Our scientists contribute every day to advances in cancer, infectious diseases, transplantation, autoimmune disorders, and vaccine development. And yet, despite this central role, French immunology research still struggles to be recognized on the global stage.
One main problem is that immunology in France suffers from a structural invisibility. It is everywhere, and therefore, too often, nowhere.
In national and European research frameworks alike, immunology rarely exists per se. For example, unlike other countries such as in the United States, France doesn’t currently recognize clinical immunology as a distinct medical specialty.
Funding calls, evaluation panels, and institutional categories are organized around specific diseases. Immunology is embedded within these specific fields and often reduced to a set of tools rather than acknowledged as the scientific engine behind many of today’s breakthroughs.
This is not, in itself, a weakness. On the contrary, it reflects the transversal power of immunology. But visibility matters, and this lack of visibility has concrete consequences.
French immunologists are respected as individual scientists, but French immunology is rarely perceived as a coherent, collective force on the global stage.
In France, the way research is organized has increasingly favored large centers that naturally develop their own identities and priorities. That dynamic is understandable. But it can also reinforce silos, making it even more difficult for immunology to speak with a shared voice. On the international stage, this makes leadership harder to claim.
We cannot simply wait for recognition to come from institutions, whether national or European. Structural change is slow, and terminology evolves cautiously. The responsibility now lies largely with us, the immunology community.
If we want immunology to be recognized, we must make it visible. That means communicating more and communicating better. Not only among ourselves, but beyond our usual circles. To students choosing their path. To clinicians. To decision-makers. To international partners. And to the public. It means making visible the common scientific foundation behind advances that are too often attributed solely to other fields.
Communication must be part of scientific responsibility.
Established scientists, in particular, have a role to play, by speaking publicly and by engaging with broader audiences, to create a shared narrative for French immunology. This is essential if we want France to be seen, and respected, as a leader in this field.
Communicating implies naming immunology clearly, asserting its role explicitly, and accepting that visibility requires effort. We must encourage scientists, especially established ones, to step forward, speak publicly, and share knowledge beyond the lab.
France has the talent and the science. What it needs now is collective awareness and collective action to speak more confidently about immunology.
Visibility will not come by itself. It must be built.