The national integrity body largely contradicts an earlier investigation into Louwen’s conduct by the Erasmus MC’s Scientific Integrity Committee (CWI), which followed his dismissal. In 2023, five complaints were filed regarding a preprint and a working paper on the reliability of Covid PCR tests, in which Louwen was one of the authors.
The complainant alleged that Louwen had not adhered to scientific integrity in the research for these papers. The CWI investigated and concluded that Louwen had violated ten of the eleven integrity norms examined, doing so deliberately rather than out of carelessness, and that his actions could severely undermine trust in science. Louwen appealed to this at the LOWI. By this point, he had already been fired by Erasmus MC, for breaching scientific integrity guidelines and misconduct as an employee.
Four out of five complaints dismissed
The LOWI does not support the CWI’s findings at all. Of the five complaints, which the CWI had all deemed valid, LOWI found four to be unfounded and acknowledged only a minor shortcoming in the fifth complaint.
The first complaint stated that Louwen should not have collaborated on PCR test research with partners alleged to be ‘pseudoscientists’ and ‘anti-vaxxers’. However, LOWI established that three of the four partners worked for research institutes that adhere to the code of integrity conduct and therefore could not simply be labelled as pseudoscientists. As for the fourth partner, not affiliated with such an institute, LOWI accepted Louwen’s explanation of the criteria he used to assess their reliability.
The second complaint concerned ‘serious shortcomings’ in both manuscripts and ‘medical misinformation’ in the working paper. An expert consulted by the CWI found that although the preprint was insufficiently critical of its own method, there was nothing technically ‘odd’ about the experiments described. However, the expert also noted that there was not enough data to support the conclusions. While the CWI interpreted this as a violation of the integrity code, LOWI deemed such criticism part of the normal scientific process, not an integrity breach. The LOWI also dismissed the complaint regarding ‘medical misinformation’, which the CWI had not specifically addressed.
No external interests
The third complaint claimed that Louwen had been overly influenced by ‘non-scientific interests’. The complainant pointed out that many authors cited in the working paper were opposed to vaccination and that the preprint had been published in a journal with a questionable reputation. While LOWI acknowledged a ‘strong tone’ in the preprint, it did not see this as a breach of the code regarding external interests. The context of the pandemic, it noted, made it difficult to remain solely motivated by internal scientific factors, given the widespread concern for public health and the significant impact of Covid measures on daily life.
The fourth complaint involved the use of samples for the working paper. The CWI found that the required permission for the samples had not been obtained, but LOWI disagreed. Although the approval had been granted for a different purpose, LOWI ruled that there was no clear break between the two studies, so Louwen was allowed to use the samples. However, the working paper did not disclose the source of the samples, as requested by the sample owner. LOWI deemed this a violation of the code, although only a minor one.
LOWI also dismissed the fifth complaint, which accused Louwen of omitting relevant sources in the preprint. The article was critical of an outdated version of the PCR testing protocol and did not mention improvements made to the protocol. However, according to LOWI, this omission was not significant, as the criticism could apply to both the old and improved versions of the protocol. Louwen and his colleagues had, in fact, cited articles that addressed the updated version. While more references could have provided a fuller picture, LOWI concluded that this was part of normal scientific debate and did not constitute an integrity breach.
Overall, LOWI concluded that Louwen had handled data insufficiently carefully and transparently, which it considered a minor breach of scientific integrity. It dismissed the other complaints and advised Erasmus MC to reconsider its decision to retract and remove the articles.
Fair handling
The significant differences between the conclusions of the two integrity investigations were likely due to Louwen withholding information from the CWI, which he did provide to LOWI, the LOWI advice speculated. It called Louwen’s lack of cooperation with the CWI ‘undesirable’ and urged researchers to always participate fully to ensure a fair process.
The CWI investigation took place after Louwen’s dismissal and was not the reason for it, although Erasmus MC had cited his lack of scientific integrity as a factor at the time. The hospital had also argued that Louwen repeatedly failed to follow instructions, disregarded agreements, and did not act transparently towards colleagues. A court deemed these reasons sufficient for the dismissal, and they were not addressed in the LOWI’s advice.
Erasmus MC maintains that there is no connection between the LOWI’s advice and Louwen’s dismissal and declined to comment in more detail. A spokesperson stated, “LOWI issues advice to the Executive Board [of Erasmus MC], which will take it into account when making its final decision on the complaint. All parties involved are bound by confidentiality during this process.”
Rehabilitation
Louwen views the LOWI’s advice as a form of rehabilitation. “The LOWI’s advice is crystal clear; I have nothing to add.” On LinkedIn, he expressed his joy that ‘the truth has finally prevailed’ and that nothing now stands in the way of submitting the working paper to a scientific journal.
His former colleague Maarten Fornerod remarked that ‘being wrongfully accused of violating scientific integrity is one of the worst things that can happen to a scientist’. “Many former colleagues strongly feel that Rogier deserves full rehabilitation,” he added.
