove researcher mobility.

• Any new investment for major infrastructureor research programmes should be providedthrough a competitive process. Large-scaleinvestment cannot commence in advance ofthe innovative ideas that need to emerge.

• High-Performance Computing and GridComputing are in development. Some fearswere expressed that this Grid Computingtechnology was being promoted as a localresource in a number of locations while theresearch projects requiring its use were notyet clearly articulated by the computerscience communities driving it.Consideration should be given to offeringexternal access to promote practicalapplication of the technology. HPC shouldalso be shared, usage levels did not seemoptimal and a review to ascertain strategicapplication could be required. Howeveradditional resources to support this nationalprovision of facilities may be required.

• Dublin institutions had suitable physicalinfrastructure for postgraduate research andthe opportunity to engage in world-classwork. Researchers in the Institute ofTechnology sector on the other hand wereconstrained by the sector’s roots in thepostgraduate training model with a primaryfocus on its teaching mission. World-classresearch was not a realistic possibilitywithout the investment to drive it. The PRTLIseemed to offer a model for this type ofsupport as large-scale investment cannotcommence in advance of the innovativeideas that need to emerge.

• A national debate on standards is required inorder to encourage a collaborative approachto research projects.


37

Summary of Findings


The institutions visited offered something of arange of quality both within and acrossinstitutions. In some locations the space andphysical setup was good and encouraged multi-user application but management issues stiffedtrue collaboration. Overall better cognisanceshould be taken of stakeholder needs in theplanning and designing phases. Facilities need tobe viewed as a ‘facilitators of research’ not just asphysical objects.In one case the quality of space was generallyvery good and fit-for-purpose but insufficient inquantity. In other cases the space was very poor,bordering on the dangerous, certainly no longeradequate. A clear (if obvious) correlation wasdisplayed between prior investments (under thePRTLI for example) and the quality of spaceprovision. Specific buildings visited had good spaceprovision but as they were originally intended forundergraduate or multi-purpose use they weretherefore unsuitable for use in the creation of anatmosphere for multi-disciplinary research andthe exchange of ideas. This was also reflected inthe lack of meeting and demonstration space andwidely distributed nature of facilities forresearchers.A wide range of space intensive ‘Nano’ projectsseem to be underway at a number of institutions.Overall these projects are rather small-scale andthe achievement of the critical mass required fortheir success may be a significant challenge.Ireland will need to consider the value of this workand avoid duplication across the sector throughthe encouragement of a collaborative approach.

Equipment

Maintenance at a significant level is required tokeep equipment up-to-date. Good equipmenttoday may not meet the needs of tomorrow andthe block grant and core funding model may notbe sufficient. This investment is incremental butnecessary.Equipment viewed was generally adequate togood, but it is difficult to appraise across theboard. The physical environment was poor inplaces with a need for basics such as air-conditioning and a better approach tomanagement of the space and physicalenvironment. In other locations there were goodexamples of laboratories but these wereconfigured for teaching and undergraduate userather than as a research environment. Overall, specific staff (or a staff member) tomanage resources and space at faculty levelwould be beneficial as the high-level modelcurrently in use does not work.


The foundation infrastructure is considered to beinadequate. One of the main strengths in theuniversity sector is the e-journal access and thisshould be extended to the IoTs but there are manyweaknesses such as:

• Poor high-powered computing capability• Poor maintenance of existing computing

capability• No wireless internet access• Broadband is only at 10mg locally

38

Technical Support

Technical support was patchy to non-existent insome places while in others only just appropriate.Staff training levels were also an issue as projectsdepended on particular levels of support service.In many cases postgraduate or postdoctoralresearchers serviced their own equipment; overallthis was deemed inappropriate as it distractedresearchers from the research work. Current support infrastructure is thereforeinadequate to sustain first-class research in anewly developing system. Technical, and to agreater extent, administrative support is urgentlyrequired. Lack of support also leads to seniorresearchers having to carry out administrative ortechnical support activities. This deflectsresearchers away from their core work, anobvious waste of a valuable resource.Technical support provision was also largelydriven by the demands of teaching—perhaps areview of the balance between teaching andresearch is needed.

Management

It seemed clear that in places the physicalfacilities were better than the managementstructure. Management structure rather thaninvestment was therefore required. Researchersand desks alone will not provide a sufficientcatalyst. Consideration also needs to be given tomaterials and design to encourage fit-for-purposeenvironments.


In some cases there were particularinfrastructural facilities that should be madenationally available through broader accesspolicies. It may require a change of mind-set torealise that the facility is unique and can also berecognised as a service that can be provided toothers in the form of a national facility. Howeveradditional resources to support this nationalprovision of facilities may be required.


In general sites were not capable of supportingworld-class research because the buildings aredisjointed and existing across multiple sites. Moreimportantly there does not appear to be buy-infrom all the participants in many faculties,departments and centres.


39

8. EARTH, ATMOSPHERIC, AND OCEANSCIENCES


• The condition of basic facilities varies fromvery poor to very good (in the case of asmall number of relatively new buildings).

• Equipment is for the most part obsolete.Even recently acquired items (usually 3 to 4years’ old) are often in jeopardy because of(i) lack of regular maintenance, (ii) lack oftechnical support to operate and maintainthe equipment and to train users, (iii)absence of an equipment replacementbudget to upgrade equipment on a regularbasis

• There is a need to introduce a mechanism toprovide research groups with highly qualifiedTechnical Officers to operate and maintainspecialised equipment and to train studentsin their use.

• Geology research (and teaching) isparticularly badly served in relation tobuildings and equipment. As a foundationscience, it should have much betterfacilities.

• A mixture of old and some new buildingsmeans that departments and activities arefragmented between locations, makingresearch difficult.

The potential for developing Galway and thewestern seaboard as a leading centre in the areaof marine and environmental sciences wasemphasised.

Summary of Findings


It is a very mixed picture, ranging from totallyunsuitable (geology) to over-crowded to modernand good quality. There is a serious spaceutilisation issue in relation to one unoccupiedfacility and with under-utilisation evident in otherareas.

Equipment

The main problem with equipment is not the lackof any specific instruments but the overallimpression of seriously dated or obsoleteequipment due to the absence of funds forrenewal and replacement. Geology lacks even themost basic equipment. Otherwise the equipmentseen is at best adequate, with very little thatwould be classed as cutting-edge.One item of equipment lacking is an Aerosol MassSpectrometer, which most internationalenvironmental groups would have, but of whichthere is none in Ireland.The absence of funding for maintenance contractsnot only shortens the life of equipment but canlead to extended downtimes when a fault occurs.


No serious issues identified. This could bebecause other infrastructural problems (buildings,equipment, technical support) are the majorconcerns at this stage.

Technical Support

The absence of suitably qualified (often at Ph.D.level) technical support is one of the mostimportant issues identified. Modern scientificequipment is highly specialised and sophisticated;it can take considerable time to learn to operate itefficiently and safely. Not only can suchtechnicians ensure that equipment is operatedand used properly, helping to train students onhow to use it, but they also help to prolong the lifeof the equipment by ensuring propermaintenance. Such technicians are needed on afull-time basis for this work.

40

Management

There is not sufficient management supportavailable to researchers, both at local level andcentrally. Issues such as strategic planning, spaceutilisation and coordination of resources andeffort are areas which could be improved. Theoverall impression is of good and enthusiasticpeople whose performance is limited byinadequate equipment, space problems andproper planning.


No major issues. Researchers have access to twoexcellent and modern research vessels.


Some of the facilities are capable of supportinginterdisciplinary work. But fragmentation ofpeople and equipment is a problem in other areas.In general, not much evidence of such interactionwas found. Not all of this is the fault of the sitedesign and layout.

Other Comments

At the moment this field of research is notoperating in Ireland at leading internationallevels. The reasons for this are infrastructure,management and personnel related, and areinterlinked. Major infrastructural problems inhibitthe ability to do research, and are a disincentiveto hiring and keeping good researchers. Strongermanagement planning and guidance will beneeded to identify and exploit the right researchopportunities.

The already existing network of facilities in theGalway and Connemara areas in marine andenvironmental sciences offers a good opportunityfor building world-class expertise in marinescience, climate change and biodiversity.Ireland is too small to have multiple well-resourced centres in these sciences. The nationalauthorities need to take hard decisions onpriorities and locations for funding, and to followthrough with continuing support thereafter.Building on existing strengths and potentialshould be the priority.


41

9. ENGINEERING


• Overcrowding of facilities is evident and isforcing research activities to becomefragmented and disparate.

• There should be a rolling programme ofinvestment in research active space withgood facilities management.

• There should be funding sources for facilityand equipment maintenance

• Dedicated permanently-funded researchtechnicians are required across theengineering sector

• There are many health and safety issueswhich need to be addressed as a priority.

Summary of Findings


Of the buildings visited the majority were of anadequate standard but overall were no longer fit-for-purpose, principally because of insufficientspace to properly house research activities. Inmany cases, there is no room for expansion andresearch sites have become fragmented. In somecases, in an effort to meet needs, relocation ofresearch activities has resulted in poor andinappropriate usage of the space with certainresearch groups located on three or four floors orin separate buildings. There were examples wheremeeting rooms had been taken over for researchwork space and often there was no social space.Integration into a single custom-built facilitywould contribute significantly to the researchpotential. Overall, there is a need for a review of spaceusage and allocation at a local level in order tokeep currently disparate research groups in onelocation. Additional space is needed forpostgraduates and administration and otherservices should also be located close by.

Additional investment is needed in basic services,including air conditioning, gases and powerthrough either block or overhead grants. The 30%overhead rate quoted to reviewers wasconsidered to be inconsistent with internationalnorms. In the U.K. the 46% rate has beenincreased to virtually 100% through full-economiccosting and in industry it is often over 100%.

Equipment

While equipment varied from state-of-the-art toobsolete, overall it was considered to be adequatefor current use but insufficient for futurerequirements and unlikely to enable competitiveresearch on an international level. A greater issuewas the housing of expensive equipment ininappropriate space.The reviewers considered it important forresearchers to build the cost of maintenance oftheir equipment into their project proposals. Ifthis was not possible in the current fundingsystem, the funding bodies must considerchanging the system.The reviewers recommended a strategic review ofnational capability in a number of disciplines suchas electron optics / microscopy to increasesynergies and reduce duplication of expensiveresources. Funding for access to specialisedfacilities should be considered.

42


In the majority of facilities the foundationinfrastructure was considered adequate althoughthere were some cases where high-performancecapabilities were required.

Technical Support

Technical support was considered to be poor.There is a real need for dedicated researchtechnicians across the engineering sector asopposed to secondment of teaching technicians.There should be investment in technical supportfor equipment operation, maintenance, safety andtraining. A small amount of equipment requirestechnical support from people at Ph.D. level.Currently equipment is (at best) operated andmaintained by postgraduate students with theirknowledge and expertise lost as they completetheir studies and leave. At worst there is nocontrol over the use of equipment leading toquestionable research outputs, poor use ofinfrastructure and safety concerns.

Management

At a local level, the management support forresearch was variable and individuals weredealing well with the limitations of their site. Inother areas the local management is under-resourced and needs to be underpinned by clearinstitutional strategy.


Access to international facilities should beavailable through a funded access programme atnational level to complement that available viathe EU’s large scale facilities programme.

Nationally, consideration should be given tobuilding a dedicated Irish beam line on one ormore key facilities (e.g. DIAMOND). Such lines arealso of industrial relevance and could be built withindustrial, as well as state, support. This is theapproach taken by other smaller countries such asNew Zealand, Australia and The Netherlandswhere provision of national facilities is notfeasible.

Consideration should be given to the purchase ofa FEG-TEM, FEG–SEM and ESEM provided money isalso available for technical support, maintenanceand additional supporting facilities. Thesefacilities should be shared with other institutionsthrough a well-managed national accessprogramme which would serve to link Irishscientists to international researchers.


Some groups do undertake multi-disciplinary workbut this appears more the exception than thenorm. There is scope to use equipment to greatereffect by extending collaborations betweengroups and institutions and access routes withappropriate charging mechanisms might need tobe developed. In many of the groups inengineering there is insufficient critical mass fora wide range of researcher interactions to takeplace. There are however exceptions and one ofthe facilities visited demonstrated goodinteraction between researchers in engineeringand physical sciences with a large number ofpeople mixed together on one floor and accessibleto each other.


43

Other Comments

Health and Safety

Investment is needed to ensure the safety ofresearchers and students. Electronic systemsshould be installed with swipe in for access tobuildings on a safe and recorded 24-hour basiswith CCTV. Where they are working at night, twopeople should be present. Overall, there appearsto be a complete lack of an appropriate safetyculture. Risk assessments are needed and must beposted in the labs (which are often clutteredtherefore posing potential for hazard). Personalprotective equipment should be available androutinely used with special consideration given tobiological hazards and the facilities needed insuch areas. Visitors should be briefed on safety asa matter of routine. Overall, training andstructural issues related to safety matters mustbe embedded in the research culture and form anintegral part of facilities management anddevelopment.

10. PHYSICAL SCIENCES ANDMATHEMATICS


• The state of buildings is quite variable, fromvery new and state-of-the-art to adequateand some completely unfit for purpose.

