‘We need to embed scientific integrity in the organisation’s core’

It all started with great promise: millions of euros in investments and a celebrated Nature publication on Majorana particles. These ghostly particles seemed promising as qubits for the emerging quantum computer. But criticism about the methods used soon emerged. This led to so much doubt and back-and-forth correspondence over the article that there was no choice but to retract the Nature publication – a painful blow to the researchers involved. As if that wasn’t enough, another retraction followed.

How could this happen, and more importantly, how can we prevent similar cases in the future? How do you ensure better prevention, communication, and procedures? These were the questions that the Executive Board put to the TU Delft Integrity Board. At the start of this academic year, they responded with two reports: Lessons from the Majorana Case (the recommendations) and the Action Plan.

Discussing dilemmas 0penly

The recommendations emphasise the importance of openly discussing research dilemmas at all levels. Graduate school students already encounter these questions, but the report suggests the need for a more tailored approach.

The action plan outlines the roles of seven TU Delft bodies in improving scientific integrity: the Executive Board, the Scientific Integrity Committee, and the Communication, HR, and Legal departments, along with the Integrity Office and the Graduate School.

Delta spoke with the authors of both reports: Integrity Officer Ibo van de Poel, lead author of the Lessons from the Majorana Case evaluation report, and Scientific Integrity Advisor Grace van Arkel, who drafted the action plan in consultation with the relevant departments.

Scientific integrity is already part of the Graduate School curriculum for PhD candidates. How will that change going forward?

Van de Poel: “We need to be careful not to treat scientific integrity as just the responsibility of PhD candidates. It’s the responsibility of all researchers, of course. Besides that, we want to make scientific integrity a continuous topic of discussion at the Graduate School. To do this, we plan to use the Digital Dilemma game to raise awareness of integrity risks in individual departments.”

How does the game work?

Van de Poel: “It’s an app developed at Erasmus University that poses concrete questions for discussion, referencing the Dutch Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2018).”

Van Arkel: “It’s also a useful tool for discussing research dilemmas in education.”

How do you define academic integrity?

Van Arkel: “The chair of the Dutch National Board for Research Integrity (LOWI) put it well: ‘Doing the right thing when nobody is watching, and when in doubt, not pushing the limits.’ These basic rules are applicable to many situations in which you face a dilemma during your research.”

‘Ideally, openness should be a part of the organisation’s DNA’

Van de Poel: “Scientific integrity is all about taking care when conducting research. This should be obvious, but researchers must be thorough and independent, and should not be influenced by non-scientific factors.”

Will the Graduate School devote more time to these dilemmas?

Van de Poel: “The academic world already pays much attention to scientific integrity, but integrity also involves issues like authorship or interpreting certain data in discussions between a PhD candidate and their supervisor. Bringing up these issues requires more than just a course.”

What role do scientific integrity confidential advisors play?

Van Arkel: “We’ve appointed three new confidential advisors for scientific integrity (see the box below). They are the go-to people if you suspect a breach of integrity or if you’re considering filing a complaint. They’ll support you but won’t make any judgements themselves.”

Van de Poel: “Our focus in the recommendations was less on the confidential advisors themselves and more on where researchers can turn for advice if they have any doubts. Who can you talk to if you have doubts about research practices? Some of this can be done informally, just as people often come to me with questions. But sometimes, you might prefer to speak with someone outside your own department.”

What’s the difference between a confidential advisor and an integrity advisor?

Van de Poel: “A confidential advisor offers support, while an integrity advisor gives advice. Researchers might sometimes feel unsure about a particular practice, and may not be sure what to make of something. These kinds of issues should be easy to discuss openly. Ideally, this openness is part of an organisational culture, but we may need to be more explicit about where people can go for a chat or advice.”

Is there a budget for this policy? Both reports mention more advisors, more training, an expansion of the Integrity Office, and additional work for support services, but I didn’t see any budget mentioned. Is there funding for this?

Van Arkel: “The Integrity Office has already expanded. I started as a scientific integrity advisor in April 2023, alongside two colleagues covering social and organisational integrity.”

‘Scientific integrity should be part of the daily routine’

Van de Poel: “There isn’t a dedicated budget, no. But a lot of this can be integrated into the daily workflow. It takes time, but we believe scientific integrity should be part of everyone’s workday routine. We want to embed it in the very fabric of the organisation, so it becomes something we all practice every day.”

According to the plan, improvements to scientific integrity should be fully implemented by September 2025. What will be different by then?

Van Arkel: “The game, that features dilemmas specific to the technical sciences, is just one of many initiatives. By then, it should be accessible to everyone.”

“The Integrity Office and the services involved already know what’s expected of them based on the action plan. I’ll be keeping an eye on the deadlines. Ultimately, I’ll also be held accountable to see if we’ve followed through on the agreements.”