It was autumn 2018 when Laura Steenbergen (30) could no longer bear to watch her supervisor Lorenza Colzato commit scientific fraud. She and her colleagues Roberta Sellaro and Bryant Jongkees decided to raise the alarm with the scientific director.
The cognitive psychologist had indeed committed large-scale fraud, the Committee for Academic Integrity concluded in November 2019. Colzato had falsified data, tampered with grant applications, manipulated and fabricated experiments, removed test subjects and co-author names and used blood samples that were illegally taken. Two articles were retracted.
A follow-up investigation revealed that fraud had been committed in at least fifteen more publications by removing data and test subjects, changing the research design or adding a control group afterwards. The report, which had been anonymised, was quietly published on the university's website in November. This week, Mare brought it to light.
‘I think it’s outrageous that not a single word has been uttered about this report to anyone other than the ones involved at the administration level and the co-authors’, Steenbergen says in exasperation. ‘If the university wants to communicate that it’s open about this matter in order to avoid future cases, I really don’t understand.’
How are you doing?
‘It’s remarkable to notice how happy I am that someone asks me that, because that doesn’t happen very often. Everyone just assumed that this case was over and that we already knew everything. None of my direct colleagues seemed to know that there was an ongoing investigation. At times, that can be very lonely.’
‘I don’t have any good memories of this case. It’s caused a lot of stress and it has proved unbearable to cope with without psychological help. I’m in trauma therapy and have sessions at least twice a week. The aim of this therapy is to reduce the emotional charge of the memories. I got that help myself because the university didn’t offer me anything. I think they should, regardless of whether you’re the complainant or the accused person.
‘It’s not like there was never any support, though. Rector Hester Bijl sent me a letter in which she praises the fact that we had the courage to raise the alarm, especially because you know in advance that there are going to be consequences. Former scientific director Philip Spinhoven (the main complainant on behalf of the whistle-blowers – Ed.) has been our contact person throughout. And fortunately, I can always talk about it with Bryant and Roberta.’
How do you look back on the period?
‘I often wonder how I ended up here: why did I put so much trust in someone and just go along with it while I knew it wasn’t right?’
What is the answer?
‘When you see something like that being done by someone who is higher up and who says this is the right way, you start to think that it’s normal. Initially, it didn’t even occur to me to report the fraud. You start to believe that this is how you become successful in science, this is how you can build a career.
‘Still, it had been deeply bothering me for years before we finally reported it: Roberta told me that – around 2015 – I would sometimes be crying at the office for weeks because I felt like we had to do something but didn’t dare to confide in anyone. I don’t even remember that.’
Why did you decide to come forward as whistle-blowers in 2018?
‘By then, I had worked at other universities and seen that things were very different there. Once I returned to Leiden, I had a more independent position: I had obtained a PhD and became an assistant professor. The same was true for Bryant and Roberta. When a young researcher approached us and pointed out that test subjects were being removed, we decided: we’re not going to let another generation of researchers go through this.’
Roberta Sellaro, one of the other whistle-blowers, tells us by e-mail that she left for Italy a year and a half ago and is still working in the scientific field. ‘At least, that’s what I’m trying to do, but it’s not easy.’
She is also getting help from a therapist. ‘The good and bad moments alternate. This whole thing affects our careers, our relationships and our health.’
The Committee’s follow-up investigation has left her ‘overwhelmed with anxiety, worry and uncertainty about the future’. She thinks that she was involved in about ten of the fifteen fraudulent articles as Colzato’s postdoc. ‘I don’t know the exact number, but I don’t want to open the report. It’s too painful now.’
She admits to being pressured by Colzato to remove data from test subjects. ‘Nobody put a gun to my head, but still, it was as if I had no other option. I did complain about it, and she called me “grumpy” for that, but I didn’t know what else I could do. I was not confident enough to stop or to speak out against her, out of fear of negative consequences, but also because I was attached to her and cared about her.’
Whistle-blower Bryant Jongkees did not want to respond to questions.
‘We wanted to be open about it, whatever the outcome of the investigation would be, and we hoped that more people would follow and everyone could learn from it. The communication department worked with us to determine how we could proceed. I really liked the idea of working together.
‘Before the (first – Ed.) report was published, university spokespersons Renée Merckx and Caroline van Overbeeke invited me to the Academy Building, along with Roberta and the scientific director, to discuss how we would deal with the press. A media trainer, former journalist Bart Jochems, would also be present.
‘Soon, the idea of “let’s do this together” turned into “how you should behave”. Suddenly, the media trainer shoved a camera in my face, which I was totally unprepared for. I had to answer all sorts of questions: why did you file a complaint, how did you go about it, what’s it like when you run into the accused person?