• Space shortages and overcrowding, in newbuildings as well as old, call into question thefeasibility of doubling Ph.D. output within 7years. Overcrowding is evident equally inleading research centres and this is a barrierto the attraction of internationalresearchers.

• A lot of the equipment seen is old or on thepoint of obsolescence. Reviewersrecommended the introduction of amechanism for providing continuous accessto funds to renew and replace equipment.

• The lack of adequate numbers of highlyqualified technicians to operate andmaintain sophisticated equipment andresearch laboratories, and to train studentsin their use, is a major impediment to goodresearch and training. Reviewersrecommended the creation of new positionsof technicians, with advanced qualificationsoften to Ph.D. level. These positions need tobe permanent so that continuity and know-how is created and maintained.

• Enhancement of administrative support forresearchers is required.

• It should be ensured that future investmentbuilds on the excellent research groups andfacilities now in place so as to maximiseexisting infrastructure.

Summary of Findings


Accommodation conditions vary from poor to verygood, with many buildings operating at the limit oftheir capacity or beyond. There is little room forexpansion in any buildings seen. Many activitiesare spread between buildings and fragmentationof research groups is again occurring, even insome of the excellent new buildings.

44

Equipment

Much of the equipment seen is adequate but a lotis becoming dated and some is obsolete. Forexample, the chemistry department on one sitevisited has only one mass spectrometer which issix years old. There appears to be a problem withmaintenance budgets, and many pieces ofequipment do not have service contracts. Theabsence of funding for maintenance contracts notonly shortens the life of equipment but can lead toextended downtimes when a fault occurs.Research groups and departments need access toa regular source of funds for equipment renewaland replacement.


The situation in Ireland for access to highperformance computing is not consideredsatisfactory to support this discipline area.

Technical Support

The shortage, or complete absence in some cases,of highly qualified technical support to operateand maintain sophisticated equipment andresearch laboratories is a major weakness in thesystem. In their absence this function is usuallyassumed on a part-time basis by a Ph.D. student.This is unsatisfactory and inefficient, and meansthat equipment and laboratories are used lesseffectively than they should be and that expensiveequipment is not always properly maintained.

Management

Most sites visited did not appear to haveadministrative support for developing researchproposals or for writing regular reports on theprogress of on-going projects. In some casesadequate strategic planning and intellectual drivefor the research activities was missing.


Many research groups are aware of theadvantages of interdisciplinary research and ofthe role of physical proximity in encouraging it.This was particularly observed in the twoinstitutions visited. However the overcrowding inmany sites is an obstacle to achieving this.

Other Comments

In some sites the infrastructural barriers to top-class research were outweighed by other issues(e.g. gaps in funding, five-year programmes,ability to retain staff). But most sites, with theinfrastructural problems already identified, willfind it difficult to conduct leading research and toattract top researchers. On the other hand, ifthese problems are remedied, there is thepotential to generate first-class research in anumber of areas.Future investment should concentrate on buildingon those research facilities and teams which arenow in place, addressing the infrastructural issuesidentified, to move Ireland up to the next level inresearch.


RE

SEA

RC

H I

NF

RA

STR

UCT

UR

E I

N I

RE

LAN

DB

UIL

DIN

G F

OR

TO

MO

RR

OW

> CONTRIBUTION FROM THE BUSINESS SECTOR

45

46

1. INTRODUCTION

As part of the process of canvassing the views ofkey stakeholders about investment in researchinfrastructure, Forfás commissioned the CIRCAGroup Europe to undertake a survey of industry.The survey took place during September andOctober 2006. Although the scope of the surveywas limited by the overall time pressures of thereview, the findings appear to present a coherentand consistent view which it is unlikely would beradically different from those of a morecomprehensive study.

The survey consisted of:

• Telephone interviews with eighteen seniorexecutives in major multinationalcorporations with bases in Ireland and inselected indigenous small and mediumenterprises

• Discussions with over fifty industrialistsattending a half-day forum on 13 October2006, held to review and extend the findingsfrom the interviews.

This section presents a summary of the findingsfrom the CIRCA study. The full report is availableon the Forfás website.

2. OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS

There was general consensus that industrywelcomes the opportunity to engage with the HEAdirectly, to contribute to the development of theirstrategy and to build upon the strong sense ofcollaboration most sectors feel with the higher-education institutions.In the time available companies found it difficultto provide detailed responses under the variousresearch infrastructure headings. Industry wouldwelcome on-going consultation in future, in orderto build up a fully reasoned and articulate analysisof requirements. However it should be noted thatmany companies are entirely unaware of thefacilities which exist within the HE system andthat there is a need for a major rethink of policiesand programmes to develop HE/industrycooperation.As national research policy has increasinglyfocused on the higher-education sector as themajor driver of public-sector research, ratherthan other state or independent locations, thereis an increasing need to develop a higher-education research infrastructure which is opento industrial collaboration and is, to some extentat least, aligned with industrial developmentneeds. Industry has very few other options to turnto, within Ireland, for assistance withtechnological problems.There was also agreement that Ireland is facingmajor challenges as its cost base rises and otherlower cost, high-quality locations develop—Chinaand Eastern Europe for manufacturing, and East-Asia and Eastern Europe for software. Recognitionis now universal that we need to move to higheradded-value activities, R&D in particular, ifindustry is to survive and develop here. Achievingthis goal will only be possible if the major playersin the Irish R&D system—the higher-educationinstitutions and industry—are encouraged andenabled to work much more closely together.The views from industry were wide-ranging andcovered a number of issues relating to researchbesides infrastructure. In particular, it is theoverall research capability in the HE sector whichis of critical importance to industry. In section 3below the views expressed on researchinfrastructure are summarised, while section 4deals briefly with some of the wider issues raised.

RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE IN IRELAND - BUILDING FOR TOMORROWContribution from the Business Sector

47

3. INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS

General Comments

• Investing in research infrastructure is notonly investing in overall research priorities,it is also investing in ways in which fundedbuildings or equipment will be used: who willuse them, under what conditions and forwhat purposes. If we are to develop acoherent research infrastructure which willcontribute both to world-class academicresearch and to industrial development, it isessential that from the very beginning, weset up research infrastructure under themost appropriate governance model. Thismodel must seek to avoid the traditionaldifficulties of higher-education / industrycooperation.

• Government, higher-education institutionsand industry should jointly develop a numberof new approaches to the accommodationrequirements of research infrastructure. Forexample, there should be increased co-location of university and industry researchactivities; developing new joint industry-academic research locations, preferablyclose to relevant industrial clusters. Theaccommodation and space shortages onsome campuses could be an incentive todevelop new campuses with industryinvolvement.

