raphazlab.wordpress.com
What was not discussed (enough) at the colloquium of the French Research Integrity Office
I attended last Friday the colloquium of the French Research Integrity Office which took place in the impressive and solemn settings of the Palais du Luxembourg, the French Senate. The meeting was opened by the director of the French Integrity office, Michel Dubois, and the president of the French Research Evaluation agency (HCERES), Coralie Chevallier, and two senators, David Ros (the current vice-president of the Parliamentary Office for Scientific and Technological Choices, OPECST) and Pierre Ouzoulias, who is at the origin of French legislation on Research integrity.
A third senator was in the programme, Karine Daniel, who was “rapporteur” of a law on academic freedom recently unanimously adopted in the Senate. Also in attendance and chairing the first session was Pierre Corvol, author of the famous 2016 report which has been the basis of most subsequent developments on this topic in France. Many other important actors of research integrity in France were presenting and some more were in the room. Antoine Petit, director of CNRS, was expected but was eventually replaced by the CNRS research integrity officer Claudine Pique.
The whole event has been recorded and will be available on the OFIS website at some point. I’ll list here a few things I found interesting but will then highlight the blind spots: what I consider as central issues, which were not (or minimally) discussed.
* In his opening words, Michel Dubois noted the progress of the past few years but also rightly warned against institutional complacency (“autosatisfaction institutionnelle”).
* Corine Chevallier emphasized the ongoing transition in research evaluation practices from one focused on outputs to one focused on the conditions in which research is done. The promise of her talk was an evaluation designed to promote good governance, collegiality, space for open critical discussion, a supportive working environment, and, institutions that respond adequately to issues such as breaches of research ethics or research integrity.
* David Ros mentioned a recent round table held in the senate on the consequences of attacks on scientific integrity by the Trump administration (video and verbatim available here). He concluded his presentation by saying that scientific integrity was not just a condition of trust in science, but also a condition of trust in future political decisions.
* Pierre Ouzoulias argued that scientists should communicate more about their methodologies so that people could better understand the difference between the opinion (of a politician or else) and a scientific claim. He concluded by an appeal to renew the link between the French republic and scientists with a reference to Irène Joliot Curie who was undersecretary of state for research (one of the first three women to be member of government) in 1936, at a time where women did not have the right to vote.
* Pierre Corvol raised the issue of the administrative and legal status of the institutions’ integrity officers and more generally of the means they have (or lack) to fulfil their missions (this was developed further later in the day by Françoise Lantheaume and by Marc Léger). He considered that the investigation procedure was now accepted routine but that what happens (or not) following investigations still required more work (corrections and retractions, sanctions, etc). He highlighted three other issues to be debated: the impact of AI, reproducibility and education to research integrity at a younger age (from secondary school).
* Pierre Léna and Sylvie Pommier talked about the “serment doctoral” (but I won’t).
* Claudine Pique highlighted that it was very important to contribute to clean the scientific literature, which is quite paradoxical since that is precisely what the office she is heading is not doing adequately. Given the complete silence of CNRS on a major affair reported in Le Monde nearly two and a half years ago, I was also surprised by her claim that it was necessary to communicate about how investigations were done. It was nice though to hear her say that they had ongoing work inspired by LORIER to improve the diffusion of a scientific integrity culture within CNRS.
* Françoise Lantheaume was president of the association of research integrity officers RESINT, 2023-2025. Her thoughtful contribution aimed to flesh out the real life and challenges faced by a research integrity officer in their diversity of environments, multiple duties (by far not limited to the investigation of specific cases). She concluded by stressing the devastating effects of the current research economy focused on productivity and competition, the fear of PhD students about reporting (even though more do contact the integrity officers), and the difficulties concerning what happens after the conclusion of an investigation by integrity officers (although unfortunately she did not have time to say more about that).
* Bert Seghers (current president of the European Network of Research Integrity Offices) was given the difficult task of answering the question of the uniqueness (or not) of the French scientific integrity landscape compared to other European countries. He concluded with a couple of words on some of the unique “French excellence” that we have and should build on, and, well, that one was totally unexpected (see picture of the slide below)! Thank you Bert !
* After lunch, Nicolas Fressengeas presided a session on new threats and new responses. Guillaume Cabanac talked about AI and you can already find his slides here. Chérifa Boukacem-Zeghmouri discussed the complexities of the publishing landscape. Olivier Emond, science journalist at France Info, explained how they work with scientists and how they try to ensure that the information they share is reliable. Clotilde Combe presented the results of a recent study about science and society (Le baromètre de l’esprit critique) ; in particular the questions related to trust in science, ethics and integrity.
* The second and last session of the afternoon was presided by Olivier Descamps. Stéphanie Ruphy and Alain Israel presented INADIS, the new procedure, that should become accessible after summer, and were people (complainant or author of the alleged misconduct) unhappy about the outcome of an investigation (or unhappy about the absence of an investigation) will be able to ask for a second (first) opinion. Karine Daniel talked about the law on academic freedom. For her, the link with scientific integrity is strong : “la liberté scientifique est encadrée par l’intégrité scientifique”. I unfortunately had to leave during the presentation of Marc Léger and therefore also missed Michel Dubois’ closing words.
**Not discussed at all: the cases**. We spent the whole day talking about research integrity but no specific case of misconduct in France was ever mentioned (apart from my question about the protection of whistleblowers). Debating specific cases, what went right and what went wrong in the treatment of those cases, needs to happen in the laboratories and the universities (especially those home to those scandals) and in public spaces including in workshops and conferences about research integrity. Neither happens and therefore individually and collectively we fail to learn. There is another reason why it is important to be more open about specific cases, how they are investigated, and what specific corrective actions are taken. As Mahmud Farooque says (though in a different context):
> And science gets especially lost when it forgets that public trust does not come from always sounding certain. It comes from being willing to correct oneself visibly.
**Barely discussed:** what happens after an investigation. It was alluded by several speakers that there were issues there. But the problems were not stated very forcefully and the potential solutions were nowhere to be seen (apart maybe from the creation of INADIS, see above). What are the problems ? There are more, but here are two: 1) the correction of science does not happen, or happen too slowly and with a lack of transparency; 2) people who report misconduct are victims of retaliations (these happen also during the investigation of course); some, in particular PhD students or other young researchers, may feel that they just cannot report because they are too vulnerable and the institutions will not do anything to protect them (apart from anonymity which in many cases does not work). Those are difficult problems but by no means insoluble. If there was a real political will to solve them, it could be done.
A slide from Bert Seghers at the OFIS colloquim on 05/06/2026
### Share this:
* Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
* Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
* Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
* Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
* Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
* Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
*
Like Loading...
### _Related_
