France rethinks research plans

Three months can be a very long time when a revolution is on the roll and history is being made. On January 7, French researchers launched an internet petition under the title Sauvons la Recherche! (Let's Save Research!) asking the government to unfreeze funds, create new jobs and allow them a say in the legislation to reform science (Curr. Biol. (2004). 14, R139). By April 7, the research minister had been replaced, and the reshuffled government had given in to the immediate demands of Sauvons la Recherche (SLR). But the slow and difficult work of reforming, or even reinventing French research still lies ahead. Not much moved until the end of February. Against the researchers' threat of mass resignation, research minister Claudie Haigneré upheld her claim that there was no problem at all. Realising that something needed to be done to break up this non-dialogue, the president of the Académie des Sciences, Étienne-Émile Baulieu, swung into action. As a pioneering researcher on neurosteroids and inventor of the abortion pill mifepristone (RU486), Baulieu is widely known and respected in France. On February 28 he called his deputy, Édouard Brézin, and they agreed to step in as a neutral party, without involvement of the academy. Later that day, Baulieu announced the formation of a national committee that would try to find solutions for research. Meanwhile, the resignation of thousands of institute directors and group leaders from their administrative duties went ahead on March 9. A week later, Baulieu's national committee (officially: Comité d'initiative et de proposition, CIP, but more often referred to as comité Baulieu-Brézin) met for the first time. The first reactions to Baulieu's announcement from both sides of the conflict had been reserved, but as soon as the committee was set up, it quickly proved itself a constructive force both in the The unprecedented revolt of French researchers has forced a government U-turn on funding, but now all sides are called upon to build a new future for the entire research system, as Michael Gross reports.