The Link n°115

High-level group and budget discussions

The two main deadlines concerning the future of the European civil service.

In the summer of 2025, the European Commission established a high-level think tank. Chaired by Catherine Day, the former Secretary-General of the Commission, it is composed of leading experts from international organisations and public administrations across Europe. Understanding why this is important and how to participate matters to us.

Furthermore, discussions on the next MFF are well underway. We are advocating for a significantly increased European budget to address the challenges facing European society and the need for action by the European civil service. It is also important for us to be involved in the upstream discussions here.

Regarding the first issue, the European Commission set up a high-level reflection group in the summer of 2025. Chaired by Catherine Day, former Secretary-General of the Commission, the group comprises leading experts from international organisations and public administrations across Europe. 

This group’s aim is to produce a general assessment of the Commission’s organisation and functioning by the end of 2026, to be completed before or at the same time as the adoption of the next multiannual budget. This assessment will be accompanied by a benchmarking exercise. The intention is to strengthen, streamline and better equip the organisation to continue serving European citizens. The presentation of this initiative also indicates that it is intended to enhance the Commission’s attractiveness as an employer. One of the stated objectives is therefore to create ‘a working environment where everyone can flourish’.

U4U welcomes this initiative as we believe it is important to periodically review the relevance and validity of our professional practices.

In the same July announcement, Commissioner Serafin appears to value the staff’s input on this matter, particularly since the various committees of this high-level group will address “our operations, our structures, and inter-service collaboration” to “improve strategic workforce planning and resource allocation”.

We agree that these issues are of primary interest to staff, and given their expertise, they require active staff involvement. This is one of the two issues we want to emphasise.

We were not involved in this initiative, either prior to its publication or, for the time being, in its implementation. While we are not necessarily asking to be part of the working group, we would like to be involved and consulted on an ongoing basis. For example, we would like to be provided with working documents and data held by this high-level group. We hope that the administration will agree to our request, as it is fully in line with the Commissioner’s comments that he welcomes our ideas, which he says are ‘essential for shaping a Commission that truly walks the talk, is effective, and is ready for the future’.

Finally, Commissioner Serafin notes that ‘the last major review of the Commission’s organisation and functioning took place 25 years ago’.

Staff will recall that this review preceded the reforms of 2004 and 2014.  This is why we are asking the new Commission to formally commit to ensuring that this review will not lead to a third reform of the European civil service statute. The first two reforms to the Staff Regulations generated substantial savings for the EU budget, which satisfied the Member States’ desire for savings. However, there were consequences for staff, as evidenced by the Court of Auditors’ 2019 report on the effects of the reform and Eurostat’s report on the long-term budgetary evolution of our pension system.  The inter-union group recently issued a clear and united statement on this subject (Cfr Note sent to Commissioner Serafin).

Regarding the next MFF, the Commission’s proposal is for a budget of €2 trillion, apparently larger than that of the current programming period.

However, this new proposal actually announces an amount equivalent to the previous budget, which was accompanied by additional amounts from the recovery plan financed by borrowing. Furthermore, the €2 trillion is expressed in current prices, which do not take inflation into account. Additionally, this budget will have to cover the repayments agreed for the recovery plan. It should also be noted that this proposal falls well short of the recommendations set out in the Draghi report for getting the Union out of the current crisis. 

It is feared that discussions with Member States will be difficult, as quite a few capitals would like to see our budget reduced. This is a sensitive issue because a new reform could potentially be imposed on us through budget cuts, with the institution subsequently reducing certain budget chapters, including the operating budget.   Furthermore, the budget structure is changing, which could affect the Structural Funds and, consequently, our profession and organisations. This will certainly be the subject of the high-level group’s work. This is all the more reason for us to be involved in the ongoing discussion. For now, however, the door is closed to us. The inter-union group is also expected to give its opinion on this matter soon.

---

---

Expressing, listening, acting: Direct Expression at the heart of social dialogue

In a constantly changing professional environment characterised by intensifying reorganisations, statutory reforms and workloads, it is becoming essential to empower those who bring our institution to life on a daily basis: the staff.

