French researchers have decried plans to label a quarter of the laboratories supervised by the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) flagship ¡°Keylabs¡±, with more than 10,000 backing a call for CNRS president Antoine Petit to resign.

CNRS said that the label, announced last month, would allow the research organisation to ¡°focus specific efforts on a smaller number of units that can legitimately claim to be ¡®world-class¡¯¡±.

While the selected laboratories have yet to be confirmed, CNRS said recipients of the Keylabs label would be ¡°best placed to respond rapidly to the demands of international competition and the challenges facing our nation, as the flagships for French research capable of attracting the best scientists¡±.

Alongside the motion of no confidence, which surpassed 10,000 signatories on 30 January, CNRS researchers protested outside the organisation¡¯s Paris headquarters earlier this week. The umbrella body Franceuniversities expressed ¡°deep concern and total disagreement¡± with the plans, stating: ¡°Such a method, imposed by surprise and without dialogue, contravenes the fundamental principles of shared coherent scientific governance.¡±

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

In a letter sent to all CNRS employees on 30 January, Petit acknowledged the ¡°fears, questions and incomprehension¡± surrounding the Keylabs plan and announced a ¡°moratorium period¡± until the summer in order to ¡°continue consultations¡±.

¡°Priority does not mean exclusivity,¡± Petit wrote. ¡°All units will continue to benefit from the support of the CNRS, both in terms of permanent staff and operations. However, we must have, with each of the units, a language of truth taking into account our overall resources which everyone can only hope will increase.¡±

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Olivier Coutard, chair of the CNRS scientific board, told?THE?that the ¡°negative outcomes¡± of the Keylabs label ¡°would be much larger than the positive ones¡±.

¡°The plan would, in my view, increase discrimination, tensions and competition on all levels: between geographical sites, between research units on any given site, and even within research units,¡± he said. ¡°I have already heard colleagues complain that their lab might not become a key lab, although obviously, they themselves were excellent, because others in their lab were less excellent.¡±

Branding only a quarter of laboratories with the ¡°key¡± label ¡°would brutally, arbitrarily and irreversibly marginalise approximately three-quarters of currently existing CNRS labs¡±, Coutard said. ¡°What we need as a national academic community is more cooperation rather than more competition.¡±

CNRS researcher and archaeologist Jean-Marc P¨¦tillon said he expected that the organisation ¡°will try to have people directed as a priority to these key labs, while the teams without the label will just stop growing¡±.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

¡°I think this would be the most dreadful consequence for these labs: becoming an ageing team that doesn¡¯t see any fresh blood coming in,¡± he said.

Pointing to existing pressure on French research budgets, P¨¦tillon commented: ¡°I think behind this decision is the idea that we cannot afford to fund an institution like the CNRS which does a little bit of everything, so we should concentrate on a few key sectors and leave the rest.¡±

Thomas Perrin, a fellow CNRS archaeologist, said the laboratories that did not receive the label would be perceived as ¡°bad labs¡±, adding: ¡°They will get less and less money, and attract less and less people.¡±

¡°¹ó°ù²¹²Ô³¦±ð doesn¡¯t give enough money to its research programmes,¡± Perrin said, noting that the country has yet to meet the European Union target of investing 3 per cent of gross domestic product in research and development. The next president of the CNRS, he said, must ¡°fight to get some more money for research¡±.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

emily.dixon@timeshighereducation.com