basic science research

1. Basic research and applied research Researchers of my generation lived through a period when there was a real ideological barrier between two worlds: that of fundamental research practiced in the academic world and therefore financed with public funds, and applied research practiced mainly in the industrial world. We therefore note a mistrust both on the part of academic researchers vis-à-vis the industrial world, accused of being dominated by the greed, and on the part of the industrial world vis-à-vis researchers from the academic world. , often considered dangerous revolutionaries. Much progress has been made in this area, but we must be aware that the ideological divide between these two communities has not yet been fully closed. 2Far from me the idea of wanting to oppose fundamental research and applied research. It is obvious that applied research feeds on fundamental research, and that basic science research cannot progress without relying on the progress of applied research. However, these are two different forms of activity, although they can and should, if possible, be performed by the same researchers. As far as I'm concerned, I've always had the reputation of a somewhat sectarian defender of basic research, and yet, if I take stock of my scientific career, I see that I may have had more than success in the development of cutting-edge technologies - an area which, in terms of intellectual approach, falls under applied research - than in the context of fundamental research. I have, 3What for me is characteristic of basic research is that it is not possible to program it. Any form of programming can only be based on what is already known, and therefore only represents a testimony of the past. You can't program what you don't know, and predicting the future is always a waste of time. I insist on this point, because the current political world claims to place research funding within the framework of increasingly restrictive programs, which risk leading to a progressive sterilization of all forms of creativity. I would add that the worst programming is that which researchers impose on themselves by deciding a priori what they want to find, with the avowed aim of improving their productivity. 4Applied research, on the contrary, is based on concepts which have been established beforehand by fundamental research, the notion of programming being then admissible and even necessary. It seems normal to me for society to make choices as to the type of applied research it wants to subsidize, an attitude that is totally unacceptable in the case of basic research. These two forms of research must therefore be managed in a totally different way. 5I am choosing this moment to vigorously criticize a form of research which I will qualify as "oriented" basic research and which I consider to be the most ineffective. Certain political actors, and more generally decision-makers, claim to be able to foresee the subjects of fundamental research likely to generate knowledge useful to the society in the short and medium term. The history of science and of societies shows, however, that the most spectacular breakthroughs on the technological level often come from discoveries of which no one could imagine the possibilities of application. Basic research, the vocation of which is to advance our knowledge, must be an all-out, inclusive research, and the most dangerous trap is to focus efforts in the fashionable areas. These often represent, like the programming,

2. a reflection of the past. When a science is in fashion, it is already too late, the real fields of the future being those which still interest few researchers. Our priority must be to think outside the box. The method of evaluating basic research increasingly uses quantitative criteria, which prevent researchers from showing boldness and creativity. These criteria include the number of articles published, the impact index of the journals in which these articles are published, or the frequency with which an author's articles are cited. In this particular case, I tried to assess which were the most productive periods of my research career and I found that, in a given field of research, the originality of my approaches diminished when my rate of citations increased. This paradoxical and deliberately provocative conclusion is based on the fact that a researcher who works too long on a subject tends to lock himself in certainties and becomes a victim of his own dogmatism. However, it is after a considerable delay that quality work begins to be recognized, which implies a phase difference between the creative period and the recognition by our peers. Creativity in the exercise of basic research involves a certain amount of ignorance and naivety that an excess of competence often suppresses. Jean Perrin, Nobel Prize in Physics, considered that the bibliography on a subject of fundamental research should be prepared after and not before having tackled one's own research. It is indeed very difficult to innovate if you know everything about a particular subject. For my part, the possibilities offered by modern computing represent a severe handicap for young researchers who are recommended to carry out the most complete bibliographic analysis possible before tackling a new research subject. This praise of ignorance cannot be transposed to the case of applied research, where an exhaustive analysis of what has been done in the field is then essential. It is indeed very difficult to innovate if you know everything about a particular subject. For my part, the possibilities offered by modern computing represent a severe handicap for young researchers who are recommended to carry out the most complete bibliographic analysis possible before tackling a new research subject. This praise of ignorance cannot be transposed to the case of applied research, where an exhaustive analysis of what has been done in the field is then essential. It is indeed very difficult to innovate if you know everything about a particular subject. For my part, the possibilities offered by modern computing represent a severe handicap for young researchers who are recommended to carry out the most complete bibliographic analysis possible before tackling a new research subject. This praise of ignorance cannot be transposed to the case of applied research, where an exhaustive analysis of what has been done in the field is then essential. 6When we conceive of fundamental research as a creative activity, the major difficulty remains the mode of evaluation. Everyone agrees that it is difficult if not impossible to assess artists such as composers, painters or writers through even competent and honest committees. However, the considerable cost of fundamental research for society means that we must prioritize research of excellence and unfortunately I have no miracle solutions to offer. My speeches of principle tending to privilege creativity do not protect me, as an evaluator, from major errors. Most of the findings contradict prevailing dogmas, and are often misunderstood or dismissed by reviewers, especially if they are conscientious. The evaluation is intended to distinguish the best researchers in order to provide them with a maximum of human and material resources. It is therefore part of a logic of competition. I would like, on this occasion, to give my personal interpretation of the sentence pronounced by Pierre Corvol, our administrator, at the beginning of this session: “The researcher must be the first. In the field

3. of applied research, being the first, even of a short head, is indeed essential. The most obvious example is the filing of a patent, which crowns the success of applied research. I also think that in basic research a good researcher should be the first, but certainly not in the sense that many of my colleagues think. If this is a trendy field where many powerful and well-endowed laboratories clash, the interest in society seems very limited to me. Competition in such fields involves an accumulation of resources which to me seems inefficient and needlessly costly. Success is essentially about satisfying the winner's ego and, eventually, national pride. These successes seem to me very derisory in terms of the progress of knowledge insofar as several laboratories are in a position, in the short term, to achieve the same result. For me, being the first means bringing new ideas to an unexplored or even neglected area. Such contributions, even if they concern areas considered to be minor, 7The evaluation of basic research should, if possible, be carried out a posterioriand certainly not on the basis of research programs which, more often than not, will have little to do with the work actually carried out. Over the course of my long career, I have benefited from a large number of contracts and I can attest to the lack of correspondence between the results I obtained and the proposed program. This was also irrelevant because I remain convinced that no one has ever evaluated the final report that I wrote in order to check whether the grants that had been granted to me had led to significant results. It seems more legitimate to me to trust a researcher or a laboratory that has produced original results by funding it for periods of three or four years. 8I will therefore conclude by affirming that fundamental research and applied research represent two complementary forms of activity, which can be practiced by the same researchers but whose vocations are profoundly different. In the practice of basic science research, the researcher must be ready to exploit any unexpected result by changing the program he has set himself at any time. The practice of applied research requires, on the contrary, to be part of a purpose defined in advance while retaining a sufficient degree of freedom to preserve a creative attitude.