Science and Integrity in the modern university by TU Delft

Science & Integrity in the Modern University

Contents Foreword

Balancing risks and benefits - Interview David B. Resnik

Academic Ethics and Integrity at Delft University of Technology

Let your colleagues look over your shoulder - Interview Kees Schuyt

Code of Ethics TU Delft - Summary

What would you do?

What would you do? Suppose you are department chairman. After successfully completing research at TU Delft, a scientist working at your department sets up a spin-off company with two other scientists. He currently works one day a week at this company in addition to his full-time position as assistant professor at TU Delft. When he was hired, a career development path was agreed on under the Tenure Track policy. After a year, he indicates that he would like to spend a greater amount of his time at the company. 2

Foreword In recent years, a few high-profile affairs of scientific misconduct have shaken Dutch society. Because of the widespread media attention these cases generated, they served to underscore the need for a discussion on ethical behaviour in academia, but they were by no means the real catalyst for such a discussion. The immediate cause lies in a changing set of responsibilities for universities. In 2003 knowledge transfer – or valorisation – became an official core task of universities, in addition to education and research. Not that valorisation is in itself a new phenomenon; here in Delft it is probably as old as our university. I myself have been involved in knowledge transfer activities for decades. The difference is that in the eighties and nineties no specific attention was given to the subject. On the one hand that meant that, as long as it did not interfere with any of your other duties, you were free to undertake such activities. On the other hand, it meant there was no support for it, whereas now we have a dedicated Valorisation Centre, a YES!Delft business incubator, and courses in entrepreneurship. At TU Delft we have truly embraced our valorisation task, and we score high on this subject in both Dutch and international rankings. As a result, our activities on the interface between public and private sectors are steadily increasing, and with that we run the risks of the blurring of boundaries between science and business. Don’t get me wrong, I believe knowledge capitalisation is a good thing. It leads to economic growth, and it also provides the university – and sometimes individual scientists as well - with an additional source of income. Most importantly, it benefits society in general, as our scientific efforts are transformed into tangible results. However, we should never lose sight of the ethical principles of science, such as transparency, impartiality and integrity. Against this backdrop we decided to draw up our own Code of Ethics TU Delft, and crucially, to get the values therein accepted as the basis for all our actions, be they education, research or transfer of knowledge. Though a code in name, it is not so much a set of rules, as a living document. That is why last year we have explored the topics in this code during a series of meetings all over our campus. We discussed the ethical dilemmas we can encounter at TU Delft and our options for action in such cases. Other, related topics debated during these sessions were secondary employment and the issues surrounding intellectual property. Now we will round off this cycle of meetings in a conference where we will view things from a wider perspective. We do this with the help of experts in the field of ethics and science, a number of whom have also contributed to this publication. Ethics is a topic we should keep on the agenda, not leave it until an incident occurs. It should be part and parcel of our way of working and thinking. For many of us it probably already is. But in these changing times it can never hurt to explicate these matters. We should make a habit of calling each other to account where necessary. To freely discuss what is desirable, what is permissible and where we draw the line. Only in such an open environment can we truly enjoy all the fruits of our scientific labour.

Karel Luyben Rector Magnificus Delft University of Technology

Balancing risks and benefits David B. Resnik is a Bioethicist at the American National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and a Professor of Philosophy and Religion at the North Carolina State University. He has been publishing on the subject of ethics and science since the mid-1990s. His body of work includes eight books, among them “The Prize of Truth. How Money Affects the Norms of Science” (2007). “I have always been interested in science and in literature, and through them I became interested in the philosophy of science. But after doing a PhD in Philosophy, I came to realise that the problems I was studying had no great relevance to what science was doing or to what people are concerned about. So I decided that I was more interested in examining practical ethical problems in the sciences.”

usiness and industry involvement in science and technology research is a relatively new phenomenon in the Netherlands, especially when compared with the US. We are still discovering all the potential ethical dilemmas and conflicts of interest involved. What lessons can we learn from an expert on this subject? “An important lesson is that you should have oversight of all financial relationships in the research environment”, says Professor Resnik. “Financial relationships can sometimes interfere with the ethical standards for academic science”, he explains, “for instance, if you are working on something that is going to

What would you do? Suppose you are a professor at TU Delft. You have been commissioned by a large company in the transport sector to conduct research into the effects of new transport developments on the environment. You have just received a telephone call from a journalist who would like an unbiased response from you before the end of the day concerning the latest developments in this field.

be patented, to protect your financial interests you may not be willing to share data along the way. But in an academic setting data sharing is very important. More in general you can say that there is tension between the ethics of academic science and the norms and practices of business.”

