Christine Chapel Interview | Alex Gilbert #257

Christine Chapel is head of the Science Department at TF1.

Marc Gilbert, hosted the shows: Volume from 1970 to 1971, and previously Eurêka, broadcast from 1965 or 1964 to 1971 and Jean-Pierre Chapel, probably covered the most scientific topics in television’s history. Our fathers followed both live Apollo missions. Sociologist Jacqueline Chevrin notes scientific programming evolved from a utopian paradigm focused on space exploration and the quest for the infinite to a disillusioned and ecological view following the moon landing. Is there a rupture in scientific journalism’s history?

Christine Chapel: A sociologist recounts that in the 1960s, the future was summarized by the animated series The Jetsons, where technology solved everything, people worked little, and had access to leisure. Today, we are in an almost post-apocalyptic vision, where humanity has destroyed the world, science is perceived as harmful, and everyone is concerned about the future.

The vision of the future and the benefits that science can bring to society has radically changed, particularly with discussions about global warming, ecology, and after COVID-19, where science has become an enemy for some, which bothers me.

SciFi has also shifted to an apocalyptic tone with films like Alien, Tron, and Blade Runner. Has this left an impression on you?

Christine Chapel: I am a child of science fiction. I grew up and continue to escape with Frank Herbert, Philip K. Dick, and Philip José Farmer. Today, people more often perceive the negative aspects of science rather than its positive ones. When I talk to anti-vaxxers, I remind them that vaccines have saved billions of lives since their creation, and that diseases like polio or smallpox once wreaked havoc.

Today, vaccines are seen as harmful, even though France has long been a pioneer and forerunner in this field. This distrust of vaccines is not very old, but there are many anti-vaxxers. The real problem for scientists is social media. Today, someone without any expertise has as much space and visibility as a Nobel Prize winner, and whimsical theories spread. It’s incredible to see how this movement is growing, to the point that 10% of the American population adheres to it.

It is said that Moebius inspired Alien, Blade Runner, Tron, and Japanese mangakas, while George Lucas read Druillet before making Star Wars. Have you noticed French sci-fi influenced American cinema ?

Christine Chapel: I was a big fan of the animated series The Masters of Time, based on Moebius’s stories. Alejandro Jodorowsky also did remarkable things. In comics, I was more interested in Belgian comics, so I am less familiar with this area.

Do you think France, having lost its avant-garde scientific status after the war, is chasing a mirage with innovations like the IRIS 50, the first French computer, or multi-touch technology?

Christine Chapel: France’s problem is not having innovative ideas, but exploiting them. I remember a significant story from 1976-77: a young woman from Strasbourg invented a revolutionary method allowing disabled people to use a computer with their eyes. Everyone praised her invention, but when she sought funding in France, it was refused because she was young and inexperienced.

Meanwhile, Americans, with their financial resources, offered her the chance to develop her idea. She eventually went to the United States, where her invention was utilized. This is a French illness: we have ideas but do not realize them. Pierre-Gilles de Gennes, with his Nobel Prize in Physics for liquid crystals, is the origin of multi-touch technology, but another country developed it. We have the ideas but lack the execution.

You suggest that institutions and banks hinder this process, but isn’t there also an anti-science bias in the French university system? For instance Jacques Monod, faced criticism after his Nobel Prize. Do you see a conflict between philosophers and scientists?

Christine Chapel: I believe there is primarily a question I often encounter at TF1: “What is it going to be used for?” For example, with space exploration, I am asked what we are trying to find, and I respond that we don’t know! That’s precisely the beauty of research. Many discoveries have been made by chance, like Christopher Columbus discovering America while searching for India.

Science, like philosophy, does not immediately change people’s lives, and they do not realize that an invention today could transform their lives tomorrow. Take Pierre-Gilles de Gennes’s liquid crystals, which led to touch screens. There is often a delay between discovery and application. The QR code, for example, existed for more than twenty years before it found use during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Noam Chomsky argues that France has abandoned science citing his friend Pierre Jacob, and blaming post-modernism for the problems.

Christine Chapel: France has not renounced science. We have a considerable number of Fields Medals and Nobel Prizes in Physics and Chemistry. However, it is indeed challenging to explain to the general public the interest of science in daily life, and that is where the journalist plays an essential role.

Do you recall scientific programs from before May 1968, like Un certain regard, Les Médicales, or Visa pour l’avenir? Are they of interest to you?

Christine Chapel: I do not know any of these programs, but I believe in the power of archives.

Your father played a key role in that. 

Christine Chapel: I celebrated two consecutive anniversaries of the first manned moon landing, which my father commented live. I delved into the INA archives on that occasion. I often use archives, such as recently for the 90th anniversary of the Air Force. I came across fabulous images of the early airplane flights. However, I am not sure if these archives find their place today in mainstream media.

