As we move into the 21st Century, we can readily observe that the development of technologies is constantly accelerating, with associate structuring effects on our day-to-day lives, our behaviour, on Society at large and, in this respect, technologies are very important.

They are a source of innovation, even if we concede that innovation is not solely technological but draws extensively on human factors, notably.

New technologies or combinations of existing technologies are continuously coming forward. Through them and their applications, Mankind today lives better and longer, moves with greater ease and communicates more rapidly and widely.

However, at the same time as we make this overall positive assessment, we must also admit that areas of concern exist and sometimes fears arise and gain ground.

In this context, debates become heated, leading in certain circumstances to irrational attitudes and stances … and I add, this is a prevalent feature, especially in France. We well know that any degree of progress must result from a comparison, in which the expected benefits must largely outweigh the risks; but, we ask, how does this benefit/risk approach really work?

To illustrate this, let me dwell a moment on the example of GMBs. Why is there so much debate on the subject when we recognise that today over 12% of the Earth’s arable land is already under GMB crops and that genetic engineering will be necessary if we wish to feed appropriately the 9 billion inhabitants that we expect in yr. 2050.

And where is the logical interpretation that “justified” and led to the end of free field experimentation with GMB crops while the same principle holds that we should engage in (or pursue) experiments whenever doubts and interrogations arise?  

Ands why is so much discredit thrown in the faces of the experts when Society so badly needs to have solid references in the course of public debate?

And why again do we observe a new notion, that of an “anxiety factor” that acts when new technical developments appear?

Why do certain people see many of our current problems mirrored in technologies?

Examples here are numerous: let me just cite here the case of the nanotechnologies. The progress established (or expected soon) in this area are already quite considerable. The associate questionings are also legitimate, but for us at NATF, the question is how we should go about explaining the underlying facts and whether we should protest when we see that the debates are not held under normal, acceptable conditions?

And can we accept the notion of dispossession as advocated by the more radical opponents, who indeed play on the level of a risk of loss of control of processes and products we develop?

It is my view that faced with these debates, these questionings, these fears, that the National Academy of Technologies of France  is pefectly in its role and fully justified to play its part.

Given that we are a Fellowship with a wide range of experience and technical skills, our Academy is in a position to address these issues from the technical, the economic, the environmental and societal points of view.

Because we are a Fellowship that can act on our convictions and express our point of view independently from any from of pressure, this puts us in a unique and privileged position as a qualified go-between spanning the worlds of research, public opinion and vested authorities at all levels.

Because we are a Fellowship that can act on our convictions and express our point of view independently from any from of pressure, we are free to choose the subjects, even the most polemic, whenever we deem it necessary to speak out, especially when we feel it is in the general public interest to do so.

Bruno REVELLIN-FALCOZ

President

The Academic Board of Administration

President:

• Bruno REVELLIN-FALCOZ

Vice-President:

• Gérard ROUCAIROL

Délegate General :

• Jean-Claude RAOUL

Past President, ex officio:

• Prof. Alain POMPIDOU

 
Delegate fo Communications:

• Pascal VIGINIER

 
Delegate for International Relations:

• François GUINOT

  
Delegate for Regional Affairs:

• Bruno JARRY

 
Chair of the Executive Committee for Academic Studies:

• Alain POUYAT

Delegate for relations with the 'Cercle' of NATF Partners

• Norbert LARTIGUE

Elected Council Members:

• Pierre-Etienne BOST
• Alain BUGAT
• Jean-Michel CHARPIN
• Patrice DESMAREST
• Ms Claudie HAIGNERE
• Jacques LUKASIK
• Bernard TARDIEU

Also sitting on the Acadmic Board of Administration, in an advisory capacity:

The Ministerial Accountant, Comptroller and Pay-Master:

• Patrick ROGER

State Accountant:

• Denis Teillaud

Director:

• Ms Sylvie GOUJON