The French presidential frontrunners discuss science

In the run-up to the French presidential election, Nature discussed science with the two leading candidates: Nicolas Sarkozy of the UMP party and the Socialist Party’s François Hollande.

NICOLAS SARKOZY
What have been the main accomplishments of your presidency?
Without hesitation, the 2007 law giving universities autonomy from centralized state control. It has given universities greater freedom to set their own strategies, allows them to own their land and buildings, manage their budgets and borrow capital to make major investments. The universities can now recruit scientists without any ministry involvement — even though researchers are civil servants — and they have greater freedom to set salaries, through bonuses, instead of being tied to rigid national salary scales. Since 2007, university funding has also increased by 22%, and in 2008 we launched a €5-billion [US$6.5-billion] plan to refurbish a dozen select university campuses.

Is research reform still a high priority for you, or do you feel that you have already accomplished the main reforms? Would you maintain research as a public spending priority?
The policies executed since 2007 have largely met with a consensus. François Hollande has said that he would not go back on university autonomy. He has even said that he would accelerate the implementation of the €35-billion research and technology stimulus package, the grand emprunt, or big loan, now renamed ‘Investments for the Future’, launched in 2009. The academic world has long waited for these reforms, reforms that no government, neither right nor left, had until now dared to launch. Research and higher education will be a priority in my second term, should the French people place their trust in my re-election, just as it was during my first term. Investing in higher education, research and innovation is the best response to the economic crisis, and is a guarantee for our future.

Many leading scientists complain that lab funding by the national research organizations is falling. How would you rectify this situation?
In 2011, research spending as a percentage of gross domestic product reached 2.3%, close to its historical high [of 2.36%] in the early 1990s. The budgets of the main public research agencies — the CNRS, INSERM, CEA, INRA — have increased every year since 2007. The National Research Agency’s budget has stagnated, but the agency is also responsible for allocating €22 billion for higher education and research under the Investments for the Future programme.

The best French research teams have enjoyed an unprecedented increase in funding, but these funds have not necessarily passed through the main research agencies such as the CNRS, INSERM, INRA, CEA, which sometimes causes criticism by the researchers working for these agencies.

Would you maintain the current status of publicly funded scientists as civil servants with life-tenure?
In France, there's a very strong tradition of public service. It is not the only country where this is so. And publicly funded research in France is part of the public services. But in fact, postdoctoral contracts have become widely available in France over the past decade, so we are not that far from the tenure recruitment systems that prevail worldwide. Postgraduates can benefit from postdoctoral contracts for 3 to 6 years, and around three-quarters of them go on to be recruited by the research agencies or universities. But you're right, this question of the life-tenure status of researchers should without doubt be addressed one day. But this is not the moment.

Some scientists say that university reforms and excellence initiatives are creating a two-tier system. How will you maintain research quality across France?
Overall, the universities had a budget surplus in 2011, so there isn't a deficit at all, as is said in some quarters. The 2007 university autonomy law means that for the first time in France, all universities have full responsibility for managing their budgets themselves, and 95% of them have succeeded in doing so without any problems. For some others it has been a little trickier, but they are learning quickly. The difficulties that have emerged often stem from the changes in accounting, particularly with respect to provisioning and depreciation. Payroll expenditures on university employees, which were also transferred from the state to the autonomous universities, are also higher than previously. In addition, over the past three years, staff salaries have increased by a total of €251 million.

The Conference of University Presidents, which represents the universities, hasn't asked for greater flexibility in setting tuition fees. Note that countries with excellent universities, such as Switzerland, have low fees, and others, like Sweden, have no fees. Making tuition fees more flexible is not the panacea that some dream of. This fees issue is typical of the false problems that are sometimes raised in France. Would you like us to do the same as Great Britain, which has allowed its universities to strongly increase fees and has since experienced a significant drop in the number of students? Is that progress?

