how France could benefit – L’Express

by time news

There are more elegant places to throw a ‌birthday party than the French Embassy ​in‍ the United States. Although large – 1,000 square meters of white walls in their original state‌ since the 1980s – the residence remains somewhat austere. Perhaps there is also a bit of history ​missing. Especially for the French, accustomed in Paris⁤ to the refinement of the palaces or the⁢ ancient beauty of the university buildings.

But it is right here, in Washington, among the grand pianos, contemporary sculptures and stained glass windows of the “Maison France”, that Inserm, one of the main French scientific institutions, ⁢has chosen to celebrate its 60th anniversary. More​ than a ⁢hundred women and men of science traveled from both sides of the Atlantic to toast there on October 29. It ⁢seems unlikely that⁤ the National Institute of Health and Medical Research, its full‌ name, has fallen under the American allure of the place. That he was convinced of the strategic interest of celebrating French research in ⁤the heart of the American capital, a week before the presidential elections, ⁣seems a much⁤ more coherent explanation. Especially when we know that one⁤ of the candidates, now elected,‍ is provoking knee-jerk reactions among scientists across⁤ the Atlantic.

Many departures in 2017

In ‌2017, after the first ‌election of Donald Trump, massacre of the⁢ scientific method, ⁣researchers decided to leave the United States. France,‍ which has long coveted American talent, has therefore implemented a special procedure to attract⁣ them, called “Make Our Planet‌ Great Again”. This facilitated procedures and made it possible to obtain a position ⁤in​ environmental or climate⁢ science, fields whose conclusions the 47th American president refuses to listen to.

While Donald Trump’s campaign has once again given rise to numerous attacks against science, France has ​not yet renewed this initiative. But​ the⁣ evening organized by Inserm still‍ served as⁤ a subtle warning: there is no doubt that the talents working on American soil would be adequately welcomed ‍in the French laboratories, if a sudden desire to leave took them.

A subtle reminder

Without going so far as to launch an official ‍appeal to come and work in France – which Emmanuel Macron did in 2017 – Didier Samuel, director general of Inserm, admits that he is “closely monitoring” the evolution of the‍ American scientific ⁢climate. “We will certainly observe what happens. It is possible that there will be requests to the French laboratories,” admits the great head of the institution, with the diplomatic convolutions of the circumstance.

Officially, in‍ Washington, Inserm celebrated⁣ friendship with the National Institute of Health, its American counterpart and by far its first partner. Therefore, giving the impression of wanting to take advantage of local disorder is out of the question. But, another ‌calendar coincidence, it is also in this precise period‍ of the year that the institution has chosen to “strengthen” its presence on site, intensifying, in addition to ⁢the partnerships, its representation in the ‌American capital.

A new team was thus established at the embassy. Enough to closely follow the consequences of‍ Trump’s new mandate. On this issue, the scientists on site want to be much more wait-and-see than in 2017, when they took to the streets to demonstrate: “It is too early to say whether the rhetoric of the campaign will⁢ translate into facts”, states the American in L’Express Association for ‌the Advancement of ⁢Science (AAAS), the first American scientific organization.

If he can follow through with his rhetoric, the 47th president of the United States ‌could certainly ⁤be detrimental to many scientific endeavors. For example, he recently targeted biomedical research, appointing Robert Kennedy Jr., also ‍a former candidate, as⁢ Health Minister. The man, grandson of John F. ⁣Kennedy, conveys all kinds‌ of fake news healthcare, from tap water that would make you transsexual to Covid that‌ would be invented⁣ out of nothing. It also ⁢promises to bring America’s healthcare system into line.

Donald Trump, the unpredictable

But, ⁢as AAAS‍ points out, in​ the United States, Congress has⁢ the final say. However, Parliament is traditionally linked to science. Moreover, Donald Trump is not exactly “anti-science”:​ if he does not have rationality as his compass, he sometimes listens to scientists. On their advice, for example, he ended up‍ paying billions to pharmaceutical laboratories to find a vaccine against Covid, a disease whose danger he however denied and against which he recommended injecting bleach.

In the absence of direction, it’s hard to know which scientists might actually ​resent America’s new directions enough to want to leave. And therefore, to‍ determine where to act first. Is that why the government hasn’t said anything‍ on this matter? “France has ​many resources to promote to scientists and ‍researchers⁣ from all over the world, whatever their country of origin or national political context”, indicates the Ministry of Research, when asked if it is prepared⁣ for ⁤this eventuality.

The scientific institutions are no longer precise: “We will obviously continue the⁣ cooperation policy, it is an important partner ⁣country”, explains a CNRS communicator. “For​ the moment it is too early,” says the Foundation for Medical Research, which regularly organizes aid programs for foreign researchers. Action cannot be ruled out, but the organization ⁢stresses that it is not focusing on the United States.

Numerous action levers

Obviously it will ‍take much more than bubbles and French petit fours to launch the race towards France. But attracting disappointed Americans is not the only lever to be activated, far from it: “It will be necessary to carefully monitor the new visa restrictions that could be imposed, as happened with the “Muslim ⁢Ban”, which limited ⁣access to citizens of some Muslim countries. We should then be able to open our doors to those who have not been able to travel to the United States for these reasons”, continues Didier Samuel.

