Sir

As French researchers who are convinced of the need for university reform, we read with interest your News story on the reform plans of the new French government ('French universities to gain control' Nature 448, 113; doi:10.1038/448113b 2007). We were surprised, however, that you seem to take for granted that a 'star' biologist ought to earn more than a philosopher of the same seniority level.

Are biologists compared with philosophers because it's assumed that there are no stars in philosophy? Or is philosophy thought to be of less value than biology as an academic endeavour? We are keenly aware of the achievements and promise of biology, but we think it would be counterproductive to relegate philosophy to a secondary status.

Although its contribution is difficult to quantify, philosophy has proven its usefulness to science in several ways: as a source of inspiration and new concepts, as an invaluable critic and as a conduit between scientists and the general public. For example, consider the fertile interplay among several branches of contemporary philosophy and current neuroscience.

There are, of course, good reasons for a state to invest more money in a field such as biology than in philosophy. Indeed, in France, much higher funding for biology is reflected in a larger number of teaching and research positions, dedicated laboratory funding and so on.

But paying 'star' biologists higher salaries is debatable for several reasons — not least because, by the time many scientists are recognized as stars, their period of productivity is largely over.

French universities face numerous problems: gross underfunding, laws against selecting students and detachment from the private sector, to name a few. But we would argue that the creation of a star system, among researchers or among disciplines, is not the most urgent necessity.