糖心Vlog

Calls for more transparency after French plagiarism scandal

High-profile case involving popular science communicator shines light on how institutions deal with research misconduct

Published on
June 24, 2026
Last updated
June 24, 2026
Etienne Klein, physicist, philosopher of science, radio producer and writer, meets readers at the Kleber bookshop to talk about his latest book, 'Transports physiques', 29 April, 2025, Strasbourg, France.
Source: Nicolas Roses/Abaca Press/Alamy

A rare decision to revoke the doctorate of one of France鈥檚 most famous science communicators after an investigation found听evidence听of plagiarism has fuelled calls for greater transparency in how universities investigate research misconduct and communicate their findings.听

Etienne Klein, the author of numerous science books who hosted a popular radio show, had his doctorate revoked by Universit茅 Paris Cit茅 after an investigation found extensive plagiarism in his 1999 doctoral dissertation in philosophy of science, according to local media reports.听

Klein, the director of research at the French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission (CEA),听has also been听banned from enrolling in doctoral programmes.听

The case emerged after journalists at investigative outlet 听began manually reviewing Klein鈥檚 doctoral thesis and found evidence of plagiarism in 20 per cent of it, with text copied from authors like Albert Camus. The university then launched its own investigation.听

糖心Vlog

ADVERTISEMENT

According to the outlet, the university鈥檚 inquiry discovered instances of plagiarism in about two-thirds of the pages after a 20-month review process that concluded in November 2025. The university has not made the report public.

Universit茅 Paris Cit茅 told 糖心Vlog it has 鈥渋ssued individual decisions against the person concerned, of which he has been notified. We do not intend to comment further on this individual case.鈥

糖心Vlog

ADVERTISEMENT

It is not the first time Klein has faced allegations over plagiarism. In 2016, French outlet 尝鈥椭虫辫谤别蝉蝉 reported听instances of plagiarism in听Klein鈥檚 science books, articles and programmes.听

In a four-page response posted on his X account, Klein said he had borrowed passages representing 鈥渟hared knowledge before being the property of their authors鈥 and accused critics of focusing too much on 鈥渕issing quotation marks鈥 instead of the challenge of scientific misinformation.听

鈥淚 obtained my doctorate in philosophy in 1999 with the jury鈥檚 congratulations, even though the manuscript contained a few sentences written by some of its members, none took offence,鈥 he said.听

Radio France, the network where Klein鈥檚 show La conversation scientifique 补颈谤别诲,听听that it would听not renew the programme this September听鈥渋n light of recent developments鈥.听

The case has sparked wider questions about how French institutions deal with research misconduct as some academics have said it is striking that the plagiarism was uncovered by journalists rather than the university itself.听

Arnaud Saint-Martin, a lawmaker and member of the French Parliamentary Office for Scientific and Technological Assessment (OPECST), of which Klein is also a member, described the case as a 鈥渢urning point鈥.听

鈥淚t seemed clearly unacceptable to me that Mr Klein should be a member of the scientific council when revelations about his plagiarism were becoming more frequent,鈥 he told听糖心Vlog.

鈥淭here is no doubt that he has benefited from a certain amount of leniency on the part of the academic authorities and those at the highest levels of political power, despite the widely publicised and well-documented nature of his academic misconduct.鈥澨

糖心Vlog

ADVERTISEMENT

Saint-Martin has written to the OPECST calling for Klein鈥檚 removal. The office has not formally responded.听

糖心Vlog

ADVERTISEMENT

Michel Dubois, director of the French Office for Research Integrity (OFIS), said revoking a doctorate remained very rare in France, adding that there was a rise in independent 鈥渟cience detectives鈥 and research integrity experts, which he welcomed.

鈥淭his reflects the emergence of a stronger culture of correction of science, and I think that is something we should welcome. The key question is not who identifies a potential problem, but how institutions respond once credible concerns are raised,鈥 he said.听

Dubois stressed that institutions must communicate more clearly on how allegations are handled and the outcome of investigations once they have concluded.听

鈥淕reater transparency, while fully respecting legal requirements, confidentiality and the rights of those involved, can strengthen both accountability and public trust in science,鈥 he said.听

The lack of transparency can have real consequences for those who raise concerns about academic integrity.听

Rapha毛l L茅vy, a physicist at Universit茅 Sorbonne Paris Nord and principal investigator of an European Research Council grant on the correction of the scientific literature, said institutions often failed to act without external pressure. 鈥淲hat is maybe somewhat particular to France is the silence until the very end,鈥 he said, referring to how universities communicate during investigations.听

L茅vy, a prominent figure in debates over research integrity, has previously reported research misconduct at his institution and written publicly about the challenges facing those who do so.听

He said the Klein outcome was nonetheless encouraging. 鈥淚t is quite reassuring that the university took the decision in a case where the person accused is still very high status in French society,鈥 he said.听

But he warned that protecting those who report misconduct internally remained urgent. 鈥淭he issue of how we protect people who want to report cases of misconduct is still very much on the table.鈥澨

St茅phanie Ruphy, professor of philosophy of science at 脡cole Normale Sup茅rieure 鈥 Universit茅 PSL, said the case exposed a failure of institutional gatekeeping at the most basic level, pointing to how the听plagiarised authors included three members of Klein鈥檚 own thesis jury.听

鈥淭he academic vigilance and rigour of a thesis jury are fundamental to ensuring the credibility of a scientific field,鈥 she said. 鈥淧rofessional, or even personal, relationships must not lead to a relaxation of these standards.鈥澨

糖心Vlog

ADVERTISEMENT

Ruphy also questioned the gap between Klein鈥檚 public profile and his standing within academia, adding that he is neither active nor recognised as a peer within the philosophy of science community. 鈥淚t is better to lack academic credentials altogether than to promote credentials that are misaligned with one鈥檚 actual standing within a research community,鈥 she said, adding that responsibility lay not only with Klein but with the media that amplified his authority.

seher.asaf@timeshighereducation.com

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

The 拢2 million recently awarded to a whistleblower by a US court is a rare reward for the volunteers who trawl the scientific literature for error and fraud. Yet their numbers continue to grow. So what drives them? And can their efforts ever cleanse more than a drop in a troubled ocean? Jack Grove reports 

12 January

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT