To begin with, a quick reminder to set the stage and explain what experience I’m drawing on to write and say what I’m about to say. All too often on TV, we see so-called experts on everything and nothing, and the journalist doesn’t even ask the obvious question: “What experience do you have that qualifies you to speak on this subject?” Laurent Alexandre is a prime example of one of these charlatans—an “expert” in AI and cancer who’s a regular on TV, even though his experience is limited to articles on the mechanisms of erections in rodents! He even “predicted” the end of cancer in a book full of oversimplifications that melted away like butter in the sun.
So, let me introduce myself. I served loyally for four decades at the CNRS and then at INSERM, directing some of the most important research centers—from succeeding Professor Minkowski at Port Royal (Paris) to founding and leading INMED, one of INSERM’s largest neurobiology research centers in Marseille. Along the way, with over 500 scientific articles and more than 60,000 citations, my teams and I have made fundamental discoveries regarding brain maturation and various disorders—notably autism and epilepsy—which have been recognized with major awards (see below). I then moved to the applied side of research, working to develop treatments for incurable syndromes and diseases, with some recent success (see my blog posts at https://leblogdebenari.com/).
In summary, I have considerable experience in both basic and applied research—and, of course, in securing funding for them.
As an academic researcher, I have long had to contend with policymakers who have, since time immemorial, viewed research as a luxury—or even as a variable to be cut when things go wrong. Twenty years ago, we protested against the elimination of research positions, with only partial success—since, as expected, they found a workaround by creating the National Research Agency (ANR), which was supposed to fund the “best” researchers, often with a pittance, and, above all, so that the budget could be slashed at will without sparking mass protests. We know the result: as my friend, the late astrophysicist André Brahic, used to say, “Half the researchers spend their time writing grant proposals, while the other half spend their time evaluating them.” In short, everything is done to prevent researchers from actually working, and then it’s easier to tell them, “I know researchers who search, but not those who find.” When a team receives 200K€ over 3 or 4 years—10–15% of applications are approved—it’s difficult, at least in biology (math is cheaper, of course), to hire a researcher on a two-year fixed-term contract. The result is that young aspiring researchers abandon the profession, with consequences that politicians—all clones of the ENA—cannot understand. I recall a minister’s chief of staff who came to see me and said, “You’re too expensive; we can easily conduct our research elsewhere—in Singapore, for example.” Since I have no qualms about speaking my mind, I replied bluntly, “Fine, and our doctors will also go to Singapore for training and stay there because the salaries are better there.”
When there are perhaps only two or three members of Congress with even minimal experience in science, how can you expect the importance of research to be understood and championed? Perhaps the most important point concerns innovation—the real kind that breaks the mold and enables significant advances in our lives. Consider that all such innovations have taken root in minds that have left the well-trodden paths of dogma to venture down untrodden paths. All of physics, relativity, the technologies that allow us to communicate, and the ability to live longer thanks to revolutionary vaccines and treatments are the product of minds capable of transcending existing knowledge and taking it to new heights.
Moving to the other side of the mirror—toward applied research—we see that certain trends are just as dominant. Innovation remains misunderstood, and preferences lean toward the “over-the-top”—that is, trendy techniques—rather than an unconventional approach, which is certainly risky but can pay off big. I once heard myself told at a funding committee meeting for my autism projects, “Professor, we want a 9–10% return on investment per year.” Without thinking, I replied, “Go buy a pizza place.” The only advantage of the private-sector approach is that its goals are clear: return on investment. Therefore, one must identify the conditions that make this possible, refine the molecules and treatments, and invest in what will make them more effective, and so on. Things are clear. In this regard, academic research is more difficult and more constrained by politicians who clearly do not understand that without science, a country carries little weight.
Yet all the studies are unequivocal. The number of publications and their quality are directly linked to funding levels—even if conservatism sometimes leads researchers, above all, to stay within their comfort zones. However, investors and pharmaceutical companies alike know full well that without academic research, they have little to work with. The continuum between basic and applied research is essential, but both aspects of this work must be properly funded; otherwise, everything dries up. My discoveries regarding a potential treatment for autism—and even brain tumors—did not come out of nowhere but stem from my understanding of how brain maturation works and the electrical activity that characterizes these conditions. Admittedly, the transition from one aspect to the other is not easy, but it can only be achieved on a solid foundation of experimental science… and a spirit of challenging dogma!
A recent report from the U.S.—where Trump is slaughtering science with a chainsaw à la Milei of Argentina—compares advances in cancer treatment with the amounts invested in each type of cancer. Admittedly, the relationship is not linear, but it is highly significant. Look at the 5-year survival rates for breast, lung, and brain cancers, for example, and their correlation with investments at the NIH (the primary U.S. research agency). The correlations speak for themselves. Ladies and gentlemen in politics who govern us: continue to treat science and its funding as a variable to be cut, and the life expectancy of the French will decline; mind you, this might just solve your concerns about pension reform.
Science is costly and unpredictable, but without it, we are certain to find ourselves tomorrow among the third-world countries that carry no weight in international competition or quality of life.
Photo National Cancer Institute – Unsplash