• There is currently no career structure foroperatives of vital equipment in many HEfacilities and consequently there is a highturnover of these staff. Especially inuniversities, the loss of an experiencedtechnician can halt research overnight. Astrong, highly visible career structure for

research technicians is seen as an importantelement in overcoming such difficulties.

• Any piece of capital equipment must comewith a running cost budget. Without such abudget the chances of it being usedefficiently will be low.

• Research into medical devices and products(a major industry sector in Ireland) ishampered by the low involvement of medicaldoctors and hospitals in research, incontrast with other developed economies.Hospitals must be developed as an explicitpart of the research infrastructure.

• Access to large-scale international researchfacilities—most obviously in areas such asengineering test-beds and the use ofsynchrotron beam-time—can be problematicfor some companies. A joint industry-university approach to joining and utilisingsuch facilities was proposed.

48

Specific Requirements

The table below presents a synopsis of the specificresearch infrastructure requirements of each of themajor research-performing industrial sectors.


Sector Industry Requirements

ICT—Software • Major Test-Bed facilities for both testing software and for allied research.• Training facilities for high-skilled programmers in multi-core, parallel and GRIDS environments.• Duplication of Cork’s National Software Centre in other cities

ICT—Hardware • Advanced facility for manufacture at “nano” level• Advanced facility for manufacture at “micro” level

Pharmaceuticals • Greater focus on post-discovery phase research infrastructure: formulation, manufacturability,etc. (including chemistry).

• Better GLP/GMP facilities• Develop critical mass• Need multi-disciplinary input

Instruments & medical devices • Clinical Research Centre / Hospital Infrastructure for device trials.• Pre-Clinical Animal Testing Facilities / Cadaver Facilities• Bioinformatics• Gene Bank / BioBanks• Biomaterials • Technology platforms• Research collaboration with other sectors such as wireless and ICT

Food and drink • Food packaging / new materials research centre• Food flavours / organic chemistry research centre• Food processing engineering facilities• Seafood research centre• World class Centres of excellence

Machinery and equipment • An advanced facility for engineering manufacture.• High Temperature coating facilities• A facility for electrochromic technology

Energy, Environment & Transport This is an area which has not been covered but deserves formal recognition in the consultationprocess and in considering industry’s research requirements. Much of the benefits of energy, environment and transport research will accrue to companies inother sectors which implement the findings of the R&D. As such there is need for a broad basedindustry consultation process, including firms from this sector, but with a much stronger userrepresentation. A recent CIRCA survey of VC companies in one of these sectors shows relativelylittle or no new-company activity.

Services / Financial Services • Development of an International Centre for Research in Financial Services• A strong demarcating and strengthening of the opportunities for research support for financial

services within the existing system.

49

4. OTHER INDUSTRY COMMENTS

Facilitating Industry—HE Co-operation

• The time period required for companies torealise a net return on their time, money andeffort in university cooperation is long. The3-year research project is seen by some as apoor basis for working with universities (andretaining good researchers). Examination ofa 5 or 7-year ‘research programme’ modelshould be undertaken.

• Further, the traditional, incremental step-by-step approach to cooperation withuniversities is coming to be seen, by some,as inadequate in the current global R&Denvironment. There was a need to developR&D mechanisms that will support majorcompanies entering quickly into long term,intense, cooperative relationships withspecialist university groups. This quantumjump in the potential duration and size ofcooperative partnerships needs to berecognised by government and supported.

• There is a major need for government R&Dprogrammes which support the integrationof university and industry research. Theprogrammes of the National Institutes ofHealth and the Small Business InnovationResearch (SBIR) programme in the U.S. aregood examples of what can be achieved.

• Current ‘Industrial Parks’ should bedesignated ‘Science & Technology Parks’ andupgraded. The regional developmentdimension of industrial parks should bereinforced in the new science parks. In anapproach somewhat in line with the CreditUnions, local government, industry andcommunities should contribute to and begiven a stake in the Science Parks. Theoverall vision is that “research is carried outto create value for all the stakeholders”—notjust for the academic community. Thebusiness plans of those seeking researchinvestment should reflect this jointcommunity approach.

This said, it was recognised that the Science Parksmust be become specialised. They must avoid thecurrent criticism of universities in which there is afailure to prioritise research areas—and atendency that everyone tries to do everything.

Prioritising Investment

Given that there will be far greater demand forinvestment than the funds available, the criteriafor selection of projects / infrastructure will be ofmajor importance. Here there was strongagreement on the factors which should bedecisive.

• A world-class researcher / research team.MNCs have a global reach in terms ofcollaborating with university research. Formost, researchers in Cambridge or Torontoare as accessible as those in Cork. Equally,whether the research is in quantum bits orfood flavours, basic or applied research—‘world-class’ is what companies seek. Giventhe presence of world-leading MNCs inIreland, parallel world-leading researchshould be built up. Here obtaining the rightindividuals to run the research is moreimportant than the actual infrastructureitself. The performance track record of theindividual seeking the infrastructuralinvestment—and his/her history of workingwith industry—will be central. Specific pointsraised include:

• The principal researcher or researchgroup should have a good track record inmaking a return on previous investment— whether through collaboration,spinning-off companies or IPR activities.

• Applications from a joint university /industry (or industry federation)partnership should be given specialconsideration. However the use ofindustry as a “fig leaf” by universitiesmust be guarded against. Whereproposed facilities make claims ofrelevance to industry groups or sectors,the target industries must be explicitlyinvolved in assessing the relevance ofthe investment. Further, where largecapital investment is to be made,industry representatives should be

50

involved in assessing the suitability ofthe equipment and its layout to theintended research.

• Critical Mass: Achieving critical mass isimportant, though it will vary depending onthe area of research. There are too manysub-critical research activities currentlysupported in Ireland. While some progresshas been made, there is still far too muchunnecessary duplication.

• Specialisation: Related to the above point,Ireland cannot be world-class in all areas ofresearch and there is a need to specialise incertain topics in which Irish researchers canreasonably develop world-class competenceand which are also likely to be of economicrelevance to Ireland.

• The development of a Medical Devices“Knowledge Triangle”: possibly the moststriking deficit in the medical devices’longer-term research infrastructure inIreland are structures which bring clinicians,industry and universities together toconsider and act on research needs. Criticalto this will be the development of hospitals—and medical doctors—as an explicit part ofresearch infrastructure.

• The creation of long-term desirable careersand career structures for those working inthe research sector. Currently careeroptions for those working in universityresearch are weak. Again the developmentof new models of university-industryresearch governance could make a majorcontribution to developing careerstructures.

Software Research

In considering investment, it is critical that thevery particular nature of software researchinfrastructure is recognised:

• Outside a small number of areas, such astest-beds and grids, the traditional modes ofhigh investment in capital equipment are notthat relevant.

