Section 24 – Welcome
English
Welcome to the website of Section 24 Cell Biology, Development, Evo-Devo
This website aims to inform researchers affiliated with Section 24 of the National Committee for Scientific Research (CoNRS) about the work carried out by the section during the 2025–2029 term. In particular, we wish to share practical information intended to improve the evaluation of applications for recruitment competitions and promotions. This website will therefore be updated regularly, especially with regard to recruitment competitions.
This is by no means an official CNRS webpage, but rather a site maintained by the members of the section. With regard to recruitment competitions, only the results published by the CNRS are authoritative.
Last updated on
Propositions from the previous term (translated from CoNRS – Sections – Motions)
Regarding the specificity of recruitment in Biology
from Sections 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28
We wish to draw the attention of the CNRS management and of CNRS Biology to the specificities of recruitment in biology.
It is of course important to note that recruitment at CNRS is possible—and even encouraged—for candidates at the very beginning of their postdoctoral careers. However, we believe that recruitment should focus on the quality of the candidates, regardless of the number of years of professional experience. Indeed, research work in biology may require a long investment before completion, particularly due to constraints linked to the use of living models. It is a fact that the average duration of postdoctoral positions in biology has been steadily increasing, especially for researchers working abroad (USA, Canada) and developing innovative projects.
A recruitment limit imposed too early after the PhD, if suddenly applied, would sacrifice a generation of young researchers engaged in ambitious, longer-term postdoctoral projects, which until now have been in line with recommendations associated with the level of excellence required. Five years is very often insufficient for candidates to fully valorise their work and would de facto eliminate all candidates with atypical post-PhD career paths, such as those who worked in other scientific disciplines before starting their projects in biology.
For these reasons, it appears counterproductive to limit recruitment to candidates within five years after the PhD. It is just as important to encourage younger candidates to apply as it is not to disadvantage candidates with more experience.
We therefore ask the CNRS management not to limit the post-PhD experience of candidates applying to the CRCN competition, as this would severely penalise candidates in biology.
« key labs »
from Sections 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28
In the draft Contract of Objectives, Resources and Performance of the CNRS for the period 2024–2028, it is announced that “the CNRS intends to highlight, among the laboratories for which it has supervisory responsibility, the most outstanding ones, those that are truly ‘world-class’,” for which “naturally, CNRS involvement would be stronger and more long-lasting.” This proposal was clarified by the CNRS President and CEO, Antoine Petit, during the CNRS Convention of laboratory directors held on 12 December 2024: it would involve concentrating more resources on approximately one quarter of the research units, the so-called “key labs.”
These laboratories would be of international stature, selected by CNRS management based on unknown selection criteria.
While peer evaluation, which guarantees scientific independence, is a fundamental principle of the CNRS, the arbitrariness of this secretive decision undermines and marginalises the scientific bodies of the CoNRS in the decision-making processes of CNRS management. Beyond the form, the substance raises the gravest concerns. Concentrating human and material resources on a limited number of laboratories places the institution on a harmful trajectory that can only lead to the weakening of the CNRS. Reducing expertise and research fields to a small elite minority will limit its capacity for adaptation and evolution—one of the keys to the institution’s success and international reputation.
The Section is concerned about this decision, which clearly raises questions both about the modalities of future recruitment and about the role of the National Committee within the CNRS scientific framework.