We have witnessed this first-hand in a number of European agencies, where challenges are evolving rapidly. These include internal reorganisation, increased workloads, organisational and budgetary pressures, adapting to institutional priorities and growing governance challenges. These challenges have a real impact on our work, our working conditions, and our well-being..

In this context, it is crucial that the voices of staff members are heard and respected. That is why our trade union organisation strongly believes in the importance of direct and collective expression as a tool for fostering an active and meaningful social dialogue.

❓ What is it?

Direct and Collective Expression is a participatory mechanism organised during working hours. It allows each employee to freely and confidentially express their views on their professional experience, working conditions and difficulties, as well as their ideas and proposals for improving the organisation, without any influence or pressure from management or trade unions. It is not just a survey, but a genuine space for collective reflection on your daily professional life. The results of this mechanism are discussed in social dialogue between the unions and the administration.

🎯 Why is this important?

          Because:

• We are the first to be affected by organisational decisions
• Good social dialogue begins with actively listening to the needs on the ground.
• We must respond to specific challenges, such as HR frameworks, pressure to deliver results and budgetary constraints, with tailored, jointly developed solutions.
• The voice of employees is a strategic resource, not background noise to be ignored.

We must:

• Give everyone a voice, beyond traditional channels.
• Identify the real issues, such as workload, recognition, work-life balance, the working environment and managerial consistency, etc.
• Build realistic solutions based on feedback from the field.
• Strengthen the legitimacy of social dialogue by anchoring it in the reality of the workforce.
• Protect mental health and prevent psychosocial risks by listening and taking action.

🤝 A tool for everyone, helping everyone to move forward together

Recognised by agencies such as EASA and F4E, this exercise is not just an HR survey or a mere formality. It is a tool for active listening and collective transformation. We believe it is an important means of structuring social dialogue, on a par with negotiations or formal consultations.

Direct Expression allows you to: Identify what is and isn’t working. Come up with concrete solutions. Create a space for discussion outside of the hierarchy to ensure authentic feedback. Foster high-quality social dialogue based on shared facts and feelings.

In conclusion, it facilitates the formulation of robust demands that align with the genuine requirements of staff and enables these issues to be raised with management in a compelling and legitimate manner.

🛠️ And in concrete terms? Each unit expresses its views through meetings led by the relevant staff outside the hierarchy. A facilitator and a writer are appointed within each group and supported by independent experts if necessary. The results are analysed by independent experts. Clear reports, summaries and recommendations are produced by such experts and shared with staff representatives, followed by an action plan.

🧭 What our experience in our agencies reveals

📌 EASA (European Union Aviation Safety Agency) – June 2023

In a tense situation, the Direct Expression exercise allowed hundreds of colleagues to freely and collectively express their working realities.
➡ The findings are clear:

• A great sense of pride in working for the agency, but growing fatigue due to excessive workloads.
• An urgent need for recognition, clear career paths and more humane management,
• A desire for greater transparency, dialogue and simplification within the organisation.
• Finally, there was a strong call for the results of the survey to be followed up with concrete action.

📌 F4E (Fusion for Energy Agency) – May 2025

The results speak for themselves here, too.
➡ Despite a unifying project (ITER) and a positive perception of working conditions, colleagues expressed:

• A sense of unease linked to inequalities in treatment (between AC, AT and civil servants),
• A lack of recognition and opportunities for advancement,
• Management was often perceived as distant or disorganised,
• Poor communication leads to frustration and demotivation.

This feedback highlights the need for reconnection with meaning, clarity and active listening.

🧩 What Direct Expression enables: ✅ Identify what works well and what causes problems. ✅ Encourage open, horizontal communication without hierarchical filters. ✅ Create a shared diagnosis to inform HR and management policies, ✅ Mobilise colleagues around concrete proposals, ✅ Give meaning to social dialogue by reconnecting it to real-life experiences.

📌 What we ask for             ✅     That the Direct Expression exercise becomes a regular feature within our institution and all its agencies, particularly before any organisational changes or to alleviate any persistent or major tensions.                ✅     That it is organised regularly and independently, during working hours with clear results and action plans. ✅     It should be integrated into human resource governance practices.                ✅     That it  serves as a basis for discussions with management and transparent follow-up. ✅     Let it give rise to independent analyses and transparent reports           and concrete action plans. ✅     Ensure that the Administration commits to processing the findings and proposals resulting from this exercise. ✅     Recognised it as an official tool for social dialogue, commensurate with           its potential.

