fr
Last publications
New sources of funding for a global approach to living organisms
The mechanistic vision of living organisms has led research to adopt fragmentary approaches to
analysing and identifying problems to be solved and how to solve them. It took just a few decades
to replace the more all-comprehensive or analogic visions in which peasants' systems gradually
progressed to a system keyed to improving parts, expressed as a caricature, this would mean
changing a gene to improve a global system.
Unfortunately, funding for research on living organisms predicates on the dominant,
analytical and minimalistic paradigm. Furthermore, it allows for an elementary segmentation
into "bricks" that facilitates private ownership through patents. This makes it difficult to
bank on a "systemic approach" to obtain funding, be it national and European. To analyse the "lag"
in global (systemic, holistic) research on living organisms, we need but consider the little interest
being shown by potential donors, especially from the public sector.
We need research to get on the move for the following purposes: greater understanding of living
organisms, integration of diversity in our knowledge development, creation of a spill-over effect
to demonstrate the value of these approaches and hence to gradually redirect public research to new
paradigms. The funding needed for such research was targeted in the feasibility study carried out by
GEYSER and BEDE on the introduction of an appropriate funding mechanism for this type of global research
on living organisms, research that would use approaches that are different and complementary to the current
analytical approaches.
The study explores various ways to build up a funding mechanism by considering the following
questions: should we rely on existing research programmes and services without creating any special
facilities? Or, on the contrary, should special facilities be set up to receive funding? And if yes,
how should they be structured? Does a foundation have the right statutes? If so, what type should be
selected: a foundation recognised for its public usefulness, a research foundation, a foundation for
scientific cooperation? Where and how should funding be solicited? What sort of communications are
needed with the outside world? How should the funds be managed? How big should the forecast budget
be for the first few years? Some figures were suggested.
During the study we received backing from an "interest group" composed of associations,
business companies and research scientists who were anxious for a Université du Vivant
(university on living organisms) to be created. We quite naturally sent the preliminary
conclusions to them first.
Reference: "La mise en place d'un mécanisme financier indépendant pour le
développement des recherches et de la formation sur les approches globales du vivant"
(Establishing an independent financial mechanism to develop research and training on global
approaches to living organisms)
Robert Ali Brac de la Perrière (BEDE), Frédéric Prat (Geyser), May 2008
This study was funded by the Fondation Charles Leopold Mayer pour le Progrès de l'Homme (Fph).
Download (french document)