The investigation was launched following a critical article in NRC in late 2023. The Dutch newspaper claimed that Zeegers, a leading epidemiologist, had allowed his commercial and scientific interests to overlap. More than a year later, the investigation has now been concluded. Rector Pamela Habibović explained that it took time “because it had to be done carefully”. The report will not be made public, as it concerns “an individual employee” who must be “protected”.
Responsibility
According to the Rector, the investigation found no evidence of conflict of interest or scientific misconduct. However, she notes that Zeegers provided incomplete information about his third-party activities. UM was aware that the professor had his own business and occasionally worked for the consultancy firm owned by his wife, a fellow epidemiologist. According to the rector, these third-party activities had been approved by the dean of Zeegers’s faculty, Annemie Schols. “But the specific nature of the work he carried out within his own business was unclear. For example, he conducted and published research that overlapped with his work as a professor at UM.”
Zeegers himself is partly to blame for this lack of clarity. According to the Rector, the professor wrongly assumed that he had provided enough details and failed to raise any doubts he had with his supervisor. He should have done so, says Habibović, as “it is primarily the employee’s responsibility to properly register [work carried out for third parties]”. She emphasises that this has been discussed with Zeegers: “We had a candid conversation about what happened and what we can learn from it. He recognises this as well and has since corrected the registration.”
Trust
Not all of Zeegers’s third-party activities are currently listed on his UM profile page, though. “There could be a number of reasons for this. For example, he may no longer be involved in those activities, or they might still be awaiting approval [from the dean]. But we’ve spoken to him, and he knows what to do.” As far as UM is concerned, the matter is now resolved, and Zeegers can continue his work. Habibović also accepts part of the blame, acknowledging that the rules regarding the registration of work carried out for third parties could be clearer. However, she points out that there will always be grey areas and not everything can be covered by rules.
But is this really a grey area? Shouldn’t an experienced researcher like Zeegers, who even chaired the now-dissolved UM Platform for Research Ethics and Integrity, have realised that he needed to provide more details? “You know, I can imagine that he genuinely believed he had registered everything properly”, says Habibović. She does not think that Schols, the FHML dean, made a mistake in approving Zeegers’s third-party activities. “No, you operate on the assumption of trust, expecting employees to fully inform you. If they don’t explicitly tell you what kind of research they’re doing, it’s difficult to determine whether there’s a potential conflict of interest.”
No complaints about publications
NRC also accused Zeegers of using his UM position to lend greater authority to research conducted for third parties. “That’s a different issue”, says the Rector. “If you’re publishing an article through your own business, you have to be clear about that. But I can understand why you might think, ‘For clarity’s sake, I’ll mention that I work for UM.’ This was interpreted as him using his position to add weight to his research. I can’t really blame him for this; he was trying to be as transparent as possible. It’s just not very clear how to handle these situations correctly, as there are no rules about it.”
When asked if NRC exaggerated the issue, Habibović declines to comment. However, she reveals that not all the allegations in the article were investigated in detail. “For us, the main question was what information about his work for third parties he had or hadn’t provided. We don’t currently have any reason to review his studies or publications. There have been no complaints about them.”
For her, the key takeaway from the report is this: “We need to keep talking about the registration of work for third parties, as not every detail can be captured by rules. Researchers should discuss any doubts or uncertainties with their supervisors; as administrators, we must make the registration process as easy as possible.”
Maurice Zeegers has declined to comment further on the matter.