"About 90 chairs at EPFL are active in areas related to sustainability and energy"

In recent days, the war waged by the Trump administration against research has reached a new level. In its sights: Harvard, one of the most prestigious universities in the world, responsible for many Nobel Prizes. Like other major academic institutions in the country, Harvard is accused by the U.S. executive of allowing anti-Semitism to flourish on its campus and of spreading progressive ideologies labeled as "woke".

After already cutting more than two billion dollars in grants intended for American universities and causing a real halt to certain research programs, the Trump administration intends to reduce the bill by another hundred million by ending all contracts with Harvard.

Across the Atlantic, this showdown between the scientific world and political power is causing serious concern. These concerns are all the greater because another target is in the Trump administration's crosshairs: the climate.
Everything is currently being done to break with the commitments made ten years earlier under the Paris agreements — exemplified by Donald Trump's now-famous phrase: "Drill, baby, drill."

It is in this particularly worrying context for science and for the fight against global warming that we went to meet Anna Fontcuberta i Morral, the new president of the École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) since the start of the year. Interview

Data deletion, dismantling of the Department of Education, pressure on universities... How do you perceive the current situation in the United States?

Naturally, with a great deal of concern. The information we receive from our collaborators on site as well as from our North American colleagues is alarming, and we wonder how far these attacks on science can go. Given the inconstancy of the Trump administration — with decisions made and then overturned a few days later — it is truly difficult to anticipate the consequences. How do you play the game in a world where the rules are constantly changing?

The only certainty today is that the research world is actively thinking about how to adapt to these upheavals, developing strategies to continue funding research programs.

How does what is happening in the United States affect research in Switzerland and more specifically at EPFL?

Strictly financially, the amounts at stake with the United States remain relatively modest (In 2024, EPFL launched five projects funded by the United States, for a total of 1.2 million francs — or barely 0.4% of the institution's budget, editor's note). However, from a scientific perspective, the fallout could be much more significant, insofar as the United States is our main partner, ahead of Germany and France. At this stage, only one research contract has been canceled; anxiety remains palpable in the academic community.

This new stigmatization of science is difficult to grasp. My hypothesis is that it is part of the growing polarization of society.

Before becoming president of EPFL, you were above all a scientist. How do you personally experience such a period?

Like my colleagues, with a certain apprehension, but also a form of incomprehension. This new stigmatization of science is difficult to grasp. My hypothesis is that it is part of the growing polarization of society. We observe it very clearly in the United States, where science is unfortunately instrumentalized for political purposes.

This is a diversion that, fortunately, is much rarer in Switzerland. Here, debates remain open, and mentalities continue to evolve. We see it, for example, in discussions around the climate. Take the questions of nuclear power, wind power or solar: we still have the capacity to change our minds. This has nothing to do with the extreme divisions seen elsewhere.

Isn't the problem that scientists still don't know how to convey their messages and make themselves understood by the rest of the population?

It is indeed a difficult mission, especially when, as in the case of climate change, the effects are neither immediate nor directly perceptible. Human beings find it hard to project themselves into the long term. As for political decision-makers, it should be remembered that their choices are not based solely on scientific data.

As Ruth Dreifuss said, "unfortunately there is no political decision that is favorable to everyone." As scientists, we are well aware of this multiplicity of issues. Our task is not to decide, but to provide reflections supported by our data and research results.

As president of EPFL, one of my main missions is to strengthen the dialogue with the population. Ultimately, it is the Swiss who fund our research: they deserve to be better listened to and properly informed. To be honest, I do not yet have all the answers on how to achieve this, but it is a path I wish to follow throughout my mandate.

We are talking about thousands of pages, some of them scientific in nature, being simply erased from U.S. government websites. Some even go so far as to compare this period to when books were burned...

This comparison with certain dark periods of history seems, at this stage, exaggerated to me. Concretely, it seems to me that the data have not been deleted, but made inaccessible, notably because of the disconnection of certain servers (by court order, some pages were in fact restored, and others preserved by independent organizations, editor's note). We are therefore not yet at the stage of burning books. That said, this fragmented access to data already constitutes a real obstacle for scientific research.

The United States have been at the origin of major recent innovations — in space, new digital technologies, artificial intelligence, etc. Should we fear entering a new dark age of science, similar to that which followed the fall of the Roman Empire?

I don't have a crystal ball and I cannot predict the future. What I can tell you, however, is that we face a serious risk of seeing research slow down in the United States and therefore worldwide. One might think that this slowdown will be only temporary, limited to the Trump years. But science does not follow the political calendar.

Even if the administration were to change, some delays may be irreversible. A clinical trial interrupted midway, for example, often implies starting all over again in the event of a restart. The effects we observe today could therefore extend far beyond the short term — and cross American borders. Because when you lose your best researcher, the whole scientific dynamic is weakened.

Could this American setback serve the interests of other powers, such as China?

It is possible. Science has never really had borders, and researchers have always moved, spending part of their careers abroad depending on their specialty or the opportunities offered by a university or research center. Thus, if a country like the United States closes itself off, other nations will naturally take over. But again, if the quality of research declines in the United States, the repercussions will be felt worldwide.

I am convinced that fundamental research, driven by curiosity and essential to major discoveries, must remain led by universities and supported by public funds.

Could this situation change research funding models, with an increasing share borne by private actors, such as tech giants?

Today, private actors are less interested in fundamental research than they were thirty years ago. In their R&D departments, they favor applied research — that which can quickly be turned into innovation with strong commercial potential. But it has not always been the case.