Disclosure alone is not enough

Disclosure of financial relationships is therefore paramount. Such relationships could include ownership by the university or by individual researchers of stock in companies that are financing research, a researcher who is also vice-president with a company, and researchers who provide consultancy or receive honorary speaking fees. Patents held by the university or university staff are another matter to keep a close eye on. But disclosure alone is not enough. “Sometimes you may need to do more to prevent unwanted things from happening. In the most extreme case you could prohibit certain relationships, for example prohibit someone from owning stock in a company if he is also conducting an on-campus clinical trial for a new drug for them. The trouble is, if you restrict or prohibit relationships, you also miss out on the benefits, which is why people collaborate in the first place. So you have to balance the risks that unethical things might happen versus the benefits of allowing the relationship to exist.”

Conflict management

Some of these cases can be overcome by having institutional directions. “There are rules that apply to everybody in all cases”, says Resnik. “Everybody has to disclose potential financial conflicts of interest. And everybody has to adhere to ethical standards regarding not fabricating or falsifying data.” More complicated situations might be handled on a case for case basis. For these, a lot of US universities have a conflict of interest committee. Having been a member on these in the past, Resnik knows what kind of cases come up. “Once at a university where I worked a scientist had invented a device that helped people who suffer from stuttering. No high-tech or pharmaceutical companies were interested in producing it. So the university decided the only way to get it to the public was to form a start-up company to test it and market it. The device was patented and both the university and the scientists involved owned stock in the company. Then the inventor wanted to do a clinical trial on campus and the case went before the conflict of interest committee. In the end, it was decided it would not make sense to hold the trial elsewhere, as the investigator was the best in his field. It would also not be in the public interest to prohibit all these financial relationships. So we set up a special committee that made sure everything was done properly with regards to the collection, analysis and

‘I think a lot of the bias in science is subconscious’ sharing of the data, and with regards to the protection of the human research subjects. It was a difficult conflict, but we decided to manage it, rather than prohibit it. The device became a success and no problems arose, so that proved to have been the right decision.”

Subconscious bias

Financial interests can also influence science in subtler ways. Resnik mentions the funding effect: “Studies have shown that financial interests influence research outcomes. If a company sponsors a study, that study is more likely to produce results favourable to the company’s product than a study sponsored by an independent source.”

Some of this bias could have to do with unethical conduct, e.g. the falsifying of results, but there are other potential explanations too. “I think a lot of the bias in science is subconscious. People are not aware that they are skewing their data interpretation a little bit for a certain goal.” Scientists being people too, they may be subconsciously trying to confirm their personal hypothesis or subtly changing their outcomes in the direction they perceive to be desired. A complicated issue, and one which a disclosure policy cannot help prevent.

Stand up for the truth Then there is the role of the media and (political) interests groups. “Sci-

entists are concerned that their results are being distorted by the media or by interests groups. That can make them hesitant to talk about their research”, says Resnik. If openness is a basic value in science, doesn’t fear of your results being distorted provide a potential conflict of interest? “Yes, it does. What happens is that scientists are tempted to give people a dumbed down version of the truth, because they think they will otherwise be misunderstood. I can understand why scientists do that sometimes. But I believe scientists have to educate the public. There will always be groups in society with radical beliefs, for example interest groups that say children shouldn’t be vaccinated, because vaccines cause autism. Scientists should stand up for the truth, rather than sitting back and letting radical groups dominate the media, culture and eventually politics.” On top of that, scientists in the US, as well as in Europe, are feeling the pinch of the economic crisis. “That increases the risk of unethical behaviour”, admits Resnik, “as it puts pressure on people who are struggling to find funding.”

Good science

So with all these pressures, how can we teach our students to become ethical scientists? “That is not all that hard, I think, as most people want to do the right thing. Students do need guidance in how to do good science, as this is not something you learn as a child growing up. You may learn not to tell lies, but you are not going to learn how to properly analyse and report scientific data. People need to understand the importance of ethics in the research enterprise and what can happen to them and to other people if they violate these norms. There are tremendous amounts of pressures in science today to produce results. Because of these pressures, people who are not necessarily bad are put in a situation where they might be tempted to bend or break the rules. We need to be able to reach out and help them deal with these situations.” << 5

Academic Ethics and Integrity at Delft University of Technology By Jeroen van den Hoven and Behnam Taebi

The challenges of the 21st century will fully reflect on universities of technology. The world population is growing while we pursue higher levels of global well-being. The increasing energy demands and the related problems of climate change are only two of the many major challenges humanity is facing in this century. Indeed, universities of technology have an essential role to play in meeting these challenges by generating scientific knowledge, achieving technological breakthroughs and educating scientists and engineers to think and work for the public good. Delft University of Technology wants to engage in a process of constant critical reflection on its contributions to society, its own mission and responsibilities, in light of grand societal challenges.

