🔬 Fraud in Science
When “science as human work” shows its human flaws
In his sober 1978 book on the scientific enterprise, Professor Arie Rip gave it the fitting title “Science as Human Work.” And indeed — scientists are ordinary people. Their profession is unusual and demanding, and ideally they possess a strong sense of self-criticism. Yet they are not immune to human weaknesses: career anxiety, jealousy, greed, arrogance, convenience. All of it lurks beneath the surface.
Looking back, it is striking that Arie Rip barely addressed fraud in his book — because scientific misconduct certainly occurs. Sometimes dramatically, as in two major Dutch scandals, and increasingly also on a smaller scale. The pressure to survive in academia today is enormous: researchers must publish prolifically (and preferably in top journals), secure funding, and build influential networks. Permanent positions and promotions are scarce, and competition is fierce. Add to that the commercial pressure of fake journals and conferences, and the system becomes even more vulnerable.
Ultimately, it is the critical mindset within science — the commitment to integrity and mutual scrutiny — that keeps the field afloat.
📺 The Buck Affair (1990)
In April 1990, the Dutch 8 o’clock news opened with a sensational claim: two Dutch researchers expected to cure the until-then deadly disease AIDS within a year. Professor Buck (Eindhoven) and his Amsterdam colleague Goudzwaard presented a method to inhibit AIDS through changes in genetic code. Buck briefly became a national hero.
But shortly after, their article in Science had to be retracted. Colleagues demonstrated that the reported results could not be correct. Their conclusion: too few control experiments.
And so began the Buck Affair, ending abruptly in disappointment rather than triumph.
📉 The Stapel Scandal
Internationally, the Netherlands became infamous through the case of celebrated social psychologist Diederik Stapel. Suspicion began with his own students. Investigations by the universities of Amsterdam, Groningen, and Tilburg ultimately revealed that Stapel had fabricated research data himself. He reported extensive results — including studies in schools he had never visited — and personally filled in entire datasets.
More than half of his publications (55 articles and 24 book chapters) turned out to be fabricated and had to be withdrawn. PhD theses based on his data were invalid. Fraudulent grants totaled more than €1.4 million. In 2011, Stapel returned his doctoral title. His legal punishment amounted to 120 hours of community service — a sentence that foreign newspapers followed with disbelief. The New York Times called him “the biggest con man in science.”
🧭 “A little integrity is impossible” — Ien Dales
If anywhere this statement holds true, it is in science. The Stapel case was extreme in scale and severity, but even small deviations from integrity — massaging data, omitting inconvenient results — are problematic. The list is long:
Passing off others’ work as your own (plagiarism)
Excluding rightful contributors from the author list
Or the opposite: unjustified co-authorship
Misusing statistical analyses
Carelessness in research or reporting
Allowing misconduct by colleagues
The Stapel scandal made painfully clear that existing safeguards were insufficient. Peer review did not catch it, nor did dissertation committees or supervisory structures.
Journalist Frank van Kolfschooten, who investigated many cases of scientific fraud, described what has since changed in academia — largely thanks to the public impact of his work:
A second supervisor is now mandatory for PhD projects
Dissertation committees must meet stricter independence criteria
National and institutional codes of scientific integrity have been established
Every university now has an integrity committee
The LOWI (National Body for Scientific Integrity) serves as appeals board
Strict requirements exist for data storage and accessibility
Every new PhD graduate publicly commits to the Dutch Code of Conduct for Scientific Practice
Is that enough?
Science remains human work — but thankfully, it is carried out by highly critical people who understand what is at stake. The strongest safeguard is that every scientific result must withstand repetition. As the Romans already knew:
Repetition is the mother of science.
📝 Five Tips for Navigating Scientific Integrity
1) Examine the quality of the scientific information you encounter.
Journalists (and certainly politicians) seldom provide sources. Wikipedia offers no guarantees, but many articles list references — a useful place to start.
2) Scientific journals must now explain their review procedures.
Authors of scientific articles can always be contacted directly.
3) If you have legitimate concerns about research, you can contact the integrity committee of the institution involved.
4) Appeals can be directed to the LOWI (National Body for Scientific Integrity).
5) For an excellent overview of the Dutch situation, read Frank van Kolfschooten’s books:
Valse Vooruitgang and Ontspoorde Wetenschap.
🎙️ Listen to the full Dutch episode on mennoenerwin.nl — your monthly guide to nature, science, and wonder.
We now have three publications:
Dutch podcast on wednesday
Nieuwsbrief NL → dutch newsletter
Newsletter ENG → same newsletter but in english
You can change what you will receive in your substack email from us in the bottom manage subscription or go to the link https://menno-en-erwin.substack.com/manage-subscription
Blijf op de hoogte!
Wil je meer weten over de geheimen achter ons drinkwater en andere fascinerende natuur- en wetenschapsonderwerpen? Abonneer je dan op onze podcast en Substack via mennoenerwin.nl, en mis geen aflevering meer. Direct naar de podcast ? Klik hier
je kan je subscripties wijzigen zodat je alleen de engelse of nederlandse newsbrief ontvangt hier https://menno-en-erwin.substack.com/manage-subscription
