A Dutch university has found a former psychology researcher at the institution guilty of misconduct for several offenses, including lack of ethics approval for some of her studies and fabricating results in grant applications.
In a Nov. 11, 2019, report, officials at the University of Leiden stated that the researcher, whom it does not identify, violated academic integrity in the following ways:
(1) research with blood samples taken from test subjects without the approval of the Medical Ethical Committee (METC), (2) negligence in listing co-authors, (3) data manipulation, and (4) submitting grant applications with incorrect (incomplete and manipulated) research data.
Although the institution has kept the report anonymized, we have confirmed that the researcher involved is Lorenza Colzato, a cognitive psychologist who studies
factors (as for example drugs, stress, emotions, motivations, intelligence, working memory capacity, bilingualism, religion, video game, dopaminergic baseline level) that are known to predict, impair or enhance individual cognitive performance
Colzato, who is listed as a faculty member at Ruhr University in Bochum and at TU Dresden, did not respond to a request for comment on the case.
While not confirming the name of the researcher at the center of the case, Laura Steenbergen — who along with Bryant Jongkees and Roberta Sellaro brought the issues involved to Leiden’s attention — told us:
All I want to say, for now, is that this is a very difficult period and I -as do the other complainants- need some time to process and reflect before I can confidently answer your (or any) questions. The process of complaining and investigating took about one year; a rollercoaster that we weren’t allowed to speak about in any form with Anyone. Finally reading the outcome (which was conveyed to us also only last Thursday), the responses of our close colleagues and friends, and moving to the next phase, are things we need to process.
We fought for openness about this case and these kind of matters, and will continue to do so after recovering from this ‘outing’.
Steenbergen said the trio would be willing to respond to our questions tomorrow (Friday).
University recommends two retractions
Investigators for Leiden agreed that Colzato had committed misconduct in multiple ways. According to an English summary of the report:
The complainant has admitted that she has performed a study with blood draws without prior consent of a Medical Ethics Committee. The Committee judges this as a breach of scientific integrity, since the requirement follows national law and international principles, and the requirement is generally seen as a cornerstone of bona fide research. The Committee has also come to the conclusion that some of the studies on individuals using psychedelic drugs, who were incapacitated by this, should have been evaluated by a Medical ethics Committee.
University investigators found that Colzato had recycled her previously published work in a book in which she had contributed 18 chapters:
Seven of these show a high similarity of previously published work, on all of which the complainant was co-author. For some chapters the similarity is nearly complete.
In addition, Colzato deleted the names of co-authors — and, in one chapter, added names of co-authors “who could not have contributed to it”.
The inquiry also found that Colzato massaged some of her findings. Vigorously:
In two studies, the complainant has selectively deleted participant data in the analysis. In both cases, this concerned more than half of the participants. ln the publication, only results of the participants that remained were given, without any mention of the deleted data. The Committee sees this as a breach of scientific integrity.
Finally, investigators found that Colzato had lied in three grant applications by presenting “non-existent” data as preliminary findings:
These concern detailed graphs of complicated studies including genotyping and psychological tests. Complainant has admitted for one of these that she intended to write ‘expected results’. The Committee does not see this as plausible given the detailed information provided in the grant application, and comes to the conclusion that this presentation of non-existing data is a breach of scientific integrity.
Leiden recommended the retraction of two papers:
- The effect of gamma-enhancing binaural beats on the control of feature bindings. Exp Brain Res 2017 ;235:2125-2131.
- Overweight and Cognitive Performance: High Body Mass Index Is Associated with Impairment in Reactive Control during Task Switching. Front Nutr 2017; 4: 51.
However, that might be the least of Colzato’s problems. According to Leiden, she might face criminal charges resulting from her unapproved experimentation on human subjects.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
[Note from Retraction Watch: While we are pleased to see this response from Lorenza Colzato, we note that she did not respond to multiple requests for comment before we published this post. Colzato makes a number of claims in this comment that are unsupported. In particular, use of her photo is covered by Fair Use copyright provisions given that it appears on one of her university profiles, and she fails to identify any “inaccuracies and defamations.” We have, however, presented her comment unedited. We also refer readers to additional comments by the whistleblowers.]
It is very sad and shocking to see these many inaccuracies and defamations in this article, which apparently is superficially researched and combined with the illegal use of a copyrighted photograph of mine. Here’s an incomplete list of these inaccuracies, followed by my official reply to the university report.
• I am presented as a researcher who carried out unapproved experiments on human subjects including collecting blood samples, even though it was actually Laura Steenbergen, one of the celebrated whistleblowers, who personally carried out this research. She had submitted the research proposal under my name and was fully aware of the fact that the research was not approved. I was formally responsible for this project, which I do not deny, but the actual agent was Steenbergen, who was a postdoc by then and, as she confirmed in an interview (https://www.trouw.nl/nieuws/psycholoog-laura-steenbergen-ik-leef-mijn-droom-hoe-geweldig-is-dat~bbae9963/?referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F)—I am living my dream, how great is that?, was unlikely to suffer from any pressure from my side.
• I am presented as someone who wrote chapters showing “a high similarity of previously published work, on all of which the complainant was co-author. For some chapters the similarity is nearly complete”. This is far from the truth: the seven suspected chapters were based on articles that were all co-written by me and there is not any other author who was involved in all seven chapters. The chapters are drastically reworked versions of previous reviews, which are properly cited. The committee itself confirmed that there was never any overlap larger than 50%, including the reference lists!, even though no quantitative data are presented by the committee. Given that I was the main contributor to all suspected chapters, I had agreed with the publisher beforehand to revise the chapters along these lines and the publisher is still happy with the products.
• Of the two suspected articles (from >140 articles that I published), one study has Laura Steenbergen, one of the celebrated whistleblowers, as first and responsible author. This paper was published when Steenbergen was working at another university, without any hierarchical relationships between the two of us. Steenbergen collected and analyzed the data, and led the write-up. The other study was first-authored by myself and I admit that I forgot to mention that one condition was dropped because of a technical defect of the headphone that was being used. That is a mistake but has no impact on the reported data whatsoever, and it is certainly not properly described as “massaging the data”.
• The suspected graphs were not complicated and not detailed. However, they do contain a mistake in the sense that only part of the graph showed collected (and by that time already published) data while the other showed a prediction, which was not properly distinguished from the data.
• Finally, it is perplexing to have enjoyed what seemed to be a truly wonderful working experience with three young colleagues who repeatedly spoiled me with compliments and presents, and who repeatedly referred to me as the best supervisor one can imagine, also in discussions with other international researchers, colleagues who have reported to the press to “live their dream“ in the project that I supervised; only to read that these exact people went through “a long and lonely process”, in which they “felt forced to get involved in several bad research practices”. It is also surprising to see that Steenbergen, one of these apparently oppressed individuals, freely choose to come back to my lab after having stayed at another university—why would one do this if one had suffered so much? And if all that was such “a very difficult journey“, as the three celebrated whistleblowers say, why did they not simply stand up earlier and have the courage to talk to me? If they would be right in their accusations, this would have served science so much better!
Personal statement
With this message I want to make a personal statement regarding the advice of the Scientific Integrity Committee (‘Commissie Wetenschappelijke Integriteit’, hereinafter: CWI) dated 11 November 2019 – which advice has been taken over in full by the Board of Leiden University on 28 November 2019 – ruling that I am guilty of four breaches of scientific integrity.
First of all, I would like to emphasise that I do not agree with the advice of the CWI, the subsequent decision of the Board and the decision-making process in general in this case. I believe that I am wrongly being characterised (also in the press) as an intimidating person who ran a reign of terror and structurally violated the rules. This is not true. I think good research practices and scientific integrity are very important and I have always tried to act accordingly in my career.
