The French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) is one of the most respected institutions by French citizens, with exceptional support and trust coming from the general public. On the other hand, politicians have a terrible reputation in France and are often associated with corruption, hypocrisy, personal interest, and thirst for power. Therefore, it is not too surprising to hear that very few scientists decide to get involved in politics. However, this is the leap of faith that Dr. Cédric Villani decided to take in 2017.

I first heard about Dr. Villani back in 2012 when I read his book Théorème Vivant (Birth of a Theorem), where he described his quest to discover a new theorem, which led him to receive the 2010 Fields Medal, often referred to as the “Nobel Prize of Mathematics”. Needless to say, Dr. Villani, as a Fields medalist, the director of the prestigious mathematical Institut Henri Poincaré of Paris, the professor of mathematics of the ENS Lyon, engaged in multiple scientific committees; is not only a busy man but also one of the most respected scientists in France.

It came as a surprise to many when he resigned from his position at the Poincaré  Institute and was elected in June 2017 as a deputy to the French National Assembly. In 2018, he described the journey of a scientist in politics in his book Immersion. This is his story seen through my eyes.

Dr. Villani did not plan to be a candidate for the legislative election of 2017. The media did. Even though Villani knew that this was not true, the rumour took over the internet, and soon after, his mailbox was full. Many people congratulated him, offered to help, volunteered for his campaign, gave advice, and much more. It was this enthusiasm and the people’s positive attitude and encouragement that led him to jump into action, starting by filling out an official application.

For some more context, in May 2017, Mr. Emmanuel Macron was elected as the new president of France under his movement La République en Marche (The Republic Forward), which claims to neither be a right- or a left-wing party. This movement inspired Dr. Villani to start his legislative campaign, as he believed that science must remain non-partisan. Five weeks later, he was sitting at the National Assembly along with 314 other deputies (out of 577) from the movement en Marche, most of them being new in politics. It was the demolition of the traditional political system since for the first time, the majority of the National Assembly was not affiliated with a left- or a right-wing party. It was a moment of upheaval in France, and Dr. Villani was part of it.

This new adventure did not come without serious concerns. Not only did Dr. Villani have a lot of scientific projects on the go and was directing the Poincaré Institute, but he was also concerned about the loss of science legitimacy his candidacy would imply. And after all, would he not be more useful by staying in science? Some would say yes. Is it a good time to start something completely new? Maybe not, but Villani, in mid-career, needed a renewal to avoid spending “the rest of his life in conferences and taking selfies”. Plus, there is always this question: “If not me, who? If not now, when?”, a famous quote that made Villani think about his decision. Sometimes, one just needs to take opportunities when they come.

As a newbie in politics, Villani had to start from scratch. This is a good reminder that while someone can be the most renowned expert in a field, they can also be the most beginner in another one. This was true for Villani as he started his campaign. But, as in science, through reading books, getting advice from mentors with more experience, and a lot of “learning by doing”, Villani, in only five weeks, was able to create and lead a winning campaign. This was only possible thanks to his diverse team that helped him tremendously to get where he is today. As a new deputy, Villani was ready to put his expertise to society’s needs and also to demystify politics. He was convinced that scientific expertise would add value to the political scene.

Now in 2021, I strongly believe that Villani’s STEM background and his notoriety as a scientist in politics have been truly beneficial for both science and politics. For example, during his mandate, he led a governmental report on Artificial Intelligence (AI). His expertise in mathematics to understand the field, coupled with his tremendous network in this domain, made his report one of the most legitimate documents on the topic worldwide. The report not only suggested how many billions of euros should be invested in AI but also recommended the areas in which the government should invest. Following up promptly, the government applied the recommendations given by Villani et al., investing millions of euros in research, therefore, impacting positively on science. As a politician, he could also perform a deeper and broader analysis of the topic than he could have done as a scientist. He was able to involve many experts in AI to get a broader vision and connect different aspects of the topic.

