{"id":172521,"date":"2024-10-17T14:09:12","date_gmt":"2024-10-17T12:09:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/?p=172521"},"modified":"2025-12-19T11:27:31","modified_gmt":"2025-12-19T10:27:31","slug":"microbiologist-not-guilty-of-violating-integrity-code-after-dismissal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/2024\/10\/17\/microbiologist-not-guilty-of-violating-integrity-code-after-dismissal\/","title":{"rendered":"Microbiologist not guilty of violating integrity code after dismissal"},"content":{"rendered":"

Aside from a minor shortcoming, microbiologist Rogier Louwen did not breach scientific integrity. That is the conclusion of the National Board for Scientific Integrity (LOWI) in an advice given to Erasmus MC. Louwen was fired by the hospital in 2022.<\/p>\n

The national integrity body largely contradicts an earlier investigation into Louwen\u2019s conduct by the Erasmus MC\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Four out of five complaints dismissed<\/h2>

The LOWI does not support the CWI\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

The first complaint stated that Louwen should not have collaborated on PCR test research with partners alleged to be \u2018pseudoscientists\u2019 and \u2018anti-vaxxers\u2019. 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\u2019s explanation of the criteria he used to assess their reliability.<\/p>\n\n\t

\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t
\n\t\tOverall, LOWI concluded that Louwen had handled data insufficiently carefully and transparently, which it considered a minor breach of scientific integrity.\n\t<\/blockquote>\n\n\t<\/figure>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n

The second complaint concerned \u2018serious shortcomings\u2019 in both manuscripts and \u2018medical misinformation\u2019 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 \u2018odd\u2019 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 \u2018medical misinformation\u2019, which the CWI had not specifically addressed.<\/p>\n\n\t

\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Read more<\/h2>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t