Objectives
CBELA is a standing Committee of Council. It decides on behalf of Council whether any source of funding referred to it by the Pro-Vice-Chancellors, the Research Operations Office, the Strategic Partnerships Office, or other University bodies is appropriate in terms of reputational risk. In making that assessment, the Committee may take account of ethical considerations. It also provides advice to the Vice-Chancellor in respect of prospective donations over £1m to the University, or that are referred to it (including by Development and Alumni Relations and Cambridge in America) as being likely to give rise to significant public interest, whether such benefactions are acceptable on reputational grounds. CBELA does not normally consider reputational risks associated with the purpose of research and where funds for a research collaboration or a benefaction are intended to support a specific research project, CBELA may seek the advice of other University bodies if research content is directly relevant to its assessment of the reputational risks relating to engagements with external parties.
AGRP provides, on the request of CBELA or by referral from the Due Diligence teams in the Research Operations Office or Development and Alumni Relations Office, an independent review of the potential benefits of the proposed purpose of the research for CBELA to consider at its discretion as part of the wider review process of sources of funds.
Delegated authority
AGRP is a sub-committee of, and reports annually to, the Research Policy Committee (RPC).
Remit
AGRP’s remit is determined by CBELA and RPC and reviewed as appropriate to support the work of CBELA. The current remit is the review of projects for which the source of funds is from the energy sector. AGRP’s assessment particularly focuses on whether the purpose of the project significantly contributes to the energy transition and the wider move towards Net Zero. CBELA and RPC will keep under review the requirements for potential other areas of research funding that might benefit from input from AGRP. Should additional sectors be brought into the scope of the work of AGRP, further review pools will be incorporated to utilise researchers with expertise relevant to projects within the expanded remit of AGRP.
Members are appointed by the Research Policy Committee for up to two consecutive terms of four years.
Secretarial support for the AGRP is provided by the Research Strategy Office. The Chair of the Research Policy Committee and Head of the University Research Office may attend meetings of AGRP as observers. RPC will receive all minutes of AGRP meetings as part of the annual reports.
The Chair of the AGRP may be invited to attend meetings of CBELA at which AGRP reports are to be considered as an observer and to speak to the report(s) as required.
Review Process
AGRP reviews take place at the request of CBELA and by referral from the Research Office or Development and Alumni Relations Office Due Diligence team. They are based on a pro-forma completed by the PI for the research proposal under review. The pro-forma will be updated as appropriate to support the work of AGRP and CBELA and the Research Office Due Diligence team will be invited to provide input as appropriate. Where appropriate, and at the discretion of the AGRP, the AGRP Secretary may also request additional information from the Principal Investigator of the research proposal that is being reviewed.
The AGRP provides an assessment of the anticipated benefits of research projects where the source of funds is associated with higher reputational risks for the University. The assessment follows the criteria set out in the remit of AGRP.
The review is carried out by the core membership of the AGRP alongside members from the pool of reviewers as required and on the basis of their expertise. Reviewers (either core or reviewer pool members) must declare any conflict of interest in the matter under review. Declared conflicts will be subject to appropriate mitigation as agreed by the Chair. The AGRP will be quorate for review, either at a meeting of the group or by circulation, at three members, at least one of whom should be a core member.
AGRP provides a short report to CBELA, giving its assessment of the potential benefits of the research as defined above. Where the AGRP has not been able to reach a consensus opinion, a statement of divided opinion and the reasons for this should be provided. Where the review process identifies concerns around the potential dual application of the research outcomes, this will be highlighted in the report. The report will be included alongside other material reviewed by CBELA when determining the suitability of the source of funds.
Meetings
AGRP meets virtually. Meetings take place aligned to the cycle of CBELA and usually held three weeks before the meeting of CBELA at which the relevant AGRP report or reports are to be considered. With the approval of the AGRP Chair, the AGRP may undertake a review by circulation.
Conflicts of Interest
Conflicts of interest in relation to the business of the AGRP will be handled in line with the University’s Conflict of Interest Policy. This includes:
a) Members must declare to the chair any conflict of interest. The chair will decide on the course of action for managing each conflict.
b) The chair must declare to AGRP any conflict and the AGRP will appoint a deputy to take the chair for that item. The deputy chair will decide on the course of action for managing each conflict.
c) Conflicts of interest will be recorded in the minutes.
Reviewer Pool
When providing a review of the potential benefits of a proposed research project, the Advisory Group on Research Purpose (AGRP) may co-opt reviewers from the reviewer pool to provide relevant expertise.
The reviewer pool consists of reviewers with expertise relevant to projects within the remit of AGRP.
The pool of reviewers will be reviewed periodically by the AGRP core membership and may be added to as appropriate to ensure sufficient breadth of expertise is available to support reviews. New appointments to pools of reviewers will be proposed by AGRP and approved by RPC.