A Grace has been submitted.
Integrity and the highest standards of conduct are foundational to the University’s mission. Research must be carried out honestly, rigorously and responsibly to sustain public trust, safeguard the credibility of academic work and ensure that knowledge advances for the benefit of society
Statute A V 1 makes the General Board responsible for the academic and educational policy of the University, but that responsibility is subject to the power of the Regent House to make Orders by Grace provided for by Statute A III 3.
Upholding research integrity is essential to the University’s commitment to excellence in education, learning, and discovery. This Grace seeks to reinforce that commitment by strengthening the General Board’s Procedure for the Investigation of an Allegation of Research Misconduct (Statutes and Ordinances, pp.242–253 ) to ensure it reflects the full scope of the University’s responsibilities.
Paragraph 2.1 of the Procedure currently reads as follows:
“This procedure applies where there is an allegation of Research Misconduct (as defined in section 3) against any person undertaking research either as a member of or whilst connected to a University institution or using University facilities or funding. This includes, but is not limited to, University employees and workers (staff), students, visiting scholars, emeritus staff, individuals with an honorary contract or voluntary research agreement with the University, and those holding honorary clinical contracts. (See paragraph 4.3). This procedure does not apply to staff engaged for employment under Statute J 6 when undertaking research in the service of the Press and Assessment Department.”
An amendment to the procedure is necessary to ensure that the University can respond appropriately to serious concerns about research integrity, regardless of when they arose. Past misconduct does not lose its significance upon appointment; rather, it may bear directly on current responsibilities, the integrity of ongoing research and the University’s duty of care and professional oversight.
Without this clarification, the University risks being unable to address conduct that could undermine its standards, reputation, and the trust placed in it by the academic community and the public.
Formal text:
That the General Board amend paragraph 2.1 of its Procedure for the Investigation of an Allegation of Research Misconduct so as to read as follows:
“This procedure applies where there is an allegation of Research Misconduct (as defined in section 3) against any person who is undertaking research, has undertaken research, or has been involved in research activities that are connected with a University institution, or that use University facilities or funding, whether as a member of the University or otherwise.This includes, but is not limited to, University employees and workers (staff), students, visiting scholars, emeritus staff, individuals with an honorary contract or voluntary research agreement with the University, and those holding honorary clinical contracts. (See paragraph 4.3). This procedure does not apply to staff engaged for employment under Statute J 6 when undertaking research in the service of the Press and Assessment Department. Allegations of misconduct against a person that concern research activities that occurred before their connection with the University may be investigated at the discretion of the General Board, provided that the matter is relevant to their current or former research activities, role, responsibilities, or relationship with the University.”
Academic integrity is the foundation on which Cambridge’s reputation is built. Grassroots academics have a responsibility to defend the standards that define our institution.
Any credible concerns about past research misconduct must be examined transparently and fairly. Where improvements are needed, academics should be given clear guidance and support to ensure the highest standards of research practice. This is part of the duty of care that the University has to its employees.
If you are a member of Regent House, please consider signing the Grace.
Please also consider signing the earlier Grace initiated by Ronald Haynes, which calls for an audit of the Human Resources Division. Given the importance of academic standards and oversight, it would be logical for the review to also include the Research Integrity Office.
It’s our University. We run it.
(Image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.
Attribution: The Old Schools, Cambridge by David Dixon)
5 Comments
How? · 4 August 2026 at 08:40
How do we sign?
? · 4 August 2026 at 08:43
Seems like a distraction from the real grace which is in to human resources. Actually it was HR that fucked up over the Arday appointment, because it was their job to do the background check and reference verification and they didn’t.
All about the hustle · 4 August 2026 at 09:07
Come on, you know how this ends. Arday wins. You lose.
The book launch is next week. He’s going to rake in the money. Big time.
Millions.
Then the book tour, podcasts, he’s going to be a fucking celebrity.
It is a one-way ticket.
So long, suckers.
Next thing you know, Trump has appointed him education tsar and he’s on Rogan with Candace Owens.
It is well worn territory.
Think Andrew Wakefield meets Meghan Markle.
So congratulations, Cambridge.
You’ve been punked.
TheResearcher · 4 August 2026 at 09:15
“it would be logical for the review to also include the Research Integrity Office.”
It would be great if reassurance about this additional review could be obtained otherwise we need to submit another Grace just for the Research Integrity Office. There is a lot to uncover in that Office.
HR defender · 4 August 2026 at 09:43
While the situation in the right-wing press is truly regrettable, there is no need to be concerned.
Some reputation damage to our great institution, however unmerited, may not be disregarded.
On the other hand, we cannot jump to the conclusions or actions without understanding the core problem.
The core problem is the overwhelming workload and below the market remuneration of the HR and Research Integrity Office – both limit their ability to recruit and retain key talent limiting their ability to manage such situations in the future.
Therefore, I move to double the HR and triple the Research Integrity Office budgets. In the view of the situation, I also propose to institute a new office to oversee the activities of the above mentioned offices to be called the “Trust for Research, Academic Standards, & Honesty” (not to be abbreviated!).
This modest increase in the spending proposed will undoubtedly improve the situation. Yet, the reactionary elements in the press and certain blogs could never be dismissed. There is no absolute certainty, like for anything in life, that a similar situation would not be repeated. Hence, we must review the situation and adequacy of the budget in a year.
Sincerely yours!