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 and review requirements reflect those of research activity in that area, as determined by CBELA’s policy for considering funding from fossil fuel companies. AGRP’s assessment for such research 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, additional reviewers will be added to the review pools to ensure expertise relevant to projects within the expanded remit of AGRP, and the frequency of meetings for discussion and review may be adapted to meet the requirements of those emerging areas of scrutiny.
Core Membership
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. Reviews will be carried out in line with the cycle of CBELA meetings and requests for review will be made to the AGRP secretary at least three weeks before the meeting of CBELA at which the relevant AGRP report or reports are to be considered.
Reviews will be carried out using information provided through a pro-forma completed by the PI for the research proposal under review. The current pro-forma has been developed to support the review of research for which the proposed funding comes from the energy sector. Should additional areas of research be introduced to the remit of AGRP, the pro-forma will be updated (or additional pro-formas created) as appropriate to support the work of AGRP, with CBELA and the Research Office Due Diligence team 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.
Reviews will typically be carried out by circulation and be co-ordinated by the AGRP secretary; where appropriate an ad-hoc meeting of the group will be called to allow members to discuss a proposal submitted for review.
The review is carried out by the core membership of the AGRP alongside members from the pool of reviewers (appendix A) 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 by circulation or at a meeting of the group, 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 will be provided. Where the review process identifies concerns around the potential dual application of 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. The core membership of the group will meet at least annually to review operational activity and ensure that its approach remains appropriate to meet its responsibilities and the requirements for reviews to support the work of CBELA.
Members of the reviewer pool will meet with core members on an ad-hoc basis as required to undertake reviews or to discuss other activity of the group relating to their area of expertise.
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 of the meeting, or alongside the reviews log which is included in the annual report to RPC.
Reviewer Pools
A separate reviewer pool will be identified for each area of research activity that AGRP is required to consider. 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 appropriate reviewer pool to provide relevant expertise.
The reviewer pool consists of reviewers with expertise relevant to research proposals that fall within the remit of AGRP.
The pool of reviewers will be assessed 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. Where necessary, for example where additional reviewers are required quickly, appointment of reviewers may be approved by the Chair of RPC on behalf of the Committee, with their appointment being confirmed at the following RPC meeting.