> Table of Contents

FOREWORD

3

BIOGRAPHIES OF THE INTERNATIONAL STEERING COMMITTEE

5PART 1

9

Report of the International Steering Committee

PART 2921

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

1

RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE IN IRELAND - BUILDING FOR TOMORROW

2

> Foreword
In early summer 2006, the Higher Education
Authority (HEA) and Forfás agreed to conduct a
review of the research infrastructure in Ireland.
The purpose of the review was to internationallybenchmark the research infrastructure in thehigher-education sector in particular and to
identify gaps in the national platform of research
infrastructure, which could be addressed in the
short to medium term. The review was conducted
mindful of the goals, objectives and enhanced
investment proposed in the Government’s
Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation,
2006–2013 (SSTI) published in June, and of the
new National Development Plan 2007–2013 (NDP).
Review Process

A key feature of the process was the appointmentof an independent international Steering
Committee, which had oversight of thecomprehensive process review of research
infrastructures in ten broad disciplinary areas
covering the spectrum of research activity in
Ireland. The review included the preparation of adatabase of the existing infrastructure in thehigher education sector, which built upon earlier
work of the Capital Review and Prioritisation
Group (‘Kelly Review’—September 2004). A
consultation questionnaire was prepared andsubmissions were sought from a range ofstakeholders. An advertisement was also placed in
the national press welcoming submissions from all
those 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 been
made by researchers, higher-education
institutions, funders, policy bodies, government
agencies and departments to provide detailed
submissions in support of this exercise in a short
time-frame.

In addition, thirty-four international experts
conducted visits across a sample of research
infrastructures in the higher education sector. In
the region of 50 per cent of all research
infrastructure was visited. These visits provided
the independent international benchmark for our
research infrastructure and were invaluable to theprocess. We sincerely thank those international
experts who gave of their time and expertise to
assist us with this important national exercise.
A special workshop was organised to obtain inputs
from the business and enterprise sector withknowledge of the existing research infrastructurebase. There was a high level of congruence
between the views of the enterprise sector on key
gaps and needs, and that of the international
reviewers.
The outcomes from the site visits and theemerging findings from the process were
presented and discussed at a specially convened
Forum at Croke Park in late October. This event
provided an opportunity for the international
Steering Committee to get feedback and engage
with the Irish research community in advance ofthe conclusion of the process.
Findings and Conclusions

In short, the Steering Group’s key finding is that
notwithstanding the significant investment offunds in research infrastructure since 1998, andthe remarkable transformation of the Irish
research landscape since that time, weaknesses
exist 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 enhanced
investment in R&D announced by the Government
in June 2006 under the SSTI if Ireland is toachieve its potential.

3

RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE IN IRELAND - BUILDING FOR TOMORROW4MICHAEL KELLY CHAIRMAN, HEA

MARTIN CRONIN CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, FORFAS

Encouragingly the Steering Group’s report has
demonstrated that there is sufficient strength inmany areas to be used as a foundation on which tobuild critical mass but importantly raises
concerns in a number of instances where there
has been a lack of investment in spite of thestrategic importance of the area nationally. The
biosciences area has received significant
investment 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 facilities
need to be developed in way that promotes
collaboration in research and excellence inscholarship. Similarly, there is urgent need for
expansion and upgrade of the HEANet researchsupport infrastructure to continue to support theever more complex needs of researchers.

in 2007 on a number of areas due for further
examination.

There are of course also areas where the need
was not as clear from the range of stakeholders
and 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 stakeholder
consultation will be necessary. This review is thestart of an on-going process and subsequent
revisions will be vital to better define priorities
for sectors or cross-cutting themes identified forfurther investigation. Decisions will be made earlyThis broad review of Ireland’s research
infrastructure needs, and any future review, will
also have to be cognisant of developments andopportunities at the European level, whilst alsobuilding a strong national infrastructure which will
attract and retain quality researchers.
Finally on behalf of the HEA and Forfás, we would
like to express our gratitude to the members of
the Steering Committee, Professor Ken Pounds,
Professor Roger Jowell, Dr. Anneli Pauli and Ms
Eeva Ikonen, and in particular to the Chairman of
the Group, Dr. Hans Chang. They have completed adifficult task in a limited period of time. Thanks
also to Dr. Tom Higgins, who was the Secretary to
the 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 key
guiding document for forthcoming cycles of the
PRTLI and will be presented to Government
through the implementation structures for the
SSTI. We look forward to working with all
stakeholders in moving forward to establish astrong research infrastructure for Ireland.
Michael Kelly / Martin Cronin

> >BIOGRAPHIES OF THE
INTERNATIONALSTEERING COMMITTEERESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE IN IRELAND
BUILDING FOR TOMORROW

5

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

DR. HANS CHANG CHAIRMAN

6

Dr. Hans Chang is Director of the Foundation for
Fundamental Research on Matter (FOM). FOM isthe national coordinating research organization in
the field of physics, mainly financed by the Dutch
national research council, NWO. The organisation
runs four national laboratories and also acts as afunding agency for physics projects executed in
the science departments of Dutch universities.
Hans Chang holds a Ph.D. in physics (condensed
matter, 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 national
science 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. He
publishes regularly on science policy matters.
He was the inaugural Chairman of the European
Union of Physics Research Organisations(EURPRO)—a union of the physics divisions ofEuropean national research councils; the first
Chairman of the COST technical committee on
physics, a Vice-Chairman of the OECD Global
Science Forum, and the inaugural Chairman of theEuropean Strategy Forum on Research
Infrastructures (ESFRI). Within these bodies hecontinues to serve as the Dutch delegate. He has
been a member of international panels evaluating
research agencies and he is the Dutch delegate inseveral other international scientific bodies.

PROFESSOR KENNETH POUNDS, CBE

Professor Kenneth Alwyne Pounds, CBE, FRS is
Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University ofLeicester.
He was born in Bradford, Yorkshire, and gained his
B.Sc. and Ph.D. from University College London. He
then moved to the University of Leicester as an
Assistant Lecturer in 1960. He became Deputy
Director 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 in
1974. His research is in the area of active galaxies,
and one of his many discoveries is that black holes
are common in the universe.
Ken Pounds became Professor of Space Physics at
the University of Leicester in 1973. He wasappointed Head of the Department of Physics in
1986, and the following year he took the decision
to merge the Physics and the Astronomy
Departments to create the present Department of
Physics 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 Chief
Executive of the newly-formed Particle Physics
and Astronomy Research Council, 1994–1998,
following the restructuring of the ResearchCouncils. He then returned to the University ofLeicester as Head of Department until his
retirement in 2002. He remains active in the
Department as a Research Fellow.
Ken Pounds was elected a Fellow of the Royal
Society in 1981, and received a CBE in 1984. Heholds five honorary doctorates, including the rare
distinction of an honorary degree from his own
institution, the University of Leicester (2005).

PROFESSOR ROGER JOWELL, CBE

Professor Roger Jowell is a British academic
social scientist. He is a Research Professor at City
University London from where he heads theCentre for Comparative Social Surveys. The Centre
houses the 30-nation European Social Survey, amulti-funded European time series, which heinitiated and still coordinates. Prior to joining City
University he was the founder-Director of the
National Centre for Social Research, now Britain’s
largest non-profit research institute which heheaded for over 30 years.
An elected member of the International Statistical
Institute and a founding Academician of the U.K.
Academy of Social Sciences, he was awarded a
CBE in 2001 for services to social science. He is
also a recent Vice-President of the U.K.’s Royal
Statistical Society and a Descartes Prize Laureate
in 2005 “for excellence in collaborative scientificresearch”.
His primary research interests are in social andpolitical attitudes and survey methodology. His
writing has focused primarily on Britain’s andEurope’s changing social condition, and his
publications include a text-book on survey
methods, eighteen edited books on changes in
British social attitudes, and four co-authoredbooks on British electoral behaviour.

DR. ANNELI PAULI

Since 2001, Dr. Anneli Pauli has been VicePresident of the Academy of Finland, responsible
for matters concerning science policy and funding
as well as for international cooperation. Before
that she worked as Secretary General of the
Research Council for Environment and Natural
Resources, and also had responsibility for the
implementation and development of the Finnish
Centre of Excellence Programmes. Dr. Paulicompleted her doctoral thesis in 1994 at the
University 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 ERANET project BONUS for the Baltic Sea Science
Network of Funding Agencies, and member of theOECD Global Science Forum and its Steering
Committee on Science Education. Within the EU
4th and 5th Framework Programmes, she has beena member of the management committee of the
programmes on environmental research. For many
years, Dr. Pauli was also active in the Joint
Committee of the Nordic Natural Science ResearchCouncils. In addition, Dr. Pauli works in numerous
national committees dealing with science andtechnology policy.

7

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

MS. EEVA IKONENASSOCIATE STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBER

8

Ms. Eeva Ikonen is a Senior Science Adviser at the
Academy of Finland and a Member of the ESFRI
Executive Board since 2005. She has lengthy andwide experience in Finnish research and highereducation policy, both at the ministerial level andin the funding agency (Academy of Finland) for
basic research, as well as in university
administration. Her expertise in management andadministration has been put to good use in the
Research 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 when
the 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 Science
Policy Council of the European Space Agency,
1995–1998; and the Representative of the Ministryof Education on the Advisory Board for Space
Research in Finland, 1992–1995. Ms. Ikonen has
also been a member of the EU Framework
Programme committees, and of expert groups forthe training and mobility of researchers and forinfrastructures.

> PART 1
REPORT OF THE
INTERNATIONALSTEERING COMMITTEERESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE IN IRELAND
BUILDING FOR TOMORROW

9

RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE IN IRELAND - BUILDING FOR TOMORROW
Report of the International Steering Committee> Executive Summary

10

Our task has been to review the status of research
infrastructure in the higher-education sector in
Ireland and make recommendations for future
support. We have received reports from site visits
and had oral and written evidence from across thesector.

Building on the progress to date will require the Irish
authorities to balance several competing and criticaldemands on new investment funds. These cover:We have found a research system in impressive
transition as a result of the major injection in funds
over the past few years. This investment is beginningto transform the research base in Ireland, supportinga growing influence and recognition in the now-global
research enterprise.

•

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

••

Consolidation of the investments recently
made so as to ensure their full and effective
exploitation
Broadening the base of research in the Irish
higher-education sector
Investing for rapid development in specific,
high-priority areas

Accordingly we recommend for consideration by therelevant authorities:
•

•

•

•

A restructured PRTLI that will accommodate
support for new proposals and for existing
investments, as well as for pre-determined
infrastructures, disciplines or areas, on an open
competitive basis
Re-instatement of the mechanism formerly
operated by the HEA for replacement, updating
and renewal of research equipment
Discussion within research groups, and with the
HEA and Forfás, of both the general and specificissues (identified in Section 3 below) pertaining
to the development of proposals for futurerounds of infrastructure investment
Establishment of a systematic and periodic
process for infrastructure reviews in the future

> Main Report
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 research
infrastructures in the Irish higher-education
sector. Our review is based on findings from site
visits, carried out by international experts, to across-section of higher-education institutions; onsurvey results, and on inputs from funders, policy
bodies and other stakeholders in the researchdomain in Ireland.
We particularly appreciate the reports of the site
visit teams and the contributions from
representatives of a wide range of research andresearch-related bodies in attendance at a
specially-organised Consultation Forum at Croke
Park 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 existing
infrastructures that are most in need of attention
in forthcoming rounds of national infrastructure
funding 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 in
facilitating our work and the highly professionalmanner in which this assistance was provided.
The Committee comprised:
Dr. Hans Chang, Director of the Dutch physics

research organisation, FOM, and first Chairman of
the European Strategy Forum on Research
Infrastructures (ESFRI).
Professor Ken Pounds, Emeritus Professor of
Physics, University of Leicester and former Chief
Executive of the U.K. Particle Physics andAstronomy Research Council.
Professor Roger Jowell, Head of the Centre
for Comparative Social Surveys, City University,
London.

