Report of Discussion

Tuesday, 7 October 2025

A Discussion was scheduled by videoconference. Deputy Vice-Chancellor Ms Mary Hockaday, TH, was presiding, with the Registrary’s deputy, the Senior Proctor and the Senior Pro-Proctor as the attending officers.

Remarks were received as follows:

Remarks on the Report of the General Board, dated 24 September 2025, on the Herchel Smith Professorship of Biochemistry

(Reporter, 6796, 2025–26, p. 14).

Professor G. R. Evans (Emeritus Professor of Medieval Theology and Intellectual History):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, this Report proposes that Professor Eric Miska, ‘currently Herchel Smith Professor of Molecular Genetics, be appointed to the currently vacant Herchel Smith Professorship of Biochemistry, following his appointment as Head of the Department of Biochemistry’. The General Board is recommending that an exception be made to enable Professor Miska, ‘in effect’, to exchange one Professorship for another.

It would be helpful if the General Board would clarify in its response the provision in Special Ordinance C (vii) to which it considers an exception is needed. The Special Ordinance relied on seems to be clause 11, but that would have to be stretched to fit:

If the University alters either the title of a Professorship or the definition of the scope of a Professorship, such alteration shall not have effect during the tenure of the person then holding the office except with their consent; but if the person concerned consents to the alteration they shall be entitled to hold the office under the same conditions as if the alteration had been made before their election to the office.

Professor Miska holds not a personal Professorship but an Office which is available to be filled when a vacancy arises. Procedures for the creation of Personal Professorships for a single tenure are in part a legacy of judicial review of the academic promotions procedure as reported by the General Board in 1997,1 but the two Chairs at issue here constitute continuing University Offices.

The General Board’s powers over such University Offices relate to the Department or Faculty in which they are held.2 It appoints to both the Professorships in question but is it not clear whether it has powers to remove a Professorship from its holder. Would he not have to resign it, in order to be available for appointment to a different Chair? It is not stated that he has done so.

Nor is a case made for not requiring Electors in this instance. It would be worrying if that could be done by simply setting aside a Special Ordinance. Varying a Statute is one thing. There is provision for that. It requires royal consent. The General Board’s powers to create, and therefore to vary even an Ordinance became the subject of some controversy during the consultation about the Statutes in 2011.3 The legislative powers of the Board now extend only to creating Regulations.

Does the General Board have powers to set aside a Special Ordinance? Special Ordinances were a novelty when they were created during the Technical Review of the Statutes and Ordinances in 2011. During the Consultation it was noted that they would be a ‘new category’. The plan was to make ‘simplified provision for the General Board and for these other institutions (and some others), in accordance with current practice within the University’ and it was promised that the then ‘statutory provision’ would be ‘updated and presented as draft Ordinances in due course’. The General Board was to ‘make’ regulations.4

Special Ordinances are recognisably more ‘special’ than the Ordinances the Regent House may simply make for itself. Their creation as a category of the University’s legislation was considered to require royal approval, which was granted in February 2014.5 They were to be numbered by letters according to the Statute from which they derived. The provision about Professors applicable in this case formed part of the text then approved.6 Might this be a suitable moment to revisit arrangements which seem not to have been reviewed for a quarter of a century?

Professor E. A. Miska (Department of Biochemistry and St John’s College):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed arrangement outlined in the Report regarding the Herchel Smith Chairs.

Since my election to the Herchel Smith Professorship of Molecular Genetics in 2013, it has been a privilege to contribute to the Department of Genetics and to benefit from the exceptional research environment and collegial support it provides. When I was appointed Head of the Department of Biochemistry in 2022, the move represented an exciting opportunity to lead and develop another outstanding department, and I was grateful for the flexibility shown in allowing my Chair to move with me at that time.

However, I fully recognise the strategic importance of ensuring that the Herchel Smith Chair of Molecular Genetics resides within the Department of Genetics, particularly given the rapidly evolving landscape of modern genetics research. The Department of Genetics would greatly benefit from recruiting international leadership specifically in molecular genetics, and this presents an ideal opportunity to do so.

