Power and Researchers: A Difficult Dialogue

The French President’s speech of the 22nd of January on research and innovation criticises the efficiency of French research and announces political decisions that are supposed to remedy the situation, mainly by the transfer of responsibilities to independent universities and the transformation of the CNRS (French National Centre for Scientific Research) into a funding agency. Unfortunately, the statement is biased and the role granted to universities does not take into account the competition with elite schools (grandes écoles) that cream off a high percentage of the best science students.

The President states: “We remain well behind the United Kingdom and Germany in terms of the percentage of French scientific publications world-wide”. In my own field, I think this is false. Such a statement is based on “objective” criteria that are completely devoid of meaning. Counting publications and quotations without considering their content sterilises adventurous explorations towards uncertain fields and fundamental thoughts on difficult issues. The scientific reputation of a country is measured by international collaborations and by regular visitors who share our scientific adventure. On that scale France is in a good position compared to its neighbours. However, an assessment is imperative. How should it be carried out?

A scientific judgment can only be expressed by competent and courageous scientists. Scientifically competent because they must read the articles in order to form an opinion, courageous because it is hard to stand by a critical judgment. Computers bypass the problem without thinking. Let us be honest, the present situation is a mixture of ignorance and cowardice: the results are pathetic. Many researchers of all ages are penalised because their originality is not valued.

We now focus on the articulation between research and university. As is the case for all countries, France has lecturer-researchers in its universities as well as full-time researchers (CNRS, INSERM: French Institute of Health and Medical Research, INRA: French National Institute for Agricultural Research, etc.). Contrary to the situation in the United States, the two communities are very well integrated. This strength must be protected. In his speech, the President reduces the CNRS to a funding agency. Admittedly, the CNRS has put on some weight, today. In the 1950s, its administration accounted for a very low percentage of the staff. Today, it is more like 25%. Thirty years ago, the Head of Department knew all of “his” researchers and he was able to assess their work. Nowadays everybody dreams of enormous structures that are easier to manage. One central feature remains, however: the CNRS committees are the only places where work is founded on scientific criteria.

Only human scale structures with shared interests can foster fruitful collaborations, giving their work soul. The INSU (French National Institute of Sciences of the Universe) is a good example : astrophysicists know how to gather in order to define scientific projects as well as medium and long-term policies. The CNRS is currently considering an evolution in this direction: I approve of it unreservedly. Each institute should be reasonably small, encompassing a well-defined field, with a strong international consultative scientific council, whose vocation is to be the “itching powder” of decision-making bodies. Together they must establish the broad outline of the work to be done and assess the results. Entrusting these “wise-men” with the assessment of individual researchers is unrealistic, but they can give their advice. The organisation decides, but it must face that external judgment.

There are more university lecturer-researchers than CNRS researchers. Their teaching workload has considerably increased, both in terms of bureaucracy and teaching students. Despite their great dedication, they find it very difficult to fulfil both responsibilities, more so as they have to deal with ill-prepared and poorly motivated students. We maintain in France the myth of equal universities from the baccalauréat to the PhD : at research level this clearly does not apply. I am convinced that active researchers give a great deal to teaching, but not all lecturer-researchers carry out active research throughout their career : some sort of assessment is needed. A local decision-making body cannot have the required impartiality and scientific judgement. An objective assessment must be carried out externally, certainly not under the responsibility of university presidents, immersed in local conflicts and mostly elected according to political criteria and unable to provide a complete scientific judgment. Full-time researchers and lecturer-researchers in the same field should be assessed together by the same central body, the latter with a longer periodicity.

Developing the autonomy of universities is a good thing. They should be free to carry out their own scientific policy, for instance partnerships with local industries. But the overall policy of a site concerns all the actors on the local scene, not just universities. It must be designed by all participants. The university should have a formal scientific council, in close touch with the other local research centres. The point is not to set the CNRS in opposition to the university, but to encourage their interaction.

Once and for all, one ought to understand that research cannot be scheduled like train timetables. To preserve the creativity of researchers, it is necessary to trust them throughout their research and judge them once the work is done. Universities do not have the scientific competence to do so. Despite my criticisms of this bureaucratic trend, I unreservedly defend a renovated CNRS, built on human scale institutes, impartially assessing researchers and lecturer-researchers. It is then the independent universities’ role to make a decision on the basis of this assessment.

The President of the Republic rightly mocks those who want to be judge in their own cause. A judgment must be external and free in order to be useful and respected. It must recognise differences between institutions and between fields and disciplines, avoiding centralism.

Ph. Nozières

*This article, which was signed by its author, received explicit support from the following physicists of the Academy of Science. Roger Balian, Alain Benoit, Marie Anne Bouchiat, Claude Bouchiat, Edouard Brézin, Bernard Cabane, Bernard Castaing, Pierre Darriulat, Bernard Derrida, Daniel Estève, Pierre Fayet, Maurice Goldman, Denis Gratias, Jean Iliopoulos, Guy Laval, André Martin, Georges Slodzian, Ionel Solomon, Jacques Villain