Speech op het World Congress for Research Integrity

Toespraak | 29-05-2017 | Jet Bussemaker

Ladies and gentlemen,

Three years ago, a team of Dutch medical researchers published a paper in an American scientific journal.
Following a comprehensive study in intensive care units, they found an effective measure against to counteract resistance to antibiotics.
Their research had the potential to drastically improve care for the most vulnerable of hospital patients.
And they were deservedly proud of their accomplishment.

But then something went wrong.
Last year, the study leader received a startling phone call.
Her name is Evelien Oostdijk.
She had recently received her PhD and was working as an Intensive Care resident.
One of her successors in the PhD programme was calling to mention that fellow researchers had detected something strange.
They had found a discrepancy between raw data collected at the time, and the results in the published article.

Suddenly, nothing was certain.
Evelien Oostdijk and her team decided to act:
They made all their data available for re-analysis.
and then ran the analyses again.

There had indeed been a mistake – a simple, routine slip-up in an Excel sheet.
The new analyses showed a small but clear difference.
A difference that can in fact save even more lives.

Oostdijk immediately got in touch with all Dutch specialists who had benefited from the study.
And she contacted the medical journal that published their paper – asking them to withdraw the previous article and replace it with the amended version.

This version was published last month.
The study team was praised for their openness in view of their vulnerability in admitting the error and making their data available for re-analysis.
Some even called Evelien Oostdijk a shining example of scientific integrity.
And rightly so.

I’m telling this story because it is such a positive example.
When we speak about integrity, we generally know full well what we do not want: fraud, hostility, distrust, tunnel vision, prejudices ...

But to me it is important that both researchers and governments have a clear vision of the kind of science we do want.

When done properly, scientific research gives humanity what it needs most: facts on which to build our lives and our society.
Without facts, society is plagued by uncertainty.
Without facts, there can be no policy, no dot on the horizon and no stability.

Therefore, our search for facts must be held to the highest standards:
Standards of honesty, openness and vulnerability.
Of collaboration, of asking questions and of peer review.
A moral compass, trustworthy and true, is the most important precondition to any scientific study.

These high standards are our best answer to those who doubt the value of independent scientific endeavour.
When alternative facts suddenly gain widespread support.
Or when climate change is dismissed as a hoax.

Clearly, lies should always be refuted.
That’s why I joined one of the many Marches for Science last month, in Amsterdam.

It is important that we – as members of government – speak out for free and independent science.
Any move to restrict this freedom makes us less human.
It diminishes our ability to search for facts.
Our ability to truly understand who we are and how we can create a better world.

And it is the responsibility of governments to practice politics based on science.
And never to influence science based on politics.

Governments should be held accountable.
By scientists who show their moral compass – and who actively involve society in their work.

This why I am so proud of another Dutch researcher, Bernice Nooteboom.
She and her international colleagues recently conducted a climate study at the North Pole for NASA, and she was sure to get the business community involved.

She invited major Dutch companies to visit her and to show them what’s going on.
In doing so, she forged a link between abstract research and global challenges – and she made science relevant to our daily lives.
And she was completely transparent, showing us the high standards of her research.

This engenders confidence.
We must cherish this confidence – and to do so we need openness.
About methods and funding;
About data and about results.
And about assumptions and mistakes.

This only works if your moral compass comes from within.
No government can ever force it.
But as a minister, I can ensure a lively and ongoing debate to keep us vigilant.

And we in The Netherlands have done just that in the last few years through our National Science Vision – which the scientific community itself has translated into a specific agenda.

It is also important to me that we continually compare our own standards to standards in other countries.
After all, a moral compass needs peer review too.

You have to be open about dilemmas and about your quest for integrity.
Only then can we strengthen research and the culture of science worldwide, thus enhancing political and public confidence in the search for facts.

For example, anyone can find the ancillary positions of Dutch professors on the websites of their university –  so that anyone can see whether they are affiliated with another company or organization.

And this is precisely why I ask you to share your dilemmas.
Cast your net wide!
Share them not just with your colleagues, but also with your partners in education and government, and with the business community.
With young and old.
Inspire all of society with a moral compass that you keep calibrated and true.
And inspire the younger generations to embrace science and follow in your footsteps.

Your moral compass can be a shining example to others,
so that science will remain at the front of social progress.

Ladies and gentlemen,

I am tremendously proud of Evelien Oostdijk and her team,
and of all her peers who are equally open and vulnerable.

As a former researcher, I have seen and felt the risks and vulnerabilities involved in the pursuit of science.
Scientific endeavour is and will always remain a human endeavour.

There is nothing wrong with making mistakes.
And this is exactly why science’s capacity for self-regulation is one of the jewels in the crown of humanity.
One of the most basic facts of humanity is that we will never be infallible.
But be that as it may, we can always discover and improve.
Never in splendid isolation, but always as part of a community.
With utter honesty and candour.

The potential for self-improvement is indeed the very source of the scientific quest to look higher and to reach further.

As Isaac Newton said: ‘If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants’.

Researchers who are not only committed to finding new facts – but whose standards reach higher and higher and whose moral compass leads them on the path of veracity and integrity ...
These are the giants on whose shoulders we stand.

Thank you.