1. Ethics teaching

Delft University of Technology aims at educating a new generation of engineers that is well-equipped to deal with the future challenges that mankind faces, while observing the highest standards of academic conduct and research

ethics. Delft University of Technology therefore devotes substantial attention to awareness raising and teaching of engineering ethics and scientific integrity. Our international student body is introduced at all levels to ethics in academia. Special courses for Scientific Integrity have been developed for PhD students.

2. Trust as default Delft University of Technology is careful not to let the attention for ethics and proper conduct culminate in a culture of distrust. Our modus operandi as an institution is ‘trust as default’. Trust however is not a free lunch and needs to be fostered constantly. Indeed, ‘tone at the top’ matters, but frequent discussions of ethical matters among staff members along with openness and transparency are also important ingredients of a culture that enhances trust. Since moral issues and the values are very much alive throughout the institution, every member of our community can be expected to be familiar with the core values, and act in accordance with them. In a culture of trust, however, we should also remain vigilant to prevent violations and corrosion of trust.

3. Ethical infrastructure Delft University of Technology does not seek to distinguish itself from other universities of technology through the set of values it is committed to, nor does it strive to stand out through its choice of ethical policies. Moral core values are fortunately widely shared among major academic institutions around the world and they include honesty, impartiality, 6

transparency and accountability. Delft University of Technology’s appreciation for ethics and integrity is perhaps different from other approaches by its emphasis on ethical infrastructure to provide the necessary support for responsible academic conduct. An ethical infrastructure, or ‘integrity system’, is an ensemble of institutional mechanisms, procedures and protocols designed to promote institutional integrity and to prevent ethical misconduct (Miller 2009, p 197). As such, it makes requirements that go explicitly beyond standards and regulations. The Netherlands has recently seen a number of cases of clear violations of academic integrity such as plagiarism and manipulation of research data. However, most ethical dilemmas are not as clear-cut and straightforward as these recent cases. The institutional and organizational clarity that a systems approach to ethical infrastructure (i.e. clear mapping of the panoply of institutional and organizational mechanisms of monitoring, reporting, adjudicating) is conducive to building and maintaining trust relationships within the academic community.

4. Science, Commerce and Industry

An ethical infrastructure is further indispensable when it comes to addressing ethical issues that are specific for universities of technology, for instance the issue of valorisation of knowledge and the relationships of academic researchers with industrial partners. Scientific research is expected to be at the service of society. It is argued that

Most ethical dilemmas are not as clear-cut and straightforward as recent high-profile cases an important indicator for measuring social relevance is the willingness of the industry to invest in research. In the Netherlands, there is quite an upsurge in government policies to encourage academic-industry collaborations. It is one of the cornerstones of the government’s innovation policy. Universities are expected to facilitate this knowledge transfer to the industry, by means of systematic collaborations. The rationale of these collaborations is that research with social relevance is the one that the industry is willing to participate in. ‘The extent to which businesses are willing to pay for research and a university’s ability to attract funding in the competitive commercial marketplace’ is considered a useful indicators of institutional quality1. A university’s research income especially in universities of technologies will increasingly depend on these collaborations. More specifically, our institution seems to have a special position in this regard, since much of what our university does is situated on the interface between the public and private sectors. According to the Times Higher Education ranking, Delft University of Technology is among the Dutch universities with the highest industry income2. We consider ourselves to be “a catalyst of innovation and economic growth” (TUDelft 2012, p 12). The emphasis on interactions between the academic domain and the market 1

domain raises concerns that have been discussed by the Princeton philosopher Michael Walzer and author of the seminal book ‘Spheres of Justice’. Walzer has argued that different spheres in society have their own normative logic. We dislike it intensely when the normative logics of these spheres are mixed up and criteria for distribution of goods in one sphere are used to allocate advantages in another sphere. We practice what he calls ‘the art of separation’ of spheres. The allocation of political office for example should be kept separated from commercial considerations, money should not be allowed to buy you political office, and eligibility for medical treatment should be kept separate from someone’s status in the political sphere. Walzer describes how we have ‘blocked exchanges’ at the boundaries of our social spheres so that family relationships would not make it easier to get a university degree, or that a university degree would not matter in the eligibility to receive health care. Analogously, the boundaries between the sphere of science and the market should be critically monitored, for profit motives could easily compromise independent scientific judgment. Norms concerning proper conduct in science cannot be replaced by norms governing market behaviour and profit motives. The pursuit of scientific truth should in principle be kept separate from com-

