< IMG LOADING = "Lazy" SRSC = "/Sites/Default/Files/Styles/Medium/2025-04/Image%20article%20%2813%29.png ? Itok = BKBEZYM6" Width = "1280" Height = "720" Alt = "Chavalarias" Class = "Lazyload Img-Fluid Image-Style-Max-1300x1300" SRC = "/Sites/Default/Files/Styles/Max_1300x1300/Public/2025-04/Image%20article%20%2813%29.png ? Itok = Ku-Fr06i"/62 > Pixabay, Dr When the CNRS finances the conspiratorial report of Chavalariaias: anti-science or anti-debate ? < P >Published in March 2025 by David Chavalariaias, director of the Institut des Systems Complex de Paris Île-de-France (ISC-PIF), a laboratory affiliated to the CNRS, the report “& nbsp; anti-science trump version arrives in France & nbsp;” claims to reveal an anti-scientific campaign orchestrated by the French extreme right, inspired by American conservative tactics under Donald Trump. Focusing on an supposed attack on the Openportability project-an initiative to study the migration of X users to decentralized platforms like Mastodon and Bluesky-the document argues that reactionary forces, in synergy with pro-Kremlin narratives, threaten scientific research in France. However, an in -depth analysis reveals methodological flaws, marked ideological biases and an alarmist rhetoric that raise questions about its scientificity and the use of CNRS public funds. Between public funds, private biases: is science diverted by the ISC-PIF with this < Strong > 60 ~/Strong > Report which shouts in the wolf while Chavalariaias plays the victim ? This article proposes a summary of the report, a rigorous criticism, and a reflection on its political implications and Institutional.
< H5 >< Strong > An anti-right fable: the ideological tale of Chavalarias < P > The ratio is built around five main axes. First, Chavalarias describes a conservative strategy in the United States which would aim to neutralize research centers on disinformation before the 2024 electoral campaign, via denigration, ultraconservative media and “& nbsp; < em > procedures Gabbet & nbsp; ». < P >Then, he supports, without any other proof than his declarations, that the French extreme right, influenced by this tactic and by the Kremlin, attacks the CNRS and the ISC-PIF, in particular via the OpenPortAbity project, launched in November 2024. This project, which lists the connections of X users to analyze their migration to other platforms, is presented as a response to the programming interfaces. (API) of X in 2023; A viral campaign called “Hello leaves X” attracted 30,000 inscriptions, but also aroused criticism, particularly on the use of public funds. Then, he details the operating mode: a digital community qualified as “& nbsp; < em > confusionist and anti-system & nbsp; ”, to pro-Kremlin sympathies, relayed by the national rally and structures funded by Pierre-Édouard Sterin via his Pericles project, would have spread false information and personal attacks against Chavalarias. Finally, he calls for a mobilization against this alleged “& nbsp; < em > anti-science & nbsp;”, connecting these events to an ideological climate conducive to disinformation, as if his position in the CNRS allowed him to decree the true evil. < H5 >< Strong > Pseudo-Science to the rescue: the Bancals of the ISC-PIF and the objective criteria not filled > P > Report passes the test of scientific work, he must meet objective criteria: clarity of definitions, methodological transparency, falsifiability, a impartial approach and the possibility for other researchers to reproduce the results. On these points, the text of Chavalarias collapses. < p > the term “& nbsp; < em > disinformation & nbsp; 62 > 62 > 62 >Is omnipresent, but never defined. Is it a verifiable factual error, a divergent opinion, or a malicious intention ? Without a specific framework, the author can classify any criticism as disinformation, undergoing any objectivity. For example, on the origin of the COVID-19, Chavalarias initially supported the official narrative of a natural origin, rejecting the laboratory leakage hypotheses as conspiracy. However, on April 2, 2025, the Academy of Medicine recognized a “great probability” that the virus from a laboratory, corroborating a 2024 report in the House of Representatives in the American Senate and a study by Luc Montagnier and Jean-Claude Perez (July 30, 2020). This voltage highlights the absence of rigor in its initial definition of disinformation. < P >In addition, the method