Dutch investigation of researcher violated rules of “fair play”: Ombudsman

The National Ombudsman of The Netherlands has criticized some aspects of an investigation by Utrecht University that found a researcher had committed “a violation of academic integrity.”

Specifically, the Ombudsman found the investigation — which we covered last year — did not adequately involve the affected researcher, Pankaj Dhonukshe, and therefore violated rules of “fair play.” Dhonukshe expressed relief in a statement he emailed to us about the ruling:

I showed an accumulation of unfair practices in my procedure and I have been vindicated. I am very pleased with this report.

During the investigation, Utrecht University  — with the advice of the National Board for Scientific Integrity (abbreviated as LOWI in Dutch) — concluded that Dhonukshe “acted in breach of the standards of academic integrity”:

In the figures of four articles of which Dr Dhonukshe was the first or last author manipulation in some form was discovered. The irregularities include the fabrication of data that were presented as actually obtained research findings. Already during the course of the investigation the researchers were requested to withdraw two articles from publication, as the articles obviously do not satisfy the university’s academic standard.

Dhonukshe has retracted two Nature papers, and one from Cell.

After the investigation, Dhonukshe lodged a complaint with the National Ombudsman, arguing “about state of affairs during the investigation of his scientific integrity,” according to the summary of the Ombudsman’s report, released last month. (We’ve translated it using One Hour Translation. The report refers to Dhonukshe using an anonymous name “Mr. Blok,” which Dhonukshe confirmed to us is him.)

The Ombudsman ruled that Dhonukshe should have been more included in some parts of the investigation, referred to as “fair play for the citizen”:

The fair play for the citizen means that, in this case, the Utrecht University and the NCSI should have allowed Mr. Blok to use his procedural opportunities during investigations on his scientific integrity and, thereby, to ensure a fair and transparent business. UU and the NCSI must have provided Mr. Block with any information regarding actions and decisions, which could have affected Mr. Blok’s interests. UU and the NCSI should have given Mr. Blok the opportunity to express his viewpoints and set forth corresponding facts, as well as defend them against the opposite viewpoints (adversarial). UU and the NCSI should have actively provided information on the procedural opportunities that Mr. Blok could exploit, and should have made it clear to Mr. Blok why they did certain things. In short, the University of Utrecht and the NCSI should have carried out an investigation, in which they ensured a fair play for the citizen.

The Ombudsman continues:

He has found that the University of Utrecht had not been transparent at certain points. For instance, the UU has not explained how they had chosen the experts; they also have not kept Mr. Blok informed of their correspondence with these experts. On some points, the University has not given Mr. Blok the chance to use his procedural opportunities, as he might have expected. In particular, during the investigation, the UU has not informed Mr. Blok of the nature and extent of the complaint and has involved a dependent and anonymous technical committee in carrying out the follow-up investigation. Furthermore, the National Ombudsman found that the NCSI has not properly informed of, and involved Mr. Blok in their hearings. Neither NCSI has provided Mr. Blok,  in one of the complaints, with the procedural opportunities that fit the position and importance of the person, whose scientific integrity is under the investigation.

In his statement, Dhonukshe said he is pleased with the Ombudsman’s report:

I have always said that the decision and the procedure of the Utrecht University were wrong. I have been wrongly victimized. There is a double standard. My academic career is ruined. This, in law state as the Netherlands, is unsustainable. I showed an accumulation of unfair practices in my procedure and I have been vindicated. I am very pleased with this report. It empowers citizens with courage. My rehabilitation and compensation for the destruction of my scientific career is now obvious.

We received a statement from Wietske de Lange, a spokesperson at Utrecht University, who said that, despite the new report’s findings, the outcome of the investigation is “not in question”:

On Monday 28 September the National Ombudsman released their report on a research procedure in relation to academic integrity of a scientist at Utrecht University. The Ombudsman concluded that in several instances the scientist had not been adequately informed nor involved in the process. The university emphasizes that the substantive outcome of the investigation by the Commission for Scientific Integrity (CWI) is not in question and that the final conclusion of breach of academic integrity by the scientist involved remains in force. The conclusion of the CWI and the National Board for Scientific Integrity (NCSI) is endorsed internationally. However, the National Ombudsman does not endorse the content of judgment, but comments only on points related to procedure.

de Lange added that the university takes investigations very seriously:

Investigations regarding academic integrity are carried out with great care by Utrecht University. The university is very much aware of the different interests that exist in such delicate processes and the potential damage that can result for scientists involved. Utrecht University has acted in accordance with current national complaints. The university will discuss the Ombudsman’s criticisms in the context of the VSNU.

Finally, the spokesperson noted that there is no connection between the investigation and Dhonukshe’s dismissal:

In some media a link has been made between the research conducted by the CWI and the NCSI and the dismissal of the accused scientist. This is incorrect, the researcher did not work at Utrecht University at the time of the investigation nor at final judgment.

 A representative of NCSI/LOWI declined to comment on the findings of the report.

Like Retraction Watch? Consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, and sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post. Click here to review our Comments Policy.