‘I felt put on the spot. When they turned off the camera, they said it wasn’t good. I sounded too excited and I looked too happy. But I was genuinely relieved that I was finally able to open up and wanted to share an important lesson with the world. Besides, I thought it was about the content, not about how I came across on screen.’
Colzato has committed fraud in at least fifteen publications. You are the co-author on six of the articles. Are there consequences for you as well?
‘In my opinion, this investigation could not be rigorous enough. I’m very happy that this has finally been established. I made mistakes under her supervision by not intervening for a long time when I knew it was wrong. Those mistakes must be rectified.’
‘I sincerely hope that these articles will be retracted, because it’s an advice and not an obligation. If the journals decide not to do so, I will completely lose my faith in science.’
Isn’t it problematic that the list of fraudulent articles has been anonymised?
‘It’s like I’m standing still. I can’t tell anyone which articles are valid and which aren’t because then, the other co-authors would also be exposed. I have about twenty-five publications. To the outside world, all of them could be tainted. This means that I’m suspected of way more than is justified.
‘I’m now forced to bite my tongue until the journals actually retract the articles. Until that happens, I can’t build on previous valid research and it’s more difficult to apply for funding. I still work at the university, however. I switched from cognitive psychology to clinical psychology so that’s something I can continue with’.
Do you feel complicit in fraud?
‘For the two articles that were retracted after the first study, it was established that it was not I, but she who had manipulated files. It was always like this: I would send her a data file and she’d send me back a file with selective data. But I knew about it, so I certainly feel complicit. That is why I came forward. I never deliberately removed any test subjects myself, but I do know people who had her looking over their shoulder, insisting they press the delete button.’
Have you ever spoken to her since November 2019?
‘No, the last time I saw her was at a conference in Paris in the spring of 2019. The last time I spoke to her was at the start of the summer of that year. I was sort of living a double life at the time because she frequently texted me about the situation she found herself in. She didn’t know then that we were the complainants. I didn’t have the courage to tell her at the time so I responded with: “That’s terrible, I’m sorry.”
‘I had a good and trusting relationship with her. We saw each other every day and she called me the daughter she never had. To me, she was like a science mother, someone I could work with on great things.
‘However, the pressure was high, which wasn’t always pleasant. I spent days carrying out tests in the basement of the laboratory without any daylight. She brought me a jar of vitamin tablets, because she said I wouldn’t get enough vitamin D otherwise. On Friday afternoons, when I was the only one left in the laboratory, she would bring me fruit juice. That complicated things. I think she didn’t expect our complaints at all and saw them as a betrayal.’
Did you ever regret it?
‘No. It was, and still is, very hard sometimes. And then I just wish it was all over. But despite everything, I’m proud that we did it. I can look at myself in the mirror and know that I’ve been completely honest and open about this.’
Is it all behind you now?
‘I want to move on with my life but that’s not easy. The university has been through all the procedures but the journals are only just starting. If all goes well, they will do what the Committee for Academic Integrity did. At least, that’s what I hope.’
‘What I find frustrating is that the academic community doesn’t seem to care. I haven’t heard anything about it from colleagues for months, and the university has put the investigation report online without giving it the attention it deserves.’
What do you know about Colzato?
‘According to the website of the publisher Springer, she is still the editor-in-chief for the Journal of Cognitive Enhancement. I find that absolutely ridiculous. If you’ve been found guilty of scientific misconduct in two separate investigations, you should no longer be allowed to hold such a position. It’s as if it hasn’t had any impact. That is my greatest fear: that it has all been for nothing.’
Lorenza Colzato was asked for a comment but did not respond to any questions. She is currently working at TU Dresden.
The news about the fraud has also reached their ears: the day after the interview, Laura Steenbergen receives a message from a former colleague who now also works in Dresden, stating that the news about the fifteen fraudulent publications is ‘extremely important’ for the department.
University spokesperson Caroline van Overbeeke says that no attention was given to the new investigation because the university ‘considers this statement to be a continuation of the previous investigation’. That first investigation was ‘given publicity by means of a news item on the website because it was a new case with much impact on the environment’. According to Van Overbeeke, it is ‘customary for the university to put the Committee’s statement online without dedicating a news item to it’.
According to Van Overbeeke, the Executive Board has informed ‘all the parties involved’ about the statement. ‘It’s up to the journals whether or not to retract the articles.’
She says she disagrees with Steenbergen’s depiction of the meeting with the media trainer. ‘On the contrary, the university devoted a great deal of care and attention to discussions with the victims. We also offered support in dealing with the press, which the victims were happy about because they were constantly being approached by the press and had no experience with this. The university does this out of care and protection of its employees. The participants in this voluntary training also had the opportunity during the training to indicate what they needed and wanted to learn.’