Idex, the initiative for excellence funded by €7.7 billion from the Investments for the Future programme, is exactly analogous to an initiative launched by Germany several years ago that has seen the emergence of nine institutions destined to become world-class universities. We have similarly selected eight. Nobody has criticized the German programmes; why would what is good for German universities not be so for French universities?

There is not that much disparity in opportunities among universities. They have opportunities beyond Idex within the Investments for the Future programme, for example, with calls for proposals of competitiveness, for regrouping labs from research hospitals, universities and the national biomedical research agency in a few centres of excellence in medical research. We also have launched calls for labs of excellence, and for scientific equipment. When you look at the map of France universities, you realize that 90% of them have received support under the Investments for the Future programme.

Does one speak of inequality in the United States because all universities don't benefit from the same means as Harvard or Berkeley? No. Are research universities evenly distributed across the United States? No. It's exactly the same in France: if we want world-class research champions, we need to concentrate resources on those places where the research is best.

Finally, let me point out that sites that have benefited from the excellence initiative were not chosen by the government, but by an international jury chaired by Jean-Marc Rapp, former rector of the University of Lausanne and president of the European University Association. And the jury was not only made up of foreign scientists, and French scientists working outside of France, but also featured the research directors of large industrial groups.

I’m a big fan of cycling, and I love watching the Tour de France. We’ve never seen the pack accelerate because those at the rear go faster; the pack accelerates when the leaders accelerate. I think the Investments for the Future programme, because it rewards the best, will lift the entire French system of research and higher education, not just the winners.

For those institutions that haven't gained a place in Idex, we will ensure that they hold their own, in particular in training. I also note that the panel that monitors the Investments for the Future programme has welcomed the way the funds have been allocated. Even on the left wing, there are voices — including the president of the think tank Terra Nova, which is close to the Socialist Party — calling for similar programmes to be launched regularly.

Scientists say that you have increased bureaucracy in an already-complex research landscape. How would you streamline this?
It is true that new structures have emerged. Many need to be consolidated, and others need to be simplified or reduced. The landscape of French research and higher education is being restructured. It is like a major construction site where, as the project advances, the scaffolding is taken down, the tarpaulin is taken off and the new building appears. That is how it will be for the universities and research in France. Within a few years, the landscape will have been radically modernized and renovated — the price to pay for that is transiently increased complexity. But do you think the French system was optimal five years ago? Was it perfectly adapted to compete in the knowledge society? What insights can be drawn from the position on French universities in international rankings? Was it imaginable to stand idly by, like so many of my predecessors? Was it enough to simply accept our powerlessness to reform? No, France deserves better! France is a country full of intelligence and talent. I have great esteem for, and recognition of, our researchers. I trust them to take ownership of the reforms.

What future place and role within this new research landscape do you see for the large national research agencies, such as the CNRS and INSERM?
France is a very special case. Just after the Second World War, we created agencies separate from the universities to do basic research. At the time, such a set-up was found only in Communist countries, in particular the USSR and China. Now, even these countries have abandoned this model. In the United States, the vast majority of research operators are universities. That is not yet the case in France, but it is our goal. Things will evolve. Why would that which works elsewhere not work for France? That would be pretty extraordinary! The research organizations are expected to become more like real funding agencies, serving the universities and research institutions.

France's industrial tax credits scheme, costing more than €5.2 billion this year, is one of the most generous in the world, and has made France attractive for establishing R&D facilities. But industrial spending on research remains low, and France remains poor at creating start-up high-tech companies. What measures would you take to improve the situation?
The relative lack of interest of many French companies for R&D poses a real problem. But here too, things are changing, in particular because of the research tax credits. People complain that this system of fiscal incentives benefits the very large companies, in particular. But 80% of companies who benefit from them are small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). They obviously benefit at lower levels than do large companies, but that's simply a size effect. I'm not against implementing systems that have greater incentives for SMEs. But above all, we must not limit this mechanism: limiting the access of large companies to research tax credits won't mean that SMEs will benefit more. This type of reasoning is stupid, as there are no imposed constraints on this mechanism. Without doubt we must do more to encourage SMEs to take advantage of research tax credits, and help them to learn to use them. We need to encourage them to approach the major research labs. I also propose that we advance tax credits to them when this is necessary to improve their liquidity. But the best thing would be for you to ask business leaders what they think of the research tax credits. None are critical of it; on the contrary, they all want more!

The election campaign has seen remarkably little discussion of, or proposals on, climate change and energy issues. What are your proposed policies?
The reason is simple: on climate change, I launched in 2007 the Grenelle Environment Round Table, representing a real, national commitment to sustainable development, be it in energy, organic farming, agriculture, novel industrial sectors, transport etc. No other country has initiated such a debate, which involved all interested parties and resulted in major structural decisions. My programme in ecology is simple: to continue and amplify what has already been achieved.

I observe that, at a time of dwindling fossil-energy resources, and the fight against climate change, M. Hollande, on his part, proposes the end of our nuclear industry and the capping of petrol prices, solutions that run completely counter to the challenges. Under these conditions, the debate is limited to fighting these unsuitable proposals.

Would you maintain nuclear power’s 75% share of French electricity generation?
I want to intensify research to develop safer nuclear reactors, but also to boost research and development into safer nuclear generation and alternative energy sources. I want to manage the inevitable transition towards alternative energies that will take place in France, as it will elsewhere. In the meantime, it would be stupid and counterproductive to deprive France of its valuable nuclear-energy assets. We currently spend the same on the development of renewables as on nuclear energy. The two are complementary, not antithetical.

The environment, biodiversity and ecology were major themes in the 2007 presidential election campaign, but seem largely absent from this year's campaign. What would be the key policies and measures you would make here?
There is no significant debate on these issues in the election campaign because a wide consensus exists on the efforts made since 2007.

What is your position on deepening the coordination and integration of national and European Union research systems and policies, in particular in areas of great socioeconomic importance?
France has always backed big science projects in Europe, such as those developed at CERN in Geneva, or by the European Space Agency, or the ITER experimental reactor for energy production from nuclear fusion. The European Union's own research budget is small compared with national research budgets, however. Therefore, what is important is to better coordinate the research budgets of the major European countries, in particular those of France, Germany and Great Britain, as these account for half of all research spending in Europe. Thanks to a French initiative during the French presidency of the European Union in 2008, a joint programming scheme was launched to coordinate member states’ budgets on several key themes, such as Alzheimer's disease. We must continue on this path.

Would you change France’s laws on human embryo and embryonic-stem-cell research?
The issue was widely debated in parliament during the revision of the bioethics laws in 2011. The current situation, in which embryo research is prohibited but there are dispensations for work that could lead to major therapeutic progress and where alternatives are not available, is strictly equivalent from a scientific point of view to what the socialists propose: authorizing such research, with projects being tightly regulated. During the 2011 debate on bioethics, the French overwhelmingly expressed their commitment to the sanctity of life from its beginning. The national representation therefore ruled that the existing system should be maintained.

Research projects are assessed and authorized by the National Biomedical Agency, which granted 173 permits for embryonic stem cells between February 2006 and February 2011, including 71 for research on embryonic stem cells, 24 for the preservation of stem cells and 46 for the importation of cell lines. No project with a serious basis has been rejected. It is untrue that our legislation inhibits the advance of knowledge. This is propaganda, pure and simple. I believe instead that the law is balanced and has the essential advantage of being well accepted by the vast majority of the French. The law is respectful of our shared values, without impeding the expansion of knowledge.

FRANÇOIS HOLLANDE
French universities have experienced huge changes under President Sarkozy. Would you continue or change his programme?
The 2007 law on university autonomy must be profoundly reformed, but there will be no going back on the principle of autonomy — remember that it is the left wing that led the French decentralization laws — rather we need to change the way it has been implemented. I also want university governance to be more collegial and democratic, and so respect academic freedom.