The emblematic example of Bell Labs in the 20th century bears witness to this: with a total of nine Nobel Prizes, these laboratories were true incubators of major innovations in electronics, computing, telecommunications and even fundamental physics. Examples include achievements such as the integrated circuit that initiated the digital revolution and the silicon photovoltaic panels seen on many roofs.

I am convinced that fundamental research, based on curiosity and essential to major discoveries, must remain carried out by universities and supported by public funds. At EPFL, our strength lies precisely in setting up a balanced model, linking fundamental research and applied research.

All our professors teach and conduct research, and a number of them also invest in startups. We encourage this kind of synergy between the public and private sectors, because it is from these exchanges that innovation is born today — often stemming from ideas rooted in fundamental research.

Could government pressures on American science and universities represent an opportunity for Switzerland — and for EPFL — to attract their best scientists?

I am closely observing the positions taken by several European countries and their stated desire to become places of welcome for American scientists. Let's be clear: at EPFL, this is not our way of doing things. We are not in a "brain-hunting" logic. That said, what we can observe is that on the occasion of our calls for applications — open at the Swiss and international level — we have seen, since the beginning of the year, a clear increase in the number and quality of applications coming from the United States.

If our main asset is not necessarily salary-related, especially compared with some North American research centers, the resources we make available to researchers are particularly competitive. Those who choose Switzerland know that they will find both the means and the freedom necessary to carry out their work. On this point, the political stability of our country is a real advantage.

Speaking more specifically about the climate, we are witnessing a frontal attack — notably in the United States — against the very idea of climate change. Are we losing that battle?

The evolution of mentalities and political programs is not reassuring. We are all aware of it: we are dangerously approaching the "tipping point," that point of no return for the planet. Take the example of the 1.5 °C threshold: it is probably already too late. This threshold will be exceeded — we have probably reached 1.7 °C. Maybe we can still remain under 2 °C?

But the real problem does not lie only in the rise of average temperatures: it is climate disruption. It is extreme events — droughts, floods, destructive storms — that become more frequent and more intense. That is the real danger.

The problem is that the United States are not the only ones stepping back on the climate issue. Europeans seem to be following a similar trajectory...

If you are referring to the Omnibus package currently under discussion in Brussels, I am not convinced that this set of measures is as negative as you suggest. Its objective is to offer greater administrative flexibility, making certain processes more agile for businesses — flexibility particularly necessary for SMEs.

Some think that we put too many obstacles in the way of businesses in Europe, whereas across the Atlantic they have much more flexibility. But excessive liberalization would be counterproductive. It is all a question of balance: this search for flexibility must not be used as a pretext to roll back environmental commitments.

Isn't this rollback already being observed, particularly in mobility, under pressure from the automobile lobbies to postpone the end of sales of combustion-engine vehicles?

Regarding mobility, it seems essential to me to ask the following question: is our electrical system truly ready to accommodate a massive fleet of electric cars? It seems to me that this is not yet the case everywhere. The grid, charging stations, highway infrastructures: all of this must be adapted. This is a large-scale transformation.

For my part, I travel mostly by public transport and by bicycle. I have owned the same car for seventeen years and I am not sure I will buy a new one when it reaches the end of its life. I intend to use it until the end, because sustainability also lies in the longevity of objects. We too often forget that the manufacture of a car — even an electric one — generates a significant carbon cost. It is therefore preferable to extend the life of what already exists.

I believe we will need both. Technology is indispensable, but it is not enough. The solution will come through compromises, and a change in behavior will necessarily be part of it.

We are currently witnessing a marked opposition between two camps: those who believe technology will save us, and those who advocate a massive reduction in our consumption. Which camp are you in?

I believe we will need both. Technology is indispensable, but it is not enough. The solution will come through compromises, and a change in behavior will necessarily be part of it. Now, as an engineer and scientist, my role is to contribute to the development of new technological solutions, even if that cannot be the only answer.

Do you intend to make sustainability one of the strong axes of your presidency?

Alongside health and artificial intelligence, issues related to sustainability and the energy transition indeed constitute the third major axis of importance at EPFL. Since my arrival, I have restructured our organization to better coordinate efforts, notably by creating a vice-presidency in charge of support for strategic projects. Led by Stéphanie Lacour, this entity will have the main mission of aligning existing strengths, better connecting teams, centers, and projects under development at EPFL.

We currently have about 90 chairs working on various aspects related to sustainability and energy: we therefore already have considerable wealth. Our role now is to ensure that conditions are optimal to allow our researchers to work in good conditions. This involves cross-cutting, interdisciplinary work, and a strong link with the outside world.

We also promote the rapid implementation of certain solutions. Two years ago, we launched the "Solutions for Sustainability" program, endowed with 20 million francs. These are concrete projects likely to lead to the creation of startups. It is important to emphasize, however, that our support is not limited to cleantech: other fields also benefit.

Does Switzerland have a card to play, at the global level, in the cleantech field — despite the budget cuts envisaged in Bern?

Yes, absolutely. We have the talent, the institutions, the stability: the potential is real. Financially, what I can tell you is that at the scale of EPFL, we do the maximum with the resources we have.

Where do you stand on EPFL's climate plan?

We are following our roadmap, which is public and available for consultation. We are moving towards carbon neutrality. This encompasses not only buildings, but also campus catering, business travel, daily commutes, etc.

Some EPFL buildings are, however, old, which complicates their insulation. The problem is that they have architectural value: we cannot transform them as we would like. But we act with respect for these constraints. For example, we recover the heat produced by computing centers to heat buildings, which improves our energy efficiency. And we are multiplying solar installations, in a logic of continuous optimization.

This article has been automatically translated using AI. If you notice any errors, please don't hesitate to contact us.