Humans in Science

Over the last 48 hours, approximately 10,000 people to date have signed the following petition criticizing the French government’s approach to reforming the way science is conducted in France.

If you agree, you are encouraged to sign as well. But I wanted to bring up the recurring themes that preoccupy most scientists, engineers, technicians and informed citizens here, and probably in most countries.

• Utilitarianism. How demonstrably and immediately useful should the results of taxpayer investment in science be?
• Governance. Who decides on priority themes for nationally-sponsored research? Scientists, via advisory councils? Elected politicians based on thematic popularity or visibility? Both? What is the independence and turnover of the hypothetical advisory council with respect to successive governments?
• Education and employment of the next generation of researchers. This clearly preoccupies some people in the U.S. , in Europe and in Japan as well. Both in content, and in form. These links are of course not all-inclusive by a long shot.

Text of the petition

The scientific community has, for several years now, demonstrated its will to improve the structure of research and teaching in higher education by making concrete proposals which remain valid today.

But the drastic restructuring of higher education and research currently being undertaken by the [French] Government will result in the management of research activity coming under the direct control of political power (well beyond the scope of the program orientations for which it is responsible).

Many people in positions of responsibility for research have criticised those government measures, in particular laboratory and research centre directors, CNRS [1] award recipients, that body’s research council (which includes overseas members), university councils, and laboratory general assemblies. That the Administrative Council of the CNRS was prevented from sitting on June 19th, reflects our profound and abiding uneasiness with regard to the restructuring currently being imposed on this public body, which threatens its integrity and its independence.

In order to resolve a crisis which can only weaken French research as well as to regain the confidence necessary to reform our institutions in ways that will benefit society as a whole, we ask today that:

- Any changes in the structure of research be implemented in full respect of scientific independence and of the principles of collegiality and democracy of university and other research institutions;

- Sufficient resources, both financial and human—researchers and teacher-researchers, technical and administrative support personnel—be allocated to universities and other public research bodies on a long-term basis. The institutions will then be able to build a scientific strategy, their laboratories will be able to develop their own projects and the principle that governs research and higher education on the basis of statutory posts—guarantors of genuine intellectual independence—will be preserved;

- The CNRS should continue to cover all fields of knowledge in order to develop a global research strategy as well to as encourage collaboration between the different disciplines.

These demands have a cost, which can be met within the framework of the overall budget allocations to higher education and research.

We are determined that this action should be long-term. We are aware of our responsibility in the implementation of changes within higher education and research and we are committed to doing nothing that would weaken the very basis of our activity and its future in the short term, as per our press release of June 23rd, signed by laboratory and research centre directors and individuals in charge of research bodies.

If our demands are not heard, we will initiate progressive administrative strike actions. In particular, we will:

- In a first phase, suspend our involvement in expertise and evaluation activities undertaken for the ANR [2] and the AERES [3];

- Refuse to pass on data that would support the assessment and orientation of research using indicators that exclude expert scientific input.

- And, in a second phase, and should the Government continue to remain deaf to our legitimate requests, laboratory and institutional directors, individuals in charge of scientific bodies, and their respective members, will resign from their posts.

–
[1] Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, the national pan-science agency. INSERM, the “Institut National pour la Sante et la Recherche Medicale” is a more specific structure devoted to applied biomedicine. One of the government propositions has been to devolve the biological sciences sector of the CNRS to be overseen by the INSERM. This is extremely unpopular.

[2] Agence Nationale pour la Recherche – the new National Research Agency, which was created not long before President Sarkozy was elected to distribute research funds directly and not through the INSERM or CNRS, on a project-by-project basis. The jury is out on this, with some people thinking it rewards merit and others thinking it is too utilitarian (with focused calls for proposals) to allow fundamental science to depend only on this source.

[3] Agence d’Evaluation de la Recherche et de l’Enseignement Supérieur. A peer-evaluation agency for advancement for “teacher-researchers” – not all researchers in France must take on university teaching duties, only those who have taken university positions. The CNRS and INSERM and other such organisations (CEA, INRA…) have their own peer evaluations.

–

I personally find this petition rather vague – because many things do need to change in the system as it stands, and this was probably the only consensual text the authors could find. However, it would be primordial for the government to consult the constituents who are most concerned by these reforms – perhaps by referendum – those already involved in conducting science.

I posted this text as well in the Nature News and Opinion forum. Hoping that someone outside of the French research establishment will care to give their outside point of view, or at least offer some sympathy. If you could build a research system from the ground up, how would you go about it? What works well in your system, and what doesn’t?

Posted on Thursday, June 26th, 2008 at 8:18 am Categorized as:general science, politics

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.