When responsibilities are transferred from the state to the universities, there also needs to be a comparable transfer of resources. I want the university-funding mechanisms to be clarified, and for these not to increase disparities, in particular by cutting back on teaching or the salaries of lecturers and full-time researchers. The reforms will be discussed within a framework law on higher education and research at the end of 2013, preceded this year by a national consultation.

Many leading scientists complain that lab funding by the national research organizations is falling. How would you rectify this situation?
This year and last, the overall funding levels for the national research organizations and the National Research Agency fell. This proves that the President’s words are just smoke and mirrors. I will rebalance core lab funding — the permanent support that lets teams think in the medium and long term — with project funding. I will refocus the National Research Agency [the main source of project funding] on national priorities, emerging themes and interdisciplinary projects. The French research system has the specificity of associating universities and national research organizations. One needs to take that into account if one is not to break what works.

Giving priority to higher education and research means assigning budgets. I will do that after a financial audit of the successive plans launched by the previous government. I will take stock of how investments are being implemented. I will also evaluate their geographical repartition, and afterwards will proceed with the necessary financial arbitrations.

Some scientists say that excellence initiatives are creating a two-tier system. How will you maintain research quality across France?
We need to restore the true sense of the term ‘excellence’. Other countries think French research is being inundated with money. But this new money doesn’t compensate for the cuts observed at the CNRS over the past two years, which has resulted in 25% less cash in the labs. There is a chasm between the €22 billion announced for Investments for the Future and the reality, which is that the funding is only the interest on that sum distributed over ten years — for every €1 billion announced for a winning university, the reality is just €34 million per year.

The Investments for the Future programme has worsened disparities between universities. French research is not just Paris, Bordeaux, Toulouse, Aix, Marseilles and Strasbourg. It is astonishing that some of the projects shortlisted, such as the engineering projects put forward by Grenoble and the University of Lorraine, were ultimately not retained by the international jury. I will not reconsider decisions that have been made but, after the audit, I will demand that unallocated credits be used to correct geographical disparities, to ensure that these do not develop into scientific and university deserts. I will push to replace unbridled competition between the universities with cooperation.

Would you prioritize research spending? How would you increase the competitiveness of French research?
I will make higher education and research a priority, because the major problem facing France is to prepare for the future. I will make youth the core of my programme, giving priority to education from early childhood through to university.

To improve the competitiveness of French research, I would like better cooperation between the national research agencies and the universities. The universities, together with the agencies, should be at the centre of the provision of teaching and research. Each relevant territory should have the prospect of creating a large university to coordinate supply of teaching and research.

I will propose reforms to team up public research and private-sector research more efficiently. I will reaffirm the role of the joint labs, which bring together research groups from the universities, and from the national research organizations, as the structural element of university research. The national research organizations must be involved in defining priorities and planning, and must recover their resources.

I will favour basic research, which has been sacrificed these past few years, paying particular attention to the life sciences, where funding is far below the international average, and environmental sciences.

What is the future for the large national research agencies, such as the CNRS and INSERM?
France is lucky to have its large national research organizations, such as the CNRS, INSERM, CEA, INRA and INRIA, alongside the universities. This French exception should be an asset. These organizations must recover their role of steering the national research effort, and of supporting research carried out in the universities. It is an aberration that after creating agencies such as the CNRS and INSERM, which are highly rated at the international level, funding is not provided to some of their labs. It's simply a waste.

Would you maintain the current status of publicly funded scientists as civil servants with life tenure?
I am in favour of maintaining the two distinct statuses of lecturer-researchers and full-time researchers, but I would increase mobility within this framework. Lecturer-researchers should, during the course of their careers, have the opportunity to dedicate time to research, and full-time researchers at the universities should be able to have multi-year contracts with the universities. Opportunities for mobility should be broader than today, allowing movement back and forth between the state administration, regional authorities, and public- and private-sector companies. Evaluations of researchers should take into account their contributions to expert assignments, consulting, dissemination of science and technology, scientific mediation, international cooperation and publication of books.

