It is a report that went completely unnoticed. Yet its content will interest all those who are passionate or concerned about the future of public scientific research and expertise. In December 2023, a group of eight experts submitted a report to the National Commission for Ethics and Alerts in Public Health and Environment (CNdAspe) on “the independence of research and expertise in contexts of public-private relationships involving the fields of health and the environment.”
For the past twenty years, the relationships between public institutions and research and expertise organizations on one side, and “commercial actors” (companies, corporate foundations, start-ups, etc.) on the other, have been multiplying in Europe, especially in France. This “considerable growth” in public-private partnerships, according to CNdAspe, is a direct consequence of the Lisbon Strategy implemented by European Union member states at the turn of the 2000s to create a “knowledge economy.” This was supposed to herald a new period of economic growth. As a result, today, public-private partnerships have become “the norm,” the commission reports, especially in large research programs, both in France and the rest of Europe.
Analyzing the consequences of public-private interactions on knowledge production by public research
The CNdAspe deemed it necessary in 2021 to mandate a group of independent experts to “analyze the consequences of the increasingly numerous and varied public-private interactions on knowledge production by public research and, by extension, on expertise activities.” The commission emphasizes more than ever the “reliability and robustness of these activities, and their ability to produce unbiased knowledge and properly inform public decisions.”
Not surprisingly, the eight authors of the report, made public in August 2024, point out that the increase in collaborations between public researchers and private economic actors is mainly due to the gradual decrease in public funding over the years, in favor of private funding. As a result, the dependence and consequently, the influence of profit-driven and commercial sectors on public research have become “structural,” they argue. “We are not questioning the interest that collaborations with the private sector may have. Instead, we sought to determine where the balance should be,” specifies Stéphane Brissy, lecturer in private law at the University of Nantes and co-author of the report.
Three levels of relations between public research and commercial actors
To effectively carry out their work, the experts mandated by CNdAspe wanted to go beyond just financial links and conflicts of interest to highlight “the diversity of forms of influence that can be exerted by commercial actors.” They proposed a typology distinguishing three levels of relationships between public research and expertise, and commercial actors: financial relationships (the main ones considered by the scientific community), institutional relationships, and structural relationships (less considered). “Funding and remuneration are studied, as are the presence of commercial actors in institutions and the methods by which their views prevail in the field of research and expertise,” specifies CNdAspe.
“These are old questions, of course; think, for example, of the long-standing problem of funding biases in research – what is called the ‘Funding Effect’ in English. But our work is one of the few to pragmatically seek to address this by suggesting a number of recommendations,” says Olivier Leclerc, director of the Center for Theory and Analysis of Law (CNRS/University of Paris-Nanterre/ENS-PSL) and member of CNdAspe.
No reaction from concerned ministries to the proposals
There are 68 recommendations in total. They were all suggested to the commission experts by around forty people who were interviewed, from all major French public research institutions: CNRS, Inserm, Inrae, Ifremer, and Ademe. Whether for research or public expertise, all recommendations primarily focus on funding, transparency, independence, and plurality.
These recommendations were then reviewed by CNdAspe, which adopted about twenty of them, considered “structural.” In line with its tasks, the commission produced “recommendations on the reforms that should be undertaken to improve the functioning of scientific and technical expertise.”
The concerned ministries did not bother to react to these proposals. Nevertheless, the report from the eight experts and CNdAspe’s review were forwarded to the 34 French public research and expertise institutions, as the stakes and projects to be carried out are of paramount importance.
The risk of “unmade science”
“Transparency is a minimum,” says Olivier Leclerc, who also points out “tensions” that may arise between private funding and the necessary preservation of researchers’ academic freedom (read our interview with Stéphanie Balme, author of a report on academic freedom published in October 2025: “Defending research is defending democracy”). This concern is also shared by Stéphane Brissy, who notes that private funders can obstruct the publication of scientific results. “We must be very vigilant about the content of research contracts,” indicates the lecturer. He adds: “In addition to non-disclosure of results, the influence of commercial actors can take more subtle and diffuse forms, starting with researchers’ self-censorship.” According to him, one of the main safeguards against the influence of the profit sector on public research lies in the training of the researchers themselves. “There is a real lack in these areas,” he laments.
Furthermore, the academic highlights the risk of “unmade science” in the fields of public health and the environment. “Entire bodies of knowledge may not be explored or uncovered because private funders deem them uninteresting,” he states in conclusion. A warning he hopes will be heard and taken into account.
By Anthony Laurent
(*) Marion Desquilbet (Inrae), Joan Cortinas Muñoz (University of Bordeaux), Gérard Aschieri (CESE), Henri Bergeron (CNRS), Stéphane Brissy (University of Nantes), Laurence Huc (Inrae/Inserm), Christine Noiville (CNRS), and Jérôme Santolini (CEA).
Credit: LOIC VENANCE / AFP