💬 In summary

Direct Expression is not “just another survey”. It is an act of trust in staff, recognises their expertise and is a powerful lever for organisational transformation.

Let’s not allow this opportunity to become a formality with no follow-up. Let’s make it a pillar of our work culture for the benefit of us all.

Your voice matters. Let’s make it heard.

We invite you to actively participate in Direct and Collective Expression when it is offered, and to demand it where it does not yet exist. By making your voice heard, you can help us to build a fairer, more humane and more effective working environment.

To promote a vibrant social dialogue, let’s make your voice heard!

---

---

The SCIC administration should be concerned about the occupational health of its staff

U4U has asked the administration to encourage SCIC colleagues to participate in a hearing health study by the Pasteur Institute. We note with satisfaction in the administration’s response to U4U that ‘the Commission attaches great importance to the health of our colleagues in general, and to the hearing health of interpreters in particular’. This is why it is important for the SCIC to ‘apply the precautionary principle by reducing the amount of interpreting work from remote speakers’. The administration has authorised us to inform SCIC interpreters that they are encouraged to participate in this study. In the spirit of fairness, the appointing authority undertakes to ‘respond positively to all requests received’. Nevertheless, we still believe that a prior request from staff was unnecessary and risked discouraging colleagues from participating in the Pasteur Institute study. U4U therefore reserves the right to take all necessary steps to defend colleagues who wish to participate in this study.

Information email sent to all SCIC staff related to his participation in the Pasteur Institute’s Healthy Study:

Subject: Does the SCIC Administration really care about the occupational health of its staff?

Dear Colleagues,

We have asked the administration to encourage our colleagues at SCIC to participate in a hearing health study by the Pasteur Institute. We note with satisfaction in the administration’s response to U4U that ‘the Commission attaches great importance to the health of our colleagues in general, and to the hearing health of interpreters in particular’.

This is why it is important for SCIC to ‘apply the precautionary principle by reducing the amount of interpreting work from remote speakers’.

Regarding participation in the Pasteur Institute study, the administration has not attempted to make it difficult or discourage it. Under no circumstances did the DG HR or SCIC services ‘attempt to discourage this participation’.

The administration therefore authorises us to inform SCIC interpreters that it supports their participation in this study. In the spirit of fairness, the appointing authority undertakes to ‘respond positively to all requests received’.

The Director General of SCIC, Ms Ruiz Calavera, will ensure that this position is strictly implemented in a copy of the response from the Directorate-General for Human Resources. U4U notes with satisfaction the positive evolution of the DG HR’s response compared to the initial position of the SCIC. Nevertheless, we still believe that a prior request from staff was unnecessary and risked discouraging colleagues from participating in the Pasteur Institute study. See our position below.

This is why U4U reserves the right to take all necessary steps to defend our colleagues.

Georges Vlandas & Yves Caelen & Maria Lengenfelder & Annabelle Menendez Vallina

25/09/2025

**********

Administration’s response to U4U’s request to encourage SCIC colleagues to participate in a Pasteur Institute study on hearing health:

Subject: Note Institut Pasteur

Dear Georges, Yves, Annabelle and Maria,

Thank you for your draft memo regarding our colleagues’ participation in a study by the Pasteur Institute. Since our discussion, I have been informed by the SCIC that a flyer on the subject has been circulated, and I have received a copy myself.

Discussing the leaflet with the SCIC has improved my understanding of the situation, as well as the approach taken by the Ethics Unit of DG HR, our Medical Service, and the SCIC administration.

Let me summarise this. Firstly, I would like to reiterate that our efforts with the Medical Service to monitor interpreters through the risk analysis soon to be launched in cooperation with the OIB, and the initiatives discussed with the social partners within the CPPT framework, demonstrate the Commission’s commitment to safeguarding our colleagues’ health, particularly with regard to hearing health. Furthermore, five years after the introduction of hybrid meetings and platforms within the Commission, the SCIC continues to apply the precautionary principle by reducing the amount of interpreting work for remote speakers.