‘ Industry income: innovation’ is one of the indicators that the Time Higher Education ranking applies for assessing institutional quality. Information retrieved from: www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-universityrankings/2012-13/world-ranking/methodology (retrieved on February 25 2013)

merce, unless it can demonstrably benefit from being associated with it. Modern scientists run the risk of becoming the victim of role confusion and conflicts of interests, similar to the company doctor who inhabits two worlds; i.e. the doctor’s clinical judgment runs the risk of being compromised by his allegiance to the economic thinking within the company. The scientist in the age of commerce could also acquire some of the tragic features of the company doctor, unless his responsibilities and loyalties are clearly separated and the interplay is made transparent. Delft University of Technology’s ethical

his information is according to the information of Times Higher Education T World University Rankings 2012-2013. In this category research income that institution earns from industry is scaled against the number of academic staff it employs. Retrieved from: www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-universityrankings/2012-13/world-ranking (Retrieved on February 25 2013)

Modern scientists run the risk of becoming the victim of role confusion and conflicts of interests infrastructure therefore provides the necessary support to practice this art of separation and to avoid any semblance of conflicts of interest. Delft University of Technology has already established a Conflict of Interest Committee that investigates arrangements made in the context of Intellectual Property Rights, participations, spin outs and spin offs. It issues advice and assist the Executive Board in drawing up policies, guidelines and highlights best practices that provide guidance to research staff involved in complex interactions in commercial arenas at the boundaries of the academic sphere and the market sphere.

5. Values and Design and Responsible Research and Innovation

In addition to this institutional embedding of integrity and ethics, it is equally important to pay attention for a University of Technology in the 21st century to ethical issues that could rise during the technological design in applied research. Ethics is not just an afterthought and in modern applied ethics, societal and ethical issues raised by a technology should ideally be anticipated and our solutions should preferably be incorporated into the design of the artefacts or the system. This new approach – referred to as Value Sensitive Design (Friedman et al. 2002) – accounts for proactive inclusion of human values such as welfare, privacy and safety in technological design. Hence, we can design for accomplishing certain values but that could exclude or compromise other values. For instance, the safest nuclear power plant is not the most sustainable one and when we design for sustainability (i.e. resource 3

durability) in a nuclear reactor, safety and security might be compromised (Taebi and Kloosterman Forthcoming). The fundamental discussions of how to include values in technological design, while addressing possible value conflicts, is one that needs to take place prior to and during the design of technological artefacts and systems (Van den Hoven et al. Forthcoming). Fortunately, recent research programmes at the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) fully acknowledge the necessity of “responsible innovation” that appropriately incorporates societal and ethical issues of new technology during the design (Owen et al. Forthcoming; Van den Hoven Forthcoming)3. The same thinking can also be found with the European Commission as it moves towards Horizon2020. An Expert

Delft University of Technology’s approach to ethics could be summarized as providing an ethical infrastructure that helps engineers and scientists in addressing ethical issues they may encounter, both in the institutional settings and in applied research and technological design.

La Bocca della Verità, (The Mouth of Truth) is probably a first century drain cover depicting Oceanus. In the Middle Ages the marble sculpture was believed to bite off the hands of liars.

ee for more information the research scheme “Responsible Innovation” S (Maatschappelijk Verantwoord Innoveren): http://www.nwo.nl/mvi

group on Responsible Research and Innovation has recently reported to the European Commission on how to stimulate Responsible Innovation (EC 2013). TU Delft’s rector, Karel Luyben, will chair the CESAER Network of 70 technical universities in Europe and will promote Responsible Research and Innovation as a central theme of CESAER in 2014-2016.

References

About the authors

Jeroen van den Hoven is professor of moral philosophy and Vice Dean of the faculty of Technology, Policy and Management. He is editor-in-chief of Ethics and Information Technology (Springer), and Founding Chair of the CEPE conference (Computer Ethics Philosophical Enquiry). He has written extensively on Value Sensitive Design and Responsible Innovation. He chairs an expert group that advices the European Commission on Responsible Research and Innovation.