I believe that the CWI has made a judgment based on incorrect and/or incomplete information, partly caused by the CWI’s own actions by seriously violating my (basic) right to be heard and to reply to the accusations made by the complainants. In my opinion, there has been neither thorough or proper investigation nor a fair hearing in this case. An example of this is that the CWI refused to provide insight into who had submitted which specific complaint against me rendering me unable to refute the accusations. According to the CWI I would be able to deduce this myself based on the accusation of the breaches of integrity in general.
Another example of this is that I was not allowed to respond to the complainants’ statements. The complainants and I were not heard in each other’s presence. I only received a summary of what was said during those hearings, but the CWI subsequently did not allow me to respond to what was said by the complainants during those hearings. I have repeatedly objected to this because those statements contain inaccuracies and lack nuance/relevant background information. It is incomprehensible to me that the CWI has taken the complainants (and apparently other witnesses’) word as true/fact without rebuttal (without allowing me to respond). All the more seeing as some of the things I am being accused of were in fact acts committed by the complainants themselves. The CWI has thus completely ignored the objective of an investigation which should be fact finding and finding out the truth. I also believe that I am being used as a scapegoat to conceal the mistakes of others (specifically those made by some of the complainants). The complainants are now likely to enjoy (legal) protection under the whistleblower policy, which means that their actions are free of consequences.
It now also seems that the CWI has conducted further investigation and has heard another five people. The content of that investigation and the conversations with those five people is unknown to me. Again, I have not been able (allowed) to respond to this.
I was first informed on 28 November 2019 of the content of the decision of the Board and the advice of the CWI. In view of the inaccuracies, the procedural errors and the enormous consequences/impact of the ruling for me, I asked the Board to wait with publishing the ruling until I had the chance to get a second opinion or request a ruling by a judge. After all, this investigation started in February 2019, so in my opinion it wasn’t necessary (there was no haste) in publishing the ruling and informing other parties within 24 hours of informing me of the content of the ruling thus leaving me with no time to take action. All the more so since the content of the ruling is extremely harmful to me. This request was also denied.
Although it is not my intention to put up a defense in the press – I will use the appropriate legal route (second opinion) for that – I feel compelled to respond to a few accusations because the CWI’s/Board’s decision has been extensively discussed in the press and complainants have also turned to the press with incorrect statements and without providing all the information.
With regard to the drawing of blood without the required permission, I want to emphasise that I did not draw blood from people. In actual fact that was done by one of the complainants (who is now unbelievably claiming to be innocent and taking on the role of a victim). That same complainant is also the “first and corresponding author” of the research proposal for which the blood was drawn and the “first and corresponding author” of one of the articles that is now being withdrawn. It is appalling that this complainant is now pointing the finger at me. I am now being accused of this act while the person who actually drew blood from people and was the “first and corresponding author” of that research is completely spared by the University/CWI and is now claiming protection as a whistleblower.
I would also like to emphasise that there has been no fabrication of data, as is wrongly stated in the press. That is not the conclusion of the CWI either. It is the CWI’s ruling that there was a case of data selection which is not the same as data fabrication.
Also, the actions I am now being accused of relate to incidents from years ago. The University has known about these incidents for a long time and has never before taken action. The University is now pretending that this information has only recently come to light, but that is incorrect. For example, the issue of drawing blood without the required permission (by one of the complainant) has been known by the University since 2017 and that issue was actually raised by myself. At the time, the University did nothing with my announcements.
I am very emotional and upset about how the press, the CWI, the University and former colleagues are portraying me and that the complainants themselves are claiming to be innocent/victims. It’s incorrect. This entire procedure has been overwhelming and unimaginable and I will therefore be seeking a second opinion.
Lorenza Colzato
I read this response with interest and an open mind. My suggestion to Dr. Colzato is that she seek legal counsel before making further statements (in private or in public). It is possible that statements, such as the one posted here, could be used in rebuttal or in a countersuit.