Dr. Anneli Pauli, Vice President (Research),
Academy of Finland, Finnish ESFRI delegate.
Ms. Eeva Ikonen (Associate member), Senior
Science Advisor, Academy of Finland, ESFRI Board
member and Finnish delegate.

In order to meet the schedule established by the
Irish authorities, our examination had to beundertaken within an unusually constrained timeframe. Thus while we have been able to address
our set agenda and make specificrecommendations, we feel that there are otherissues that would benefit from consultation within
the various research groups and stakeholder
communities in Ireland. These are identified in ourreport and we commend them for further
discussion and analysis.
We have adopted the broadly based ESFRI
definition of infrastructure.2 This covers both
physical facilities and equipment, including theassociated human resources, as well as the soft
infrastructure (collections, databases, archives,
networks, processes etc) and includes the support
personnel and services required for exploitationof infrastructure.
We have been apprised of government ambitions
for Irish research, as expressed in recent public
policy documents, and we applaud these. The
challenges are formidable, but not beyond
achievement. We hope that the outcome of thisinitial and broadly-based review will be of help.
However we believe that a more detailed
examination and evaluation of requirements will
be necessary, sector by sector, to ensure that theessential further investments are soundly based.
We recommend the establishment of systematicand periodic review processes for research
infrastructure in the future.
Finally we wish to express our strongly-held view
that, in any discussion about infrastructure
metrics and deficits, it is critical that the focus ison quality rather than quantity. Academic
research is now a highly competitive global
enterprise and requires high-quality performance.
Only the best research is good enough and, ofcourse, the best research and education require afirst-rate research infrastructure.

1

Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation 2006–2013 (Government of Ireland, 2006)

2

European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures, European Roadmap for Research Infrastructures Report 2006
(Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2006).

11

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

2. THE STORY SO FARThe Committee is aware that it is examining awork in progress.

12

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 now
underway. The commitment was first given
expression with the launch of the Programme for
Research in Third-Level Institutions (PRTLI) in
1998, which was a landmark event. Subsequentfunding through this mechanism alone has
provided in excess of €600 million, largely forsupport of new research infrastructure. We findevidence that this injection, together with new
funding following the establishment of Science
Foundation Ireland (SFI) and the two new
Research Councils, is dramatically changing the
research landscape in Ireland.
Higher-education research infrastructure in
Ireland in 1998 and prior to the PRTLI, wascharacterised by chronic public under-investment
and a consequent heavy reliance on support fromthe rest of Europe. We were told that researchers
had 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 unknown
for researchers to have to shift fields andspecialties more than once in order to qualify forfunding. As a result, the direction of research in
Ireland in this period was inchoate and set moreby international agendas than by domestic
priorities. Of necessity, Irish academic research
was opportunistic rather than strategic in its
direction. In effect, much depended on the ‘lone
scholar’ model of research. There was inadequate
opportunity for planning or priority setting or for
strategy formulation and little necessity for aplanned approach anyway, given the paucity ofnational funding available. As their counterpart
institutions in Europe and beyond moved
progressively towards a more professional andstrategic basis for research investment, the Irish
institutions were falling well behind. The
institutions themselves had too little influence on
the 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 international
competitiveness.4 Based on international
comparators, PRTLI-funded researchers were
found to be producing excellent work of a higher
standard than that of non-PRTLI-funded
researchers. 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

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 by
Banda in 2004. Similarly whilst, pre-1998, only
two institutions had a senior designated VicePresident or Dean for Research, seven such
posts 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 stronger
interdisciplinary
andinter-institutional
collaboration, concluding that the PRTLI wastransforming the higher-education researchlandscape in Ireland.

compete internationally in many fields. In
addition Irish research groups are more
attractive international partners and are more
pro-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 as
there is still much to do.

Based on the findings presented to us, we are
persuaded that the improvements noted byBanda and his team in 2004 are continuing andbecoming embedded in Ireland’s researchsystem. Today, as a result of the infrastructure
injection beginning in 1998, the situation has
been substantially transformed. Research
institutions in Ireland are now able to set theirresearch agendas and prioritise their strengths,
while individual researchers and institutions cancollaborate on shared programmes for the
benefit of scholarship across Ireland. A
collaborative culture is establishing itself. As aresult, institutions and researchers havesignificantly more discretion in the choice of
research topics, and are thereby more able to3

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

4

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

13

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

3. WHERE IS IRELAND NOW—A REALITY
CHECK

Facilities and Space•

14

Based on the information received during our
Review, we have formulated a number of generaland specific conclusions as to the current state ofresearch infrastructure in Ireland. In developing
these 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 existing
infrastructures. Our calibration of these views andopinions has been greatly assisted by the reports
from the international site visitors. We also had
available many written inputs from a wide rangeof stakeholders and the outcome of a debate at
the specially convened Enterprise Forum. Finally,
we had the benefit of a day of dialogue with senior
representatives of the research system at the
aforementioned meeting at Croke Park.
Reports on the site visits by international experts
are provided in Part 2.
Based largely, but not exclusively, on these inputs,
we have formed the following general
conclusions:•••

There remains a patchy landscape of
research facilities, with new state-of-the-art
facilities co-existing in some locations withbuildings/facilities which are in poor
condition and not fit-for-purpose. Site layout
and usage of both new and old buildings
needs to be addressed in many discipline
areas.
Space limitations, even in some of the newer
facilities, 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 international
researchers, even at a number of highprofile, successful centres. The space
problem is also causing the fragmentation ofexisting research groups.
The current space allocation model isbelieved by many researchers to be outdated and should be reviewed.
More efficient space utilisation and space
management in some newer facilities would
also be desirable.

Foundation Infrastructure

Support infrastructure••

The technical and administrative support
systems needed to underpin effective
research performance were found to beinadequate in a majority of the sites visited.

•

High-end technical support, frequently at
Ph.D. level, for servicing, maintenance andoperation of complex facilities andoperations is needed. The case forpermanent technical staff for this purpose
was 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 investment
in improved research facilities thatmanagement and management systems havealso to be improved. There is need for better
administrative support, especially for space
management and strategic planning.

•

IT systems, computing services, and einfrastructure, and the maintenance thereof,
are generally deficient. The lack of common
IT networks and platforms and of wirelessaccess were high-lighted. High-end
computing capability is generally weak,affecting many research areas, especially inthe medical sciences, humanities, physicalsciences and mathematics. Site visitors
frequently commented that computation anddata-analysis facilities were not adequate
for first-class research.
Deficiencies
indata-management
infrastructure were noted in the life
sciences, medical sciences, physicalsciences, engineering, earth, atmosphericand ocean sciences, and in the social
sciences.

•

Data archives and repositories remain at an
early developmental stage—data access (toexisting national and international sources)and data acquisition (storage and updating
across the spectrum of disciplines/areas) is
weak. These issues emerged strongly in the
medical and social sciences areas.

•

The absence of adequate library provision in
general was identified, but in particular in
the arts and humanities.

•

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

15

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

EquipmentArts, Humanities and Social Sciences•

Whilst there is an expanding equipment
portfolio
inthehigher-education
institutions, much remains in urgent need ofreplacement. This issue was high-lighted
particularly in the areas of earth,atmospheric and ocean sciences and inchemistry, but is an issue across many areas.

••

While very large equipment can be obtained
under the PRTLI, and some small equipmentfrom other funders, there has been no
dedicated equipment fund for new
acquisitions and updating—especially ofsmall and middle-sized items—since theclosure of the earlier HEA fund (the Large
Equipment Grant). As most national funding
agencies nowadays have such a fund, theCommittee suggests new arrangements tocover these needs on an on-going basis.

16

•

•
•

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

We also wish to draw the attention of local
management to the fact that in some of the site
visit reports occupational health and safety issues
were raised which will need to be addressed
urgently.

•

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

Although data archives and repositories
need 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 TCD
Library, which in addition to its status as alegal deposit library for Ireland, has also had
U.K. legal deposit privilege since 1801.
Instances where humanities’ researchers areengaged in innovative collaborative links
with physical scientists in the use oftechnology were noted by visiting experts.
However it was also found that interaction
between researchers in the arts andhumanities, education, and creative arts andmedia, and other disciplines is held back by
the lack of designated, high-quality, fit-forpurpose research space.
Notwithstanding severe under-investment inresearch infrastructure and researchcapabilities, recent successes by institutions
specialising in media and creative arts werenoted. It was considered, however, that
there remains a compelling need for anunderpinning infrastructure to enable
researchers to compete in this area. Spaceand obsolete equipment were problems
across these disciplines.
Key strengths in social sciences identified
during the site visits were some newinterdisciplinary research centres. The Irish
Social Science Data Archive (managed by
one Dublin-based institution) has, in the viewof the expert visitors, the potential to be a
key infrastructure resource, despite being
under-resourced. Access to specific data
was identified as a serious problem, with
deficits in access to both national andinternational data sets. The absence of data
storage and archive facilities and theirability to be updated with fresh datasets is aserious and continuing impediment to highquality social science research in Ireland.

5

The 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 Part
2 of this report. Conclusions are presented here in discipline clusters.

Biological and Medical Sciences•

The strength and future potential of Irish
hospitals as part of the national research
infrastructure, and the recent award by the
Wellcome Trust and the HRB for a new
Clinical Research Facility, were noted.
However it was the view of the experts that
there remains a significant gap in theinteraction between the academic
community and the medical community.

Physical Sciences, Mathematics
Environmental Sciences•andThe 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 barrier
to progress in this area.

•

In the environmental sciences, researchers
have access to the Mace Head AtmosphericResearch Station in Connemara. It is aninternationally recognised coastal site andpart of the global air chemistry monitoring
network. However experts noted the lack ofadequate investment in atmospheric sciencefacilities to exploit this potential.
Fragmentation of effort was also highlighted.

•

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

•

The success of one institution in integrating
materials and engineering research within
one location was noted by the visiting
experts. The level of interdisciplinarity
observed in the physical sciences, inparticular in two Dublin institutions, was also
deemed impressive.

•

In addition to evident strengths innanoscience found in two national centres, it
was observed that a wide range of spaceintensive ‘Nano’ projects were also

underway at a number of other institutions.
Overall these projects are rather small-scale
and the achievement of the critical massrequired for their success may be asignificant challenge. It was felt that Ireland
will 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 relevant
research 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 European
research organisations. The Committee realisesthat here choices have to be made. As an example
we draw attention to the fact that with acommunity of 150 academic researchers in thefields of astronomy/ astrophysics, the possibilityof membership of the European Southern
Observatory (ESO) is an issue to be discussed atgovernmental level. However it should be notedthat such a membership requires a simultaneouscommitment from the government/funding bodies
of Ireland to proper research funding in this field.
Otherwise the expensive membership cannot beutilized to its full potential.

17

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

4. SUGGESTIONS FOR THE FUTURE

The landmark event of the commencement of the
PRTLI dramatically changed the researchlandscape in Ireland. However momentum has tobe maintained as there is still much to do. Whilst
formulating research policies, the authorities
should address ‘balance questions’ dealing with:
•
•
•

18

Consolidation of the investments recently
made, so as to ensure full exploitation of
those investments.
Further broadening of the base of academic
research in Ireland.
Investing for rapid development in specificpriority areas.