Behnam Taebi is assistant professor in ethics of technology at Delft University of Technology, where he teaches various courses on ethics of engineering and climate ethics. With a Master’s degree in material science and a PhD in philosophy of technology, he has worked and published on the social and ethical aspects of energy systems, particularly on ethics of nuclear power production and nuclear waste management.

Ethics should not be just an afterthought What would you do? Suppose you are a full professor at TU Delft. A few years ago, a colleague from another department started a company with a number of business partners, and kept working part-time at TU Delft. Her company develops exactly the kind of high-tech measuring equipment that you now need for your department’s research. Moreover, you are convinced that this company would be able to supply the best equipment on the market. Apart from you and your nearest colleague, there are virtually no experts who would be able to advise on the best buy.

•E C. 2013. Options for Strengthening Responsible Research and Innovation. Report of the Expert Group on the State of Art in Europe on Responsible Research and Innovation, edited by J. Van den Hoven. Brussel: European Commission. • Friedman, B., P. H. Kahn and A. Borning. 2002. Value Sensitive Design: Theory and Methods. In University of Washington Technical Report 02-12-01. Seattle: University of Washington. • Miller, S. 2009. Research in Applied Ethics: Problems and Perspectives. Philosophia 37 (2): 185-201. • Owen, R., J. Bessant and M. Heintz, eds. Forthcoming. Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society: Wiley. • Taebi, B. and J. L. Kloosterman. Forthcoming. Designing for nuclear safety, security & sustainability: a philosophical discourse of reactor design. In Handbook of ethics and values in technological design, edited by J. van den Hoven, I. Van de Poel and P. Vermaas. Dordrecht: Springer. • TUDelft. 2012. TU Delft Road Map for 2020. Freedom to Excel. Strategic Plan. Delft: Delft Universoty of Technology. • Van den Hoven, J. Forthcoming. In Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, edited by R. Owen, J. Bessant and M. Heintz: Wiley: • Van den Hoven, J., I. Van de Poel and P. Vermaas, eds. Forthcoming. Handbook of ethics and values in technological design. Dordrecht: Springer.

Let your colleagues look over your shoulder Professor Kees Schuyt (1943) studied Sociology and Dutch Law at Leiden, Oslo and Berkeley. Successfully combining both fields, he became a specialist in law and society. His Doctorate thesis on civil disobedience and the American civil rights movement (1972) was honoured with the Modderman Award for criminal law. After obtaining his Doctorate, he lectured on the Sociology of Law at the Catholic University of Nijmegen and was Professor of Empirical Sociology in Leiden and Amsterdam. From 1998-2005 he was a member of the Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR), and from 2005-2013 a member of the Council of State of the Netherlands. A prolific scientific author, he was also a popular columnist for the Volkskrant newspaper (1991–2005). In 2005 he received the Dr. J.P. van Praag-Award for his academic and journalistic contributions to a humanitarian society. Recently he was awarded the Boerhaave- Biography Award 2012, for the biography of the Dutch criminologist, poetnovelist and former Resistance member W.H. Nagel/J.B. Charles.

Professor Schuyt has been a member of the Royal Academy of the Netherlands for Sciences and the Arts (KNAW) since 1991, and is now chairman of the National Board for Scientific Integrity (LOWI). Since joining the LOWI board seven years ago, Schuyt has seen a steady stream, or rather a trickle, of integrity cases pass his desk. Despite recent media attention, it is not a new phenomenon, he stresses. “In literature, there are examples of scientific fraud going back to the seventeenth century. The press have simply not been interested before. And the management of research institutions preferred to keep it that way, so for years the LOWI has worked largely outside the public eye. In the wake of the Stapel affair, though, a number of old cases did come to light. At the LOWI, we have therefore also had to pronounce upon a term of

limitation for a plagiarism case.” Schuyt refuses to speculate on the extent of scientific misconduct: “We cannot say that what comes to light is just the tip of the iceberg, as is sometimes suggested. We simply do not know what is under the water. I do know, however, that during my forty years in research, I have never come across it myself.”

Behind the scenes

Nevertheless, every case is one too many. “The fabricating or falsifying of data, or other kinds of fraud, detract from the body of knowledge. Moreover, other scientists will continue to build on the fraudulent claims”, says Schuyt. Depending on the research field, it can also carry risks. In medical science, naturally, but no less so in engineering sciences. Scientific fraud also betrays the public trust.