Some scientists complain that the accumulation of new bodies has further complicated the French research landscape and increased bureaucracy. How would you simplify this?
The French research and higher-education landscape has become unfathomable through the accumulation of new structures. France has become the country of geological politics, where successive reforms accumulate in successive layers, covering older ones without making them disappear.

I want researchers to be able to focus on doing research, instead of chasing funding and being part-time reviewers on multiple evaluation panels. I will therefore revisit the coherence of the multiple instances of evaluation of researchers and institutions, such as the National Agency of Evaluation, the National Universities Council and the national committees of the research organizations. The evaluation of individuals and lab teams should be separate from the strategic evaluation of the universities and research organizations. This reform should be articulated with an identical simplification at the European level. The national consultation that would be organized this year would be asked to propose such changes in the organization of French research.

France’s industrial tax credits scheme, costing more than €5.2 billion this year, is one of the most generous in the world, and has made France attractive for establishing R&D facilities. But industrial spending on research remains low, and France remains poor at creating start-up high-tech companies. What measures would you take to improve the situation?
The private sector’s effort in research needs to increase significantly. It has stagnated over the past decade. Innovation is a major engine of progress and competitiveness. It must be the lever of economic growth and the reindustrialization of France and Europe.

I will refocus the research tax-credits scheme on the companies that use it best. I will expand it to cover innovation, increase the share that benefits small- and medium-sized companies (SMEs), encourage collaboration between public and private labs, and support the creation of networks between large companies and small research groups. I will use tax credits to incentivize the hiring of postgraduates.

I will propose a further step towards decentralization by conferring on the regions responsibility for innovation policy, and want to establish a ‘Small Business Act’ at the European level, reserving a portion of public procurement funds for SMEs by awarding contracts to the most innovative.

What will be your policies on nuclear and other energy technologies, and climate change?
I want France to accomplish an energy transition with the share of nuclear energy being reduced from 75% to 50% of electricity production within 15 years. I will respect European commitments to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, and international commitments to reduce these by a factor of four before 2050. That means, therefore, that research on climate change, its effects and our adaptation to it will be supported as a priority. So too will research on water resources and quality, biodiversity, renewable energies and energy efficiency. I will create major research programmes on ‘disruptive’ technologies such as electricity storage, the greening of various production sectors, energy efficiency and de-pollution of soils.

I have decided to continue the construction of the European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) at Flamanville, and will reach a position on its future after an assessment of its rollout in France, Finland and China. I shall continue research on safer next-generation reactors and nuclear fusion. On nuclear waste, research is being carried out — under the laws of 1971 and 2006 — on different options. No reversible deep storage will be authorized without the approval of parliament.

How would you improve the integration of national and European Union research systems and policies, in particular in areas of great socioeconomic importance?
I want Europe to have greater ambitions in research and innovation, to give it more weight at the international level. We need to better define the areas in which Europe is a leader. I want us to go further in exchanges between European universities, by reinforcing the Erasmus programme at the master’s level, by developing co-supervision of PhDs. I will propose to our European partners that the European Research Council should be transformed into a true research agency; that a European version of France’s Investments for the Future programme be supported by Eurobonds; and that a carbon tax should support climate and energy research. At the European level, priority must be given to reinforcing cooperation with the south, in particular around projects on agriculture and food, water health and energy. Science in the north should irrigate that in the south. Finally, I will propose launching a large project for financing innovation through the European Investment Bank.

Would you change France’s laws on human embryo and embryonic-stem-cell research?
I will authorize research on embryonic stem cells to clarify the situation of the 2011 law on bioethics, which maintained a ban on this research while allowing dispensations for particular projects. It is important to put an end to this hypocrisy.

How do you assess President Sarkozy’s impact on research and universities?
The President has introduced multiple reforms without providing the necessary resources. In the past decade, we have fallen from 4th to 15th place worldwide in terms of spending on research as a percentage of GDP — 2.26% compared with 2.82% in Germany and 2.9% in the United States. France is trailing, and the trust between researchers and political leaders has been broken. My first objective will be to restore that trust.