The Committee realizes that the question of how
much 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 Irish
HERD (Higher-Education Expenditure on R&D) was
0.40% of GNP compared with an average OECD/EU
figure of 0.43%, ranking Ireland in 14th positionout of 30 countries.6 At the upper end, Sweden,with a higher-education system somewhat
comparable to that in Ireland, allocates 0.83% ofGDP, more than twice the Irish level. Other
relevant comparators are Finland 0.67%,
Denmark 0.60% and Austria 0.57%. We suggest
these, rather than the EU average figures, provide
the appropriate targets for Ireland.
Clearly the investment gap is still too large.
Higher levels of funding will be required if Ireland
is to achieve the stated government policy
objective 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 substantial
shift from Ireland’s current position.7 Given thehistorical deficits in infrastructure funding that
accumulated over many years, we find a researchsystem in transition, still at a relatively immature
stage, and lacking the scale and critical mass of
its realistic international competitors. There is no
deficit of intellectual capacity in the Irish
research system, only a deficit of opportunities.
We consider the case for increased and sustained
investment is very strong.

6

OECD, Main Science and Technology Indicators, 2004.

An appropriate mix of top-down and bottom-up
funding decisions could address the issues ofbalance mentioned above. Thus a top-down
decision might be made to selectively add broad
areas or disciplines in which important
deficiencies exist. Perhaps a ring-fenced sum
might be set aside for supporting or enhancing
existing investments. Within both these pools,
however, institutions and researchers should
presumably still have to compete for funds.
Previous recipients of funds ought not, in ourview, to be privileged, but equally they should not
be penalized. Thus previous recipients of funding
might be subject to a performance appraisal,
based on the use they have made of that funding.
In sum, we suggest that the mechanism for
funding infrastructures on the next occasion
might have two elements:••

An open element, which would call for
proposals for both new and existing
infrastructures, including upgrades ofexisting facilities, and would be allocated on
a competitive basis.
A selective element, which would bereserved for certain HEA/Forfás-nominatedinfrastructures or disciplines, such as accessto and replenishment of databases, IT
systems, computing, etc also to be allocatedon a competitive basis. The consolidated
reports at the Forum, questionnaire results
and the site visit findings would provide
valuable evidence for the selection of
appropriate subject areas.

Overall we believe that this will provide amechanism that will help to broaden the Irish
research base. Its open and competitive basis
allows all researchers to apply for support, under
the 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 interested
researchers and institutions. This funding
structure will, we believe, help the Irish
authorities to address the balance issues that we
described above.

Both elements of the model should, in our view,favour collaborative proposals, as the PRTLI
currently does, and proposals which demonstrate
the fullest exploitation of existing and proposed
new facilities. This includes considerations about
access. New facilities should offer access for all
interested 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 We
understand that it was precisely these links thatsustained the research system during earlier
decades of under-investment. Such international
collaboration will continue to be extremely
important for Ireland in an age of increasing
globalisation. So the existence of international
links should also be a factor in awarding new
infrastructures. Whereas Irish researchers have inthe past looked abroad for opportunities, ascaled-up and higher quality research
infrastructure at home will provide newopportunities for attracting researchers fromabroad who seek access to state-of-the-art
facilities for high-calibre research. Irish
researchers will also be able to play anincreasingly prominent role in EU researchframeworks.
In this context, it is opportune that after two
years of intensive work, ESFRI has recently
presented the first European ‘road-map’ for new,large-scale research infrastructures, based oninternational peer-review. The road-map includes
a short description of each of the projects
together with an estimate for construction costs.
Some are evolving projects while others need firm
financial commitments very soon. Also, Irish
ministers responsible for research have been
invited by ESFRI to embark on national discussions

about which projects Ireland could join.
Discussions and decisions at a national level will
therefore also be critical in influencing the focus
of future European research infrastructures. We
anticipate that these discussions might also
encourage the development of national roadmaps and the ear-marking of dedicated national
budgets for the construction of research
infrastructures with a European/international
dimension.
There are important opportunities here for
Ireland. Research communities that are currently
less 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. These
opportunities will enable Irish policy-makers andresearchers not only to engage with nominated
ESFRI projects, but also to begin formulating
projects of Irish origin in which prominent Irish
researchers could play the lead role in future
infrastructures.
Selected investments in research infrastructures
should be viewed as investments for capacity
building in strategic areas of research and careerdevelopment of young people. International
collaboration and researchers’ mobility between
institutions and participation in international
research infrastructure projects provide wider
opportunities for researcher training and careerdevelopment of Irish researchers. High-quality
research infrastructures are a necessary
prerequisite in attracting foreign researchers and7

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

8

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

19

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

good collaborations in Ireland. Quality
infrastructure 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 be
more formally addressed than in the past,
including access to existing national databases.

20

Although particular institutions or groups ofinstitutions are given the privilege of hosting
particular infrastructures and national databases,
they should not be given exclusive or proprietary
rights to the infrastructures themselves or totheir products. Indeed proposals forinfrastructures should be judged on the basis of
their quality, their inclusiveness and theirenvisaged utilization.
In addition to national-level investments inresearch infrastructures, research institutions
need to have funding mechanisms available thatwill help to secure long-term investments inresearch facilities and equipment.

> PART 2
REPORTS OF THE
INTERNATIONAL
SITE VISITORSRESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE IN IRELAND
BUILDING FOR TOMORROW

21

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

1. INTRODUCTION

22

A key component of the Review was theinfrastructure site visits. A total of 34
international experts were invited to visit a
sample of sites in Irish higher-education
institutions (see Appendix 2). Owing to time
constraints of this Review, not all facilities could
be visited. As a result, a selection was made on
the 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 institutions
on the condition of facilities. It is anticipated that
future national reviews will focus in more detail on
individual research areas. A total of 14 different
institutions were visited, with just under half ofthe research space in Irish higher-education
institutions captured by the visits. During the
Review, in the region of 95 facilities were visited.
In addition, two visits to national libraries werecarried out as part of the arts and humanities’ site
visits. Visits took approximately one half-day per
institution per discipline area. A breakdown of thescope of the site visits is given in Table 1 below.

Individual reports from different discipline areas
were submitted to the Steering Committee for the
Review and summaries of these reports are
published here. The reports have been grouped asfollows:•

Arts & Humanities, Education, and Creative
Arts & 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 the
category of ‘Physical Sciences’

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

Discipline Clusters
International

Sub-disciplines

Biological andMedical Sciences

Biological Sciences(including Agricultural
Sciences and Chemistry),
Preclinical in vivo
facilities, ClinicalResearch Facilities

5

16 Bio/Agri
15 Preclin/Clin

43%

10

Arts, Humanities &Social Sciences

Humanities, Social
Sciences & Psychology,
Education, Creative
Media & Arts

7

19

30%

10

Physical Sciences

Physical Sciences &Mathematics, Engineering

6

11 Phys Sci/Maths
12 Engineering

48%

8Earth, Atmospheric, Earth, Atmospheric,and Ocean Sciences and Ocean Sciences

3

9

42%

4

Computer Sciences

4

13

54%

4*

Computer Sciences

Number of
Institutions Visited

Number of
Facilities Visited% Total Research
Number of
Visited (approximate) Site Visitors*Two of these site visitors also carried out a site visit in the thematic area of physical sciences and mathematics

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

•

•

•

•

The space allocation model used is outdated; it may be time to reassess needs
across institutions. Good quality, fit-forpurpose research space is needed. The lackof space provision is problematic in that it
precludes 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 difficult
to locate candidates who are mostly situatedoff-campus as a result of lack of provision. It
is suspected this also has a detrimental
effect on completion rates.
Research centres appear to work in
isolation. Physical grouping of centres in
cognate areas could facilitate a different
arrangement of space more conducive to thesharing and stimulation of ideas, explorationof solutions to common problems, and thecreation of an integrated support network(of people not systems. Bringing together ofcentres would also allow a more integrated
provision of administrative support—
particularly in the case of secretarial
assistance—and also provide a more coordinated 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 of
AVC equipment. Generally the infrastructure
for research in the areas of education andadult/continuing education is non-existent.
Neither site visited in this area, because of
space 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 any
acknowledgement of the creative arts anddesign fields as an important element of thenational strategy for research andinnovation. Facilities are totally unfit for
purpose, dangerous and certainly unsuitablefor use as a premier creative arts
postgraduate research facility. The

•

•

•

•

•
•

equipment provided in film and video studios
is woefully out of date. Digitisation isurgently required if those researches
produced in this field are to serve a purpose
in industry. Those institutes successful
under the National Digital Research Centre(NDRC) programme have highlighted theneed to progress this project. Opportunity
for the provision of a springboard for thecreative arts is being wasted by long delays
in NDRC start-up. In addition, The National
College of Art and Design is limited by theoutdated provisions of the 1971 legislation
under which it functions.
In addition to its status as a legal deposit
library for Ireland, the Library of Trinity
College Dublin was given U.K. legal deposit
privilege in 1801. It continues to receive
copies of all material published in the British
Isles. The storage space for early printed
books/manuscripts is full and extensive use
is already being made of off-campus storage.
A strategic decision, at national level, is
required 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 resource
exists, 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 electronic
books and journals means the IReL
electronic library initiative should be rapidly
extended to the humanities and indeed theInstitute of Technology sector.
Enhanced administrative support andfunding from the research offices is needed.
The intellectual capacity is certainly here
but the physical support required to achieve
the step-change necessary is not present.
Once again genuine willingness wasdemonstrated but not the physical resources
required.

23

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

Summary of Findings
Building Condition and Space24

The institutions visited presented something of adichotomy. In some cases the quality of space
was generally good and fit-for-purpose, but
insufficient in quantity and not of world-classcalibre. In other cases it was very poor, borderingon the dangerous, and certainly no longer
adequate.
There is a clear need for good quality, fit-forpurpose, dynamic and community-enhancing
space to serve the needs of a vibrant andsuccessful research community. Ireland is
uniquely positioned to engage in this type of
research at world-class level if the facilities wereavailable.
In many cases research space currently needs tobe carved out of the undergraduate provision, as
the specific funding models do not support
provision of research space.
Equipment

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

Foundation Infrastructure deficits include lack ofaccess to high-end computing facilities to handle
the large data-sets of information from surveys,
focus groups and interviews. However this accessto high-performance computing is a constraint
across the research landscape in Ireland.
Access to specific data was identified as a serious
problem. Large data sets are collected by suchgovernment agencies as Forfás and the Central
Statistics Office (CSO), and by independent
entities such as ESFRI, and could be oftremendous use to researches in this field. The
data collated is very current and could beinvaluable even at macro level. Lack of ‘inprogress’ access to this data has been cited as
restrictive as availability is common in other EU
states. Restricted access precludes Irish

academics from participation in international
research programmes. Specific access problems
appear to be a result of lack of support staff inthese agencies or specific rules and policies.
Provision for the storage and dissemination ofresearch data (in particular from funded
programmes such as the PRTLI) has not beenmade. As many projects will run for a specific termand have significant outputs provision for data
hosting, 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. While
support is available, this is mostly located incentralised system support offices andgeographic distance can result in slow response
rates. The support system is extended topostgraduates more through personal support of
the tasks being carried out rather than as a
specific support role. Software provision andsupport was also problematic in certain areas.
Management

Little formal administrative support on the scale
necessary to support the activity required. Most
existing 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 local
level to facilitate research is absent.
There appeared to be a lack of overall direction
from the management in terms of teaching,learning, and research in respect of the utilisationof resources. As mentioned above, the teams
raised the question of how space and equipment
were distributed throughout institutions andacross disciplines cognate to the arts andhumanities in particular.

