Understaffed? Underfunded? Not France

Jean-Marc Schlenker

Recurrent debates have occurred in France over the last two years on the problems of the French research system, and the measures necessary to solve them. The main focus has been on the low number of research positions and on low research budgets. We have examined different aspects of basic research in France, with an emphasis on comparisons with comparable countries, and arrived at different explanations of its weaknesses.

A quick estimate of the share of France in worldwide fundamental research can be obtained from different indicators: the proportion of papers published in international journals, the proportion of papers published in the "top" journals (like Nature, Science or a handful of titles in each area), or the number of Nobel prizes awarded to French scientists. The results depend on the area but generally confirm the idea that fundamental research in France is not quite at the same level as in other countries, for instance the USA or Switzerland.

The main demand made by groups of researchers is the creation of a large number of new positions. However, the French research system appears to benefit already from a high number of permanent research positions – around 25,000, in research organisms such as the CNRS – and of permanent positions at universities. The university positions carry a relatively low teaching load, which should allow for an important research activity – there are 52,000 such positions.

An interesting comparison can be made for instance with the public university system in California, which has a number of students similar to the French higher education system. There are basically no permanent research positions there, and only 8,900 faculty positions in the University of California system, while the teachers in the other state colleges (of the California State University and the California Community Colleges) have higher teaching loads that are not compatible with a strong research activity.

Not small at all

Another focus points of recent debates was the small size of the main French research institutions, which was pointed out as an explanation of their low scores in some international rankings. But a comparison of the number of the number of researchers and faculty tends to indicate, on the contrary, that the largest French universities are actually much bigger than comparable universities in other countries, and that even medium or smaller French institutions have relatively large research laboratories by international standards.

Moreover, the French spending in fundamental research, although hard to quantify precisely, can be estimated to be close to 0.7 per cent of GNP, and is thus higher than the corresponding spending in the USA (estimated at 0.45 per cent of GNP, according to US National Science Foundation figures). However, one can guess that the relative poverty of most French research laboratories can be explained by the fact that this relatively high research spending is shared by a much higher number of researchers.

Another explanation often given is that French universities are highly constrained by a strongly centralised system and can therefore not develop a strong research policy. But it appears difficult to believe that simply giving the universities more autonomy, without a serious change in the way they are lead, could have a positive impact on their policy. Indeed, French universities are organised in a very specific way, which has no equivalent in comparable institutions in other countries. They are lead by three “councils”, elected by all employees and by the students in a complex way that gives a primary role to the unions. The councils then elect the president. In practice those elected leaders often do not have a good knowledge of or interest in research; even when they do, they are generally not in able to have any strong research policy and are bound by the councils that elected them.

The other problems

There are other problems, however, among which:

• A weak evaluation system. Although many research laboratories are regularly evaluated, the results are not public, and generally kept to a very limited circle. They are also stated in general terms that make any comparison impossible, and are not followed by any direct consequence.
• A weak incentive system. A young researcher in France has very little to gain by building a strong research activity, his salary basically does not depend on it.
• A lack of mobility. In many cases, researchers remain until retirement in the universities which they entered as students many years earlier (often with the exception of one year as a post-doc abroad). This has stifling consequences on the flow of ideas between research centres and indirectly on the incentive system.
• A weak connection between research and higher education. Most research is done in France in research institutions (like the CNRS) and to a lesser extend in universities, so that its positive impact through higher education is weaker then in other countries. Moreover, many of the “best” students in science are in engineering schools, and have very limited contacts with active researchers.

It is conceivable that limited reforms designed at improving those problems, and some others, could lead to a noticeable improvement while carrying a limited political cost.

Jean-Marc Schlenker is at the Laboratoire Emile Picard, Institut de Mathématiques, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse