Sir

Your coverage of the proposed reforms of French university and medical research (INSERM) and, in particular, the resistance of the universities, INSERM and CNRS to the changes suggested by Claude Allègre, the Minister of Education and Research, while accurate so far as it goes, does not mention the main factor at stake (Nature 393, 97; 1998, Nature 393, 102; 1998 & Nature 393, 97; 1998).

The main thrust of the reforms proposed by Allègre is obviously the attempt to break, or at least reduce in French academia, the power of the corporate system, which has evolved naturally, as in other (particularly Latin) countries, from the family to the clan and finally the professional interest groups. Les grandes écoles are just the tip of an iceberg of overlapping circles of influence at all levels that, as in many other professions, are an overwhelming preoccupation of French scientists and professors.

At a recent meeting for the graduating class of one of the main lycées of Paris, two students of biology were among the professionals invited to be questioned about careers. One student had been at a grande école and his classmate at a university. The former was full of assurance and the latter slightly apologetic, but both agreed that being at a grande école increases by a factor of about ten the chance of being ‘selected’ at the Pasteur Institute. ‘Grande école ’ not only means being taught by an elite of professors, after up to three years of painstaking preparative classes to pass admission exams, but also is the chance to win the race for a place that gives security for life: a salary up to the end of studies and thereafter the protection of the ‘old-timer’ club.

Before a student knows how to hold a pipette, the future chemist or biologist knows that he or she has to choose the strongest possible ‘school’ or ‘patron’ to protect his or her place in the corporate system. This may end up taking at least 30% of a scientist's time, and up to 80% of time (including teaching) for a professor who may have to pay back many accumulated debts of assistance received.

The ‘democratic’ commissions de spécialistes that govern academic research in France are indeed elected in part, but of course, in addition to giving loyal service to the community, they also enable the corporate system to work in a political sense. Meeting in Paris, the same people distribute nationwide positions and money on an annual basis, and also judge research, with no direct input from independent or foreign experts. In the worst case, this leads to in-house intellectual censorship which is why, in the life sciences at least, much of the originality of research is crippled. Since there is no time for in-depth analysis, anyone with an unconventional idea is easily considered a pretentious crackpot — unless supported by a ‘patron’ accepted within the system. Originality and international recognition have little value within the corporate system.

Another handicap of French science is that hundreds of the best scientists have to devote endless hours to evaluating the others, a most serious social game — one's students, colleagues and possibly one's own careers are at stake. It is no wonder that Allègre, wishing to break the impact of networks carefully built up over so many years and instead have scientists competing solely by the criteria of international scientific and economy-oriented standards, has met so much resistance.

Of course gradual change is necessary, but attacking just les grandes écoles is only paying lip-service to the problem. Put bluntly, in France, the evaluation of academic and scientific achievement should be strictly separated from the distribution of positions and funds; and the biannual auto-evaluation of scientific achievement by a ‘commission’ should be replaced by site visits every three to four years, allowing enough time (and means) to justify a project without interference, and done by independent specialists, at least 30% of whom should be from outside France. Some successful attempts at such a system are already functioning, for example the ATIPE boards of the CNRS, which fund young laboratory leaders.