Access to large scale or multi-user facilities

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

3. PSYCHOLOGY AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Overall Observations•
Site layout and accessibility

The dispersion of academic staff and researchers
over a number of buildings is not conducive togood interaction. Of the sites visited, those
designed and built with grant monies and a
specific mission are good. However other reallocated spaces, which are generally located inundergraduate and teaching and resource centres,
are less suitable to the provision of a positive
atmosphere.
There appeared to be a fragmentation ofcommunication across sites and no means of
exchanging information. As mentioned above,
building layout does not facilitate collegiality. In
spite of this general observation, reviewers
commended the innovative collaborative links
that 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 firstcome first-served basis. In certain cases there isno central administrative support in relation to
the provision of library and computer access. Eachcentre has to address its own requirements.

•

•
•

•

There are striking contrasts between
facilities for psychology and other social
sciences. Whilst research in psychology andsociology is being conducted in buildingsthat are simply not suitable for modern
research methods, research in other social
sciences is being conducted in new buildings.
The absence of an adequate national dataarchive is a serious impediment to social
science research in Ireland, as well as toresearch undertaken in other countries thatis inclusive of data pertaining to Ireland. UCD
has established the basis for developing anational archive but lacks the resources toproceed.
Absence of adequate library provision needs
to be addressed.
All of the sites visited are planning to expand
their research activity, aiming to double
Ph.D. output by 2013 in line with the national
research strategy. Space constraints alone
make this aim unrealistic. Each university
should identify its research priorities andfocus on those.
A key issue is the continuity of funding for
top-class facilities. A particular problem is
how to deal with major research groups
established, usually on a five-year
contractual basis, and the uncertainty about
future funding is a major problem whentrying to retain researchers in Ireland.

25

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

Summary of Findings

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

Building Condition and SpaceTechnical Support

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

Management

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

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

Foundation Infrastructure

Site layout and accessibility

The major issue here is the availability of dataarchives for social science research. There is, on
the one hand, the need to establish a nationalarchive, exemplified by the fact that the ESRI has
a mine of useful data, both current and from thepre-electronic age, that is not covered by the UCD
archive. On the other hand, there is the need (nowlacking) to access international data archives
such as the ICPSR in Ann Arbour, the Data
Documentation Initiative (DDI), the Luxembourg
Income Survey (LIS) and the Cross National
Equivalent File (CNEF at Cornell University).
The Social Science Data Archive in UCD should bea key infrastructural resource for the Irish social
sciences community as well as for international
researchers. Only if data pertaining to Ireland isavailable through a data archive can researchers
from other countries include Ireland in theirstudies. Archives in general need much greater
resources 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 social
and 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-

The newer buildings and social science research
centres are designed to encourage interaction
between researchers and good interdisciplinary
work was observed at most sites. However theolder buildings are completely unsuited for this;some buildings house a multitude of departments
and activities, making access by visiting scholars
difficult.

Equipment

26

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

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 the
major 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.

4. BIOLOGICAL AND MEDICAL SCIENCES

Summary of Findings

Overall Observations

Building Condition and Space•

There is a huge variation in the quality of buildingsin the life sciences. New buildings are in excellent
condition, and would have no difficulty attracting
international students and researchers. Although
staff are making valiant efforts in the very old
facilities, these are, in the main, not fit-forpurpose. In general, it is preferable to re-build
rather than refurbish existing buildings.

•

•

•
•

The reviewers considered that world-classresearch is being conducted in particularareas. It appears that this has been achieved
through the development of a clear
institutional strategy to attain international
standards of excellence. However there
remains a great need to invest in people.
Without the provision of more long-term
contracts, high-quality staff will not be
attracted. Critically important is the absenceof both administrative and technical support
for researchers in the biosciences.
The demand for monitoring and reportingfrom research funding agencies has been
passed directly to the research performers,
diverting them from research into routine
administration. Technical officers, usually at
Ph.D. level, are needed to operate andmaintain complex and expensive equipment.
Good equipment quickly becomes obsolete
and the absence of resources for on-going
maintenance, upgrades and renewal
exacerbates the situation and prevents
laboratories 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 laboratories
visited.
The biosciences, in general, need to beclosely aligned with the medical arena to
exploit the synergies from closely relatedareas of fundamental science

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 in
research 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 its
potential is not exploited. For example, withgreater collaboration between the various parties
some of the research equipment could also be
used for training in food process engineering.
The GMP facility visited was considered as anambitious undertaking but small and underresourced in comparison with similar facilities
elsewhere. Its activities will be subjected tointernational quality control as it aims to generatematerials for use in clinical trials. Although other
GMP facilities were not visited as part of thisreview it was stated by reviewers that GMP
facilities would be required to support growing
needs in translational research. This need would
need to be investigated further.

27

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

Equipment

The majority of equipment in newer facilities wasconsidered as adequate. Within that there was arange from good to excellent. In older facilities
there was a lot of antiquated equipment, whichneeds to be replaced.
Some specific requirements include highresolution TEM, rheometers, calorimeters, solidstate NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) or low
resolution NMR.
Priority must be given to generating a policy for
upgrading equipment.

28

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

Generally the foundation infrastructure wasconsidered adequate even in the most inadequateof buildings. Access to electronic journals has
improved enormously in recent years; however
many journals are still unavailable and this is an
issue for some researchers.

There is a lack of access to high-performancecomputing capacity for such areas as
bioinformatics.
Technical Support

The absence of a suitable career structure forhighly qualified research technicians and forresearch administrators is a serous weakness in
the Irish biosciences system.
There is an insufficient number of highly qualified
technicians. As a result, many sophisticated andexpensive pieces of equipment are under-utilised
or not operating at maximum efficiency and this
impacts 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 research
inputs and outputs as well as preparing new
research proposals, is a very arduous task in a
research environment. The absence ofadministrative support staff is a severe hindrance
to the development of a research environment
which is both attractive to leading researchersand conducive to the efficient and effective
performance 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 local
level.

Access to large scale or multi-user facilities

Research groups should have access to European
facilities 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 transgenic
facility for the research community. Furthermore,access to large animal facilities is needed.
Improved imaging facilities were also identified as
being a specific need.
Site layout and accessibility

The newer facilities have been set up to beinterdisciplinary and they seem to be working wellin this regard. To encourage inter-institutional
work the use of two-way video conferencing
facilities might be of benefit. Linking with otherinstitutions and hospitals would certainly
facilitate such interactions. An initiative such as
this 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 as
being producer-led, whereas the modern view,
such as that proposed in EU funding, is towards
consumer-led work; it may be that this change
needs to be reflected within the structure of Irish
science. Nevertheless the food groups could
benefit from better links with agriculture.
5. PRECLINICAL IN VIVO FACILITIESOverall Observations••

There is a great need to establish either ahigh-capacity national central preclinicalfacility or some regional medium-capacity
facilities.
There is a great need to increase the number
and capacity of small animal facilities and of
GLP surgical space in dedicated institutes.

•••

More specialised capabilities are needed, inparticular robust transgenic production at a
local and/or national level, including
schooling Irish junior staff for future central
and regional facilities.
Absolute need to move toward the closure of
substandard facilities.
Absolute need for transparency regarding
aims and perspectives of the on-going andplanned experimental research, in order toavoid anti-lobbyism.

Summary of Findings
Building Condition and Space

The condition of preclinical in vivo facilities in thesample of sites visited was mixed. Recently
commissioned facilities were in very goodcondition, up-to-date and adequate for the
research being conducted. A total of eleven units
were visited. Seven of these were in goodcondition, one needed some remediation, andthree were inadequate and were not considered
fit-for-purpose. For the latter the reviewers
considered that while refurbishment might bepossible, this was unlikely to be a cost-effective
approach and that replacement facilities wererequired.
Overall where facilities were of a high standard,lack of sufficient capacity and room for growth
was highlighted as a key issue. Specifically, somespecialised facilities (SPF or clean conventional)
were being compromised to house animals that
did not require these conditions. In addition, more
non-holding space was required, in particular foradvanced surgical procedures that were being
conducted to a high standard but in modified
animal housing rooms, owing to an overall lack ofspace.
Furthermore researchers were either currently
being impeded by the lack of sufficient housing
space or had identified that, if the situation did
not change considerably, in 2–5 years there would
be 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

29

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

against epidemic contaminations with specificpathogens than a single central high-capacity
animal facility within a university.
Moreover it was highlighted that there is a needfor holding space for experimental purposes
within committed institutions in addition tocentral medium- to high-capacity facilities sharedby all institutions. The key recommendation onbuilding condition and space was that there needs
to be a move toward the closure of substandard
facilities and a significant increase in the capacityof small animal units.

30

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

Equipment in the main was considered to beadequate. Apart from the need for microinjector
equipment, it was felt that specialised clinicalresearch equipment for large animal studies
including imaging equipment needed someinvestment. Where specialised facilities do exist,
it is imperative that appropriate structures are
put 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. In
general the team felt that skills and expertise
were present but that in some cases thisexpertise was not being invested in core
institutional staff but rather in transient contract

researchers. As more specialised facilities aredeveloped in the future it is imperative that these
are run and maintained by core technical staff toensure continuity of in house expertise. Hiring ofsuitably trained staff from abroad may be required
as necessary expansion takes place. Thisapproach had been taken in some cases and has
been 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 the
animal facilities was also addressed at each site.
Overall there is a strong need for increasedtransgenic production capabilities. Limited
capability does exist and there are plans for the
introduction 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 local
level to supply the needs of researchers. This
technology is essential for many Irish researchers
to compete internationally and to attract
researchers here. In addition it was felt that thecosts for microinjection set-up were notprohibitive.

Access to large scale or multi-user facilities

6. CLINICAL RESEARCH FACILITIESThe reviewers considered that a major hurdle to
the research activities in this area was the issueof animal importation. With the current set up all
small animals are sourced from abroad. This isexpensive and has serious timing issues, forcing
researchers to house animals ahead of time inholding areas that could be more effectively
employed. As a result researchers are paying
more than their European counterparts. The
reviewers recommended that this issue be
explored further, potentially with the involvementof a commercial partner. As Irish researchers
increase the demand, a centralised nationalsource would perhaps be a viable approach. Whilst
it was stressed that certain specialised
experiments be conducted at a local level, it was
felt that certain services could be effectively run
centrally. This might for example include routine
breeding, backcrossing, cryopreservation (as aneffective means to retaining genetically modifiedlines) and long-term housing.

Overall Observations••

Other Comments
Clinical Research

An issue highlighted by reviewers and researchers
was the future trend in the advancement oftranslational research in Ireland. As the movetoward clinical trials and clinical testing is
encouraged 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 Ireland
to effectively translate research.

••

Regulatory Issues

Although somewhat removed from the remit ofthis visit, the reviewers noted that the regulatory
system in Ireland needs to be addressed. Projectand personal licences were reported to take up to
twelve months in cases and this was considered
excessive. It was admitted that this process was
also now adapting to changes in the researchsystem.

••Different clinical research facilities acrossIreland need to adopt standard operatingprocedures and have similar effective
management structures in order tomaximise the co-ordination of research
activities. Although steps have been taken
towards the development of significant
clinical research infrastructure, thereviewers felt that these steps had not yet
been co-ordinated to a consistently highstandard. The reviewers could not overstate
the need for oversight in the development of
this infrastructure in order to avoid thecreation of under-used and over-specified
facilities. A co-ordinated strategic approachwith national equity is vital. Surveillance
procedures should be put in place to ensure
close 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 design
support.
The establishment of a network of nurse
managers will play an important part in thesetting-up of new clinical research facilities.
They should develop and sustain close links
with 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 common
information technology platform capable ofproviding comparable data sets across all
facilities (which will also enable multi-centre
trials), common regulatory and trial support,
and a common GMP facility to support clinicalresearch activities.
The reviewers proposed that a balance at
individual centres between disease specificapproaches
andmethodological
specialisation be struck. Certain corefacilities should be centralised to reinforce
the high quality of projects put forward.
Requirements would depend upon research

31

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

•

•

32

approaches but examples of core facilities
could include genotyping, GMP production,
mass spectrometry, image analysis (different
types could be located at prime sites) andphysiological laboratories.
New facilities need to be informed andeducated by existing facilities to avoid any
unnecessary duplication of efforts orresources. There should be a co-ordinateddevelopment of new facilities.
The reviewers recommend that, unlessalready undertaken, a programme of formal
visits to facilities in the U.K. (or elsewhere)
be conducted by a dedicated team,representing clinical research facilities in
Ireland, in order to learn from theexperiences of others in establishingautonomous facilities that adhere to common
procedures.

