Professors at Dutch universities, including Leiden, do not always properly specify what jobs they do on the side. Recently, Nieuwsuur devoted multiple episodes and articles to professors’ unregistered ancillary activities and hidden financial structures.

This was also the case in Leiden: it was revealed that Rex Arendsen, Professor by Special Appointment of Tax Law, was receiving unreported financing from the Tax Authority.

Undisclosed side jobs can cause interests to become entangled. But when does this constitute a true conflict of interest? And what are the implications?

‘Everyone has conflicts of interest’, says Siebe Sietsma, the reporter who conducted the Nieuwsuur investigation. ‘The question is when these conflicts become undesirable. That’s very difficult to gauge.’

An earlier external investigation into the tax law department, where Arendsen works, had already revealed that certain subjects were given too little attention. Sietsma: ‘It showed that a lot of research was being done into corporate law and much less into the benefits system. Considering professors’ ancillary interests, it makes sense for them to focus on that subject. It’s relevant for companies.

‘But that’s how a relatively large social issue such as the benefits scandal came to be completely overlooked by the academic community. But how do you prove that the benefits issue was ignored because a professor had other interests? It’s difficult to establish a direct link between the two. But if you look at it from a wider perspective, it’s undeniable that there is a certain correlation.’

These additional jobs are very common in tax law, as Professor of Tax Law Jan Vleggeert had previously told Mare. On Friday, he repeated this in his oration. Only fourteen percent of tax professors do not have a paid ancillary position. ‘The most obvious answer to the question of how we can prevent conflicts of interest is, of course, to reduce the number of additional jobs’, he argued.

He said the following about externally funded chairs: ‘Apparently, these professors serve two masters during their tenure at the university. That does not seem acceptable to me with regard to the principle of independence.’

‘Chairs established by accounting firms are often held by their own employees’, explains Nieuwsuur reporter Yoeri Vugts. ‘When you ask universities whether this is a coincidence, they will claim it is. A statistician would probably blow this argument right out of the water, but just how do you prove that it’s not a coincidence?’

‘The process is transparent, because multiple people have to agree to it. But if you make the profile description very specific, you can tailor the entire vacancy text to the person you have in mind.’

Professor by Special Appointment of Public Affairs Arco Timmermans occupies one of these externally funded chairs. He gets paid for half a day a week by a foundation set up by the Dutch Association for Public Affairs (BVPA). Sponsors Achmea, Dröge & van Drimmelen and lobbying agency Trouble in Paradise all contribute to this. The sponsors’ interest is to anchor the attention for this academic field’, says Timmermans.

The only external sponsor listed on the university website is the BVPA. Timmermans: ‘That’s how I indicated that this is the organisation that sponsors my chair. I don’t know to what extent I should go into detail about who contributes how much money, exactly. I think that would be a bit much for a profile page. But I’m open about it when I give a presentation somewhere, or when I talk to the media; simply because I have nothing to hide. I’ll be the first one to get into trouble in case of a conflict of interests, because my chair is all about lobbying.’

In comparison to the rest of Europe, his field has only few ‘pure’ academics in the Netherlands, those who have absolutely no ancillary activities, as research by Timmermans into the relationship between academics and practice has shown. ‘This is due to our policy of the past few decades. We wanted to turn academics into entrepreneurs. Just take a look at the old motto of the University of Twente: “The entrepreneurial university”.

‘I think it’s a good thing that universities are sharing knowledge to better understand and possibly solve social issues. But we’re talking about public interests here. Those are very different from private interests.’

According to Timmermans, most professors are aware of the risks, which are greater in some departments than in others.

‘Every faculty has its own specific themes for which to discuss the risks of conflicts of interest. But professors of law and medicine are more likely to be approached than professors in other fields.’

Assistant Professor of Public Administration Toon Kerkhoff is not concerned about academics’ integrity. ‘We don’t have to worry about that.’ He also sees no real problem in wearing two hats. ‘A professor of tax law who also advises the Tax Authority; that seems fine to me. That’s what academics do, by virtue of their expertise. For example, I sometimes give lectures on integrity at ministries.

‘If it concerns a paid position, it’s a whole different story. It’s not like there’s automatically a problem if you’re on the Tax Authority’s payroll, or if your chair is directly funded by it, but it does create the appearance of a conflict of interest. In that case, you’re even more obliged to be open about it.

‘I’m careful when it comes to making accusations. You shouldn’t immediately assume that people who wear two hats are wrongfully commingling their interests.’

Would it not be better then to simply abolish externally funded chairs? Kerkhoff: ‘I wouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are also private parties, such as pharmaceutical companies or Philips, that sponsor chairs at the technical faculty. I don’t see the problem in that. The money they provide enables the faculty to conduct more research. But you do have to be very transparent about it.’

However, it is difficult to ascertain whether researchers leave out any conclusions and, if so, which ones. ‘This applies to all research’, says Kerkhoff. ‘Research accountability is the main issue. If I write something and you can’t verify it, that’s a problem. That’s why you have to be so much more specific about what you do, about the sources of your work and the interests at stake.’

Anyone who has reason to suspect that the integrity of a researcher is compromised can contact the Committee for Academic Integrity (CWI). The committee will then advise the Executive Board.

‘As a researcher you have to think carefully about how you conduct your research, but the institution also has an obligation to ensure that people can practice pure science’, says CWI president Yvonne Erkens, who is also Associate Professor of Labour Law. The committee does not actively monitor academics, but only takes action when someone raises the alarm.

‘The Faculty Board is responsible for checking which money is used to grant professors special appointments, and under what conditions. If you’re transparent about this and make sure that there are no conditions imposed on the freedom of science, there should be no problem.
‘It’s difficult to find out what people fail to write about, but what you can do as Faculty Board is ask someone in advance what they’ll be researching. Things go wrong when people are pushed in a certain direction.’

Erkens: ‘The code we use for our assessments is meant to ensure the integrity of science, to maintain people’s trust in us. If a researcher says something, it has to be reliable.’

Still, there is no acute problem, says Erkens. ‘Our committee hasn’t received any complaints about conflicts of interests so far. Nieuwsuur is on the hunt for malpractices right now, but the mere fact that people wear two hats does not constitute malpractice.’

Academics often have to look for funding for their research themselves. For example, the Faculty of Law has no fixed amount of money to appoint PhD candidates, says Erkens with regard to her own research.

‘Lawyers often miss out on funding opportunities. We don’t cure people or discover new light bulbs. Therefore, our social relevance is less clear. This means that it’s more difficult for us to get funding from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, for example. That’s why we have to look for money ourselves, for example by teaching courses.’

Sietsma has also noticed this development. ‘Researchers do what is expected of them to a certain extent. They have to bring in a lot of money. It’s an interesting question to ask the world of politics: what is the purpose of science?’

Pieter Omtzigt has taken a step in that direction. At the end of May, he asked the Cabinet for an overview of chairs that are not funded by the Ministry of Education, but by other government agencies, such as the Tax Authority.

Timmermans is happy that the subject now has a place on the agenda. ‘Universities should not just send out symbolic statements, but also engage in discussions with people about how we safeguard scientific integrity. We have to think about our relationships with the parties involved, whether they are companies, social organisations or your neighbours around the corner.’