used to identify 367 accounts accused of attacks is based on a manual collection with blurred criteria, such as “& nbsp; < EM > original hateful content & nbsp;”, and advanced percentages, such as 62.5 % of accounts from a confusionist community, Clear explanation, making the conclusions unverifiable. The links with the Kremlin or Trump are based on coincidences, such as sharing of messages, without concrete evidence as funding, < Strong > This which prevents any validation or refutation . < P > The partisan tone, “& Amp; nbsp; reactionary & nbsp;” or “& Nbsp; Confusionist & nbsp;”, and the obsession for the extreme right, ignoring other possible sources of disinformation, < Strong > betray a lack of impartiality . Finally, without access to X programming interfaces or to the raw databases, which include 711 million messages, no one can reproduce this analysis, a crippling defect for a serious study. < P > On these criteria, the report fails to rise to the rank of rigorous academic work. This report is more from the militant discourse than to impartial research. < H5 >< Strong > The Broken Mirror: Chavalarias, master of disinformation which he denounces 62 > 62 > 62 > 62 ~ 62The text accuses the extreme right of propagating false information to muzzle the debate, but it could well be the weapon that it claims to fight: an ideological propaganda tool. By presenting his detractors as enemies of the science or the relays of the Kremlin, Chavalarias avoids tackling the legitimate questions on OpenPortability, such as the relevance of collecting data or his interest in the public. This defensive attitude, reinforced by shock formulas such as “& nbsp; < EM > Bag of research & nbsp;”, seeks to discredit any opposition without discussing it. Paradoxically, by rejecting these criticisms as inadmissible, the report bridles the debate he says he wants to protect, thus reproducing the mechanisms he tries to denounce. < H5 >< Strong > Instrumentalization of science: an issue perceived by the Public < P >The distrust of the instrumentalization of science through public institutions is increasing. A survey of France-soir/Bonsens.org published on April 2, 2025 reveals that 61 % of French people think that “& nbsp; science is too instrumentalized by politicians and the media & nbsp;” and 84% think that “& nbsp; < em > The media amplify the fears of the French & nbsp;” thus contributing to no longer recognize what is true of what is false (79%). < Br >< IMG Data-Bentity-Uuid = "61034514-3D92-488e-B09A-37FD30182D9A" Data-entity-Type = "alt" alt = "Width" Width = "945" Height = "494" loading = "Lazy" class = "Lazyload" src = "/sites/default/files/inline-Images/Image_172.png" >< P > These perceptions reflect a discomfort that Chavalarias On a partisan vision. < H5 >< Strong > betrayed mission: Chavalarias use the CNRS as a pawn Politics & nbsp; ?< P > le CNRS, created in 1939, has the fundamental mission of “& nbsp; < EM > Advance knowledge ~ 60 > 62 > 62 > 62 > 62 > 62& nbsp; ” Through a fundamental and applied research, independent of political or ideological pressures. Its primary objective is to produce universal knowledge, verifiable and useful to society, not to engage in ideological struggles or to promote tools in the service of private platforms. The OpenPortability project, facilitating the migration of X to Mastodon or Bluesky, and the report which defends it move away from this mission. They seem to serve a cause more – opposition to X and figures like Trump – than a disinterested scientific advance. This drift risks transforming the CNRS into a partisan actor, to the detriment of its original vocation. < H5 >< Strong > Public silver, private agenda: Parliament must stop the Gabs < P >Funding for the report and the Openportability Project by the CNRS asks ethical and political questions. If Chavalarias' hypotheses are more ideology than facts – as an influence of the Kremlin without tangible evidence -, votes to Parliament should rise. & Amp; nbsp;< p > in the Senate, the finance committee should focus on scrutinizing the use of public funds for research marked by The Commission for Culture, Education and Communication could verify whether the CNRS still respects its scientific mission. In the National Assembly, the Finance Committee should question the relevance of OpenPortability, and the Commission for Cultural Affairs and Education Evaluate its impact on public debate.