Summary of Findings
Building Condition and Space

Within the Dublin area, there are currently three
CRFs, at various stages of development: fully
operational, recently commissioned, and yet to becommissioned. In addition the reviewers were toldof plans for an additional larger facility within
Dublin, to be funded jointly by the Wellcome Trustand the Health Research Board (HRB). Outside of
the greater Dublin area, there are currently no
purpose-built CRFs although there are plans forthe development of at least two additional
facilities. The reviewers agreed that, if between
four and six state-of-the-art facilities were to be
run successfully in Ireland, then these should be
run in parallel so as to guard against overprovision.
With respect to facilities in existence, it was
concluded that building conditions were generally
very good but that there were examples where
space was not being used for the purpose
originally intended. The layout of rooms should be
optimal for the flow of operations and the tracking
of a linear data trail. There was insufficientstorage space and as a result data were being
stored 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 careful
prior analysis of the structural and functional
relationships within the proposed CRF.
There is a need to plan carefully in advance how
research data gathered in the CRF is to behandled, checked and open to verification,
perhaps for many years. In general, the reviewers
concluded 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 regulatory
requirements for data validation, storage andindependent audit for up to fifteen years following
acquisition. 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 systems
in place that provide clear records of who has
obtained access to these, their subsequentactions, and of when specific samples are
removed from storage (ideally employing bar code
readers). It was acknowledged that, in certain
cases, there were plans to introduce thesesystems.
The reviewers emphasised the importance ofretaining patient/human subject written records
of consent and records of the precise nature ofuse to which archived materials might be put.
They also stressed that these records should be
open to future inspection by ethics or researchcommittees. Failure to facilitate this might, inlater unspecified circumstances, preclude the full
exploitation of archived materials.
In order to scale-up significant research activities
at existing sites, a radical rethink of layout androom usage needs to be implemented. The
reviewers did recognise the strength inmaximising intellectual synergies by locating
academic research adjacent to clinical research.
However should space be a limiting factor, thenpriority should be assigned to activities that can
only take place adjacent to the hospital, withlower priority given to activities that might, in
optimum circumstances, be near to clinicalfacilities. Currently, the reviewers suggested that
researchers were not yet in a position to exploit
fully the fact that they were located close to a
hospital, as the role of clinicians was often
minimal. The CRF should provide an environment
in which health professionals can be trained andexposed to research.
On several sites the laboratories conducting basic
research 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 hospitals
visited were sub-optimal and in need of significant
development. These researchers were, in themain, conducting research on samples obtained
from 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 appeared
to be well equipped (a detailed appraisal of eachpiece of equipment was not made by thereviewers). The lack of sufficient equipment
funding for new facilities was raised.
The positioning of a research MRI scanner on auniversity campus as opposed to adjacent to a
hospital was noted. The reviewers felt that forsuch a major investment, location was suboptimaland may compromise research applications, owing
to the lack of nearby clinical capabilities. Whilst
not necessarily a current issue, this factor would
need to be considered as research progresses in
specific 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 be
important (and perhaps critical to researchplanning) that costing needed to be carefully

reviewed going forward. Where activities are
distant from the local CRF, there should be strong
links with the CRF with adherence to standard
operating procedures that are open to audit(research governance). In addition, compatible
set-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 issue
discussed 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 IT
systems that are universal across the country.
Data storage for hard-copy and electronic
documents needs to be safe and secure. Datastorage for biological materials also needs to beproperly resourced and aligned with standard
operating procedures that are the same in every
CRF. A common approach would enhancecollaboration and facilitate data sharing in aefficient and productive manner. This is critical if
Ireland is to compete internationally. The
possibility of having a core facility to fully
integrate the IT requirements of each CRF wasproposed. It should be possible to have shareddata acquisition from local sites with a common
facility for data mining and data analysis. This
would be very attractive to potential research
partners 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 of
biological samples should also be considered.
Storage was identified as an unsolved problem atall sites visited.

33

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

Basic IT systems currently in place within thehospital (clinical) infrastructure were recognised
to be a barrier to progress in linking clinical(especially outcome) data to research laboratory
findings. Links with academic institutions were
cumbersome and in need of updating. Scope was
identified from knowledge of data mining
strategies under development elsewhere for
Ireland to contribute to and learn from these
innovations in complex data analysis. The
existenceof
productive
international
collaborations of this type would be a huge
potential long-term asset.
Technical Support and other personnel

34

An investment in core staff in existing and futurefacilities is critical. Personnel required include
clinical facility directors, research nurses,
statisticians and clinical trial support staff. The
role of nurses in the day-to-day running of the CRF
was felt by the reviewers to be a critical andintegral prerequisite of success. Investment intheir selection, training and retention would be
paramount. Core staff are essential for the
maintenance of the “institutional memory” that
ensures continuity of services. Reviewers were
informed of training provided by the RCSI for the
training 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 retain
in hospital-based research.
Support staff are needed to assist researchers in
the design and implementation of clinical tests
and clinical trials. Currently this expertise lies
with individual researchers and may not be an

efficient process. The lack of such core support
staff may prevent clinical researchers frompartaking in research. Given the limited time thatphysicians can currently give to research, it wasrecommended that investment be made in support
systems 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 to
conduct world-class research. Whilst the focus of
this exercise was to review the facilities and tools
available 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 universal
lack 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 links
between academia and clinical practice and (2)that it is not an option for the present lack of
research time to continue if Irish aspirations tobecome “internationally competitive” are to berealised. The introduction of funding for clinicalscientists by the Health Research Board was seen
as a move in the right direction, but so far
insufficient to meet the national need.
Translational medicine is patient-led with clinician
and hospital involvement vital for success.
The reviewers felt that current Irish medical
employment practices make success unlikely inthe face of intense competing, clinical pressures.
Health services will not volunteer to do research
unless incentives are available. The introductionof an incentive scheme was suggested. Suchincentives currently exist elsewhere, where there
is slight extra (“ring-fenced /seed corn”) funding
for a hospital conducting research with muchgreater rewards for peer-reviewed publications
and external research funds awarded throughcompetitive processes to hospitals. Eventually, if
financial rewards were sufficient, hospitals might
regard such funding schemes as highly
prestigious, enhancing the standing of their senior
medical personnel both in the local and wider
community. In turn, they might then be
encouraged to make specific appointments
designed to improve both their clinicaleffectiveness and research performance,
analogous to the set up in Irish university-based
research.
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 taken
to the running of each CRF. The reviewers were
informed during the visit of the recently formed
ICRIN (Irish Clinical Research Infrastructure
Network) and of the role of the Dublin Molecular
Medicine Centre in both the acquisition of the new
Dublin facility and the co-ordination of other
Dublin facilities. The expansion of this clinicalresearch network to include other partners,
namely UCC and NUIG was mentioned, as was the
future 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 was
not yet evident, although it is acknowledged that
progress is being made in this regard.
Funding

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

35

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

7. COMPUTER SCIENCES•

Overall Observations

•

•

36
•

•

•

•

The space allocation model used is outdated; it may be time to reassess needs
across 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 level
would be beneficial as the high-level model
currently in use does not seem to work insome institutions visited.
Current support infrastructure is inadequate
to sustain first-class research in a newly
developing system. Technical, and to agreater extent, administrative support isurgently required. Lack of support leads tosenior researchers having to carry out
administrative or technical support
activities. 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 consider
the value of this work and avoid duplication
across 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 research
activity.
Research resources in the form of physicallibrary provision and the extension of the
IReL electronic journal resource arenecessary, the latter being a particularrequirement of the Institute of Technology
sector. A national approach to thedevelopment of an electronic depository fortheses was also cited as a useful
infrastructural project.
Provision of software was well regarded.
HEAnet service provision was also positively
reviewed. 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 significantly
improve researcher mobility.
Any new investment for major infrastructureor research programmes should be provided
through a competitive process. Large-scale
investment cannot commence in advance of
the innovative ideas that need to emerge.
High-Performance Computing and Grid
Computing are in development. Some fears
were expressed that this Grid Computing
technology was being promoted as a local
resource in a number of locations while theresearch projects requiring its use were notyet clearly articulated by the computersciencecommunities
drivingit.
Consideration should be given to offeringexternal access to promote practicalapplication of the technology. HPC should
also be shared, usage levels did not seem
optimal and a review to ascertain strategic
application could be required. However
additional resources to support this national
provision 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 the
postgraduate training model with a primary
focus on its teaching mission. World-classresearch was not a realistic possibility
without the investment to drive it. The PRTLI
seemed to offer a model for this type of
support as large-scale investment cannot
commence in advance of the innovativeideas that need to emerge.
A national debate on standards is required inorder to encourage a collaborative approachto research projects.

Summary of Findings

Equipment

Building Condition and Space

Maintenance at a significant level is required tokeep equipment up-to-date. Good equipment
today may not meet the needs of tomorrow andthe block grant and core funding model may not
be sufficient. This investment is incremental but
necessary.
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 airconditioning and a better approach to
management of the space and physicalenvironment. In other locations there were good
examples of laboratories but these wereconfigured for teaching and undergraduate use
rather than as a research environment.
Overall, specific staff (or a staff member) tomanage resources and space at faculty level
would be beneficial as the high-level model
currently in use does not work.

The institutions visited offered something of arange of quality both within and acrossinstitutions. In some locations the space andphysical setup was good and encouraged multiuser application but management issues stiffedtrue collaboration. Overall better cognisanceshould be taken of stakeholder needs in theplanning and designing phases. Facilities need to
be viewed as a ‘facilitators of research’ not just as
physical objects.
In one case the quality of space was generally
very good and fit-for-purpose but insufficient inquantity. In other cases the space was very poor,
bordering on the dangerous, certainly no longer
adequate. A clear (if obvious) correlation wasdisplayed between prior investments (under the
PRTLI 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 were
therefore unsuitable for use in the creation of an
atmosphere for multi-disciplinary research andthe exchange of ideas. This was also reflected in
the lack of meeting and demonstration space andwidely distributed nature of facilities forresearchers.
A wide range of space intensive ‘Nano’ projects
seem 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.

Foundation Infrastructure

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 many
weaknesses such as:••••

Poor high-powered computing capability
Poor maintenance of existing computing
capability
No wireless internet accessBroadband is only at 10mg locally

37

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

38

Technical Support

Access to large scale or multi-user facilities

Technical support was patchy to non-existent insome places while in others only just appropriate.
Staff training levels were also an issue as projects
depended on particular levels of support service.
In many cases postgraduate or postdoctoral
researchers serviced their own equipment; overall
this was deemed inappropriate as it distracted
researchers from the research work.
Current support infrastructure is therefore
inadequate to sustain first-class research in a
newly developing system. Technical, and to agreater extent, administrative support is urgently
required. Lack of support also leads to seniorresearchers having to carry out administrative or
technical support activities. This deflects
researchers away from their core work, an
obvious waste of a valuable resource.
Technical support provision was also largely
driven by the demands of teaching—perhaps areview of the balance between teaching andresearch is needed.

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. However
additional resources to support this national
provision of facilities may be required.