‘The rules are clear: don’t steal, don’t cheat. We just have to pay more attention to upholding them’ 10

Plagiarism is a slightly different offense. “Plagiarism is more a case of undermining the reward system, of not giving credit where credit is due”, explains Schuyt. “If you plagiarise perfectly, you do not really damage the body of knowledge.” Nevertheless, it is unacceptable. “Plagiarists often plead haste as an excuse. They didn’t mean any harm, they say, but that argument won’t wash”. Nowadays, it is also easily detected with anti-plagiarism software. What surprises Schuyt is how plagiarism can be overlooked by promotion committees. “We dealt with the case of a thesis that was mostly copied from other sources. You would think that a committee of experts in the field would know the literature and notice something. Investigating such cases, we take a look behind the scenes of scientific practice. That is not always a pretty sight, but it has to be done.”

An open atmosphere

In 2011 he was asked to chair the KNAW committee that published a report on the careful and honest handling of academic research data1. Initially,

‘Ironically enough, it is the older, established scientist we see transgressing the norm more often’ own pc’s, not archiving their results the right way, that kind of thing. A lot can be gained during the primary process, from data collection up to the point of publication”. All in all, it is the way Schuyt himself worked during his entire career, and he sometimes wonders why it is not standard procedure everywhere.

Internalise the rules

Foto: Roger Cremers

the committee’s brief was to focus on effective data sharing, particularly in view of modern data technology. Against the backdrop of a few recent, well-publicized fraud cases, that brief was extended to include research integrity. Poorly conducted research should become a thing of the past, according to the report, but there is a clear distinction between bad research and research fraud. “Unlike fraudsters, less competent scientists don’t necessarily have the wrong intentions”, emphasises Schuyt. The report gives recommendations that should both improve research practices and prevent fraud. Increased peer pressure, for example. “Let your colleagues look over your shoulder some more. Discuss your activities together, and increase support and supervision during lab and field work. It is essential for good scientific research that we foster an open atmosphere.” Certain bad practices should also be avoided: “People collecting data on their own, using their ’Zorgvuldig en integer omgaan met wetenschappelijke onderzoeksgegevens’, KNAW,

Peer review and publication are natural checkpoints in the research process, but even there things can be improved. “The system of peer review doesn’t seem to be able to weed out fraud, or to distinguish between good and fraudulent contributions. And with the amount of articles published, not everything gets read widely, let alone discussed. Our recommendation is to provide all research data with articles. In some fields that is already becoming standard practice. It means more work, as these things have to be checked, but it is a worthwhile exercise”. In general, the committee is not in favour of more rules and regulations. “The rules are clear: don’t steal, don’t cheat. We just have to pay more attention to upholding them. We should internalise them and make them part of our daily practice. Good role models can help, but there is no need to moralise the young. Ironically enough, it is the older, established scientist we see transgressing the norm more often.” Schuyt fails to understand plagiarists and fraudsters: ”As a scientist your drive is to understand reality. If you tamper with that, you take the whole fun out of it. Making things up is allowed in fiction writing, but in science it is a transgression. Of course you can still fantasize about what you think reality is like, but then you have to come down to earth and prove it.”

The National Board for Scientific Integrity (LOWI) was first established in 2003 and advises on suspected violations of scientific norms. As an appellate body, it only deals with cases where one of the parties involved is not satisfied with the decision taken by the scientific institute in question. “We receive some six to ten complaints each year, and we take them all into consideration”, explains professor Schuyt, but not every case will end into a grounded appeal. “Sometimes there are other matters at play, a controversy over the interpretation of research data and the conclusions drawn, for instance. That is something that belongs in the scientific arena, and not as fraud before an appellate board.” Complaints that turn out to be personal feuds or labour conflicts are also referred back, and cases where there is a clear admission of guilt, such as in the Stapel affair, don’t come before the board at all. The Board publishes its (anonymised) advisory reports on the website, after rigorous investigation. “Proper procedure is very important. Both sides should be heard, and we often involve experts in the specific scientific field as well. Then comes the writing of the rather legalistic report”, says Schuyt, though having studied both sociology and law, that last step does not worry him unduly.

2012. An English translation of the report will be published shortly on www.KNAW.nl

Code of Ethics TU Delft Summary

Our Code of Ethics describes the aspirations, responsibilities and rights that should inspire and guide all those working and studying at our university. It revolves around our core values of respect, integrity, expertise, involvement and transparency. It also stresses how important it is to avoid even the semblance of conflicts of interest.