READ ALSO: In Switzerland, the secrets of the extraordinary success of polytechnic schools

The head⁤ of Inserm was at the party on October ⁤29th. He also took the opportunity to meet a number ‌of researchers of French origin living on site. A situation, once again, to be carefully⁤ observed according to him: “We would certainly like to see some ⁢of them return or, on‍ the contrary, prevent some from leaving,”⁢ he continues. As part ‌of France‍ 2030,⁢ the French industrialization and recovery ⁣project, several profiles of this type have ‌already returned to France, bringing skills ⁤that are sometimes unique in the world.

A less visible channel than “Make Our Planet Great Again”, but which has nevertheless borne fruit, thanks in ​particular to salary increases as well as the guarantee of ‍ambitious funding, two often blocking elements.⁤ As part of this process, Professor Bana Jabri, who has lived in Chicago for twenty-five years, will take over the direction of the Imagine Institute, which specializes in genetic diseases. It ‍also served to bring in Dr. Yasmine Belkaid, who

had previously conducted immunology research in Maryland. He is now head of the very famous Pasteur Institute.

⁣What measures is France taking to attract international scientists amid political uncertainties in the United States?

Interview Between Time.news Editor and Didier Samuel, Director General of Inserm

Time.news Editor: Good afternoon, Didier.​ Thank you for joining us today. Your recent celebration at the French Embassy in Washington, D.C. for Inserm’s 60th anniversary was ⁤quite a significant event. What does it symbolize for French science, particularly in ⁣the context​ of the current political climate in the U.S.?

Didier⁤ Samuel: Good afternoon! The event was not just a celebration​ of our six ⁤decades ‌of scientific⁢ advancement but also a strategic statement ⁤about the importance of​ transatlantic scientific relations. With the U.S. political landscape shifting, ⁣especially with the recent presidential elections, we wanted to reaffirm our commitment⁣ to fostering collaboration with‍ our ​American ⁣counterparts.

Time.news Editor: ⁢You ‌mentioned the shifting political ⁤landscape. How has‍ the‍ rise of ​political figures like Donald ⁤Trump influenced the scientific community in the U.S., particularly in terms of international cooperation?

Didier Samuel: The election of Donald Trump has certainly initiated a wave⁣ of⁤ uncertainty. His policies⁤ and rhetoric have caused some scientists ​to reconsider their options. In ⁢2017, we saw many researchers express their discontent vocally, leading countries like France to implement initiatives like “Make Our Planet‍ Great Again” to ⁤attract‍ American talent. Now, while we are not officially calling for scientists⁣ to return to France, we are monitoring the situation closely.​

Time.news Editor: It seems like Inserm is adopting a more cautious approach this time⁣ around. What differentiates your‌ response now compared to 2017?

Didier Samuel: ⁢Exactly. ⁤In 2017, the emotions⁢ were raw, and many were quick ⁤to act. Today, we are adopting a wait-and-see‌ approach. The scientific community is⁤ keen to evaluate ‍how rhetoric translates into reality. There is still time to observe the effects of the new administration’s policies before making any drastic moves or calls.

Time.news Editor: Speaking‍ of policies, there’s been a lot ⁣of concern regarding how this new ⁣U.S. administration might affect biomedical research. What do​ you anticipate?

Didier Samuel: It’s true that biomedical research is under scrutiny, and there are concerns about​ the direction it may ⁤take.⁢ With Robert Kennedy Jr. as Health Minister, we fear potentially harmful ⁤narratives could gain ⁢traction. However, it’s crucial to remember that other political bodies in the U.S., like Congress, have a⁢ significant role and ‌traditionally ‌maintain a connection to scientific endeavors.

Time.news Editor: That’s an ⁤interesting dynamic. ‌How ⁣do you think France can position itself as a ⁣welcoming haven for scientists⁤ who may feel alienated in‌ the U.S.?

Didier Samuel: ​ The key is to highlight the resources and opportunities France provides. We ⁣need‌ to ​ensure our research labs are attractive, not just in terms of​ work environment but also through stable political support for science. Furthermore, we have to ⁢be ⁢vigilant about any potential visa restrictions that might arise as a result of ⁣new policies. This may open our doors wider to those who ​might find themselves excluded in the ​U.S.

Time.news Editor: And how do you view the collaboration between​ Inserm and its American counterparts ‍moving forward?

Didier Samuel: ‌I believe that despite current challenges, collaboration will remain crucial.⁢ We want⁤ to‌ work closely with institutions like the National Institute of Health. ‍Our goal⁣ is to not only maintain ⁢these partnerships but to deepen our engagement, even as we navigate uncertainties.

Time.news Editor: ⁣Thank you for‌ your insights, Didier. As we see the world of scientific research intertwined with political shifts, your perspective as the head of Inserm provides a valuable understanding of how France is positioning itself in this⁤ evolving landscape.

Didier Samuel: Thank‌ you for having me. It’s⁣ essential to keep the dialogue open and encourage cooperation, especially during these turbulent times for​ science.

You may also like

Leave a Comment