Three priorities for editing search

If science is not to be politicized, the terms of research are indeed political. In the present context, let us humbly risk three proposals, for the use of whichever new actor of executive power they wish to usurp. Suggestions inspired by the experience of two years of the epidemic, an accelerator of errors but also from the values ​​of our system: on the one hand, skepticism and unreliability; On the other hand, creativity and efficiency.

First, a close alliance between science and health, in a world of research that still separates these two fields too much. This can be achieved through select alliances between the public and private sectors. The idea is certainly not new, the model is there, but it should be seriously strengthened. Certainly it is embodied in our seven Institutes Inter-Hospital-University (IHU), which we hope will increase soon, but above all through nearly 35 Inter-Hospital-University Research Projects (RHU), which, thanks to future investments, are mapped out by the mapping of French excellence in The field of biomedical research almost inadvertently. This is where you need to invest more.

Thematic institutes

Let’s also talk about the recognition of the quality of scientists and their projects. The state has made great efforts in terms of attractiveness, but it should be more confident in those who sometimes spend more time presenting accounts than doing experiments. Let us develop an appraisal associated with truly punishing wrongdoing or indifference, such as vigorously encouraging the energies of youth by leaving them more restrained on their necks.

Finally, our major public science institutions (CNRS, Inserm, etc.) are research operators and resource agencies. Their role must be clarified and their scope redefined: necessary to organize national plans or support emergence, they are less important when it comes to the rapid development of innovative projects that require flexible and agile thematic institutes, close to autonomy.

Respect for the initiative of researchers where they show their qualities, at the expense of rigorous evaluation, which would restore vitality and confidence in the scientific approach: let’s get out of the distrust of free research! I promise, next post, this time we’re talking about genetics…