Respect

At TU Delft we respect each otherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s individual qualities. We should not demean, humiliate or manipulate, or intentionally harm others. Individuals can never be treated as mere means towards personal or organisational goals. Employees and students accept others as they are and will not insult, discriminate against or (sexually) intimidate others.

Integrity

Integrity means being independent, honest and sincere. A person of integrity acts according to norms and values, even if that means that the interests of society, the university and others override personal interests. Integrity is primarily a personal quality that cannot be taken for granted. This means that those in charge have to make sure that people act with integrity. At TU Delft integrity specifically means that we

What would you do? Suppose you are a researcher at TU Delft. On commission from a public body, you are carrying out research into the energy consumption of municipalities in a particular province. From the results it appears that one of the municipalities investigated scores poorly in this area. Your client asks you to keep a lid on this specific information when you publish your report, as it would reflect badly on the municipality involved, with all the possible ensuing consequences.

respect privacy and confidential information, and are prepared to take responsibility for our own actions. These actions should be directed at realising the goals of the university, but not without looking after the values, interests and needs of others.

Expertise

At TU Delft we want to provide excellent education and research in order to keep our place among the top universities of technology in the world. This can only be accomplished through a combination of expertise, excellent personal skills and professionalism, and this is what we ask of our employees. We should be well informed in terms of our field of work and our function. Thus, we can contribute to cuttingedge research, inspiring education, and the professional support necessary to achieve this.

Involvement

We want to make a significant contribution to responsible solutions for urgent problems in society, both on a national and global scale. A key part of this vision consists in realising world-class multidisciplinary research with a view to sustainability. We translate our social responsibility into our educational programmes, our research and design, our student projects, and also uphold it within the activities of our support staff. In addition to our involvement with society, our involvement is also expressed in the way we relate to each other. We inspire each other and are prepared to offer and receive constructive criticism, thus improving the quality of our work and education. Staff an students show an active interest in university policies; an interest that expresses itself in participation in representative organs for employees and students, work councils, other committees and in the attendance of university gatherings.

Transparency

TU Delft is a free and open academic community. We challenge employees and students to think and discuss freely and openly. This openness ensures that the education, research and valorization, as well as the administrative and decision-making processes, are verifiable at all levels of the university. As employees and students of our university we are accountable for our actions. We disclose our choices and share our concerns with each other and the outside world, in order to develop greater mutual understanding. We hold those in management positions responsible for creating a safe environment and expect them to lead employees and students by example in acting responsibly and accountably. They encourage employees to be both open to criticism and unafraid to offer criticism when necessary.

Avoidance of Conflicts of Interest

Conflicts of interest arise when our duties to the university and our personal or professional outside interests are at odds. All members of our university community must take care to avoid any semblance of conflicts of interest. Therefore as staff, students and guests at TU Delft, we are open about our various roles and how they are carried out. This also means that we act with caution when we take on various roles. We always weigh up the public interests and those of TU Delft against the personal benefits of our participation. If our decisions unduly influenced by the potential for personal gain, there may be conflicts of interest that raise ethical concerns. The best approach is generally to maintain transparency and report potential conflicts of interest to the management.

to draw inspiration from them and to feel responsible for upholding them. All at TU Delft should act with a sense of social responsibility and be aware of technology’s value to and impact upon society. If you work or study at TU Delft you: • Have respect for others •C arry out your duties with commitment, transparency and integrity •U se your expertise to contribute to an inspiring work and study environment •T rust each other and avoid conflicts of interest At TU Delft we provide our students and employees with: •E qual opportunities for personal development and cooperation •A sustainable working environment and a stimulating study environment • I nvolvement and a right to be heard in decision-making processes TU Delft employees: •B ehave fairly and respectfully towards each other and towards students •A im for high quality and for improvement at all times • Treat university resources with care TU Delft students: •B ehave fairly and respectfully to each other and to university employees •G et the best out of themselves by actively participating in their education and extracurricular activities •S timulate each other and their teachers by asking analytical questions and conducting well argued discussions •R espect each other’s and university property and resources

Furthermore

TU Delft is responsible for the conditions under which employees and students work and bear responsibilities. In order to encourage the aspirations, responsibilities and rights formulated in this Code of Ethics we have put in place an ‘ethical infrastructure’. At www.integrity.tudelft.nl you will find a clear overview of this ethical infrastructure, i.e. its values, principles, codes, normative policies and the institutional mechanisms to implement them. There are accepted and established procedures for ensuring that serious violations of ethical rules are properly handled (e.g. TU Delft Regulations for Whistle-blowing). These are part of the publicised regulations and procedures at TU Delft.