I am enthusiastic about transitioning to the Herchel Smith Chair of Biochemistry, which aligns naturally with my current role and allows me to continue my research and leadership within the Department of Biochemistry. This arrangement makes excellent strategic sense for both departments and will strengthen each in their respective fields.

I am pleased that this proposal has the support of the fund managers for both Chairs, both Heads of Department, and the Head of the School of Biological Sciences, and I look forward to seeing both Chairs continue to attract and support world-class research in their home departments.

Professor S. Russell (Department of Genetics):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I provide these remarks as Head of the Department of Genetics and one of the individuals who initiated the Report in order to provide some context to the request.

Professor Miska was elected to the Herchel Smith Professorship of Molecular Genetics in 2013, joining the Department of Genetics upon election. In 2022 Professor Miska was appointed Head of the Department of Biochemistry and moved from Genetics with his Chair. Prior to this, the first appointment to the Herchel Smith Chair of Molecular Genetics, Professor Fiona Watt, was also in the Department of Genetics.

When Professor Miska moved to Biochemistry the Herchel Smith Chair of Biochemistry was held by Professor Jussi Taipale, who resigned the Chair last year and left the University. At the time of Professor Miska’s change of Department it was agreed that the Department of Genetics would lead the recruitment and host the elected individual for the Chair of Molecular Genetics or Biochemistry, whichever became vacant first.

Of course, the Department of Genetics could recruit to the vacant Biochemistry Chair but it is clearly more pragmatic and strategically rational that the Chair of Molecular Genetics resides in the Department of Genetics and the Chair of Biochemistry resides in the Department of Biochemistry. In the fast-changing landscape of modern Genetics, the opportunity to recruit international leadership in the field of Genetics is strategically important for the Department and the School of the Biological Sciences.

The election to the vacated Chair – currently Biochemistry but Molecular Genetics should the Report be Graced – will, of course, be carried out according to the established procedures laid out in the Statutes and Ordinances and governed by a Board of Electors. The arrangement proposed in the Report, to move Professor Miska to the Herchel Smith Chair of Biochemistry, is supported by the fund managers for both Chairs, both Heads of Department and the Head of the School of the Biological Sciences. As noted in the Report, the request is in line with exceptions listed for Part B of Special Ordinance C (vii) on the Elections to Professorships.

Professor J. S. Simons (Department of Psychology and Emmanuel College):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I provide these remarks as Head of the School of the Biological Sciences to confirm my support for the proposals in the Report. Moving Professor Miska, current Herchel Smith Chair of Molecular Genetics and Head of the Department of Biochemistry to the vacant Herchel Smith Chair of Biochemistry is in line with the strategic vision of the School of the Biological Sciences. The move will allow a tailored search in the field of Molecular Genetics to be held in the Department of Genetics while retaining the Biochemistry Chair in the most appropriate Department. I confirm this move has the support of the fund managers for both the relevant Herchel Smith Chairs.

Dr W. J. Astle (MRC Biostatistics Unit):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I am a member of the Council, but these remarks are not made on its behalf.

The General Board proposes that Professor Miska should be transferred from one Professorship to another, following his appointment as Head of the Department of Biochemistry. In itself this seems unobjectionable, but the means proposed to achieve the transfer are constitutionally concerning. The Board states that:

In order to make an exception to a provision in Special Ordinance, a Report must be published, enabling members of the University and the Colleges to comment on the proposal before the submission of a Grace seeking its approval.