< P > An independent audit is essential to decide: < Strong > 62 > 62 > 62 > 62Does CNRS finance a neutral science or a personal project ?< H5 >< Strong > fact-checking in bankruptcy: Chavalarias and its allies Discredités < P > Chavalariaias maintains close links with self -proclaimed groups “& nbsp; < EM > of factors of the facts & Watch, led by Rudy Reichstadt, who landed in defenders of an official truth, in a way the guards of a patent narrative. These structures, often supported by public funds or foundations linked to state interests, have seen their credibility collapse with many citizens. & Amp; nbsp;< P > For example, Conspiracy Watch has long treated “& Amp; nbsp; < em > conspiratists & nbsp; ” Those who mentioned an artificial origin of the COVVI-19, supporting the zoonotic thesis until the indices of a laboratory leak accumulate. Chavalariaias followed this line in his past work, rejecting alternative as unfounded theses. This convergence with ideologized fact-checkers, now discredited by reversals like that of the Academy of Medicine, weakens his posture as an impartial researcher.
< H5 >< Strong > The real conspirator: Chavalarias, architect of his own Cabal & nbsp; ?< P >The qualifier “& nbsp; conspirator & nbsp;” Sied more in Chavalarias than to those he accuses. By wearing a story where the extreme right, the Kremlin and the Trumpists unite against science without bringing solid evidence, it builds a conspiracy theory based on questionable rapprochements and an outrageous victimization. Where the “conspirators & nbsp;” that it criticizes are sometimes based on distorted, but concrete facts, Chavalariaias advances an impossible hypothesis to prove, supported by an emotional rhetoric rather than by rigorous data.< H5 >< Strong > The boomerang of the ISC-PIF: Research < P > A threat to science or a tense mirror ? The report warns against a “& nbsp; anti-science &” Coming from elsewhere, but his faults suggest that he himself harms science < Strong > by mixing research and activism . It does not face a rigorous examination and seems designed to protect the ISC-PIF from its criticisms rather than to light a complex reality. & Amp; nbsp;
< P >The use of public funds for such work, which prefers ideological presuppositions to the facts, calls for an urgent parliamentary debate. If the CNRS does not refocus its priorities on a transparent and impartial science, it risks lending the flank to the criticisms which it seeks to ward off. & Amp; nbsp;
< P > paradoxically, the importance of such a document lies in the demonstration that it involuntarily provides: there is a real problem in biased work can be funded under the cover of science. & nbsp;
< P > In conclusion, this document is not only a scientific failure; < Strong > It is a symptom of a drift where public research becomes a propaganda tool , stifling the debate which it claims to protect. Parliamentarians have a role to play to guarantee that public funds serve the truth, not a partisan vision.
< P >Meanwhile, the appointment of Doctor Jay Bhattacharya at the head of the National Health Institutes (NIH) in the United States, confirmed by the Senate on March 25, 2025, breathes a wind of hope to restore its letters of nobility to science. Known for his opposition to authoritarian measures during the COVVI-19 crisis and his defense of targeted protection of the most vulnerable, Bhattacharya embodies a desire to denounce the ideologized and instrumentalized practices of science for personal or political ends. Its taking office on April 1, 2025 promises to bring back rigor and freedom of expression at the heart of research, offering a striking contrast with the drifts illustrated by the Chavalariaias ratio. < P >< Strong > The article you liked ? It mobilized our editorial staff which only lives from your gifts. < Br > Information has a cost, especially since competition from subsidized writing requires additional rigor and professionalism. < P > With your support, France-Soir will continue to offer its articles for free & nbsp; we think that everyone must have access to free and independent information to forge their own opinion. < P > You are the sine qua non condition for our existence, support us for France-Soir to remain the French media which makes the most legitimate express.