I take issue with Mojgan Naghavi's and Derek Walsh's critique of Science Foundation Ireland (SFI; Nature 476, 399; 2011). Ireland has moved steadily up the country rankings of research performance and is now in the top 20, according to Thomson Reuters Essential Science Indicators.

This success is largely a result of the rigour of the international competitive review process implemented by the SFI since 2000, intended to select only the best science for funding.

This strategy has been purposefully carried out by successive governments against a worsening domestic and international economic backdrop, exemplifying a consistent, considered and long-term approach to research in Ireland.

Also, the SFI does not directly recruit researchers. Rather, it allows researchers and host institutions to compete for research funding.

The foundation has made a significant investment in research infrastructure over the past decade. However, more than 75% of state investment has been, and continues to be, in the scientists themselves. The budget of the SFI in 2011, far from fading, was increased by 7% at a time when most public spending has been significantly curtailed.

Naghavi and Walsh's suggestion that Ireland is among nations with “ill-planned knowledge-economy ventures” is at odds with its impressive statistics on inward investment in research and development, and the role of this in enhancing exports, increasing employment and adding value to Irish firms (see, for example, http://www.forfas.ie and http://www.idaireland.com).

See also: Ireland: global links pay off.