• In addition, the major role of the softwareindustry in convergent technologies and insectors (finance, logistics, etc.) outside thetraditional core software sectors should betaken into account.

Software research infrastructure is focused onpeople, space and their interactions and increating what some have called a “research andinnovation ecology”:

• In terms of people, there is a need forfacilities which will permit major trainingand updating of large number of softwarepersonnel who will undertake research /development work in the core softwareindustries and the major software userindustries: banking, manufacturing, etc.

• In terms of space, there is need for a numberof large, serviced and flexible spaces aroundthe country in which university research,development and specialist users can cometogether to develop an innovation ecology.The co-location of industry and universityresearchers is critical for developingcutting-edge research, if the research is tohave a chance of being commercialised.Software has a half-life of probably five orsix months, so that by the time it overcomesthe barriers to exit from a university and hasbecome ‘industrially hardened’, it standslittle chance of commercial success.


RE

SEA

RC

H I

NF

RA

STR

UCT

UR

E I

N I

RE

LAN

DB

UIL

DIN

G F

OR

TO

MO

RR

OW

51

> DATA ANDINFORMATION ON EXISTINGINFRASTRUCTURE

52

RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE IN IRELAND - BUILDING FOR TOMORROWData and Information on Existing Infrastructure

Associated with this review, the HEA initiated astudy to establish the status of the existingresearch infrastructure within the higher-education system. The study consisted of a surveydesigned to establish a Capital ResearchInfrastructure Database. A comprehensive set ofsurvey documentation was issued to 24 higher-education institutions; of these, 24 institutions (7Universities, 14 Institutes of Technology, and 3other higher-education institutions) completedand returned the survey documentation to theHEA. This database served as a key resource forinforming the 2006 Research InfrastructureReview.

Categorisation of research space is represented inthe pie chart below. This chart represents anapproximation of the proportion of research spaceoccupied by researchers in higher educationinstitutions in Ireland. It was generated on thebasis of information submitted to the HEA as atAugust 2006. In many cases interdisciplinaryresearch can be categorised into multipledisciplines, in this representation, however, theprincipal discipline area is selected for illustrativepurposes only.

Equipment and Specialised Facilities

Information on items of research equipment wassubmitted by higher education institutions as partof the review. Key examples of those items,costing over €100K is summarised in Table 1below. In addition a summary of a number ofspecialised facilities that now exist withinresearch facilities in Irish higher-educationinstitutions is given in Table 2 below. These lists ofequipment and facilities are not exhaustive butserve to illustrate the current situation (as atAugust 2006).

Research Space in Higher-EducationInstitutions in Ireland categorised intoresearch discipline areas.

Engineering

Humanities & Social Sciences Biological & Medical Sciences

Physical Sciences & Mathematics

Computer sciences

Earth, Atmospheric, and Ocean sciencesAgricultural Sciences

Type or Discipline Examples* Typical Approximate Unit or System Cost

Bioscience—Agriculture Food Processing equipment: Microbrewery Total cost €8,000,000analytical equipment, Processing equipment, Dairy equipment, Packaging equipment , Bakery

Biosciences—Molecular Biology DNA sequencers (9) , Robot for DNA arrays (5), Scanner for Systems up to €360,000arrays (3), WAVE nucleic acid analyser (1), Affymetrix system (3), Real time PCR (5), Genomics Software

Biosciences – Clinical Gentra Autopure Purification systems €2,200,000Ultrasound System €201,000X-ray system €150,000Physiology movement analysis system €115,000

Biosciences—Protein analysis High-throughput protein crystallisation system €1,298,000Auto High-throughput Antibody Isolation System €931,000ProteinChip Reader €193,000

Biosciences—Proteomics Peptide synthesisers and sequencers, Proteomics , €100,000 to €542,000Analyser System Supply of Protein Chip

Biosciences—Imaging Micro CT scanner €180,0007T MRI Scanner – small bore €1,150,0003T MRI Scanner - whole body €1,480,000Phosphoimager/flourescence imager, €127,000SGI (Silicon Graphics) high resolution imaging systems €650,000 to €905,000

Biosciences—Cell biology Cellomics Kinetic Scan system €200,000& Microbiology Microphotometry Analysis System €146,000

Laser microdissection microscope €135,000Platelet Aggregation Analyzer (PAP) €154,000High Performance Flow Cytometers (10) €100,000 to €390,000Ultracentrifuges(~5) €100,000Microbiology Bioreactor €127,000Ultracut Cryostat €108,000Densitometer €280,000Small animal in vivo imaging system €229,000

Nanofabriaction and Dual beam FIB (focused ion beam) €2,000,000Nanotechnology Focused Ion Beam Milling System €768,000

X-ray microtomography €900,000Molecular Beam Epitaxy €388,000Physical Property Measurement System for magnetism (PPMS) €367,000Nanolithography system €330,000Shamrock Sputtering System €250,000Magnetometer Systems €245,000Electron Beam Lithography System (2) €222,000Pulsed laser systems €200,000Optical Equipment (several systems) €100,000 to €127,000Multibeam Sonar System €330,000

53

Table 1. Items of equipment valued at over €100K.This list is not exhaustive but serves to illustrate key acquisitions. Numbers in brackets are approximatenumber of items valued over €100K, similar items of lower specification and cost are not listed here.

54


Type or Discipline Examples* Typical Approximate Unit or System Cost

Engineering Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) prototyping system €370,000Nanoindenter €250,000Particle Image velocimetry €225,000Multiaxial Testing Machine €211,000Axial Torsion Testing Machine €170,000PNA network analyser testing system €235,000Impact Testing Systems €100,000 to €165,000Micrometric Precision Measurement €159,000Corrosion testing Equipment €119,000Automated Manufacturing Line €367,000

Analytical instruments X-ray diffraction systems (4), Chromatography systems, €100,000 to €454,000Ellipsometer, Rheometers, CCD detectors, Micro Thermal Analyzers, Differential scanning calorimeters, Etching systems, Particle sizers

Biacore Biacore biomolecule interaction analysis systems (2) €189,000

High Performance HPC Opteron cluster €1,400,000Computing / ICT Wireless Testbed €100,000

Large Capacity Datasore €500,000IBM Computer system €127,000Gateway Servers (combined cost) €180,000

Lasers Lasers for multiple purposes including Femtosecond (2), €190,000 to €284,000Microbeam, Pulsed Laser Deposition System, Diode Pumped Solid State (DPSS) Laser, Excimer Laser Systems

Microscope Including Atomic force (2), Scanning tunnelling (4), €200,000 to €480,000Scanning electron (9), Scanning probe (3), confocal laser scanning (12), Transmission electron (2), Raman, Compucyte Laser Scanning Cytometer , Fluorescent (2), Light (2)

Spectrometers Including Mass spec (27), NMR (8), Raman (2), Voyager DE €100,000 to €1,200,000PRO biospectrometry (2), MS Quattromicro System, Spectrofluorimeter , Photo-electron, wavelength dispersive, X-ray fluorescence (WDXRF), Spectroscopic ellipsomer, CD spectrometer, Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer Spectrometer (SMPS), IR, Raman, ICP-optical emission.

