Mr. Eamon Ryan:
Like Deputy Upton, I welcome the chance for a broad debate about where we are going in science and what role science has to play in our society. It is particularly appropriate that we are debating the question in this Chamber, which was originally built by the Royal Dublin Society, a scientific society, as a lecture theatre and where, I am sure, huge original scientific debate took place. I believe the Chamber was also, at one time, a concert theatre, which was a more colourful use than its current one. This is an interesting place in which to debate science, which we do not do sufficiently.
When it was established, the Royal Dublin Society was originally named the Dublin Society for Improving Husbandry, Manufactures and Other Useful Arts. A week later the members added the word, “science” to the title. I hope the Minister will be equally flexible when she comes to amending this Bill to improve it. Unfortunately, one of the amendments I will be suggesting will propose the deletion of the word “science” from the title. The Bill might be better described as “the orientated basic research foundation Bill”. The Bill promises that research will be carried out with the expectation that it will produce the broad base of knowledge that is likely to form the background to solutions or recognised current or future problems or possibilities. My understanding of science is that one cannot approach it with expectations. A student of science views the world as a removed observer and tries to understand what is going on. If we compromise that basic independence which is the kernel of scientific method we are not promoting science, we are promoting research and development. There is nothing wrong with that. It is welcome in Irish industry that we develop and use technology and research to maintain jobs and to help our economy. That is very valuable. However, we must be careful about feeling that by doing so we are developing science, in the purest sense, or developing our inquiring and independent scientific minds. I have a terrible fear that the Bill may be a research and development Bill or an orientated basic research Bill but I do not believe it is a Bill to promote science per se in our society.
The Bill has two or three regrettable aspects. Emphasis is continually placed on the basis of the economy, even on the narrow basis of technology and applied research. We must change our ways and start looking at how we develop our county and our industries on a broader and more holistic basis. The environment, society and the economy cannot be separated. The ecology and the sense of interconnectedness of everything in our society comes first. We must take an ecological analysis, an economic analysis and an equality analysis and, by bringing those three together, we will achieve sustainable development.
In our work in the Oireachtas we continually refer to the economy. Unless we are ecological in our approach and see the interconnectivity between nature and our economy and society and our economy, the economy will not develop successfully. Successful economic development requires sustainable economic development and this Bill does not have that emphasis. It is based purely on economic development rather than on that broad sustainable basis.
The position is not the same elsewhere. President Truman established what was probably the first scientific institute in the United States in the 1950s. Its strategic objectives are much broader and include welfare. It also includes national defence, with which I have a problem, but its analysis is much broader than purely economic development. One of the statements of what the institute is about defines one of its roles as, “funding and encouraging fundamental research and education resulting in discoveries and innovations that save lives, save time and maybe even save planet Earth”. The American institute had a broad and wondering vision and a desire to understand. The New Zealand Scientific Research Institute, which again is involved primarily in investing in industry and in trying to develop connections, also has a much broader basis. It has a special fund for investing in sustainable development research. In five or ten years’ time I am certain that the findings from that sustainable development research will provide the technology which will be demanded throughout the planet from which new industries will be created. If we really want to develop our economy we must emphasise sustainable development, which is not even mentioned in this Bill. The environment does not feature.
Some people might expect members of the Green Party to be anti-science. We certainly have serious qualms about the use of certain technologies in, for example, genetic engineering and the use of patenting of life. Most of the solutions to our environmental problems will come from science. We rely on scientists to provide an object analysis of what is happening and of how we solve it. Science is our only solution. The misuse of science and technology may well have been the cause of most of the damage which occurred in the 20th century and of most of the harmful effects we are now creating on the planet, but in the 21st century science and technology will be the chief tool in undoing that damage.
To do that we need to whet the creative ambition of our younger people. I agree with the comments about concern at the lack of impetus towards people moving into the basic sciences at a very junior level in school. To encourage young people into science we cannot set a model that they might some day help the global economy or a certain corporation by developing a scientific or technological solution. That will not set a child’s imagination alight. We must show children the big picture and tell them the truth.
We are in deep trouble in that we are affecting the planet. We are affecting the climate, the level of biodiversity and other areas in ways we do not even know about. We can set young people’s imaginations aflame by telling them they will have to solve those problems because such problems will come to a head in their lifetimes – they will have to go into science to understand the way nature works in order to solve the problems. This will raise young people’s ambitions and creative instincts and they will create jobs and wealth for us in the process of saving the planet. This Bill shows none of that vision; it sees Ireland Inc. as a business community, not a social community. It does not have any sense of an environmental approach, which is also regrettable. Like the founders of the Royal Dublin Society, I hope the Minister agrees to amend the Title of and some other terms in the Bill.
I agree with Deputy Howlin that it seems remarkable that we are the last people to discuss the Bill. It has gone before the social partners, through a consultation process within the Department and the institution involved is even up and running. The House which was to debate it comes in last place. That is reflective of a general trend of how we set our vision and policies in Ireland and it is not particularly democratic.
