This piece originally appeared in The Business Post.
Around the world, the old strategies for funding science are being discarded. A new system, metascience, informs fresh models that maximise the return on innovation investment. The core idea is to “turn the scientific method on itself”. In practice, metascience generates data to inform evidence-based decisions. Just as researchers experiment in the lab, metascience involves studying science itself with trials and measurements.
Metascience replaces a funding system that largely lacks rigour and data. Little is known about how to get the most breakthroughs, start-ups, and highly-skilled scientists per euro of funding. In the words of John Ioannidis, professor of Statistics at Stanford, “It is a scandal that billions of dollars are spent on research without knowing the best way to distribute that money.”
The most sophisticated state agencies are turning to metascience for answers. In 2023, the US National Science Foundation (NSF) partnered with the Institute for Progress to test new mechanisms for funding research and innovation. This year, UK Research & Innovation (UKRI) invested £10 million in an elite metascience unit. Their task is to boost the competitiveness of UK science. Agencies in Switzerland, Austria, and New Zealand are following suit.
Early results have been startling. An NSF pilot offering top scientists greater stability and flexibility has increased productivity. In New Zealand and Switzerland, lotteries have mitigated funding bias. Meanwhile, the UK is developing metrics for research novelty. This will ensure funding is allocated to genuinely groundbreaking work.
The foundation of a new research agency marks a crossroads for Irish science. Taighde Éireann-Research Ireland (TERI) cannot continue with a funding playbook that other countries are ripping up. Instead, TERI should adopt metascience and continuous improvement as its core mandate.
The stakes are high. Between 2016 and 2021, Ireland slipped from sixth to eleventh place in the EU innovation rankings. As other nations refine their research ecosystems through data-driven improvements, Ireland may set up a new agency with obsolete practices. If we do, we’ll risk Ireland’s competitiveness, talent supply, and state capacity.
Here’s how to reverse the decline. The new CEO of TERI should:
1. Establish a dedicated metascience unit. A small team implementing metascience findings could significantly increase Ireland’s innovation ROI. Even a modest increase would translate to millions in economic value. The unit could be assembled from top programme managers already on the books. The first priority should be to adapt international metascience experiments to the Irish context. The NSF pilot grant (MIRA R35) which aims to “enhance scientific productivity and the chances for important breakthroughs” should be replicated here.
2. Piggy-back on international expertise. The US NSF and SFI are currently involved in high-level talks. TERI should not let this fall by the wayside in the disruption of its foundation. TERI should push to collaborate and match funding commitments. Leveraging US expertise, Ireland could rapidly enhance impact and commercialisation. Priorities should include engaging with their metascience working group and I-Corps initiatives. In particular, NSF Engines is a regional development program designed to accelerate key technologies, drive economic growth, and strengthen competitiveness. Ireland, home to 950 US companies directly employing 209,000 people, should be included in this regional analysis. TERI should work with the NSF to adapt this initiative for Ireland.
3. Build a national R&D database. In 2023, the Government awarded over €1 billion in R&D funding. Almost 75 per cent of this fell outside of SFI ’s direct remit so their funding alone won’t tell the whole story. Comprehensive data on publicly funded R&D is needed to enable evidence-based decision-making. A national database should be managed by TERI but include data on all publicly funded research. Analysis, conducted by the metascience unit, would feed into new strategies. Collaborating with UKRI would provide insight into our similar research ecosystems and cross-border initiatives. Starting now, a national database would be a point of comparison for future evaluation. Without it, how can we measure TERI’s success?
4. Future proof against AI. AI is already widely (but not officially) used by applicants, reviewers, and agencies to generate and assess proposals. The result is that research proposals are written and read by an AI tool, completely undermining the peer review process. Research Ireland should create an internal, protected, air-gapped database of research proposals, published articles, and patents. Applicants and reviewers should have access to AI tools in the database that operate on the closed system. Using AI, funders will be able to quickly find researchers who are working in a particular area and further sort by other criteria such as history of successful commercialisation.
Establishing TERI is not just an administrative change; it’s an opportunity to reimagine Irish science. Implementing metascience now can be done with minimal additional disruption. It presents an opportunity for a fresh start, a clean break, and new mandate. Using these tools, we can set a new trajectory for Irish research excellence and innovation leadership.
