AI raises strong socio-economic issues. Collaboration between public and private research is essential to maintain competitiveness and guarantee European technological autonomy.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is today at the heart of major socio-economic issues with a multiplication of disparate strategic decisions: deployment of the Deepseek-R1 model allegedly advanced in frugal reasoning, raising questions of transparency, restriction of access to scientific databases by the Trump II administration, massive European investment in AI and funded by future Emirates. In this context, it is imperative to assert our scientific sovereignty by strengthening collaboration between public research – innovation – and private base – catalysts of societal impact. Preserving incentive devices such as the “Young Doctor” program, now called into question, is crucial to maintain our competitiveness.
The public and private sectors, despite structural and interest differences, are two complementary pillars of science and innovation. With a fundamental research of excellence exploring diversified subjects without constraint of immediate profitability, the public guarantees a long -term vision, essential on subjects such as climate or health, where AI will have a decisive contribution. Start-ups and applied research transform these advances into concrete solutions, which companies set up, accelerating their adoption by the company. Encourageing a sustainable collaborative model makes it possible to maximize the impact of public research while providing private and transparent scientific bases with private bases. The Jean Zay Supercalculator, the fruit of cooperation between the CNRS, Genci and Eviden, illustrates the effectiveness of a balanced partnership strategy between these two spheres. Investment optimization is also a key lever. Public research, focused on understanding models rather than their performance, requires stable funding. Conversely, companies punctually mobilize important computational resources to materialize these advances. Structuring funding and pooling efforts are essential to guarantee European technological autonomy.
Another major issue is the valuation of talents. European laboratories, especially French, are distinguished by high -level publications, alongside their American counterparts, despite less resources. This excellence testifies to the performance of our researchers and the quality of their training, largely funded by the taxpayer. Ensure their retention and integration into the innovation ecosystem is strategic, especially in an academic environment where mobility is the norm. The abolition of the “Young Doctor” program is therefore a mistake against the ambitions displayed of a “start-up nation” and our international competitiveness. Maintaining such initiatives is essential to promote a virtuous circle between research and innovation. While the United States, holding the majority of data and models weaken open science by restrictive decisions, Europe must strengthen its attractiveness and structure its scientific leadership. Its solid academic partnerships and ethical regulations offer land conducive to the creation of databases and trusted models. A voluntary public-private cooperation would allow companies to optimize their return on investment and accelerate innovation. Otherwise, we risk becoming simple consumers of the innovations developed elsewhere, without control of impacts and benefits.
Europe remains an independent research stronghold and must stabilize its funding by engaging in a coherent long-term policy, beyond political agendas. Succoming our research on the altar of court-termism is a mistake. Open science, rigorous and independent, is the only guarantee of an innovation that is really beneficial to society.