There are fewer scientific programs now. Le Monde de Jamy still exists, but to see others, you have to go to Arte. Of course, Thomas Pesquet has revived interest in space by popularizing it. It is mainly through social media, where astronauts share photos, that the public feels connected to their daily lives. These images inspire dreams, but the scientific interest remains secondary.

Jacqueline Chevrin notes that scientific programs now emphsize astronaut well-being reflecting a broader focus on care therapies. Films also adress mental illness, seen in works like 2001, Akira, Interstellar and Le Règne animal. Since 1975, scientific programs have increasingly targeted children, featuring figures like Michel Chevalet on Club Dorothée, the Bogdanoff brothers, Mac Lesggy, and Fred and Jamy. Given the wide range of topics covered in the past 20 years, including by your father, it seems science has been overshadowed.

Christine Chapel: I think that in France, there is a form of intellectual snobbery regarding mainstream media. As a scientist or science enthusiast, it seems that television is often seen as a medium for “simpletons,” which contributes to the underrepresentation of science on television. Science enthusiasts do not usually think of television, and those who produce television programs often fear alienating their audience with scientific topics.

Additionally, I do not want to appear anti-woke, but it has become difficult to address certain scientific topics without risking offending sensitivities. For instance, when the New Horizons probe flew past Pluto, I proposed talking about Pluto as a “dwarf planet” in a 20-hour news report. My editor asked me not to use that term because he found it offensive due to the word “dwarf.” I tried to explain that it is an accepted scientific term, but he persisted in seeing it as an insult.

It had to be called a “small-sized planet.” I insisted that it is not the term itself that is problematic, but how it is used.

Do you think political correctness has contributed to the decline of science on tv? Jacques Monod faced criticism, for his views on genetics as a potentially dangerous science echoing dark historical periods. Do you perceive a politicization of scientific debate today?

Christine Chapel: I don’t think it is a direct political intervention, but rather an increasing self-censorship since the advent of social media. We know that a statement can be distorted or altered, as evidenced by the campaign against J.K. Rowling. Scientists, particularly in genetics, often face a heavy historical legacy.

While some past work has left a negative image, not all geneticists are associated with those dark times. Today, in a world where everything is amplified and distorted at an incredible speed, scientists self-censor for fear of repercussions. They avoid certain topics to avoid attacks.

Do you have examples in mind?

Christine Chapel: Take the debate around messenger RNA and Didier Raoult. At the beginning of the pandemic, I wasn’t sure where to position myself. I asked my colleagues whether he was a fraud or an misunderstood genius. They told me he was neither, but that his positions were sometimes extreme.

Discussions had become hysterical, with supporters and opponents of Raoult. It took a long time after the end of the pandemic for objective studies to establish that hydroxychloroquine treatment was ineffective. Raoult’s supporters often refused to admit this reality, which slowed the progress of science in public opinion.

French television has also showcased pioneers of electronic music such as Pierre Schaeffer and Pierre Henry, alongside Jean-Michel Jarre and Pierre Bachelet. Some were polytechnicians and scientists and marked their time.

Christine Chapel: I must admit I don’t know these names. Yet, Schaeffer and Xenakis had a significant influence on pop culture, creating prestigious jingles and programming. At that time, France had a respected scientific presence.

Today, figures like Thomas Pesquet and Pierre-Gilles de Gennes have managed to popularize their work and make it accessible. I remember meeting Georges Charpak, where he explained complex concepts in a fascinating and understandable way, showing a great ability to popularize. This talent, also possessed by Thomas Pesquet and, I hope, Sophie Adenot, is essential for making science accessible to the general public.

France has played a significant role in nuclear research, with advancements such as the first tokamak at Fontenay-aux-Roses and the first nuclear reactor at Cadarache. Do you feel this central role in nuclear research?

Christine Chapel: I am a proponent of nuclear energy. I believe this technology has prevented many energy and financial crises while having a low environmental impact. Although the accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima were tragic, nuclear energy remains the cleanest available, with a more stable production than wind or solar energy.

As for the future of nuclear fusion, it is still in the research stage. It is a promising field, but there are uncertainties about its viability. If it works, it could be revolutionary, but there are still many challenges to overcome.

Scientific journalism has evolved since the achievements of Louis Pauwels and Jacques Bergier’s magazine Planète, as well as Science et Vie and Science et Avenir. What do you think of its current state?

Christine Chapel: Science et Vie was acquired by a group more interested in click numbers than true journalism. Many journalists left these publications due to the decline in quality. In contrast, magazines like Ça m’intéresse do an excellent job of popularizing science and attracting a wider audience.

Our predecessors have left us a rich legacy, notably through comics and science fiction, with figures like Moebius, Druillet, and Jodorowsky. This movement marked the transition from the 1950s, with a more mature science fiction that evolved to explore post-apocalyptic themes. Today, the perception of science has changed; once seen as a promise of improvement, it is now often viewed as a potential source of destruction.