The finance bill for 2025 provides for an increase of 89 million euros in the budget of the Ministry of Higher Education and Research. An increase of 0.33%, well below the expected inflation of 1.8%. This decrease in constant euros in resources will not make it possible to honor several of the measures provided for in the research programming law adopted in 2020, such as the revaluations of bonuses which should be ensured by employers (universities and research organizations), nor the system of junior professorships. The National Research Agency sees its credits increased by 120 million euros of “commitment authorization”, which is less than expected – and above all does not guarantee their translation into “payment credits”. In short, a bad budget, which comes after a year 2024 where credits had already been cut by almost 3% at the start of the period.
Of course, the financial context of the State requires rigorous measures. But as far as research is concerned, this rigor has persisted for many years with public spending not exceeding 0.8% of gross domestic product (GDP), while at the same time, private spending has stagnated at around 1.4%. of GDP. A far cry from the European Union’s objective, stated in Lisbon in 2000, of reaching at least 3% of GDP in public and private spending. Our neighbors in northern Europe are very close to this (Great Britain, Denmark) or have exceeded this objective (Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium). Only the countries around the Mediterranean are doing less well while getting closer to us.
A solution could come from a shift in part of the research tax credit from which companies benefit (7.5 billion euros) and which several recent reports show that, although it is beneficial for SMEs, it is not is hardly suitable for large groups. However, the 2025 finance bill provides for its maintenance, even though it is one of the most generous private research support systems in the world.
Making France lose a large part of its attractiveness
It turns out that the countries mentioned above all have research performances superior to ours, which will inevitably translate into innovation and economic progress from which we will benefit less. The level of funding is not everything, it is also necessary to create a favorable ecosystem, where fundamental research can flourish, where the authorities have confidence in researchers (with ex post control), where most initiatives come from research teams and are not decided from above, where research administration is finally simplified. This aggiornamento would be possible if our leaders became aware of the stakes and became familiar with scientific questions.
The European horizon is also threatened by the EU’s desire to combine innovation and research funds into a vast envelope, a grouping which we can fear could threaten specific research funding. This would be a misinterpretation of the recommendations of the Tirole and Draghi reports which, to relaunch “disruptive” European technological innovation, call, among other measures, for better funding of fundamental research.
Furthermore, advances in science require the confrontation of points of view and cultures, which is enabled by a large international mix of students, postdoctoral researchers, researchers and academics. Any measure restricting this free movement is likely to permanently hamper our potential. These “intellectual migrants” have the choice of host country. They would quickly turn away from a State which raises even modest barriers to their arrival. The plan to request a deposit required for the reception of foreign students envisaged last year, fortunately abandoned, constitutes a dangerous warning signal. We can fear that, in the wake of the declarations of the new Minister of the Interior, measures will be taken which, combined with insufficient financial support, will cause France to lose a large part of its attractiveness and therefore its strength. Let us hope that our political leaders are sensitive to these arguments.
Alain Fischer is president of the Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the Institute of Genetic Diseases.
.