Earth, Atmospheric, Geophysics: Geometric Surveying System €186,000and Ocean Sciences Climate controlled Greenhouse €120,000

Low Speed Wind Tunnels €110,000Climatic Chamber €100,000

* numbers in brackets indicate multiple items costing over €100K in the data base.Source: Information submitted by institutions as part of the Research Infrastructure Review

Table 1. Continued

Discipline Type Institution

Biosciences—Cell National Cell & Tissue Culture Centre: GMP DCUfacility with Class 10,000 Clean rooms, Class 10,000 Radioactive Lab. Category III laboratory for Pathogens NUIM, TCDSmooth Muscle Research Centre including physiology and imaging. Dundalk IT

Biosciences—Molecular Biology Proteomics, Genomics and Bioinformatics capabilities UCD, RCSI, UCC, TCD, NUIG(robotics, scanners, etc)Gene Vector Core Facility including GMP facility NUIGX-ray Crystallography Facility TCDPeptide Synthesis RCSI

Biosciences —Analytical Biacore DCU, NUIG

Biosciences —Agriculture Food Processing Facility UCC

Biosciences Botanic gardens, Herbarium and Plant Molecular Analysis Lab. TCD

Biosciences—in vivo Specific Pathogen Free preclinical facilities TCD, NUIM, UCD, UCCClean Conventional preclinical facilities TCD, UCD, NUIG, UCCin vivo imaging apparatus UCC

Biosciences— Clinical Clinical Research Facilities at Beaumont Hospital; St. Vincent’s RCSI, UCDand Mater Hospitals

Maternity Research Facilities UCCClinical Testing Suite for Oral Health Research and National Archives of Oral health data TCDPicture Archiving and Communication Systems (PACs)

for diagnostic imaging UCD

Pharmaceutical Pharmaceutical Formulation Pilot Plant IT Tallaght

Pharmaceutical Pharmaceutical Technology Centre TCD

Nanotechnology Microelectronics Technology Laboratory including fabrication room, TCDclean room, photolithography room and advanced analytical instrumentationNanotechnology facility, vibration free building with clean TCDrooms, advanced instrumentation (under construction)Nanocharacterisation laboratories including Molecular TCDBeam Epitaxy Growth facility Nanomaterial processing and characterisation facility, DCUplasma optical characterisation, plasma etch laboratory and plasma diagnostics laboratoryLaser Applications Facility including femtosecond, nanosecond NUIGand excimer lasersClean Rooms (class 1000/ class 10,000) TCD, DCU, AIT, NUIG, UCCNanofabrication Facility including E-Beam Lithography Laboratory, UCCcolloidal photonic crystal growth/patterning and characterisation laboratories

55

Table 2. Examples of Specialised Research Facilities in Higher-Education InstitutionsThis list was compiled using information submitted by institutions and is not exhaustive. It serves todemonstrate capabilities that currently exist in the broad discipline areas listed.

56


Discipline Type Institution

Materials & Engineering Surface Science Facility including focus ion beam milling facility ULSemiconductor analysis and fabrication facility ULConstruction Materials and Structural elements research facility TCDMaterial Processing Facility including ceramics characterisation, DCUsurface coating technologies, Composites Research Centre ULBiomedical Engineering: Implant Testing facility TCDBiomedical Engineering Centre: Polymer Processing, Analysis NUIGand Mechanical Testing Facility.

Microscopy Advanced Microscopy Research Facilities severalAnalytical Specialist Analytical Facilities incl. Optical Characterisation several

and Spectroscopic Facility

Earth, Atmospheric, and Green Building— controlled environment UCCOcean Sciences GIS (Geographic Information System) facility NUIG, UCC

Geocomputation facility NUIMMesopheric Cloud Physics analysis facility NUIGEnvironmental Civil Engineering with Wind Tunnel and Tidal Basin NUIGMace Head Atmospheric Research Facility NUIG

Marine Fish Hatchery and Fish Cultivation Stations NUIGCarron Research Outstation NUIGCoastal and Marine facility including cetacean observation UCCequipment and survey boatsVirtual Underwater Laboratory and High Precision Deep ULOcean Mapping SystemNational Maritime College Facilities CITMarine Research Vessels (access)

Computer Sciences High Performance Computing Facilities / Grid Computing DIAS, UCC, TCD, UCD. NUIGOptical Communications Facility DCULocalisation Research Centre ULVirtual Reality Visualisation Facility TCDHolographic Image Processing Facility NUIMAnechoic Chamber UL

Social Sciences Irish Social Science Data Archive (ISSDA) UCDIrish Elections Data Archive, Expert Surveys Data Archive, TCD, NUIMSpatial Data Archive

Psychology Computerised Digital Tracking System and related apparatus NUIMfor behavioural studiesMulti-modal human-computer interaction laboratory NUIM

Arts & Humanities Extensive Manuscript Collections TCDCopyright library (UK & Ireland) TCD

Source: Information submitted by institutions as part of the Research Infrastructure Review

Table 2. Continued

RE

SEA

RC

H I

NF

RA

STR

UCT

UR

E I

N I

RE

LAN

DB

UIL

DIN

G F

OR

TO

MO

RR

OW

> APPENDICES

57

58

1. BACKGROUND TO THE REVIEW

Significant investment in research infrastructurein the higher-education sector will be made incoming years as part of the ‘Strategy for Science,Technology and Innovation’ recently approved byGovernment.This investment should be informed by the viewsof key stakeholders so as to maximise cohesionand synergy in the development of a stronghigher-education and research system whichcontributes to social well-being and economicdevelopment.A review of the strengths and weaknesses of theexisting research infrastructure, together with anassessment of how best to develop the necessaryplatform infrastructures, was carried out by theHigher Education Authority and Forfás as animportant basis for informing future investment.The definition of infrastructure in the context ofthis review is that used by the European StrategyForum on Research Infrastructure (ESFRI),namely:The tools that provide essential services to theresearch community for basic or appliedresearch. They may concern the whole range ofscientific and technological fields, from socialsciences to astronomy, going through genomicsor nanotechnologies. Examples include libraries,databases, biological archives, laboratories, cleanrooms, communication networks, researchvessels, satellite and aircraft observationfacilities, coastal observatories, telescopes,synchrotrons, accelerators. They may be "single-sited", "distributed", or "virtual". What we aredealing with are the necessary tools for thefuture to do research in many areas at the cuttingedge.The review will reflect, on behalf of keystakeholders, an agreed needs package for thedevelopment of national infrastructure(s). Thereview will have regard to more developedinfrastructure systems internationally andexamine ten discipline areas:- • Agricultural Sciences • Arts & Humanities• Biological Sciences• Computer Sciences• Engineering• Earth, Atmospheric, & Ocean Sciences• Media & Creative Arts• Medical Sciences• Physical Sciences and Mathematics• Psychology and Social Sciences