Management

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

Site layout and accessibility

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

8. EARTH, ATMOSPHERIC, AND OCEANSCIENCES

Summary of Findings
Building Condition and Space

Overall Observations

•
•

•

•

•

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 4
years’ 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 replacement
budget to upgrade equipment on a regular
basis
There is a need to introduce a mechanism toprovide research groups with highly qualified
Technical Officers to operate and maintainspecialised equipment and to train students
in their use.
Geology research (and teaching) is
particularly badly served in relation tobuildings and equipment. As a foundation
science, it should have much better
facilities.
A mixture of old and some new buildings
means that departments and activities are
fragmented between locations, making
research difficult.

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

It is a very mixed picture, ranging from totally
unsuitable (geology) to over-crowded to modern
and good quality. There is a serious space
utilisation issue in relation to one unoccupied
facility and with under-utilisation evident in otherareas.
Equipment

The main problem with equipment is not the lackof any specific instruments but the overall
impression of seriously dated or obsolete
equipment due to the absence of funds forrenewal and replacement. Geology lacks even themost basic equipment. Otherwise the equipment
seen is at best adequate, with very little thatwould be classed as cutting-edge.
One item of equipment lacking is an Aerosol Mass
Spectrometer, which most international
environmental groups would have, but of which
there is none in Ireland.
The absence of funding for maintenance contracts
not only shortens the life of equipment but canlead to extended downtimes when a fault occurs.
Foundation Infrastructure

No serious issues identified. This could be
because other infrastructural problems (buildings,
equipment, technical support) are the major
concerns 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 it
efficiently and safely. Not only can suchtechnicians ensure that equipment is operated
and used properly, helping to train students on
how to use it, but they also help to prolong the lifeof the equipment by ensuring proper
maintenance. Such technicians are needed on afull-time basis for this work.

39

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

Management

There is not sufficient management support
available to researchers, both at local level andcentrally. Issues such as strategic planning, space
utilisation and coordination of resources andeffort are areas which could be improved. The
overall impression is of good and enthusiastic
people whose performance is limited byinadequate equipment, space problems andproper planning.
Access to large scale or multi-user facilities

No major issues. Researchers have access to two
excellent and modern research vessels.
Site layout and accessibility

40

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 interaction
was found. Not all of this is the fault of the site
design and layout.
Other Comments

At the moment this field of research is notoperating in Ireland at leading international
levels. The reasons for this are infrastructure,
management and personnel related, and areinterlinked. Major infrastructural problems inhibit
the ability to do research, and are a disincentive
to hiring and keeping good researchers. Stronger
management planning and guidance will beneeded to identify and exploit the right research
opportunities.

The already existing network of facilities in the
Galway and Connemara areas in marine andenvironmental sciences offers a good opportunity
for building world-class expertise in marine
science, climate change and biodiversity.
Ireland is too small to have multiple wellresourced centres in these sciences. The national
authorities need to take hard decisions onpriorities and locations for funding, and to follow
through with continuing support thereafter.
Building on existing strengths and potential
should be the priority.

9. ENGINEERING
Overall Observations

•
•
•
•
•

Overcrowding of facilities is evident and isforcing research activities to become
fragmented and disparate.
There should be a rolling programme ofinvestment in research active space withgood facilities management.
There should be funding sources for facility
and equipment maintenance
Dedicated permanently-funded researchtechnicians are required across theengineering sector
There are many health and safety issues
which need to be addressed as a priority.

Summary of Findings
Building Condition and SpaceOf the buildings visited the majority were of anadequate standard but overall were no longer fitfor-purpose, principally because of insufficientspace to properly house research activities. In
many 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 certain
research groups located on three or four floors orin separate buildings. There were examples where
meeting rooms had been taken over for research
work space and often there was no social space.
Integration into a single custom-built facility
would contribute significantly to the researchpotential.
Overall, there is a need for a review of space
usage and allocation at a local level in order tokeep currently disparate research groups in one
location. 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 power
through either block or overhead grants. The 30%
overhead rate quoted to reviewers wasconsidered to be inconsistent with international
norms. In the U.K. the 46% rate has been
increased to virtually 100% through full-economic
costing and in industry it is often over 100%.
Equipment

While equipment varied from state-of-the-art toobsolete, overall it was considered to be adequate
for current use but insufficient for future
requirements and unlikely to enable competitive
research on an international level. A greater issue
was the housing of expensive equipment ininappropriate space.
The reviewers considered it important for
researchers to build the cost of maintenance of
their equipment into their project proposals. If
this was not possible in the current funding
system, the funding bodies must consider
changing the system.
The reviewers recommended a strategic review ofnational capability in a number of disciplines suchas electron optics / microscopy to increase
synergies and reduce duplication of expensive
resources. Funding for access to specialised
facilities should be considered.

41

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

42

Foundation Infrastructure

Access to large scale or multi-user facilities

In the majority of facilities the foundation
infrastructure was considered adequate although
there were some cases where high-performancecapabilities were required.

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

Technical Support

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 as
New Zealand, Australia and The Netherlands
where provision of national facilities is not
feasible.

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

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 institutions
through a well-managed national accessprogramme which would serve to link Irish
scientists to international researchers.

Management
Site layout and accessibility

At a local level, the management support for
research was variable and individuals were
dealing well with the limitations of their site. In
other areas the local management is underresourced and needs to be underpinned by clear
institutional strategy.

Some groups do undertake multi-disciplinary work
but this appears more the exception than thenorm. There is scope to use equipment to greater
effect by extending collaborations between
groups and institutions and access routes withappropriate charging mechanisms might need to
be 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 of
the facilities visited demonstrated goodinteraction between researchers in engineeringand physical sciences with a large number ofpeople mixed together on one floor and accessible
to each other.

Other Comments

10. PHYSICAL SCIENCES AND
MATHEMATICS

Health and Safety

Overall Observations

Investment is needed to ensure the safety of
researchers and students. Electronic systems
should 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 appears
to be a complete lack of an appropriate safety
culture. Risk assessments are needed and must be
posted in the labs (which are often cluttered
therefore posing potential for hazard). Personal
protective 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 must
be embedded in the research culture and form an
integral part of facilities management anddevelopment.

•
•

•

•

•
•

The state of buildings is quite variable, fromvery new and state-of-the-art to adequate
and 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 7
years. Overcrowding is evident equally inleading research centres and this is a barrier
to the attraction of international
researchers.
A lot of the equipment seen is old or on the
point of obsolescence. Reviewers
recommended the introduction of amechanism for providing continuous accessto funds to renew and replace equipment.
The lack of adequate numbers of highly
qualified technicians to operate andmaintain sophisticated equipment andresearch laboratories, and to train students
in their use, is a major impediment to good
researchandtraining.
Reviewers
recommended the creation of new positionsof technicians, with advanced qualifications
often to Ph.D. level. These positions need tobe permanent so that continuity and knowhow is created and maintained.
Enhancement of administrative support for
researchers is required.
It should be ensured that future investmentbuilds on the excellent research groups andfacilities now in place so as to maximise
existing infrastructure.

Summary of Findings
Building Condition and Space

Accommodation conditions vary from poor to very
good, with many buildings operating at the limit of
their capacity or beyond. There is little room for
expansion in any buildings seen. Many activities
are spread between buildings and fragmentationof research groups is again occurring, even insome of the excellent new buildings.

43

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

Equipment

Site layout and accessibility

Much of the equipment seen is adequate but a lot
is becoming dated and some is obsolete. For
example, the chemistry department on one site
visited 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. The
absence of funding for maintenance contracts not
only 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 renewal
and replacement.

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

Foundation Infrastructure

44

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 operate
and 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 expensive
equipment is not always properly maintained.
Management

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

Other Comments

In some sites the infrastructural barriers to topclass 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 to
attract top researchers. On the other hand, if
these problems are remedied, there is thepotential to generate first-class research in a
number of areas.
Future investment should concentrate on buildingon those research facilities and teams which are
now in place, addressing the infrastructural issues
identified, to move Ireland up to the next level in
research.

> CONTRIBUTION
FROM THE
BUSINESS SECTORRESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE IN IRELAND
BUILDING FOR TOMORROW

45

RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE IN IRELAND - BUILDING FOR TOMORROW
Contribution from the Business Sector

1. INTRODUCTION

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

•

46
•

Telephone interviews with eighteen senior
executives in major multinational
corporations with bases in Ireland and inselected indigenous small and medium
enterprises
Discussions with over fifty industrialists
attending a half-day forum on 13 October
2006, held to review and extend the findings
from the interviews.

This section presents a summary of the findings
from the CIRCA study. The full report is available
on the Forfás website.

2. OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS

There was general consensus that industry
welcomes the opportunity to engage with the HEA
directly, to contribute to the development of theirstrategy and to build upon the strong sense ofcollaboration most sectors feel with the highereducation institutions.
In the time available companies found it difficult
to provide detailed responses under the various
research infrastructure headings. Industry would
welcome 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 the
facilities which exist within the HE system andthat there is a need for a major rethink of policies
and programmes to develop HE/industry
cooperation.
As national research policy has increasingly
focused on the higher-education sector as the
major driver of public-sector research, rather
than other state or independent locations, there
is an increasing need to develop a highereducation research infrastructure which is open
to industrial collaboration and is, to some extent
at least, aligned with industrial development
needs. Industry has very few other options to turnto, within Ireland, for assistance withtechnological problems.
There was also agreement that Ireland is facing
major challenges as its cost base rises and otherlower cost, high-quality locations develop—China
and Eastern Europe for manufacturing, and EastAsia and Eastern Europe for software. Recognition
is now universal that we need to move to higher
added-value activities, R&D in particular, if
industry is to survive and develop here. Achieving
this goal will only be possible if the major players
in the Irish R&D system—the higher-education
institutions 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 research
besides infrastructure. In particular, it is theoverall research capability in the HE sector which
is of critical importance to industry. In section 3
below the views expressed on research
infrastructure are summarised, while section 4
deals briefly with some of the wider issues raised.

3. INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS

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

General Comments•

Investing in research infrastructure is not
only investing in overall research priorities,
it is also investing in ways in which fundedbuildings or equipment will be used: who will
use them, under what conditions and forwhat purposes. If we are to develop a
coherent research infrastructure which willcontribute both to world-class academic
research and to industrial development, it isessential that from the very beginning, we
set up research infrastructure under themost appropriate governance model. Thismodel must seek to avoid the traditionaldifficulties of higher-education / industry
cooperation.

•

Government, higher-education institutions
and industry should jointly develop a numberof new approaches to the accommodation
requirements of research infrastructure. For
example, there should be increased colocation of university and industry research
activities; developing new joint industryacademic research locations, preferablyclose to relevant industrial clusters. The
accommodation and space shortages onsome campuses could be an incentive todevelop new campuses with industry
involvement.

•

There is currently no career structure for
operatives of vital equipment in many HE
facilities and consequently there is a highturnover of these staff. Especially inuniversities, the loss of an experienced
technician can halt research overnight. A
strong, highly visible career structure for•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 medical
doctors and hospitals in research, incontrast with other developed economies.
Hospitals must be developed as an explicit
part 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 industryuniversity approach to joining and utilisingsuch facilities was proposed.

47

RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE IN IRELAND - BUILDING FOR TOMORROW
Contribution from the Business Sector

Specific Requirements

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

48

Energy, Environment & TransportThis is an area which has not been covered but deserves formal recognition in the consultation
process 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 user
representation. A recent CIRCA survey of VC companies in one of these sectors shows relatively
little 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.

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. The
3-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’ model
should be undertaken.
Further, the traditional, incremental step-bystep approach to cooperation with
universities is coming to be seen, by some,as inadequate in the current global R&D
environment. There was a need to develop
R&D mechanisms that will support major
companies entering quickly into long term,
intense, cooperative relationships withspecialist university groups. This quantum
jump in the potential duration and size ofcooperative partnerships needs to berecognised by government and supported.

