“The role of scientists is not to decide ‘for’ or ‘against,’ but rather to provide knowledge.”

The subject of information integrity has, for the first time, been included on the agenda of COP30 as a necessary condition for climate action. What is the CNRS’s role in this regard?

Antoine Petit : The role of scientific research—not just that of the CNRS—is to provide knowledge. Scientific results are not “an opinion like any other.” Actually, they are not opinion at all,  but consist of verified knowledge, obtained through a familiar and rigorous scientific methodology. This means that the knowledge in question has garnered a consensus of sorts among the entire scientific community. Consensus does not mean unanimity, but rather that the overwhelming majority of researchers in the field agree, in light of a certain number of studies that have been published and discussed. This can appear complex and demanding, and indeed it is. However, that is the condition in order for citizens and decision makers to trust research results. 

With respect to climate change, remarks contrary to recognized scientific knowledge have flourished, despite the work of the IPCC, which for 30 years has issued warnings regarding warming, as well as the occurrence of increasingly frequent and close extreme events. Such positions challenge scientific results, but without making arguments. We must assert that such an attitude is not part of the scientific approach, and must be combatted. 

The humanities and social sciences have provided interesting insights on this subject, namely seeking to understand how and why a scientific consensus can be contested. They must help us work through this paradox, in which the efforts planned as part of various COPs have not always met with success, even when the majority appears ready to make these efforts. In an attempt to dispel this paradox, various disciplines must engage in dialogue with one another. Climate specialists must communicate with sociologists, geographers, anthropologists, and historians, among others. They should grasp what citizens expect as information, as well as how recommendations are perceived and interpreted, with a view to understanding the causes of climate change scepticism. For example, some studies have already emphasised that explanations of the efforts required to contain global warming have often taken precedence over demonstrations of the advantages humanity could draw from them. 

How does the CNRS share, with policymakers and citizens, knowledge pertaining to the climate crisis and major transitions?

A.P. : I would like to repeat, the primary role of the CNRS is to produce knowledge. However, one of its missions is also to share this knowledge with the widest possible audience. We thus made it a pillar of our action. We recently organised citizen surveys in order to determine what French people expect from the CNRS. It is noteworthy that 620,000 people responded to this first national survey conducted by Make.org, thereby affirming the importance of shared knowledge in building the world of the future. Last month a second survey reaffirmed this importance, with 75% of respondents believing  that the CNRS has a role to play in information integrity and combatting fake news. We carry out this responsibility to diffuse reliable knowledge in multiple ways. We already share it with international communities through the scientific articles published in specialized journals, and we also have a publishing house, CNRS Editions, which publishes both scientific works and key popular science books. We generally ensure their diffusion among various audiences, across all fields. 

To the extent that our resources allow, we use the maximum number of forms and channels available, and strive to ensure that simplification is coupled with rigor and verification. On this condition, we have produced more documents intended for audiences other than the scientific community. We have also established a mission dedicated to producing collective scientific expert reviews on subjects involving major societal issues. This action seeks to supply public and private decision makers with a state of the art and body of knowledge on subjects that are often topical, or that we perceive will become so shortly. For example, this summer we published an expert review on plastics used in agriculture and food, and will soon make public another on rare-earth elements1 . Such reviews, which analyse tens of thousands of international scientific publications, require months between their launch and submission, but they are crucially needed by public decision makers, as is the case with the examples cited here. This does not mean that they systematically seize upon them to form an opinion, but our scientific work ends with the production of these expert reviews.

We also produce information tools for the general public, such as the website CNRSNews, which is freely accessible online, the journal Carnet de sciences, which appears every six months in newsstands, and the book series Understand (almost) everything about. It is noteworthy that of the first four issues from this series, three are linked to climate change and biodiversity. The first, “Understand (almost) everything about the climate,” 2   broke sales records for a science book, clearly demonstrating that there is a major appetite for knowledge. It is important to demystify and desacralize scientific knowledge by bringing it within reach of the largest possible audience; with this in mind, we maintain an active presence on social media, although some individuals there are sometimes resistant. We also invite, as often as possible, the public to come meet us in our laboratories, and have increased opportunities to facilitate this dialogue with mediation activities such as visites insolites (unusual visits).  Aware of the importance of diffusing this knowledge, as well as the pressing need to promote information integrity, we plan to implement a number of new initiatives by 2026. 

It is crucial to preserve the people’s trust, and to provide explanations to this end. That is why researchers must clearly differentiate between when they are discussing their research as scientists, and when they are being questioned about it as citizens. Their status as experts confers upon them special legitimacy in their fields of expertise, but also a duty to explain on what basis they are speaking. For this purpose, we published A guide to help CNRS scientists express themselves in public. This does not include coercive rules, but rather recommendations and best practices for supporting those who agree to or want to speak. 

As a scientific institution, how do you broach controversial subjects?

A. P. : Scientific controversy is healthy, it advances science. This confrontation involves rules, and should be conducted in good faith by exchanging arguments, theories, and data. When they involve ideologies opposed to one another, this is not of interest from a scientific point of view. For all that, in science we, by definition, do not know everything. However, when we affirm that we know, we have data and a method to certify our affirmations. Some topics can be explored in greater depth, but it is important not to confuse the quest to understand more and in greater detail with an absence of knowledge. With regard to climate research, we do not know whether warming by 2050 will be 2.5, 3, or 3.5 degrees globally, for the issue is so complex that we have developed numerous models to anticipate and confirm it, with estimates varying slightly depending on the model. However, we know that the trend is clear and unfolding over the long term, and that human activities are responsible. There is some marginal uncertainty regarding the degree of increase, but that unfortunately does not mean that the increase itself can be called into question. 

Is it possible and desirable for a scientific institution to determine the veracity or integrity of certain pieces of information in the public debate?

A. P. : Our role is not to judge anything whatsoever; our role is to shed light on the decisions made by decision makers. We should also strive to provide them with answers to the questions they are asking themselves. I do not believe that it would be healthy, or even democratic, to give scientists the power to arbitrate or decide. This would involve giving power to a minority, perhaps an enlightened one acting in good faith, but that is the principle of dictatorships. The world’s dictators are often convinced they are acting for the welfare of their population. As scientists, we cannot purport to have an all-encompassing view. It is our group that ensures the reliability of the knowledge that we produce. Political circles can legitimately choose to consider one or more elements, or other elements, and to decide accordingly. This may be unsettling for scientists, but once again it is the democratic way. Citizens choose public policies that reflect their degree of exigency, intellectual honesty, and rigor in public decision making.

However, I reiterate that it is essential to explain the scientific approach, and to request, during a public debate, the sources and data that justify certain affirmations. The CNRS could potentially act as a recourse to certify whether certain affirmations are validated by scientific knowledge, but it should not go beyond that. In my opinion that would be a source of unnecessary polemics. What is more, disinformation often uses just a part of scientific knowledge. Most often we cannot arrive at an answer that is entirely true or entirely false, life is more complex than that.  However, being able to say that an affirmation is scientifically validated, why not. Is it up to the CNRS to do so? I do not know.

• 1The CNRS collective scientific expertise “Rare Earths” colloquium will take place at the Collège de France on November 14th.
• 2Available from CNRS Editions.