Special Ordinances were invented as an additional level in the hierarchy of University legislation during the Technical Revision of the Statutes, which took effect in 2014.1 The Technical Revision was intended to alter the structure, but not the effects, of University legislation. Before the drafting of the revisions began the Council stated:

the revision process would be a technical process of simplification and clarification, and not a process of policy or governance review.2

Subsequently, in the Discussion of the proposed new Statutes and Special Ordinances, Professor Yates, the Chair of the Technical Advisory Group, which undertook the revisions said:

these new Statutes and Special Ordinances contain technical changes only, not substantive ones.3

The Special Ordinances are composed principally of parts of the pre-2014 Statutes that were demoted, in the words of the Council of the time,

to simplify the procedure for approving certain changes to the constitutional framework by removing one step – approval by the Privy Council.4

Professor Yates explained in Discussion how Special Ordinances were intended to work:

[The Special Ordinances] are provisions made under Statute on the authority of the Regent House on the basis of a Report to the University, a Discussion, a Notice, a ballot if called, and a Grace. The only difference between enacting or changing a provision in the New Statutes as compared with enacting or changing a provision in a Special Ordinance, is that the former requires the consent of Her Majesty in Council, whereas the latter, under the proposals under Discussion, would not.5

Special Ordinances, then, were meant to have all the properties of Statutes, except that their enactment or revision need not be approved by the Privy Council.

Statutes are general rules meant to apply in all cases. The University can revise them using the procedure set out in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act 1923, but it has no power to make exceptions to them. The same restriction on exceptions ought to apply to Special Ordinances, since their legislative force is meant to be equivalent to that of Statutes.

Special Ordinances, however, are truly Ordinances because of Statute A X 2(a), which reads:

[In any Statute, Special Ordinance or Ordinance] … the term ‘Ordinance’ means a Special Ordinance made under Statute A III 3 or an Ordinance.

Statute A III 5, introduced in 2014, means that those Ordinances that are Special Ordinances can only be made or amended following the convention used for Statutes:

Special Ordinances shall be made (or amended) by Grace of the Regent House, in all cases after the issue of a Report to the University by the Council, the General Board, or jointly by the Council and the General Board. The Report shall state the main purpose of the proposed Special Ordinance (or amendment).

Notice that despite the claim in the Report of the General Board, there is nothing in Statute A III 5 to require that a Report must be published before an exception to a Special Ordinance is made. Because the Special Ordinances are a sub-class of the Ordinances, the only requirement appears to be that the University issue an Order made by Grace of the Regent House.6

But surely, given the position set out by the Council and Professor Yates at the time the Statutes were revised, it was never the intention that exceptions to Special Ordinances should be possible, with or without a Report. If it had been the intention, then the word ‘exception’ would almost certainly have been included in Statute A III 5. It seems likely there was an oversight: nobody noticed that if Special Ordinances were to behave like Statutes while being Ordinances then exceptions to them would need to be expressly prohibited.

It would set a bad precedent for the Council to submit a Grace to the Regent House for the approval of the recommendations of this Report. There are Special Ordinances governing the membership of the Regent House, the submission of Reports to the University, the initiation and submission of Graces (including fifty‑member Graces), the election of members of the Council, the qualifications for admission to degrees, the appointment of University Officers, discipline and the University Courts and the investigation of allegations of research misconduct. None of these are things for which it should be possible to make special cases on a whim.

There is a second important respect in which Special Ordinances seem to be weaker than Statutes. When an Ordinance contravenes the provision of a Statute it is invalid and the Statute takes precedence.7 However, there appears to be no equivalent provision to make the Ordinances subordinate to the Special Ordinances. Shouldn’t there be?

If the Special Ordinances really are weaker than the Statutes they replaced for the reasons I’ve suggested then I hope the Council will bring forward proposals urgently to strengthen them and that the Board of Scrutiny will give the problem its attention.

Before finishing, I would like to make some comments on recent changes to other job titles in the University. I am Membership Secretary of the Cambridge Branch of the University and College Union (the UCU). Several of our members have raised concerns with the Branch Committee about the first stage of the implementation of the Academic Career Pathway (Research) scheme.

In May, the General Board published a Notice stating that ‘the new titles for researchers introduced under the pathway will take effect from 1 October 2025’.8 During the summer some, but not all, of those members of the University’s unestablished research staff employed in posts due to be retitled received letters from the Pro‑Vice‑Chancellor (University Community and Engagement) explaining their eligibility for a new title. The letters included a link to an opt-out form, which the recipients were instructed to complete by 29 August if they wished to retain their existing titles. Otherwise, they were informed:

no further action is required from you, and the changes will be implemented with effect from 1 October 2025.

