This should soon lead to important results

The economic crisis doubles as a growing distrust of the society for the science. How do you develop these relationships

Society is a little to eager this huge device which makes considerable data which is not yet the translation. We live in a transition period. But I do not believe for example that companies are willing to say: do the economics of science and back to Earth as at one time contemplating nature. There are so many problems, not that of demography, since you will have to feed 9 billion people. But he must be careful not to wear to the science of the responsibilities which are not the endorsed. Indeed it is clear that when it offers opportunities such as the University of all knowledge, the public responds now.

This distrust could débouchersur more free rupture between these two worlds

If an effort is not made to improve the responsiveness of knowledge, may see infinitely more dangerous thinking patterns imposing taboos, false spiritualities, or totally irrational aspects. I think including a form of fundamentalism religious saying: Let's books and back to a kind of contemplation of a nature which is not necessarily benevolent.

The mortals often has the impression that scientists flirt with dangerous borders. The myth of Pandora's box is still there...

The company does not always include the results of scientific research. Researchers should explain it in clear and simple terms. This should be relatively easy in the medical field, where I feel that the public is more permeable to the progress of science. Consider the case of gene therapy, stem cell and developmental biology. What is doing is preparing for a new medicine. It happens many extremely important things at the interface of biology and chemistry. This should soon lead to important results. However, it is less easy in agriculture or food.

Does this mean that should guide the science as the finance and the economy by establishing specific rules

It cannot supervise the characteristics approach. Scientists have sometimes hard to understand all what is being done in their own discipline. In my opinion, should be two things. On the one hand, put in place certain safeguards to avoid possible violations to the physical and moral health of man and, in some cases, the nature. On the other side, I emphasize the need for a mutual approach to see where it goes.

Scientific research must worry about its integration in society

In our country people are all fairly reasonable. But at the same time, they are attached to a certain logic and a form of balance. At the bottom, the French are doutent well that we must place the results of the science in a social framework. More generally, could not capitalize on the future leaving aside 1 billion people who die of hunger in the world. The two doivent go hand in hand: the evolution of knowledge and social development. The great challenge is to synchronize these two objectives. There is much work to do between philosophers, moralists, and scientists. I try to be listening to the philosophes, but they speak to us of modernity and Postmodernity. It is not much difference. Treat subjects specifically. That is what we want to do in view of the State of the planet to social, climate, food and health.

Are you concerned about implementing forward increasingly more common of the precautionary principle

This might seem sometimes annoying to the eyes of some scientists, who say that it regulates too. This is particularly true in the field of embryonic stem cells, which has been iconic in this area. But the policy is in its role. If it does not, that can be done Little by little, things change and the very strict rules of departure s' relax. Science must not do anything, and above all it must explain what it does. The regulations must be in the direction of civil protection, so that it does not affect individuals and that there is no slipping, even involontaires.

How to reconcile these two objectives

It cannot demolish our economic system, which is based on the supply and demand. If we do not generate wealth and growth, we will not be able to help those in need. Should therefore be a humanitarian and intelligent look at what is happening in the countries of the South. Now, even the large structures such as the World Bank are beginning to understand that better help small food structures to ensure that these countries are doing. Should science continue to lead to applications. But it must also have an economic and moral world vision and find a convergence between the two. This is why I argues for the existence of chairs of history and civilization of science. With researchers who take the time to read.

to integrate all these knowledge and make the summaries.

Where are the research on artificial life Is this a border does not exceed

We see a lot of effort on the part of chemists and biologists to create structures that are close to the living. It introduced a synthetic genome in a cell or to create an overall chemical that reproduce the properties of a small cell plant. We will soon have the tools physiques and chemical to synthesize a complete genome. Thus reconstituted body may become useful, for example, to produce hydrogen or fight against pollution by degrading toxic elements. There is indeed a human attitude that is to say that one must not go too far in the knowledge. I do not share this point of view because it is a false problem. But I think it can not move towards a more and more knowledge without questioning the man in the moral and social place. What currently missing are the structures of mutual reflection. Places where it reflects on the science and its adaptation to a company complex.

Was the research during the immediate post-war period that you have known easier

Everyone thought to rebuild. Need everything again and engineering played a very important role. After the war, Europe wanted to reconstruct a scientific breeding with the desire to return to the movement, because America had continued its effort. But people were emotionally seized by what had happened in the camps. It is at this time that bioethics has begun to be developed and it became necessary to take an interest in medical ethics. When it comes to human, should reflect on how it works, because it is the entity that must be absolutely protected.

Were politicians you have lived near Blackfoot curious of the scientific thing

De Gaulle had a vision that everyone knows: the size of the country. He had assembled a team of scientists, including biologists, physicists and mathematicians, and asked them what was important in their eyes. Someone had spoken of molecular biology and De Gaulle had then said: I think it's important. From there, the Congolese () was created. For him, science was part of the France radiation. François Mitterrand was a literary. But he knew that to have a complete view of the French company, it had to understand the science. He had asked me to come talk about biology, Jean Dausset and Daniel Cohen. We went to the Elysee Palace to make an amphi on this subject. We us facilities in a room, Daniel Cohen was projections and he took notes. It was very early in genetic engineering. He has made a real effort to understand this discipline.

What judgment wear on the return of creationist ideas in the world and especially in the United States

It is a reaction against very rapides advances in genomics and molecular biology. Biologists now have the opportunity to explain the evolution of the species with all its branches. Those who do not follow are somewhat lagged and prefer to return to simpler solutions. It is a kind of Jolt that is to say: facing this modernity that surpasses US, revenons in forms more pure and more moralistic.

How do you change the relationship between universities and the business world, which seem to always conflict in our country

There are lots of misunderstanding between these two activities. Academia tends to suggest that the industry wants to be settled Cup and force it to only applied research, which is false. On the other hand, some manufacturers believe that one cannot do anything good with academics. Trying to extinguish fires and are sometimes not well because there is no constructive dialogue between the two.

Do you think that European research has lost ground to the United States

This impression, but I do think the unfounded. American youth are not motivated by scientific studies. In the United States, the laboratories work with Asian researchers. It is the American entrepreneurial spirit which is the source of all this. They amalgamate people of civilization and of different origins.

You stay still optimistic...

This makes me optimistic is the generation that is set up. It has a much more developed than my own culture. But I think that we will arrive at a stage where we can explain the evolution of the world in a more synthetic and accessible manner. The opportunity to explore the universe, to foresee what will happen in the climate field... Advances in biology and genetics will allow us to greatly improve the crops and the satellites will allow us to predict the climate catastrophes. We will also make more effective vaccines, intervene on certain diseases and transplantation of cells will solve some problems in the field of aging. There is not only the material side of these discoveries that counts. There is also the curiosity and this, it is exciting.

Find articles in summer series