After consulting my colleagues at DG HR and SCIC, I believe there has been a misunderstanding about participation in the Pasteur Institute study. The administration has not attempted to hinder or discourage participation in any way. Nor was there ever any question of amending the scope of Decision 2018/4048 on outside activities. As the Louis Pasteur Institute remunerated participation on the basis of hours worked, I would like to point out that Decision 4048 does not distinguish between participants based on the remuneration threshold.

In fact, the SCIC and I wanted to clarify the procedure for interpreters to follow in order to participate in this study. Given that the Pasteur Institute is a third party, that the study does not directly relate to our internal activities, and that the institute’s offer provided for remuneration (albeit relatively modest), it was deemed necessary to obtain authorisation via a decision based on Article 12b. I also note that all six (perhaps seven) of the individual requests processed to date have been approved within a reasonable timeframe. At no time did the services of DG HR or SCIC attempt to discourage participation. That said, this particular study has no clinical value, as the Pasteur Institute itself acknowledges. According to the medical department and the institute’s own statements, this is an experimental study that contributes to research in the field of hearing and interpreting health, among others. As we have done for various studies in this field to date, the medical department will take the results into account.

Based on this information, I hope you will be able to inform the interpreters who contacted you that they are welcome to participate and that the appointing authority has responded positively to all requests in a fair manner.

I am copying the Director-General of the SCIC, Ms Ruiz Calavera, into my reply.

May I also ask if you agree that this exchange can serve as a basis for informing SCIC staff? It answers your questions, and I am aware that this exchange was initially intended to be informal.

Kind regards,

Christian

Christian Roques

Deputy Director General DG HR in charge of Operations

DPC for HR

Direction générale “Ressources humaines et sécurité” (HR)
Commission européenne
107, rue de la Loi, 21^ème étage
Tel. +32-2-299 50 79

24/09/2025

**********

---

Understanding the New Windows 11 features

Windows 11 has now arrived on the Commission’s computers, bringing a refreshed look and practical tools to make everyday work easier. If you’re not very familiar with computers, don’t worry: this guide will introduce you to some of the new features in a simple and practical way.

New keyboard shortcuts

• Win + A → Opens the Quick Settings menu, where you can adjust Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, volume and screen brightness. Much faster than digging through the full Settings app.
• Win + N → Opens the Notification Centre, showing alerts from apps and your calendar. A quick glance here helps you keep track of meetings and reminders.
• Ctrl + Shift + Esc → Opens Task Manager, a powerful tool for solving problems. If your computer slows down or an app freezes, you can close it here.

Useful Features for Work

Focus Sessions

Ever wondered how much time you have left before your next meeting, without constantly glancing at the clock? With Focus Sessions in Windows 11, you can set a countdown timer that stays on your screen while you work. This way, you’ll know exactly how long you can concentrate before your next task or meeting starts. It’s a simple tool that helps you stay focused and reminds you to take short breaks, so your productivity doesn’t slip. You’ll find it in the Clock app (just search “Focus” in the Start menu).

Resize the Mouse Cursor

When presenting with a shared screen, it’s not always clear to colleagues where your cursor is pointing. Now you can change the look and size of the mouse pointer, so it’s easier for everyone to follow. Go to Settings > Accessibility > Mouse pointer and touch, and pick the size and colour that works best for you.

Show or Hide Desktop Icons

Need a tidy desktop during a presentation? Right-click on the desktop → View → untick Show desktop icons. Repeat to bring them back.

Clipboard and Emojis

Multiple Copy and Paste

Normally, when you press Ctrl + C to copy something and then Ctrl + V to paste it, Windows only remembers the last thing you copied. For example, if you copy a phone number, then later copy a sentence, only the sentence will be available to paste. The phone number is lost unless you copy it again.

With Windows 11’s Clipboard History, you can copy several things one after another, and Windows will keep them all for you. Press Win + V instead of just Ctrl + V, and you’ll see a small window showing a list of everything you’ve copied recently – text, images, even links. Then you can simply click on the one you want to paste.

This is especially useful when you’re working on documents, emails or forms where you need to copy and paste information from different places without switching back and forth every time.

Emojis

Add a touch of fun to your messages or documents. Press Win + ; (semicolon) to open the emoji panel.

Finding Apps and Adding Clocks

Sticky Notes

Think of these as digital Post-it notes – quick reminders that don’t waste paper, so they’re environmentally friendly too. You can pin down ideas, to-do items or numbers just as you would on paper. To open them, simply type Sticky Notes into the Start menu search box.

Alphabetical App List

In the Start menu, select All apps. Click a letter to open an alphabet view, then jump straight to the app you’re looking for.

Additional Clocks

Collaborating across time zones? Right-click the taskbar clock → Adjust date and time → Additional clocks. You can add up to two extra clocks to keep track of colleagues abroad.

Did you know? – Dark Mode

If you prefer a darker background instead of the usual bright screen, Windows 11 has a Dark Mode option. Many users find it easier on the eyes, especially when working in the evening or in low-light conditions.

How to turn it on:

1. Open the Start menu → type Settings → press Enter.
2. Go to Personalisation > Colours.
3. Under Choose your mode, select Dark.

L Is it better for your eyes?

In low-light environments, dark backgrounds can reduce glare and eye strain.

In bright conditions, studies suggest light backgrounds with dark text may still be easier to read.

The best option is personal preference: try both and see which feels more comfortable.

Final Tip – Live Captions

Windows 11 also includes Live Captions, a feature that automatically adds subtitles to any audio playing on your computer. This can be especially helpful if you understand written text better than spoken language.

• How to activate: Press Win + Ctrl + L (or open through Accessibility settings). A caption bar will appear at the top of your screen.
• Languages supported: At the moment, Microsoft provides reliable captioning in English (US), but support for additional languages (such as Spanish, French, German and others) is gradually expanding.
• Limitations: Live Captions are generated on your device in real time – there’s no option to save a transcript afterwards. Still, it’s an excellent tool for following presentations, videos, or calls more comfortably.

Closing thought

Windows 11 may look a little different at first, but once you try these shortcuts and tools, you’ll find it can actually save you time and make work easier. Don’t be afraid to experiment – the more you use it, the more comfortable it becomes.

Having trouble applying the tips from this article? Or perhaps you’d like to share your own Windows 11 trick with colleagues? Join us at the weekly U4U members lunchtime meeting, where every Monday we update our members on the latest developments.
📅 [Insert date] | 🔗 Join here

 

---

---

---

Point of view: From Rumour to Fake News – ‘Have We Been Lied To?’, by Hubert Krivine, 2022

Published in 2022, Hubert Krivine’s Have We Been Lied To? From Rumours to Fake News” is a useful addition to the current climate of rumours, misinformation, and conspiracy theories.

The author has also published works on artificial intelligence, such as ChatGPT: Une intelligence sans pensée? (ChatGPT: intelligence without thought?), “L’IA peut-elle penser?” [Can AI think?] and Comprendre sans prévoir, prévoir sans comprendre [Understanding without predicting, predicting without understanding]). GRASPE had the pleasure of welcoming him to give a conference on these works.

Krivine distinguishes between founding myths, which have a symbolic function, and contemporary fake news, which is deliberately created and spread. The book provides a comprehensive overview, covering everything from religious narratives to pseudoscience and political and economic manipulation. However, it is not limited to mere condemnation. Krivine also questions the mechanisms of credulity and the cognitive biases that encourage adherence to fake news. He also considers the upheavals linked to new modes of digital dissemination. The central question is therefore one of trust: who should we believe, and on what basis? In this article, we will summarise the author’s arguments, analyse his approach and examples, and evaluate his contributions and limitations, reflecting on our current relationship with science and critical thinking.

I. Defining and understanding fake news

Krivine begins his essay by making a key distinction: myths, which aim to provide existential meaning, should not be confused with fake news, which relates to current events and is often part of a manipulation strategy. The author discusses the standard definition, which emphasises the intention to deceive, but argues that the effect on the public is more important than the intention of the person spreading the information. From this perspective, errors made in good faith do not constitute lies, whereas other narratives, such as the literal interpretation of religious texts, can be potent vectors of political disinformation. It is important to distinguish between fake news and alternative truths. Unlike fake news, alternative truths form part of a manipulative narrative intertwined with real facts. The following example illustrates this: ‘Ukraine is the aggressor and Russia is under attack’ is a lie that forms part of a ‘Putinist’ narrative. This is reminiscent of the famous mantras that Orwell presented in 1984: ‘War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.’ Conversely, ‘Zelensky fled to the US and abandoned his people’ is fake news.

The book then provides an overview of the various forms of fake news, including conspiracy theories, pseudosciences such as homeopathy and climate scepticism, political manipulation relating to topics such as the Coronavirus pandemic and the conflict in Ukraine, and even state lies that justify military interventions, such as those in Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011. This proliferation demonstrates that fake news is not an epiphenomenon, but rather a pervasive phenomenon affecting science, religion, and social life.

II. The mechanisms of credulity and dissemination

In his preface to the book, Guillaume Lecointre emphasises the universal and persistent nature of the need to believe. He illustrates this with humour by referencing Monty Python’s film ‘Life of Brian’, in which the group depicts the credulity of Jesus’ contemporaries by having them idolise a man named Brian. While belief itself is not problematic, as it forms the basis of the trust necessary for life in society, it becomes dangerous when it closes in on itself and turns into ideological faith. Lecointre demonstrates how some scientists, either by stepping outside their field or by exploiting their status, can fuel abuses ranging from creationism to pseudo-proofs of God’s existence. He therefore emphasises the need to distinguish between science, ideology, and belief, and to clarify the criteria for scientific validity, in order to avoid the confusion that fuels mistrust and manipulation. This clarification enables readers to understand why the ‘bad faith’ analysed by Krivine poses such an obstacle to rational knowledge of the world.

For Krivine, combatting fake news is not just a matter of establishing the truth. Simply telling a believer that the water in the Ganges is polluted will not be enough to shake their conviction. Perhaps the social conditions that fuel the expectation of miracles need to be transformed. The author therefore emphasises the roots of credulity, such as confirmation bias, confusing correlation with causation, and the tendency to look for hidden motives or rely on arguments from authority. These mechanisms explain why fake news is as appealing as, if not more appealing than, scientific narratives.

The author also examines the role of religion and ideology in the history of disinformation. By blending myths and social norms, sacred texts have justified colonisation, inequality and countless wars. Meanwhile, Stalinism operated as an ‘atheist religion’, complete with dogmas, heresies and rituals. The book also highlights the profound changes in the means of dissemination: from Gutenberg to the internet, each media revolution — via the press and television — has broadened the scope of fake news. Digital technology, with its algorithms and the viral speed at which information spreads, represents a turning point at which disinformation has become more accessible, more profitable, and more difficult to counter.

III. Science, truth and trust

n the face of this proliferation, Krivine reminds us of the unique features of science: peer review, refutability, reproducibility, consistency, and the universality of results. These criteria distinguish robust hypotheses from seductive illusions. Rather than being a search for absolute truth, the scientific approach is based on constant testing and integration with existing knowledge, as well as recognition of its own limitations.

However, the problem is not only epistemological, but also social and political. Krivine notes that public opinion is often suspicious of science, either because it is exploited by those in power, or because scientific and political institutions have sometimes betrayed trust (e.g. health scandals and government lies). Beyond the scandals, we seem to be living in a ‘post-truth era’, as described by philosopher Myriam Revault d’Allonnes.

In his afterword, Jacques Treiner builds on Hubert Krivine’s thoughts by examining the concept of ‘post-truth’ and the spread of ‘alternative facts’. Referring to the media episode in which Kellyanne Conway (then Trump’s adviser) coined the term to justify the lie that Trump’s inauguration had attracted the largest crowd ever, Treiner illustrates how the distinction between truth and falsehood can be erased in favour of seductive narratives driven by emotion or belief. Unlike founding myths, which retain symbolic and literary value, Treiner points out that alternative facts are artificial constructs with no depth. They fuel conspiracy theories and can lead to violence.