2. THE REVIEW PROCESS

The review process, as agreed by the HigherEducation Authority and by the Forfás Board,involved the following actions:• Reviewing the status of the Higher Education

Authority database of physical researchinfrastructure and updating it on the basis ofsubmissions from the institutions.Classifying the condition of existinginfrastructure as (a) good condition, (b) fitfor purpose, or (c) no longer adequate

• Conducting wide-ranging consultation withthe various stakeholders, including academicresearchers, representatives of higher-education institutions, the Royal IrishAcademy, research funding agencies, public-sector research organisations and industry

• Undertaking seventeen site inspections, bygroups of international experts, across asample of infrastructures

• Surveying the views of enterprise on higher-education research infrastructures. Eighteenresearch-performing companies wereinterviewed and a Forum to discuss the issuewas attended by over fifty industrialists

• A National Stakeholders’ Forum to hear thefindings from the site inspections and theindustry consultation, and to identify the keyissues to be addressed

• Preparing a report which would set out thestrengths, weaknesses and gaps in theexisting infrastructure as well asrecommendations for future investmentsand suggestions for greater utilisation ofexisting national and international researchfacilities on a multi-user basis.

RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE IN IRELAND - BUILDING FOR TOMORROWAppendices

> Appendix 1 Outline and Overview of the Review

59

3. GUIDANCE BY AN INTERNATIONALSTEERING COMMITTEE

An international steering committee, chaired byDr. Hans Chang, was appointed by the HEA andForfás to advise on the suitability of the reviewprocess and to oversee its implementation. Thecommittee held its first meeting in September2006. The committee attended the Stakeholders’Forum in October 2006 and listened to the viewsexpressed at the meeting.Based on the above inputs to the process, andtaking cognisance of a number of relevant recentreports (such as the HEA’s Strategy for Science,Technology and Innovation, 2006–2013) and ofthe work of the ESFRI, the steering committeeprepared a report.

60

Name Affiliation

Prof John W. Barrett Department of Mathematics, Imperial College London, UK.

Prof Michael Bøss Director of the Centre for Irish Studies Aarhus, Aarhus Universitet, Denmark.

Prof Jonathan M. Bull National Oceanography Centre, University of Southampton, UK.

Prof Ian Connerton Northern Foods Professor of Food Safety, University of Nottingham, UK.

Prof William Dawson Visiting Professor, School of Science and Mathematics, Sheffield Hallam University,UK.Formerly Research Director, Eli Lilly, UK.

Prof John Elliott Emeritus Professor of Education, Centre for Applied Research in Education, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.

Prof Marianne Elliott OBE, Professor of Modern History and Director of the Institute of Irish Studies, University ofLiverpool, UK.

Prof Chris L. J. Frid Chair of Marine Biology, University of Liverpool, UK.

Prof Peter J. Fryer School of Engineering, University of Birmingham, UK.

Prof David Harper School of Computing, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK.

Prof Brenda J. Howard MBE, Head of Site, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Lancaster, UK.

Prof Klaus Jung Head of the School of Fine Art, The Glasgow School of Art, UK.

Prof Ullrich Kockel Professor of Ethnology and Folk Life, University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, UK.

Prof Lin Li Chair of Laser Engineering, University of Manchester, UK.

Prof Peter Liss School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.

Prof Alan Michette Department of Physics, King’s College London, UK.

Prof Bill Milne Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, UK.

Prof Randall J. Mrsny Welsh School of Pharmacy, University of Wales, Cardiff, UK.Founder and Chief Scientific Officer, Trinity BioSystems, California, USA.

Prof David Nethercot OBE, Head of Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College London, UK.


> Appendix 2 List of International Site Visitors

61

Name Affiliation

Prof David Newby Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.

Prof Niels Ploug Director of Research Unit for Comparative Welfare Studies, Social Forsknings Instituttet, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Prof Gordon C. K. Roberts Henry Wellcome Laboratories of Structural Biology, University of Leicester, UK.

Prof Kevin J. Roberts Brotherton Professor of Chemical Engineering, University of Leeds, UK.

Prof W. James Stirling CBE, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research), Durham University, UK.

Mr Peter Stubley Assistant Director for Academic Services, University of Sheffield Library, UK.

Prof Peter Tyler Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, UK.

Prof Gert G. Wagner Head of the German Socio-Economic Panel Study, Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Berlin, Germany.

Dr Diego Walther Max Planck Institut für molekulare Genetik, Berlin, Germany.

Prof George Watson Emeritus Professor, Research Institute of Irish and Scottish Studies, University of Aberdeen, UK.

Prof Mark Welland Nanoscience Centre, University of Cambridge, UK.

Prof Lawrence Whalley Professor of Mental Health, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, UK.

Dr Bruce Whitelaw Head of Division of Gene Function and Development, Roslin Institute, Scotland, UK.

Prof David F. Williams Director, UK Centre for Tissue Engineering, University of Liverpool, UK.

Prof Eugene Wong Emeritus Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, USA.

63

Intel

Intertrade Ireland

Iona Technologies

IRCHSS

IRCSET

Irish Academy of Engineering

Irish Business and Employers’ Confederation

Irish Centre for Business Excellence

Irish History Online

Irish Medical Devices Association

Irish Medicines Board

Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association

Irish Research and Development Group

Irish Software Association

Irish Universities Association

Isotron Ireland Limited

Letterkenny Institute of Technology

Limerick Institute of Technology

Líonra

Lucent Technologies

Magna

Marine Institute

Mary Immaculate College, Limerick

Mater Dei Institute of Education

Medtronic

Merrion Pharmaceuticals

Mr. Crumb

National College of Art & Design

National College of Ireland

National Disability Authority

National University of Ireland, Galway

National University of Ireland, Maynooth

NeuroCure

Newport Pharmaceuticals Limited

Oracle Corporation

Ordnance Survey Ireland

Organon Ireland Limited

Original Solutions Limited

Pharmaceuticals Ireland

Respironics

Riverwest Technologies Ireland Limited

Roche Ireland Limited

Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland

Royal Irish Academy

Science Foundation Ireland

SIFCO Industries

SR Technics

St. Patrick’s College, Drumcondra

Stryker Instruments

The Irish Academy of Engineering

The University of Dublin (Trinity College)

The University of Limerick

Timoney Technology

Tridelta Plc

Tyndall National Institute

University College Cork

University College Dublin

Waterford Crystal Ltd

Waterford Institute of Technology

Wyeth

64

AIT Athlone Institute of Technology

AVC Audio Visual Connection

BMS Biological and Medical Science

CBE Commander of the Order of the British

Empire

CCD Charge-Coupled Device

CCTV Closed-Circuit Television

CERN Conseil Européen pour la Recherche

Nucléaire

CIT Cork Institute of Technology

COFORD National Council for Forest Research

and Development

COST European Cooperation in the field of

Scientific and Technical Research

CNEF Cross National Equivalent File

CRANN Centre for Research on Adaptive

Nanostructures and Nanodevices

CRF Clinical Research Facility

CSO Central Statistics Office

CT Computed Tomography

DCU Dublin City University

DDI Data Documentation Initiative

DIAS Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies

DIT Dublin Institute of Technology

DLIADT Dún Laoghaire Institute of Art,

Design and Technology

DMMC Dublin Molecular Medicine Centre

DNA Deoxyribonucleic Acid

DPSS Diode Pumped Solid State

ECRIN European Clinical Research

Infrastructure Network

EISCAT European Incoherent Scatter

EMBL European Molecular Biology Laboratory

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ERI Environmental Research Institute

ESA European Space Agency

ESEM Environmental Scanning Electron

Microscope

ESO European Southern Observatory

ESFRI European Strategy Forum on

Research Infrastructure

ESRF Economic and Social Research

Foundation

ESRI Economic and Social Research Institute

ESS European Social Survey

EU European Union

EUPRO European Union of Physics

Research Organisations

FÁS Foras Áiseanna Saothair

FETAC Further Education and Training

Awards Council

FIB Atrial Fibrillation / Focused Ion Beam

FOM Foundation for Fundamental Research

on Matter

FRS Fellow of the Royal Society

HEA Higher Education Authority

HE Higher Education

HEI Higher Education Institution


> Appendix 4 Abbreviations & Acronyms

65

HERD Higher Education Expenditure on

Research and Development

HPC High-Performance Computing

HR Human Resources

HRB Health Research Board

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GIS Geographic Information System

GLP Good Laboratory Practice

GMIT Galway–Mayo Institute of Technology

GMP Good Manufacturing Practice

GNP Gross National Product

ICHEC Irish Centre for High-End Computing

ICRIN Irish Computing Research

Infrastructure Network

ICPSR Inter-University Consortium for

Political

and Social Research

ICT Information and Communications

Technology

IDA Industrial Development Agency

IFSC International Financial Services Centre

IoT Institute of Technology

IPR Intellectual Property Rights

IRCHSS Irish Research Council for the

Humanities and Social Sciences

IRCSET Irish Research Council for Science,

Engineering and Technology

IReL Irish Research E-Library

ISSDA Irish Social Science Data Archive

IT Information Technology

ITB Institute of Technology, Blanchardstown

ITC Institute of Technology, Carlow

LIS Luxembourg Income Survey

LIT Limerick Institute of Technology

LYIT Letterkenny Institute of Technology

MNC Multi-national Corporation

MRI Magnetic Resonance Imaging

NCAD National College of Art and Design

NCG National Centre for Geocomputing

NCPST National Centre for Plasma Science

and Technology

NDRC National Digital Research Centre

NMR Nuclear Magnetic Resonance

NREN National Education and Research

66


Network

NUIG National University of Ireland, Galway

NUIM National University of Ireland, Maynooth

NWO Nederlandse Organisatie voor

Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek

OBE Order of the British Empire

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation

and Development

PACs Picture Archiving and Communication

Systems

PAP Platelet Aggregation Analyzer

PCR Polymerase Chain Reaction

PI Principal Investigator

PNA Peptide Nucleic Acid

PPMS Physical Property Measurement System

PRTLI Programme for Research in

Third-Level Institutions

PSE Physical Science and Engineering

R&D Research and Development

RCSI Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland

REMEDI Regenerative Medicine Institute

RIA Royal Irish Academy

S&T Science and Technology

SBIR Small Business Innovation

Research Programme

SCPR Social and Community Planning

Research

SEM Scanning Electron Microscope

SFI Science Foundation Ireland

SGI Silicon Graphics Inc.

SIF Strategic Innovation Fund

SLS Selective Laser Sintering

SMPS Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer

Spectrometer

SPF Specific Pathogen Free

SRIF Science Research Infrastructure Fund

SSH Social Science and Humanities

SSTI Strategy for Science, Technology

and Innovation

TCD Trinity College Dublin

TEAGASC Agriculture and Food Development

Authority

TEM Transmission Electron Microscope

UCC University College Cork

UCD University College Dublin

UK United Kingdom

UL University of Limerick

US / USA United States of America

VC Venture Capital

WDXRF Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray

Fluorescence

WIT Waterford Institute of Technology

> Appendix 4 Continued

67

> Appendix 5 Higher Education Authority Members

Name Professional Affiliation

Mr. Michael Kelly Chairman, HEA

Professor Sarah Moore Deputy Chairperson and Dean of Teaching and Learning, The University of Limerick

Professor Tom Boylan National University of Ireland, Galway

Dr. Maurice Bric Department of Modern History, University College Dublin

Dr. Thomas Cooke Head of Community Links Programme, Dublin Institute of Technology

Cllr. Maria Corrigan Member, Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown County Council

Mr. Michael Cotter School of Education Studies, Dublin City University

Mr. Martin Cronin Chief Executive, Forfás

Ms. Doreen Delahunty Business Woman

Mr. Louis Dockery Solicitor

Ms. Sheila Drumm Principal, Dominican College, Sion Hill, Co. Dublin

Dr. Honor Fagan Department of Sociology, National University of Ireland, Maynooth

Mr. Colm Hamrogue President of the Union of Students in Ireland

Ms. Carol Herron Home School Community Co-ordinator, Co. Cavan VEC

Dr. Pat Kelleher Former Director of Cork Institute of Technology

Mr. Patrick J. Kirby Group Commercial Director, Alphyra

Professor Elizabeth Meehan Former Head, Institute of Governance, Queen’s University Belfast

Professor Ciarán Murphy Department of Accounting, Finance and Information Systems, University College Cork

68

Documents

RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE IN IRELAND- BUILDING FOR … · 2018-01-17 · aquatic microbiological ecology. Dr. Pauli has been a member of several Nordic and European committees. She