The Netherlands is preparing to adopt a revised national code of conduct for scientific integrity that will reshape how universities, research institutes, and hospitals safeguard credibility in research. The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) has drafted an update to the 2018 version of the code, following a sector-wide evaluation that identified gaps in enforcement, clarity, and adaptability to emerging challenges in science. The new code is expected to take effect in 2026, pending final feedback from the academic and medical research communities.
At the core of this reform is a recognition that the existing code, first established in 2004 and last revised in 2018, must evolve alongside rapid developments in research practices. The academy argues that issues such as artificial intelligence, cross-border collaboration, industry partnerships, and open science create pressures that were not fully anticipated seven years ago. The changes aim to ensure researchers remain accountable not just to their peers, but also to society at large, which increasingly demands transparency about how knowledge is produced.
Why the Revision Was Needed
The 2018 code was widely seen as a step forward at the time, consolidating norms around honesty, transparency, independence, and responsibility. Yet an independent evaluation commissioned in 2023 revealed several weaknesses. Universities and research hospitals reported difficulties in interpreting some provisions, particularly in cases involving interdisciplinary collaborations and data management.
For example, the growing use of big data, patient information, and machine learning in medical and social sciences created ambiguities about what constitutes responsible data sharing. Similarly, concerns about conflicts of interest in public–private partnerships were only partially addressed in the previous version.
The evaluation also highlighted uneven implementation across Dutch institutions. Some universities had established robust integrity offices and ombuds mechanisms, while others applied the code more loosely, leaving researchers uncertain about procedures in misconduct cases. The KNAW concluded that these gaps risk undermining trust in the Dutch research system, especially as the country seeks to position itself as a leader in open science and international cooperation.
Key Elements of the Proposed Update
The draft update emphasizes five areas of reform:
- Expanded Definition of Integrity – Beyond plagiarism and data fabrication, the code now includes explicit references to research culture, bullying, and harassment, acknowledging how workplace conditions can compromise ethical standards.
- AI and Digital Research Practices – Provisions clarify how researchers should use artificial intelligence responsibly, ensuring algorithms are transparent and data inputs are traceable. This responds to global debates about “black box” AI systems in medicine and social sciences.
- Strengthened Oversight Mechanisms – Institutions will be required to designate independent integrity officers with powers to investigate complaints swiftly and consistently. The aim is to reduce variability in enforcement between universities and hospitals.
- International Collaboration Standards – With many Dutch researchers involved in EU and global projects, the code now outlines procedures for resolving conflicts when different national standards apply.
- Transparency in Industry Partnerships – The update requires more detailed disclosure of financial ties, consultancy roles, and co-authored research with corporate actors. Institutions must publish these declarations in annual reports accessible to the public.
Lessons from International Models
The Netherlands is not alone in grappling with scientific integrity reforms. Germany introduced its updated “Guidelines for Safeguarding Good Research Practice” in 2019, focusing heavily on data management. The UK’s Concordat to Support Research Integrity was revised in 2019 with added emphasis on whistleblower protections. In the United States, the National Academies have pushed for broader adoption of responsible conduct of research training.
Dutch policymakers studied these models closely. One lesson drawn was that codes must remain living documents rather than static rules. The KNAW explicitly framed the revision as part of a rolling review cycle, ensuring adjustments every five to seven years. This allows the code to anticipate new ethical dilemmas, such as those posed by gene editing, synthetic biology, or quantum computing applications in health care.
Sector Reactions
Initial responses from the Dutch research community have been largely supportive but cautious. University rectors welcomed clearer guidance on AI and industry collaboration, which they see as unavoidable features of modern research. At the same time, some faculty associations warned that stronger oversight must not lead to excessive bureaucracy.
Medical researchers stressed the importance of balancing transparency with patient privacy, especially under strict European data protection laws (GDPR). One hospital ethics officer noted that, while stronger integrity standards are welcome, institutions will need resources to implement them properly.
Graduate student unions also called for greater attention to power imbalances in supervision. They argue that harassment, publication pressure, and exploitative authorship practices remain under-addressed, despite the code’s recognition of workplace culture as an integrity issue.
Practical Implications for Researchers
If adopted, the new code will have direct consequences for daily research practices. Researchers will be expected to:
- Document the provenance of all datasets used, including AI-generated data.
- Publish declarations of interest when collaborating with industry or government agencies.
- Ensure that open-access commitments do not violate patient confidentiality or intellectual property rights.
- Seek ethics approval for emerging methodologies, including machine learning models trained on sensitive personal data.
- Participate in mandatory integrity training modules to be rolled out at the institutional level.
Failure to comply could trigger investigations, with sanctions ranging from mandatory corrections of publications to suspension of research privileges.
Building Public Trust
The KNAW has been clear that the update is not just about regulating researchers, but also about reinforcing public trust in science. Surveys in the Netherlands show that while trust in scientists remains higher than in most professions, recent controversies over reproducibility, pharmaceutical funding, and research misconduct have dented confidence.
By codifying stronger standards, the academy hopes to reassure the public that Dutch science operates with integrity and accountability. This is especially vital as the country invests billions in research through the National Growth Fund and European Horizon projects. Citizens, policymakers, and industry partners will expect proof that these investments yield not only innovation but also responsible stewardship of knowledge.
Challenges Ahead
Despite the broad consensus on the need for revision, several challenges loom. Implementation will require substantial investment in training, staffing of integrity offices, and harmonization across institutions. Smaller universities and teaching hospitals, which often lack resources, may struggle more than larger research universities.
There is also the question of enforcement. While the code sets expectations, its effectiveness will depend on whether institutions are willing to pursue misconduct cases rigorously. Past controversies show that reputational concerns can sometimes lead to soft enforcement. The KNAW has hinted that it may recommend an independent national oversight body if institutions fail to demonstrate consistent application within the next review cycle.
Finally, the integration of AI standards will test the limits of regulation. As machine learning evolves rapidly, guidelines written today may become obsolete within a few years. Researchers argue that flexibility must be built into the system, with advisory boards updating technical recommendations annually.
A Step Toward the Future
The Netherlands’ move to revise its scientific integrity code reflects a broader global trend: the recognition that research ethics must keep pace with technological, social, and political change. By strengthening oversight, clarifying responsibilities, and addressing new challenges such as AI and international collaboration, Dutch science aims to set a benchmark for integrity in the 21st century.
Whether the revised code succeeds will depend on more than the words written on paper. It will require cultural change within laboratories, classrooms, and boardrooms. If embraced, the reform could reinforce the Netherlands’ reputation as a leader in open, trustworthy science. If resisted, it risks becoming another symbolic document with limited real-world impact.
As the final feedback process unfolds, one thing is clear: the credibility of Dutch research will increasingly be judged not only by the breakthroughs it delivers, but also by the principles it upholds in producing them.
