Share in world scientific publications, university rankings, international prizes, contracts won with the European research council… Whatever the indicators examined, all converge towards the same observation: the weakening of France in the field of research biological and medical. With in particular a worrying delay on the United Kingdom, but also Germany. The health crisis has again provided striking proof of this. Because it was indeed across the Rhine that the first PCR tests and messenger RNA vaccines against Covid were developed: “We cannot help but compare these results with the very significant increase in funds allocated to scientific research in Germany during the Merkel mandates”, notes Professor Alain Fischer, new president of the Academy of Sciences (and columnist at the Express) in a note which he has just submitted to the think tank Terra Nova on ” Medical research in France, review and proposals”.
The pediatrician, immunologist and geneticist has taken advantage of his long experience of the mysteries of French research to point out the shortcomings, and to propose a profound reform. End of the National Research Agency, reorientation of the research tax credit, less funding by projects but a reinforced evaluation of scientists: there is no doubt that these ideas should provoke debate, as they upset well-established positions. Because the observation of the former president of the council of orientation of the vaccine strategy is clear: the recent efforts of the public authorities, if they are welcome, will not be enough to bring France back to the forefront of world research. The 2020 programming law and its additional 26 billion euros in ten years? “Despite the revaluation of the income of research staff, this will not make it possible to catch up with the level of remuneration of neighboring countries. This therefore does not represent a shock of attractiveness”, regrets Professor Fischer. As for the 2030 Health Innovation Plan, endowed with 7 billion euros, it “does not sufficiently take into account an essential element: innovation requires active and effective research upstream”. Thus, if it proves necessary to create bioproduction sites for cellular, tissue and genetic therapies, it is also necessary to ensure that our scientists will indeed invent these drugs of tomorrow…
Four cryomicroscopes in France, 39 in Germany
Additional resources are of course necessary, in particular to raise salaries, including for thesis or “postdoc” students. In 2020, France devoted only 2.21% of its national wealth to R&D activities, i.e. less than the 3% targeted by the European Lisbon strategy. In the field of biology and health, public funding had even decreased by 28% between 2011 and 2018, when they increased by 11% in Germany and 16.5% in the United Kingdom. Under these conditions, neither remuneration nor equipment followed. As a striking example, France has only four electron cryomicroscopes, compared to 20 in the United Kingdom and… 39 in Germany! On the other hand, contrary to popular belief, France does not have fewer researchers than its neighbors: “Lower results in health biology then suggest less efficiency”, concludes Professor Fischer.
How could it be otherwise? The operation of public research in France indeed resembles a mille-feuille, “whose complexity reaches its climax in health biology”, notes the scientist. In fact, the list of organizations involved seems endless: CNRS, Inserm, hospitals, universities, national research agency, thematic agencies (National Cancer Institute, national AIDS research agency, etc.), initiatives of excellence, Aviesan (alliance for life sciences and health), not to mention the brand new “health innovation agency”, to which are added a multitude of charitable structures (Foundation for medical research, League against cancer, etc.) . By way of comparison, British researchers only have contact with their universities, the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust (private). As a result of the French-style fragmentation, the teams spend far too much time writing funding application files. Especially since operating credits are allocated mainly by project and for limited periods, generally three years. A context that creates “a climate of uncertainty, not necessarily conducive to the efficiency of research”.
For an evaluation followed by effects
Alain Fischer therefore pleads for a reduction in the share of funding per project. The recurring grants paid by the CNRS and Inserm would increase, and these organizations would be entrusted with all or part of the missions of the National Research Agency. Inserm would manage calls for projects and would become a resource agency, able to develop a real strategy and lead the various scientific fields, with a greater capacity for action than existing bodies. Scientists would thus benefit from budgetary perspectives over several years, and would be less caught up in the race for funds. The corollary? “A five-year evaluation which is effectively followed by effects: growth, reduction, restructuring or closure of the teams”, insists the researcher.
Because in addition to scattered funding, our research system also suffers from “questionable” evaluation methods. “Good teams are hampered by too frequent evaluation, while the less efficient ones manage to survive when they should be refounded”, notes Professor Fischer. He argues for a posteriori qualitative control, taking into account the impact of the work carried out and a presentation of the scientists’ project by the organization on which the team depends. The points awarded for the number of publications (a system misused by certain teams, such as that of Pr Didier Raoult at IHU Marseille) would be reduced to the bare minimum.
Finally, the scientist wonders about the relevance of the research tax credit (CIR), to which the State devotes 7 billion euros each year. “It is clear that it has certainly contributed to correcting the lack of competitiveness of French industrial companies, but it has not made it possible to increase the share of the private sector in research expenditure”, notes Professor Fischer. And to point out a paradox: if the CIR benefits primarily large companies, these have largely outsourced their R&D, especially in the field of health where laboratories are resorting more and more often to the acquisition of biotechs. Biotechs which often find themselves in difficulty to find financing once they have passed the first stages of their development.
It would therefore seem more relevant to target this aid on medium-sized businesses – a choice made in other countries, where this tax aid seems both more effective and less costly. And to encourage managers to invest in research, Professor Fischer advises to… strengthen their scientific culture. Just like that of the general public, moreover, in order to fight against “the growing skepticism in society and the media about scientific research and its applications”. So many measures of which the health crisis has shown the urgency.