Although the University may have contractual obligations to staff who wish to keep their old titles, it is not obvious that HR was free to offer this choice, since in approving the recommendations of paragraph 12 of the Report of the General Board on arrangements for the implementation of an Academic Career Pathways (Research) scheme the Regent House apparently abolished the previous scheme of titles.9 Notwithstanding this, the Cambridge UCU is concerned that in some cases the change of title from ‘Senior Research Associate’ to ‘Assistant Research Professor’ has been made contingent on the acceptance of a loss of earnings by the post-holder.

The particular version of the letter from the Pro‑Vice‑Chancellor addressed to Senior Research Associates contains footnote 3, which explains that ‘Holders of Senior Research Associate positions who agree to change their title will no longer be eligible for ghost points’. Ghost points are points on the single salary spine that are skipped over when an annual in‑service increment is applied. They were created by the University in response to the Memorandum of Understanding (the MOU) between the Universities and Colleges Employers Association and the Association of University Teachers (the AUT, the UCU’s predecessor union) that was agreed to settle the 2004 marking and assessment boycott.

In 2005 the AUT was assured by the Personnel Division that ‘any changes which might be proposed [to the grading and progression arrangements introduced to comply with the MOU] ... in the future would be negotiated with [the AUT]’.10 The Council agreed with the unions that:

At the time they are assimilated into the new grade structure, individuals will be informed when, during the course of their progression through a scale, they can expect to receive two increments. For the foreseeable future, these arrangements will also be applied to new staff and they will be so informed at the time of their appointment.11

A ballot of the Regent House approved the structure of the present single salary spine, contingent on this undertaking. Consequently, there is a strong argument that the abolition of ghost points breaches an Order of the Regent House.12

The abolition of ghost points was not negotiated with the UCU, nor did the Report of the General Board proposing the new scheme of titles for the research staff suggest that ghost points would be removed.13 The Cambridge UCU understands that ghost points were similarly removed from academic posts when North American style titles were introduced, again apparently without notice being given to the University.

Grade 9 staff who were Senior Research Associates under the old scheme of titles have been placed in a difficult position. The title ‘Senior Research Associate’ has been recycled for a new Grade 8 research post. Consequently, many have been forced to choose between the appearance of a demotion and a loss of earnings. The University appears to be imposing a contractual change on these members of staff unilaterally.

There is a separate concern that HR have excluded certain members of the research staff from eligibility for a new title altogether. These are staff at Grades 9, 11 and 12 with a non-canonical job title (i.e., something other than ‘Senior Research Associate’, ‘Principal Research Associate’ and ‘Director of Research’) recorded in the CHRIS database. The Cambridge UCU has members who were excluded despite being recipients in the past of letters from the Director of HR informing them that they had been promoted to Principal Research Associate. Given that the new scheme has been graced by the Regent House, presumably all members of staff holding research contracts are legally entitled to use the new titles corresponding to their grades, whether they have been told so by HR or not. Nevertheless, will the Council assure the Regent House that letters will be sent to the excluded staff explaining their eligibility?

Finally, the employment of the University’s unestablished academic and research staff is largely governed by paragraphs from past Reports of the General Board, sometimes approved by Grace of the Regent House. These paragraphs are often vaguely worded and difficult to find in back issues of the Reporter. When an approved Grace of the Regent House is of continuing legislative effect it makes an Ordinance. In 2010, the Advisory Group on the Technical Revision of the Statutes, pointed out that approved Graces ‘when [they are] of continuing effect, should be collated with the Ordinances in published volumes or web formats’.14 This does not seem to be happening. Will the Council please explain why approved Graces of continuing effect are not being collated as Ordinances as they ought to be? In any case, shouldn’t the employment of the University’s several thousand strong body of unestablished academic and research staff be governed by properly drafted Ordinances, rather than approved paragraphs in a hotch-potch of old Reports?