So how does it work?

Trust is our creed – by which we mean that every member of our community is expected to comply with our core values, 13

What would you do?

How do you solve a dilemma?

Throughout this publication you can read our ‘what would you do’ dilemmas. Though now anonymised, these represent real situations and events. Last year we held a series of meetings to discuss our Code of Ethics TU Delft . We asked participants to come up with examples from their own experience, and these are some of them.

In some cases, the conflict of interests is clear: do you uphold academic standards or do you grant your poorly performing MSc student a mercy pass? Or, as a student, do you speak up about possible harm to the environment or do you quietly finish you research project? Other cases are not so clear-cut. In whose best interest is it if you hold your colleague to the terms of his tenure track agreement and refuse him more time to spend on his commercial enterprise? There are more issues at stake here. What if his spin-off company is involved in developing a promising and much-needed medical device? Does that alter your perspective? Admittedly, there often is no straightforward answer, but you will still have to deal with situations like these. So what to do if you do find yourself in such a quandary? You could start by analysing the problem: • What is going on and why do you consider it a dilemma? • Who is involved and what are their (and your) interests?

Next, you should consider your options for action: Transparency is an option. Bringing matters out into the open can be (the start of) a solution. Take for example the dilemma involving the high-tech measuring equipment. As long as you are clear on your reasons for taking a certain course of action, then the

What would you do? Suppose you are supervising an international Master student’s graduation project. You have given him ample instructions and discussed his project several times with him. Gradually, you realise that this student is not capable of independently completing the project successfully. At the same time, you are aware of how important a Master’s degree is to him. Sadly, after nine months of close supervision, you can only reach the conclusion that his Master’s thesis is still lacking in quality.

appearance of a conflict of interest is avoided. Avoiding the issue altogether is another option. You could pull out of a project, publication or private company. But pulling out also puts an end to all potential benefits from participation. Whatever you do, you should take into account the consequences of your actions for all parties involved. If you decide to uphold the interest of independent research, this may have repercussions on your good relationships with the business community. Seeking advice is in itself good advice. A second pair of eyes can help you get a new outlook on things. Ask a colleague or your supervisor for instance. Within TU Delft you could also go to a confidential harassment advisor (‘vertrouwenspersoon ongewenst gedrag’), to our specialist confidential advisor on matters of scientific integrity, or to the Scientific Integrity Committee. Getting an objective thirdparty evaluation is another option. TU Delft has a special Conflict of Interest

‘Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful’ Samuel Johnson

Whatever you do, you should take into account the consequences of your actions for all parties involved Committee, with external experts who can advise on issues involving financial cooperation constructions, shareholdings, secondary employment, etc. What if it is not you who is involved in a dilemma, but somebody else at TU Delft? If you have any doubts about that person’s actions, you should first tell him or her of your concerns.

Perhaps you have read the situation wrongly, and there is no real problem. Or your bringing up of the subject will help the other person to open up about his or her own concerns. Trouble shared is trouble halved, as the saying goes. Talking doesn’t always clear the air. There can also be circumstances that prevent you from confronting the other. TU Delft has a set of ‘regulations on

the reporting of irregularities’ (a.k.a. the whistleblower protocol) to ensure you can always call to account the conduct of the organisation, a division within it, or an individual. For more information on TU Delft’s ethical infrastructure, its procedures and regulations, visit: www.integrity.tudelft.nl

Colophon Text and editing Agaath Diemel Jeroen van den Hoven Kim Huijpen Karel Luyben Behnam Taebi

Layout Liesbeth van Dam

Cartoons Auke Herrema

With thanks to:

What would you do? You are an MSc student at TU Delft. For your graduation research project, you are involved in a project to realise a new residential area in a polder. During the research, you discover that the development could be harmful to the local environment.

Saskia de Been David Resnik Kees Schuyt Eveline Vreede Delft, March 2013

â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Integrity is doing the right thing, even if nobody is watchingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; C.S. Lewis

What would you do? Suppose you work part-time for the Marketing & Communication department with the Faculty of X at TU Delft. You also run a communication consultancy from home and regularly take on copywriting assignments for a number of clients. You reported this as your secondary employment. Another faculty has asked you to write texts for a website on a scientific congress they are organising.