Science in Europe: siloed and silenced

Europe's efforts to build a knowledge-based society are doomed because of its inability to embrace innovation. Instead, according to Brussels-based scientific public affairs consultant David Zaruk, we are building an "influence-based society", in which policy is determined not by scientific considerations but by "eco-religious fundamentalists".

Zaruk sets out his stall in an extensive and stimulating interview with EuroActiv. He sees the European Commission's silo-based approach to policy as part of the problem - while DG Research is actively promoting scientific research, DG Sanco is actively hampering it through an overly zealous embrace of the precautionary principle.

Speaking at the World Conference of Science Journalists in London back in July, the UK's chief scientific adviser John Beddington was also critical of the absence of a scientific input into the European Union's policy-making process. The European Commission has scientific committees that speak when they are spoken to, he says. But neither the president of the Commission nor any individual commissioners has an independent scientific adviser. "We see real problems there," says Beddington.

But the problem extends beyond Brussels. Ireland and the UK are, he says, the only EU member states with a chief scientific adviser. The contrast between the EU and the USA couldn't be stronger. Barack Obama's administration is packed with heavy hitters, such as Steven Chu, Steve Koonin, Harold Varmus and John Holdren. Where - or, heaven help us, who - are their European counterparts?

What's another year - of declining interest in science?

Science and technology are only guaranteed prominence on the news agenda during two weeks of the year. One is in January, when the BT Young Scientist Exhibition helps to fill the news vacuum created by the post-Christmas lull.

The other is in August, when the leaving certificate exam results become available, and employers' lobby groups like IBEC , ICT Ireland and The American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland line up to complain - or, in lobbyist speak, 'express serious concern' - about Irish students' declining interest in science and maths. It's a wholly predictable annual ritual.

The proposed solutions to this perceived problem include overhauling teaching, establishing incentives - for both science teachers and science students - and improving the 'image' of science-based careers. Interestingly, none of the concerned employers seems to feel the need to work on improving the actual substance of the careers they offer [economic circs permitting].

Better teaching - of any subject - is always a good thing, so if genuine improvements in science education can be made, let's have them. Giving students accurate and useful careers information can only be a good thing too. But pandering to disinterested second-level students and then shoehorning them into unsuitable university courses will not work. Arguably, we're already doing this to an extent.

Of course, the phenomenon is by no means unique to Ireland. It's on the OECD radar as well. But one voice seems to be entirely absent from this debate - that of the students themselves. Why are they opting out of science? Are they wilfully turning their backs on lucrative, rewarding careers? Or do they simply see more attractive options elsewhere?

Maybe science isn't fun

High drop-out rates from third-level courses in science and technology, as reported by the Irish Times this week, elicited the usual chorus of concern. The implicit suggestion is that those lazy, science-averse kids are endangering our future. We need science graduates - truckloads of them - to take us to the 21st century's version of the promised land - the fabled 'smart economy'.

We will get them, so the chorus of concern goes, by changing our teaching methods. Science and education minister Batt O'Keeffe says that making science more "practical" will help to address the issue. Dublin City University, says president Ferdinand von Prondzynski, has introduced a "new framework of student support", which should lead to significant improvements. IBEC, the employers' lobby, says it has "serious concerns" about the way science and maths are taught at second level.

More tellingly, the same organisation also notes that some students may not be equipped to study science. It would be extremely interesting to hear the individual stories behind the bare statistics - why a particular student opted for science in the first place; whether the course matched his or her expectations; and why she or he decided she or he would not or could not continue.

I wonder whether we are now reaping what we sowed. The current crop of science students has - unlike any previous generation - been on the receiving end of a significant state-supported campaign intended to make science seem sexy. One sponsored TV series gave science the MTV treatment (disclosure: I did a very small amount of work on this). Another, also heavily sponsored, adopted a crisp, urgent tone, somewhat reminiscient of an espionage thriller.

We've spent a lot of time, energy and money telling young people 'science is fun' - and maybe even cool. We've neglected to tell them that science can also be a bit difficult - and maybe, for many, not a whole lot of fun at all.

Which Irish motor industry are we talking about?

The Society of the Irish Motor Industry (SIMI) is at it again - complaining on RTE's Morning Ireland about how the slump in sales of new cars is threatening the Irish 'motor industry' and calling on the banks to make credit available to prospective buyers and, bizarrely, for government to subsidise new car purchases - when many people are worried about keeping a roof over their heads.

It baffles me that what is essentially a retail lobby group can present itself as an 'industry' and be accepted as such on the country's flagship current affairs radio programme.

SIMI describes itself as the representative body for "dealers, repairers, vehicle distributors, wholesalers, retailers, vehicle testers and many more important operators within the industry in Ireland". Leaving aside the tautology, what you've got essentially is the sales, distribution & service piece of the automotive industry value chain. There's precious little productive economic activity in there - and certainly none of it is to be confused with the once thriving and now declining automotive components manufacturing sector.

While the current economic collapse is unpleasant for everyone, SIMI's members and their employees included, its woes are the least of our problems.

What is the smart economy ?

To enterprise, trade & employment minister Mary Coughlan, it's whatever you're having yourself.

A reading of her recent speech at the MacGill summer school would indicate that the smart economy is a remarkably flexible instrument, capable of being whatever the minister wants it to be. It has all the attributes she likes - competitiveness, low costs, high skills; it is pervasively innovative; and it kind of reminds her of Stanford University: "The University has spawned some 3,000 companies in high technology and other fields, resulting in the creation of tens of thousands of jobs. It is that type of innovation led environment that our drive for a smart economy must emulate in Ireland. There is no good reason why we cannot."

I can think of $17.2 billion worth of reasons why we cannot. That's the size of Stanford's endowment. Comparisons with Ireland's underfunded and overstretched universities are entirely meaningless. But it never prevents policy makers - or ministers - from making them.

Margaret Pugh O'Mara's 'Cities of Knowledge' is a great place to learn more about the specific set of historical factors underpinning Stanford's success - and to learn why Ireland really ought to find more appropriate role models.