I am not convinced scientists' role should be to address social problems. Beside since we are talking about France, most of the scientists that were politically engaged were Stalinists.
Your comment shows a profound misunderstanding of History, as Stalin was born 90 years after the French Revolution (and Karl Marx 30 years). Even while Stalin was alive, few if any French scientists were Stalinists, as by the time he rose to power France was diplomatically closer to the US than they were to the USSR.
During the Revolution, and preceding it, it turns out that many scientists were involved or even instrumental in the social progress that occurred. The simple act of imposing the metric system was meant as a way to eradicate the imperial in "imperial system". The Enlightenment caused the rise of many ideas of equality that can be said to have triggered the Revolution.
Of course, the extremes of the Terror also caused some scientists that were not deemed invested enough to lose their head, such as Lavoisier, the man that proved the conservation of mass. It should be noted that the government apologised a year or so later.
Stalinism is defined by policies of state terror, state centralization, purging the government and maintaining a cult of personality. Those are pretty extreme positions to hold.
Historically, many of Stalin's actions were not seen keenly in France, including Stalin's Gulags, his pact with Hitler, and over the cold war, his territorial aggressivity over the USSR's satellite countries. You may note that France was very decidedly on the other side of the Iron Curtain.
There definitely were quite a few socialists, there were a few communists, there probably were few Leninists, but I doubt there were any Stalinists. I'd be interested in the scientist's name if you found one.
The communist party was the largest political party in France after the war and it was fully and openly aligned to Moscow. You may (and should) interpret being a stalinist as a bad thing today but it wasn't at that time for a large portion of the left.
But my point is rather that being good at math and at creating mathematical representations of nature doesn't qualify someone to make decisions on how other people should live their life.
