Researchers wondering whether they can still collaborate with a colleague from, for example, Israel, can turn to the Partnerships Advisory Committee. But they should not count on a concrete ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Five questions on what help individual scientists can get.

What’s new? Surely the Partnerships Advisory Committee has been around for a while?

Yes. The committee was created last year by the Executive Board to critically examine collaborations between Radboud University and partner institutions in other countries. First, the four members considered Israel due to its serious and systematic human rights violations in Gaza and the other Palestinian territories.

The advice issued to the Radboud University administrators in March this year was to freeze ties with Hebrew University and Tel Aviv University. The Executive Board adopted this recommendation. The next partnerships to come under close scrutiny are those with China. That is what the committee wants to reach a decision about in early 2026.

What is new is that the Partnerships Advisory Committee is now also willing to assist individual researchers who are unsure about a collaboration.

So what kinds of collaboration are we talking about?

For example an assistant professor who wants to write a paper with an Israeli colleague, or a researcher who wants to share a dataset with a scientist from a country where human rights violations are taking place. Individual researchers are free to enter into such collaborations, even if ties have been cut at the institution level. This has to do with academic freedom, to which the Executive Board and the Partnerships Advisory Committee are strongly committed.

‘We will therefore never give substantive advice at the individual level the way we do to the Executive Board,’ says committee chair Lutgarde Buydens. ‘We can only help a researcher to make a sound assessment so that they can reach their own decision. You should see it as a service.’

What does that help look like?

On the committee’s webpage, a section has been added on individual cooperation. This page already includes a list of steps a researcher can go through to reach a decision. Things become more concrete when you click ‘moral consultation’, which is a resource that researchers can request from the committee.

‘Moral consultation is a very common instrument in the world of teaching hospitals and healthcare institutions,’ says Jos Kole, who sits on the committee on behalf of Radboud university medical center, and is a specialist in health ethics. ‘It is a highly structured guided conversation about a case that is brought in, in which everyone’s input is given equal space and consideration. It is also widely used in dealing with questions around academic integrity.’

Kole calls it a ‘decision aid’. After the moral consultation, the researcher should have enough information about the pros and cons to reach a decision. To lead this kind of dilemma session, the committee is calling on debate programme Radboud Reflects, which employs people who can lead such a session in a professional manner.

Is there anything else a researcher can do when in doubt?

A second concrete tool is the peer consultation. This consultation can also be requested by a staff member and will be led by someone from Radboud Reflects. The idea is for a group of equal professionals from different departments to jointly ponder an ethical dilemma. A Dean or Director of Research could raise the question of the desirability of continuing to cooperate with colleagues from certain countries. Perhaps such cooperation was always a given, but questions now arise given the geopolitical situation in the country concerned. ‘The difference with a moral consultation is that peer consultation focuses on collective learning,’ says Jos Kole.

What is discussed in a peer consultation is confidential. The same applies to a moral consultation. Whereas the Partnerships Advisory Committee posts all advice to the Executive Board in full on its website for all to read, it is committed to confidentiality regarding any assistance given to individual researchers. Buydens: ‘A researcher faced with a dilemma does not have to justify their decision.’

Have individual researchers already reported to the committee?

Yes. But as mentioned above, the committee will not comment on any of the questions that have been raised, the individuals who have come forward, or the advice they were given. In any case, the committee knows that there is a need among Radboud staff to spar about collaborations with colleagues from controversial countries. When committee members were guests at the Deans Council recently, they were also told that people had questions.