A report recommends reviewing the place of the CNRS in French research

The text judges in particular that its board of directors “does not really play a strategic role”, with numerous decisions “obviously determined in advance” and taken without transparency

Can do better. This is how the assessment of the National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) can be summarized, which recommends that the establishment modernize its governance and its relationship with universities, in a report published Monday, November 20. Two other recommendations appear: lighten a system considered too bureaucratic and strengthen its financial viability to better retain the best researchers.

The text, commissioned by the High Council for the Evaluation of Research and Higher Education, is the result of an evaluation committee of sixteen experts from ten nationalities. The independent authority describes the public establishment, created in 1939, as“major, world-class research institution” and readily recognizes a role of “leader in Europe” by its reputation, its size (with the equivalent of 31,000 employees), and its scope, via ten scientific institutes covering all fields of science.

The CNRS budget deemed insufficient

However, the committee recommends that the CNRS review its governance. He judges that his board of directors “does not really play a strategic role”with many decisions “obviously determined in advance” and taken without transparency. He recommends the installation of a “independent external advisory board” for scientific orientations, including a “high proportion of foreign members”.

The report also points to a “continued deterioration of remuneration levels”. And more generally a “lack of financial viability” of the CNRS budget. At an amount of 3.7 billion in 2021, it is considered insufficient and should be a “major subject” discussions between the CNRS and its supervisory body, the Ministry of Research and Higher Education.

The report finally echoes a real “bureaucratic burden”with administrative procedures “increasingly complex and sometimes even absurd”, which constitute so many obstacles to research activity. Administrative tasks can absorb up to 50% of young researchers’ time, according to several testimonies collected by the evaluation committee.