Our Scientific Advisory Committee

When making decisions on grant proposals, the SAC considers reviews from at least two independent experts, feedback from people directly affected by prostate cancer, and the applicant’s response to peer review and patient representative comments.

The Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) consists of UK research scientists who are leading authorities in cancer research, share and champion the values of our Research Strategy, and have between them a diverse breadth of expertise. Chaired by Professor Colin Cooper, they review funding proposals and advise the charity on its research strategy and activities.

Committee Members

Professor Colin Cooper

Dr Richard Axelby

Dr Susanne Cruickshank

Professor Fouad Habib

Dr Mieke van Hemelrijck

Dr Edd James

Professor Maggie Knowles

Dr Tanimola Martins

Professor David Wedge


We would like to thank our former SAC members, Professor Anne Ridley, FRS, and Professor Jonathan Ashmore, FRS, for their invaluable contributions to the scientific direction of the charity.

Peer Review

Peer reviewers are scientific experts, with knowledge specific to the applications they are asked to assess. Peer reviewers are independent of the charity and of the SAC, and they score applications based on scientific quality. They consider whether the applicant can deliver the promised project, the technical strengths and weaknesses of the project idea and the methodology that will be used, and its likely impact.

Our peer reviewers are never based in the same department as the scientist whose work they are assessing. We also ask them to sign a declaration stating that they have not collaborated or published with the applicant over the past three years, are not competing with the applicant, have not held grants together with the applicant over the past five years, and that there is no other reason they cannot assess the application impartially.

As a member charity of the Association of Medical Research Charities (AMRC), we operate according to the AMRC’s Principles of peer review.

Patient Panel

We ask for “lay abstracts” – short project descriptions written in everyday language – to be included on all funding proposals. People affected by prostate cancer read these lay abstracts and score them, based on:

  • If the idea is explained well
  • If it is interesting, and relevant to men with prostate cancer
  • If there is anything about the proposed research which makes them feel uncomfortable

If you are a current or former prostate cancer patient, or have looked after someone with prostate cancer, and would like information on taking part in future patient panels, please email [email protected]

What we pay for

We agree to the AMRC position statement on supporting research in universities.

We pay only for the direct costs of the projects we fund. This means, for example, that we will pay the salaries of staff who are recruited to work full time on any of our research projects, and for equipment bought specifically because it is needed for one of our projects.

Animals in research

We endorse the AMRC position statement on the use of animals in research.

Conflicts of Interest

We take all reasonable steps to avoid conflicts of interest. Our Conflicts of Interest Policy is available here.



Read our policy on research during COVID-19 here.

Press enter or esc to cancel