This created additional strata used money

You have been appointed to the Presidency of the CNRS at the beginning of the year following a serious crisis. What is your first balance

My arrival, the Research Act was implemented. Needed so that the CNRS immediately adapt to the new tools. I have therefore everything done at the same time. First, put science at the heart of the debate, because it is my role. Then, it took invent flexible, adaptable and structures. This first phase is largely over. We have kept some aspects of the former organization as the Department on environment and sustainable development, we support very strongly. On the other hand, we removed regional scientific branches. This created additional strata used money. This new organisation is a major trend: we will be working more and more networks as is done in the world.

How do you see the relationship between the CNRS and the other actors in the public research such as universities

The CNRS is a national tool equipped with an international scope. For their part, the universities are rooted in the regional fabric with a duty of training. But I would remind you that more than 85 of our laboratories are mixed with universities and schools. CNRS also has a function of interdisciplinary agency able to launch programs at risk and we almost the only ones to do so. Finally, we have a national mission for programs of long-term as large instruments. Public institutions such as CNRS are quite willing to work with solid academic clusters. But it should not be confusion between research and development of the territory. Is to help the universities to take their autonomy. But it also requires a classification between the good and the bad. I'm elitist and I love rankings. Should take advantage of the launch of the poles of research of higher education (PRES) to facilitate the consolidation of the universities.

Should we group together units of research to improve their critical mass and their international visibility

The French method to any group is in my opinion an error. It is better to make bets and create structures able to develop. In the life sciences, I am well determined to make choices. I financerai all the projects and this will be at the next Board of Directors. If it continues to grow the budget of the life sciences, by 2025 the entire budget of the CNRS will go to this discipline. And it would be a serious mistake. Indeed, with all the money that we injected in the life sciences, I find that the quality-price ratio is not terrible. Take the example of the génopoles, which has invested much money with little results. We retained two priorities: Neuroscience and Integrative Biology.

Researchers are always suspicious of these decisions they assimilate to the cockpit.

Our role is to get the ideas born in laboratories and to sort. This is not the cockpit. Indeed, I am not able to fly areas that I do not know. However, I am able to make choices with expertise. If a community that needs to be done, it sends you warm water. Me, I like hot water and cold water.

How goes the negotiation on the next budget

It is for the Government to decide. I told the Minister: this is what I want to do and I need so much money to achieve this goal. But I would also like to benefit from the effects of the LOLF with freely me budget. In General, I do not like takes me the hand.

Will what strategy you apply for young researchers

I do not baisserai for hiring quality standards, because I do not wish to be underqualified people. To attract good foreign researchers, we offer attractive remuneration comprising a base salary paid by the CNRS and additional contracts. I have the intention to extend this principle of the salary differential for rewarding the best. I don't know if this should be as a bonus, add salary or contract, but we must give good salaries good researchers. The selection criteria are recognized at the international level: the number of publications, the index of citations, the number of PhD and invitations in international congresses. Young people appreciate this evaluation mode.

Precisely, the evaluation which will be soon implemented Agency remains very challenged in the community.

I understand very well the Department who want to have an assessment of French research. But, in my view, it is illusory to a national supra-agence where everyone will go under the microscope. However, the idea of an agency defining standards and verifying their application on the ground seems me more effective. The criteria are not the same as estimated a researcher, a team or a laboratory. The function of this agency is so good, but its practical implementation seems questionable to me. It should work a bit like the Court of Auditors, telling us: attention, then you do not apply the rules. However, it is clear that we need an assessment that is not endogamous. This is better than to be impose an external evaluation, as the classification of Shanghai which became whether one likes it or not some sort of reference.

And the national agency of research

We work well with the ANR and our return rate is very good. This allows us to make quality research by reserving budgets for risky projects. Because means agencies do not risk, the English model in is, indeed, the concept of the "all-Agency". But the real danger lies in the multiplication of the funding procedures. It is a global problem found in the United States as in England. It is a very disturbing drift.

The Research Act includes a multiplicity of structures that sometimes rout researchers.

It is very simple. There is, on the one hand, funding agencies, like the NRO and the Agency for industrial innovation. On the other, is geographic or thematic grouping tools such as the PRES, research networks and the Carnot institutes. The network directly concern us and they will promote synergies and improve visibility. The PRES go to universities. They build their networks and when they will be reached I say bravo. They also would do well to worry to have global visibility. I will be delighted to hear that the Sorbonne University is a University extraordinary rather than talking me about Paris 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6, and it's going up to 13.

In France, the relationship between public research and companies are often conflicting. Why

These two worlds have long lived in mutual suspicion. Private research carries out 54 of the total national and I am not afraid to say that the industrial world is a partner of the CNRS. We have always done research with major groups, because the time constants are almost the same. We get royalties about EUR 55 million a year. But we also have many relationships with SMEs, with which we sous-traitons technology. Formerly, CNRS researchers were all, to build their machines to test. Now, we sous-traitons the high-tech and we therefore an economic actor.

What are privileged partners of the CNRS from France

In Europe we have two privileged partners: the Germany and the Spain. We are setting up laboratories, assessments, and joint programmes with the Germans. It is a natural collaboration which amplifies. With respect to the Spain, it is a country that rises with a strong influence in Latin America. We have very large ongoing partnerships with the University of Barcelona.

And outside Europe

Our first partner of long standing, what the United States. But our great anchor point, this is Asia. We have strong relationships with the Japan and we make a very large effort in China, but it is more difficult. The Chinese can bring us something in the field of research of mass where should engage many people. For their part, they ask for help in mathematics and the environment, because our approach is different from that of the United States. I would also like to collaborate with them on traditional medicine.

You prepare a strategic plan for the CNRS. What will be its content

There are three time to research. Long time for Fund of knowledge, the average time corresponds more to the needs of the socio-economic world and short time focuses on unforeseen problems where he must find a solution quickly. It should be ready in the spring of 2007 and achieve the 2020 horizon. This will help us make choices more easily. In the meantime, I'm trying to implement a culture of the "bottom up" at the CNRS. That is to trace the ideas of researchers and choose among all the possible routes.