•

There is a major need for government R&D
programmes which support the integrationof university and industry research. The
programmes of the National Institutes of
Health and the Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR) programme in the U.S. aregood examples of what can be achieved.

•

Current ‘Industrial Parks’ should bedesignated ‘Science & Technology Parks’ andupgraded. The regional development
dimension of industrial parks should be
reinforced in the new science parks. In an
approach somewhat in line with the Credit
Unions, local government, industry andcommunities should contribute to and be
given a stake in the Science Parks. The
overall vision is that “research is carried out
to create value for all the stakeholders”—notjust for the academic community. The
business plans of those seeking research
investment should reflect this joint
community approach.

This said, it was recognised that the Science Parks
must be become specialised. They must avoid thecurrent criticism of universities in which there is a
failure 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 criteria
for selection of projects / infrastructure will be ofmajor importance. Here there was strong
agreement on the factors which should be
decisive.
•

A world-class researcher / research team.
MNCs have a global reach in terms ofcollaborating with university research. For
most, researchers in Cambridge or Toronto
are as accessible as those in Cork. Equally,
whether the research is in quantum bits or
food flavours, basic or applied research—‘world-class’ is what companies seek. Given
the presence of world-leading MNCs in
Ireland, parallel world-leading researchshould be built up. Here obtaining the rightindividuals to run the research is more
important than the actual infrastructure
itself. The performance track record of theindividual seeking the infrastructuralinvestment—and his/her history of working
with industry—will be central. Specific points
raised include:•

The principal researcher or researchgroup should have a good track record in
making 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 special
consideration. However the use ofindustry as a “fig leaf” by universities
must be guarded against. Where
proposed facilities make claims of
relevance to industry groups or sectors,
the target industries must be explicitly
involved in assessing the relevance of
the investment. Further, where large
capital investment is to be made,industry representatives should be

49

RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE IN IRELAND - BUILDING FOR TOMORROW
Contribution from the Business Sector

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

•

50

•

•

Critical Mass: Achieving critical mass isimportant, though it will vary depending on
the area of research. There are too many
sub-critical research activities currently
supported in Ireland. While some progresshas been made, there is still far too much
unnecessary 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 competence
and which are also likely to be of economic
relevance to Ireland.
The development of a Medical Devices“Knowledge Triangle”: possibly the moststriking deficit in the medical devices’
longer-term research infrastructure in
Ireland 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 in
the research sector. Currently career
options for those working in university
research are weak. Again the developmentof new models of university-industry
research governance could make a major
contribution to developing career
structures.

Software Research

In considering investment, it is critical that thevery particular nature of software research
infrastructure is recognised:••Outside a small number of areas, such as
test-beds and grids, the traditional modes ofhigh investment in capital equipment are notthat relevant.
In addition, the major role of the software
industry in convergent technologies and insectors (finance, logistics, etc.) outside thetraditional core software sectors should betaken into account.

Software research infrastructure is focused on
people, 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 training
and updating of large number of software
personnel who will undertake research /development work in the core software
industries and the major software user
industries: 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 university
researchers is critical for developing
cutting-edge research, if the research is tohave a chance of being commercialised.
Software has a half-life of probably five or
six months, so that by the time it overcomes
the barriers to exit from a university and has
become ‘industrially hardened’, it stands
little chance of commercial success.

> DATA AND
INFORMATION
ON EXISTINGINFRASTRUCTURE

RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE IN IRELAND
BUILDING FOR TOMORROW

51

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

Associated with this review, the HEA initiated astudy to establish the status of the existing
research infrastructure within the highereducation system. The study consisted of a survey
designed to establish a Capital Research
Infrastructure Database. A comprehensive set ofsurvey documentation was issued to 24 highereducation institutions; of these, 24 institutions (7Universities, 14 Institutes of Technology, and 3other higher-education institutions) completed
and returned the survey documentation to theHEA. This database served as a key resource for
informing the 2006 Research Infrastructure
Review.

52

Equipment and Specialised Facilities

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

Categorisation of research space is represented in
the pie chart below. This chart represents anapproximation of the proportion of research space
occupied by researchers in higher education
institutions in Ireland. It was generated on thebasis of information submitted to the HEA as at
August 2006. In many cases interdisciplinary
research can be categorised into multiple
disciplines, in this representation, however, theprincipal discipline area is selected for illustrative
purposes only.
Research Space in Higher-Education
Institutions in Ireland categorised into
research discipline areas.

Humanities & Social Sciences

Biological & Medical Sciences

Engineering

Physical Sciences & Mathematics

Computer sciences

Earth, Atmospheric, and Ocean sciences

Agricultural Sciences

Table 1. Items of equipment valued at over €100K.

This list is not exhaustive but serves to illustrate key acquisitions. Numbers in brackets are approximate
number of items valued over €100K, similar items of lower specification and cost are not listed here.
Type or Discipline
Unit or System Cost

Examples*Typical Approximate

Bioscience—Agriculture

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

Biosciences—Molecular Biology

DNA sequencers (9) , Robot for DNA arrays (5), Scanner forarrays (3), WAVE nucleic acid analyser (1), Affymetrix
system (3), Real time PCR (5), Genomics Software

Systems up to €360,000

Biosciences – Clinical

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

Biosciences—Protein analysis

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

Biosciences—Proteomics

Peptide synthesisers and sequencers, Proteomics ,Analyser System Supply of Protein Chip

€100,000 to €542,000

Biosciences—Imaging

Micro CT scanner
7T MRI Scanner – small bore
3T MRI Scanner - whole body
Phosphoimager/flourescence imager,
SGI (Silicon Graphics) high resolution imaging systems€180,000€1,150,000€1,480,000€127,000€650,000 to €905,000

Biosciences—Cell biology& Microbiology

Cellomics Kinetic Scan system
Microphotometry Analysis System
Laser microdissection microscope
Platelet Aggregation Analyzer (PAP)High Performance Flow Cytometers (10)Ultracentrifuges(~5)
Microbiology Bioreactor
Ultracut Cryostat
Densitometer
Small animal in vivo imaging system€200,000€146,000€135,000€154,000€100,000 to €390,000€100,000€127,000€108,000€280,000€229,000

Nanofabriaction andNanotechnology

Dual beam FIB (focused ion beam)€2,000,000
Focused Ion Beam Milling System€768,000
X-ray microtomography€900,000
Molecular Beam Epitaxy€388,000
Physical Property Measurement System for magnetism (PPMS) €367,000
Nanolithography system€330,000
Shamrock Sputtering System€250,000
Magnetometer Systems€245,000
Electron Beam Lithography System (2)€222,000
Pulsed laser systems€200,000
Optical Equipment (several systems)€100,000 to €127,000
Multibeam Sonar System€330,000

53RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE IN IRELAND - BUILDING FOR TOMORROW
Data and Information on Existing Infrastructure

Table 1. Continued

54

Type or Discipline
Unit or System Cost

Examples*Typical Approximate

Engineering

Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) prototyping system
Nanoindenter
Particle Image velocimetry
Multiaxial Testing Machine
Axial Torsion Testing Machine
PNA network analyser testing system
Impact Testing Systems
Micrometric Precision Measurement
Corrosion testing Equipment
Automated Manufacturing Line

€370,000€250,000€225,000€211,000€170,000€235,000€100,000 to €165,000€159,000€119,000€367,000

Analytical instruments

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

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

High Performance
Computing / ICTHPC Opteron cluster
Wireless Testbed
Large Capacity Datasore
IBM Computer system
Gateway Servers (combined cost)€1,400,000€100,000€500,000€127,000€180,000

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

Microscope

Including Atomic force (2), Scanning tunnelling (4),€200,000 to €480,000
Scanning 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 €1,200,000
PRO 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,and Ocean Sciences

Geophysics: Geometric Surveying System
Climate controlled Greenhouse
Low Speed Wind Tunnels
Climatic Chamber€186,000€120,000€110,000€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 2. Examples of Specialised Research Facilities in Higher-Education Institutions

This 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.
Discipline

Type

Institution

Biosciences—Cell

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

Biosciences—Molecular Biology

Proteomics, Genomics and Bioinformatics capabilities(robotics, scanners, etc)
Gene Vector Core Facility including GMP facility
X-ray Crystallography Facility
Peptide Synthesis

NUIG
TCD
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
Clean Conventional preclinical facilities
in vivo imaging apparatus

TCD, NUIM, UCD, UCC
TCD, UCD, NUIG, UCC
UCC

Biosciences— Clinical

Clinical Research Facilities at Beaumont Hospital; St. Vincent’s
and Mater Hospitals
Maternity Research Facilities
Clinical Testing Suite for Oral Health Research and National
Archives of Oral health data
Picture Archiving and Communication Systems (PACs)
for diagnostic imaging

RCSI, UCD

UCD

PharmaceuticalPharmaceutical Formulation Pilot Plant

IT Tallaght

PharmaceuticalPharmaceutical Technology Centre

TCD

Nanotechnology

Microelectronics Technology Laboratory including fabrication room, TCD
clean room, photolithography room and advanced analytical
instrumentation
Nanotechnology facility, vibration free building with clean
TCDrooms, advanced instrumentation (under construction)
Nanocharacterisation laboratories including Molecular
TCD
Beam Epitaxy Growth facility
Nanomaterial processing and characterisation facility,
DCU
plasma optical characterisation, plasma etch laboratory andplasma diagnostics laboratory
Laser Applications Facility including femtosecond, nanosecond
NUIG
and excimer lasers
Clean Rooms (class 1000/ class 10,000)
TCD, DCU, AIT, NUIG, UCC
Nanofabrication Facility including E-Beam Lithography Laboratory, UCC
colloidal photonic crystal growth/patterning and characterisationlaboratories

UCD, RCSI, UCC, TCD, NUIG

UCC
TCD

55

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

Table 2. Continued

56

Discipline

Type

Institution

Materials & Engineering

Surface Science Facility including focus ion beam milling facility
Semiconductor analysis and fabrication facility
Construction Materials and Structural elements research facility
Material Processing Facility including ceramics characterisation,
surface coating technologies,
Composites Research Centre
Biomedical Engineering: Implant Testing facility
Biomedical Engineering Centre: Polymer Processing, Analysis
and Mechanical Testing Facility.