Here’s another example. During the pandemic, the French government’s approach to wearing masks was inconsistent: first it was advised against, then it became compulsory due to insufficient stocks. Even worse, the government insisted that the vaccine would prevent people from getting sick, before backtracking and assuring us that its only purpose was to limit contagion. Finally, in 2019, President Macron told elected officials in Martinique that ‘we must not say that chlordecone is carcinogenic because it is not true and it fuels fears’. When challenged by scientists, the Élysée Palace responded to Le Monde that ‘the President never said that chlordecone was not carcinogenic’. Alternative facts are not an American monopoly.

In contrast, the author highlights the uniqueness of modern science, which is based on robust, testable and always revisable explanations. He reminds us of the importance of defending this approach in the face of post-truth excesses.

In this context, scepticism can turn into outright rejection, paving the way for religious fundamentalism and pseudoscientific beliefs. Krivine’s analysis therefore raises a key question: how can trust between society and science be restored? While the author focuses on the scientific and religious fields, exploring the question of rebuilding trust between society and political discourse would also be interesting. 

IV. A rich, albeit fragmented, work.

The book’s main strength lies in its original approach, which is based on a wealth of documentation. Krivine presents a series of striking examples, ranging from false scientific discoveries such as the Piltdown Man or N-rays, to contemporary debates on figures like Didier Raoult, the Bogdanov brothers, and homeopathy. This accumulation of anecdotes brings the subject matter to life and makes it accessible, while demonstrating the diversity of disinformation.

The book also stands out for its educational commitment, reminding readers of the scientific method and emphasising the importance of critical thinking. It also shows how fake news exploits our biases. Rather than merely denouncing fake news, it invites readers to understand it and protect themselves intellectually.

However, certain limitations are apparent. Some subsections could have been developed further to fit better into the book’s narrative. The analysis of the Koran or the Bible alongside science would seem less like a digression if it were more explicitly linked to the rest of the arguments. In this respect, the afterword is a perfect complement to the book. Finally, the author seems to underestimate the impact of minor false beliefs, which could create an environment conducive to more serious manipulation (such as the doubt cast on the Apollo 11 mission and our entire understanding of space). While these remarks do not detract from the book’s interest, they encourage critical and selective reading. Krivine wisely limits himself to consensual examples that do not leave him open to accusations of militancy.

Conclusion

Ultimately, On nous aurait menti? offers a thought-provoking exploration of fake news throughout history and in the present day, from religious myths to pseudoscientific excesses. The book’s strength lies in its originality and its desire to highlight the criteria that distinguish the scientific approach from unfounded beliefs. Hubert Krivine highlights the crucial issue of the need to develop a scientific culture and critical thinking that can resist the allure of disinformation. The book is therefore an invitation to reflect on the role of science in our societies, and on the important question of how to develop trust in institutions of knowledge.

Given Hubert Krivine’s experience, we can only hope that the sequel to this book will address the issue of fake news in political discourse more specifically, and its consequences for citizens’ trust in legitimate narratives. This would be a particularly interesting development, given that the lies and distortions of reality perpetrated by politicians largely shape prevailing scepticism and fuel mistrust of authority. In turn, this feeds everything that challenges established institutions and collective frameworks.

---

U4U’s main resolution is to serve you even better. To achieve this, we have created direct links between you and the team that can best help you. So : – If you require personal support, please email to  HR-REP-PERS-U4U-ASSISTANCE-INDIVIDUELLE@ec.europa.eu – If you would like information about training or coaching, please email to training.u4u@gmail.com    – If you would like to contact colleagues in Luxembourg, please email to rep-pers-osp-u4u-lu@ec.europa.eu   – If you would like to contact colleagues in the European Parliament, please email to u4u@europarl.europa.eu   – If you wish to contact colleagues in the External Service, please email to u4unity@eeas.europa.eu    – If you have any other questions, please send an email to our general mailbox: rep-pers-osp-u4u@ec.europa.eu We invite you to visit our website frequently and to join our Facebook  page so that you have easier access to the latest news from the union about the training/coaching/workshops on offer, the conferences/cultural walks in Brussels and the events we organise throughout the year, as well as more general information about our statutes and our articles and reflections on the issues that concern us all.