Another great example of his positive contribution came from his involvement in The Parliamentary Office for Scientific and Technological Assessment (OPECST). The OPECST’s mission is to inform the Parliament about scientific and technological advancements so that the Parliament can make the best decisions regarding lawmaking. To do so, the OPECST carries multiple programs, gathers opinions and information from experts. Overall, it provides a communication platform between scientists and politicians. But in 2017, this office was in a tough spot. Even though the OPECST was providing excellent reports and very detailed information about the new advancements in France, the advice given to the Parliament was barely taken into consideration or implemented, most notably due to a lack of visibility. Villani reshaped the office and hired researchers to add expertise in the political sphere. This cooperation between experts and politicians was a frank success, and the OPECST recovered its legitimacy. This is a strong reminder that political decisions must rely on science, and what better way to do so than by involving scientists in politics?

Through reading about his journey as a politician, I also discovered that science and politics bear multiple similarities:

• Trust. The number one quest in both worlds is to create and maintain trust. As a scientist or a politician, we have to trust ourselves, trust our projects or campaign programs, and most of all, gain people’s trust in our work. The world is currently in a middle of a trust crisis, and both science and politics are suffering from it. From the growing fear of vaccines to the numerous political riots emerging around the world, there is an urge to recover trust.
• Network. Creating a strong network is crucial to both scientists and politicians. Without his scientific network, as a politician Villani would not have been able to reach so many experts in AI and add precious opinions to his reports. Similarly, scientists rely on their networks to build collaborations, exchange information, and develop their careers.
• Fieldwork. The need for data to either conduct research or develop a political campaign is an important step. There is no better way to gather data than by conducting fieldwork. In the lab or the street, it often involves traveling, exchanging with people, discussing and collecting data.
• Public speaking. As scientists, we spend a good amount of time explaining our research and results to the public, in addition to our peers. Politicians do this as well with their opinions and programs.
• Debate. Politicians spend a lot of time debating, which is a crucial part of the job. But so do scientists when they present their new hypotheses or results. Through these discussions, both parties provide evidence-based arguments to support their view.
• Teamwork. Villani reminded me multiple times in his books that he would not be where he is today without his diverse and interdisciplinary team during his campaign and thereafter. It is the same in science where we can do so much more as a team with different skillsets and backgrounds.
• Funding. To either get the next grant or finance the next campaign, money is always necessary. According to Villani, being a politician, and therefore dealing with a bigger budget than as a researcher, made him realize that money is lacking everywhere.
• Motivation and creativity. Needless to say that this combination leads to many great advancements. Besides, researchers deal with rejection while politicians have to cope with defeat. In both cases, we have to remain motivated and creative to keep moving forward.

There are also a few clear differences between the two worlds. These differences, in my opinion, contribute to preventing scientists from going into politics:

• Media attention and engagement. Most scientists do not have journalists by their front doors. It is rare to see scientists receiving aggressive messages and dealing with scandals. However, the politician, as a public figure, deals with these issues constantly. They also have to maintain connections with the public and therefore always end up connected to social media.
• Administration. This is a topic that people like to complain about and there is indeed a lot of administration to do as a scientist. However, after reading Villani’s testimony, I realized that the amount of paperwork to do is huge. Need proof? Try making laws.
• Legitimacy. Villani was afraid his implication in politics would decrease his notoriety, both to the public and to his scientific colleagues. This is a fear rather than a difference and I do believe that Villani’s story is proof of that statement.

In October 2018, Dr. Villani announced his decision to be a candidate for the 2020 municipal elections of Paris. Even though he lost the election, Villani remains an active politician, notably through his mandate at the National Assembly. I mainly highlighted his contributions to the political scene emerging from his STEM background, but he is also involved in many other areas, such as animal rights and autism.

Finally, I see Villani as a bridge between two worlds that in general do not interact. Yet, when the connection is made between them, many positive outcomes start to emerge. As a scientist in politics, Villani is recognized both by his peers (science) and colleagues (politics). Science helps to make progress, and politics helps to bring this progress via regulation and laws. Science is the key to tomorrow’s politics and requires more scientists to jump into the lesser-known (for them) world of politics.