UL
UL
TCD
DCU

Microscopy
Analytical

Advanced Microscopy Research Facilities
Specialist Analytical Facilities incl. Optical Characterisationand Spectroscopic Facility

severalseveralEarth, Atmospheric, andOcean Sciences

Green Building— controlled environment
GIS (Geographic Information System) facility
Geocomputation facility
Mesopheric Cloud Physics analysis facility
Environmental Civil Engineering with Wind Tunnel and Tidal Basin
Mace Head Atmospheric Research Facility

UCC
NUIG, UCC
NUIM
NUIG
NUIG
NUIG

MarineFish Hatchery and Fish Cultivation Stations
Carron Research Outstation
Coastal and Marine facility including cetacean observationequipment and survey boats
Virtual Underwater Laboratory and High Precision Deep
Ocean Mapping System
National Maritime College Facilities
Marine Research Vessels (access)

NUIG
NUIG
UCC

Computer Sciences

High Performance Computing Facilities / Grid Computing
Optical Communications Facility
Localisation Research Centre
Virtual Reality Visualisation Facility
Holographic Image Processing Facility
Anechoic Chamber

DIAS, UCC, TCD, UCD. NUIG
DCU
UL
TCD
NUIM
UL

Social Sciences

Irish Social Science Data Archive (ISSDA)
Irish Elections Data Archive, Expert Surveys Data Archive,
Spatial Data Archive

UCD
TCD, NUIM

Psychology

Computerised Digital Tracking System and related apparatus
for behavioural studies
Multi-modal human-computer interaction laboratory

NUIM
NUIM

Extensive Manuscript Collections
Copyright library (UK & Ireland)

TCD
TCD

Arts & Humanities

UL
TCD
NUIG

UL
CIT

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

> APPENDICESRESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE IN IRELAND
BUILDING FOR TOMORROW

57

RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE IN IRELAND - BUILDING FOR TOMORROW
Appendices> Appendix 1 Outline and Overview of the Review
1. BACKGROUND TO THE REVIEW

58

Significant investment in research infrastructurein the higher-education sector will be made in
coming 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 cohesion
and synergy in the development of a strong
higher-education and research system which
contributes to social well-being and economic
development.
A review of the strengths and weaknesses of theexisting research infrastructure, together with anassessment of how best to develop the necessary
platform infrastructures, was carried out by theHigher Education Authority and Forfás as animportant basis for informing future investment.
The definition of infrastructure in the context of
this review is that used by the European Strategy
Forum 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 social
sciences to astronomy, going through genomics
or nanotechnologies. Examples include libraries,
databases, biological archives, laboratories, clean
rooms, communication networks, research
vessels, satellite and aircraft observation
facilities, coastal observatories, telescopes,
synchrotrons, accelerators. They may be "singlesited", "distributed", or "virtual". What we are
dealing with are the necessary tools for the
future to do research in many areas at the cuttingedge.
The review will reflect, on behalf of key
stakeholders, an agreed needs package for thedevelopment of national infrastructure(s). The
review will have regard to more developed
infrastructure 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 Higher
Education Authority and by the Forfás Board,
involved the following actions:•
Reviewing the status of the Higher Education
Authority database of physical research
infrastructure and updating it on the basis ofsubmissions from the institutions.
Classifying the condition of existing
infrastructure as (a) good condition, (b) fit
for purpose, or (c) no longer adequate•
Conducting wide-ranging consultation withthe various stakeholders, including academic
researchers, representatives of highereducation institutions, the Royal Irish
Academy, research funding agencies, publicsector research organisations and industry•
Undertaking seventeen site inspections, bygroups of international experts, across asample of infrastructures•
Surveying the views of enterprise on highereducation research infrastructures. Eighteen
research-performing companies wereinterviewed and a Forum to discuss the issue
was attended by over fifty industrialists•
A National Stakeholders’ Forum to hear thefindings from the site inspections and theindustry consultation, and to identify the key
issues to be addressed•
Preparing a report which would set out thestrengths, weaknesses and gaps in theexisting infrastructure as well asrecommendations for future investments
and suggestions for greater utilisation ofexisting national and international researchfacilities on a multi-user basis.

3. GUIDANCE BY AN INTERNATIONALSTEERING COMMITTEE

An international steering committee, chaired by
Dr. Hans Chang, was appointed by the HEA and
Forfás to advise on the suitability of the review
process and to oversee its implementation. The
committee held its first meeting in September
2006. The committee attended the Stakeholders’
Forum in October 2006 and listened to the views
expressed at the meeting.
Based on the above inputs to the process, andtaking cognisance of a number of relevant recent
reports (such as the HEA’s Strategy for Science,
Technology and Innovation, 2006–2013) and of
the work of the ESFRI, the steering committee
prepared a report.

59

RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE IN IRELAND - BUILDING FOR TOMORROW
Appendices> Appendix 2 List of International Site Visitors

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
Liverpool, UK.

OBE, Professor of Modern History and Director of the Institute of Irish Studies, University ofProf 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.

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.

61

RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE IN IRELAND - BUILDING FOR TOMORROW> Appendix 3 List of Contributors to the Review

62

AlltechDundalk Institute of Technology

American Chamber of Commerce, Ireland

EBS Building Society

Analog Devices BVElan

APW Galway

Engineers Ireland

Athlone Institute of Technology

Enterprise Ireland

Aughinish

EPA Inspectorate

BD Medical

ESRI

Biologics Supply

Expertise Ireland

Biotrin

Failte Ireland

Bord Iascaigh MharaFÁS

Boston Scientific

FETAC

Bristol–Myers Squibb

Food & Drink Industry Ireland

Chester Beatty Library

Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology

CIRCA Group

Genzyme Ireland Limited

COFORD

Georgia Pacific Ireland Limited

Commergy

Gilead Sciences Limited

Cork Institute of Technology

Grid-Ireland

Cosmogrid

Health Research Board

Council of Directors of Institutes of Technology

HEAnetCreganna

IBM Ireland

Dawn Meats GroupICHEC

DiageoIDA Ireland

Digital Hub Development Agency

Industry Research and Development Group

Dublin City University

Innocoll Technologies Limited

Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies

Institute of Technology, Blanchardstown

Dublin Institute of Technology

Institute of Technology, Carlow

Dublin Molecular Medicine Centre

Institute of Technology, Sligo

Dún Laoghaire Institute of Art,
Design & Technology

Institute of Technology, Tallaght
Institute of Technology, Tralee

IntelNational University of Ireland, Galway

Intertrade Ireland

National University of Ireland, Maynooth

Iona Technologies

NeuroCure

IRCHSS

Newport Pharmaceuticals Limited

IRCSET

Oracle Corporation

Irish Academy of Engineering

Ordnance Survey Ireland

Irish Business and Employers’ Confederation

Organon Ireland Limited

Irish Centre for Business Excellence

Original Solutions Limited

Irish History Online

Pharmaceuticals Ireland

Irish Medical Devices Association

Respironics

Irish Medicines Board

Riverwest Technologies Ireland Limited

Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association

Roche Ireland Limited

Irish Research and Development GroupRoyal College of Surgeons in Ireland

Irish Software Association

Royal Irish Academy

Isotron Ireland Limited

Science Foundation Ireland

IUA Librarians’ GroupSIFCO Industries

Letterkenny Institute of Technology

SR Technics

Limerick Institute of Technology

St. Patrick’s College, Drumcondra

LíonraStryker Instruments

Lucent Technologies

The Irish Academy of Engineering

Magna

The University of Dublin (Trinity College)

Marine Institute

The University of Limerick

Mary Immaculate College, Limerick

Timoney Technology

Mater Dei Institute of Education

Tridelta Plc

Medtronic

Tyndall National Institute

Merrion Pharmaceuticals

University College Cork

Mr. Crumb

University College Dublin

National College of Art & Design

Waterford Crystal Ltd

National College of Ireland

Waterford Institute of Technology

National Disability Authority

Wyeth

63

RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE IN IRELAND - BUILDING FOR TOMORROW
Appendices> Appendix 4 Abbreviations & Acronyms
ECRIN

Athlone Institute of Technology

AVC

Audio Visual Connection

BMS

Biological and Medical Science

EISCAT

European Incoherent Scatter

CBE

Commander of the Order of the British

EMBL

European Molecular Biology Laboratory

Empire

EPA

Environmental Protection Agency

CCD

Charge-Coupled Device

ERI

Environmental Research Institute

CCTV

Closed-Circuit Television

ESA

European Space Agency

CERN

Conseil Européen pour la Recherche

ESEM

Environmental Scanning Electron

Infrastructure Network

Microscope

Nucléaire
Cork Institute of Technology

ESO

European Southern Observatory

COFORD National Council for Forest Research

ESFRI

European Strategy Forum on

CIT

64

European Clinical Research

AIT

Research Infrastructure

and Development
COST

European Cooperation in the field of

ESRF

Economic and Social Research
Foundation

Scientific and Technical Research
CNEF

Cross National Equivalent File

ESRI

Economic and Social Research Institute

CRANN

Centre for Research on Adaptive

ESS

European Social Survey

Nanostructures and Nanodevices

EU

European Union

CRF

Clinical Research Facility

EUPRO

European Union of Physics

CSO

Central Statistics OfficeCT

Computed TomographyFÁSForas Áiseanna Saothair

DCU

Dublin City University

FETAC

Further Education and Training

DDI

Data Documentation Initiative

DIAS

Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies

FIB

Atrial Fibrillation / Focused Ion Beam

DIT

Dublin Institute of Technology

FOM

Foundation for Fundamental Research

DLIADT

Dún Laoghaire Institute of Art,

Research Organisations

Awards Council

on Matter

Design and Technology

FRS

Fellow of the Royal Society

DMMC

Dublin Molecular Medicine Centre

HEA

Higher Education Authority

DNA

Deoxyribonucleic Acid

HE

Higher Education

DPSS

Diode Pumped Solid State

HEIHigher Education Institution

HERD

Higher Education Expenditure on

IPRIntellectual Property Rights

Research and Development

IRCHSS Irish Research Council for the

HPC

High-Performance Computing

HR

Human Resources

HRB

Health Research Board

GDP

Gross Domestic Product

IReL

Irish Research E-Library

GIS

Geographic Information System

ISSDA

Irish Social Science Data Archive

GLP

Good Laboratory Practice

IT

Information Technology

GMIT

Galway–Mayo Institute of Technology

ITB

Institute of Technology, Blanchardstown

GMP

Good Manufacturing Practice

ITC

Institute of Technology, Carlow

GNP

Gross National Product

LIS

Luxembourg Income Survey

ICHEC

Irish Centre for High-End Computing

LIT

Limerick Institute of Technology

ICRIN

Irish Computing Research

LYIT

Letterkenny Institute of Technology

Infrastructure Network

MNC

Multi-national Corporation

Inter-University Consortium for

MRI

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Political

NCAD

National College of Art and Design

and Social Research

NCG

National Centre for Geocomputing

Information and Communications

NCPST

National Centre for Plasma Science

ICPSR

ICT

Humanities and Social Sciences
IRCSET

Irish Research Council for Science,
Engineering and Technology

Technology

and Technology

IDA

Industrial Development Agency

NDRC

National Digital Research Centre

IFSC

International Financial Services Centre

NMR

Nuclear Magnetic Resonance

IoT

Institute of Technology

NREN

National Education and Research

65

RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE IN IRELAND - BUILDING FOR TOMORROW
Appendices> Appendix 4 Continued

Network

SFI

Science Foundation Ireland

NUIG

National University of Ireland, Galway

SGI

Silicon Graphics Inc.

NUIM

National University of Ireland, Maynooth

SIF

Strategic Innovation Fund

NWO

Nederlandse Organisatie voor

SLS

Selective Laser Sintering

Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek

SMPS

Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer

OBE

Order of the British Empire

OECD

Organisation for Economic Cooperation

SPF

Specific Pathogen Freeand Development

SRIF

Science Research Infrastructure Fund

Picture Archiving and Communication

SSH

Social Science and Humanities

Systems

SSTI

Strategy for Science, Technology

PACs

66

Spectrometer

PAP

Platelet Aggregation Analyzer

and Innovation

PCR

Polymerase Chain Reaction

TCD

PI

Principal Investigator

TEAGASC Agriculture and Food Development

PNA

Peptide Nucleic Acid

PPMS

Physical Property Measurement System

TEM

Transmission Electron Microscope

PRTLI

Programme for Research in

UCC

University College Cork

Third-Level Institutions

UCD

University College Dublin

PSE

Physical Science and Engineering

UK

United Kingdom

R&D

Research and Development

UL

University of Limerick

RCSI

Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland

US / USA United States of America

Trinity College Dublin

Authority

REMEDI Regenerative Medicine Institute

VC

Venture Capital

RIA

Royal Irish Academy

WDXRF

Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray

S&T

Science and Technology

SBIR

Small Business Innovation
Research Programme

SCPR

Social and Community PlanningResearch

SEM

Scanning Electron Microscope

Fluorescence
WIT

Waterford Institute of Technology

> Appendix 5 Higher Education Authority Members
NameProfessional 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 CroninChief 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 HerronHome 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

67

68