Muse: “We’re approaching this evaluation with confidence”
Five years after its launch, I-Site Muse is wrapping up its pilot phase and preparing for the final evaluation, which will take place from November through next January. What has been the outcome in Montpellier of this forward-looking investment aimed at creating world-class universities? We discuss this with François Pierrot, executive director of I-Site Muse and vice president for innovation at theUM.
MUSE is entering its final phase, with the site’s long-term sustainability at stake. How will the final evaluation by the international I-Sites jury unfold?
The evaluation began last July when we submitted our written report to the jury. On November 16 and 17, the international jury will come to Montpellier to meet with the project stakeholders. Finally, the last phase will take place next January, when a MUSE delegation will travel to Paris—likely to the ANR offices—to meet with the entire jury this time.
Who makes up this jury? Academics?
The members of the Idex and I-Site jury do not come from the French system. They are either international university administrators or people from major industrial groups. There are Germans, Canadians, Spaniards… The jury consists of 25 members, about a third of whom will be present in Montpellier for the evaluation.
How will this on-site evaluation unfold?
The evaluation committee will meet, in 45-minute sessions, with key stakeholders who have contributed to the development of Muse—including leaders from partner institutions, as well as researchers, training program coordinators, students, and Professors —and also President Philippe Augé and myself.
What criteria does this evaluation rely on?
The first thing they will evaluate is the effectiveness of establishing a university capable of integrating all the consortium’s stakeholders. This is what we have achieved through the EPE—the experimental public institution—pursuant to the decree of September 20 of last year. To evaluate this point, there are two categories of parameters: the legal and administrative aspects, and the“on-the-ground”aspects, so to speak—that is, how this integration plays out in practice.
In other words, the decree alone isn’t enough—it’s the content of the decree that the jury will examine?
Indeed, and that content includes several elements that demonstrate the quality of this integration. In our view, the School of Chemistry, in particular, has gone to great lengths in this integration, as it has granted the University’s Board of Trustees the right to provide input on the school’s budget and its hiring campaign…
Is there also the Institut Agro?
Yes, and this time we’ve signed a partnership agreement with them, which shows that the Institut Agro is fully committed to serving as an experimental facility.
Does the new Strategic and Structural Investments Committee also fit into this framework?
It is, in fact, further evidence of strong and successful integration. This committee is composed of all our partner institutions—CIRAD, CNRS, INRAE, IRD, INSERM, and so on—in short, all those with whom we signed a strategic agreement during the Africa-France Summit on October 8. It is this committee that will work on all the major projects that will shape our collective life.
That covers the administrative side—but what about the “real-world” aspect? As a reminder, I-SITE is an acronym for “science, innovation, territory, and economy.” Are these the four areas on which Muse will be evaluated?
These four areas, or pillars, describe the general mission of I-SITE initiatives. In practical terms, the jury wants to know whether, at the end of this trial period, the university has become more attractive and more visible.
So what?
When it comes to attractiveness, there’s one figure that speaks volumes: over the five years of the I-Site, the number of doctoral students in France has fallen by an average of 5%, while in Montpellier it has risen by 10%. We’ve also been able to recruit top-tier scientists from other countries. So are we attractive? Yes. Are we more visible? There are several factors to consider—not all of them will convince the same people—but let’s highlight them: the Shanghai Ranking—in five years, we’ve moved up 140 spots! What about publications under the I-Site initiative? 65% of them are co-authored by international researchers.
This is a remarkable rate, even by international standards. Over the same period, we increased European funding by 25 percent, and we were selected to establish the UNESCO Water Center. In the area of training, we also launched CHARM EU. These developments clearly indicate a gain in international visibility.
You mentioned training; pedagogical innovation will also be evaluated by the jury…
Absolutely, and at the heart of this issue is the creation of the Center for Pedagogical Innovation, made up of extremely dynamic and competent experts—and the symposium held recently is the best proof of that. There is a real focus on teacher training so that they can embrace these innovations and take the initiative. We’ve also put in place excellent resources for this purpose—tools that teachers also use in their innovative practices…
Regarding the “territory and economy” focus area, what are Muse’s arguments?
In five years, we’ve doubled the number of companies based on our campuses. We now have 62. To take this further, we’ve coordinated all of our commercialization and technology transfer services with our partners. We have signed a charter setting out the conditions for hosting a company so that they are exactly the same at theUM, the CNRS, or INRAE, etc. Business developers work together to promote all the expertise developed in the site’s laboratories by field, rather than by referring to one governing body or another.
Does a territory also include local governments?
Absolutely, and there are two that are of particular relevance to us: the Region and the Metropolis. The former has been a key partner since the inception of the I-Site, both through the funding of numerous doctoral contracts and through the launch of key challenges directly inspired by the KIMs—Muse’s key initiatives. There is also the Montpellier Metropolitan Area and its economic development project, MedVallée, which is designed around the challenges already identified by the University. We see that “healing, nourishing, and protecting” are areas where theUM, the Region, and the Metropolitan Area are perfectly aligned.
The I-Site has also committed to a more specific mission: to serve as a scientific portal for countries in the Global South…
It’s true—Montpellier aims to bea portal for all scientific issues of interest to countries in the Global South. I believe that with the Africa-France Summit, we have demonstrated our legitimacy on these issues.
That does indeed seem to be a real strength. Are there any weaknesses?
I wouldn’t call them weaknesses, but there are areas where we haven’t been able to make as much progress as we would have liked due to the health crisis. This is the case, for example, with the internationalization of our programs. We also need to work on creating a stronger link between basic research and clinical research… Our priority areas for the future will focus particularly on these two topics.
So, do we have a good chance of keeping the I-Site open?
What we can say is that we’re approaching this evaluation with confidence, feeling that we’ve done what was necessary. That said, the jury has the final say; it may see things differently than we do, so we mustn’t be overconfident.
Have other sites failed to maintain their status in the past?
Yes, absolutely—Toulouse and Lyon did not maintain their status in the Idex category, and the University of Bourgogne-Franche-Comté did not in the I-Site category. It is entirely possible not to meet the threshold, which is why we all remain fully committed to this evaluation.