This is a list of short summaries of advisory opinions. The list also includes decisions. In these cases, LOWI has declared the petition inadmissible. It has therefore not examined the substance of the petition and has not issued an advisory opinion.
By placing keywords in the search bar (click on the magnifying glass in the top right corner) you can search specifically within the advice.
The full text of the advisory opinion is only available in Dutch. If you want to read the full text in English, you can use the Dutch text for translation purposes.
- Decision 2019-24The LOWI does not have the competence to process the petition and to give advice, because ZonMW was not affiliated with the LOWI at the time (by now it is).
- Advisory opinion 2019-23Giving an interview is in this case academic practice of a popularizing nature. The Code of Conduct applies. A Research Integrity Committee is not required to incorporate everything put forward during a hearing into the opinion. It is sufficient for the report of the hearing to be included.
- Advisory opinion 2019-22Although a scientist cannot be held responsible for the way in which research results are displayed by third parties, such as the press, the text of a university press release ís the responsibility of the scientist.
- Advisory opinion 2019-21Review of a thesis. In view of the fact that the interested parties have an appointment with the Open University (OU), LOWI assumes their ability to assess the petitioner's thesis, even though the subjects in that thesis do not coincide one-on-one with their own specific expertise.
- Decision 2019-20The petitioner's complaint does not address a particular TU Delft employee, but Einstein. The petition is manifestly unfounded.
- Advisory opinion 2019-19Master student complains about plagiarism and data falsification by thesis supervisor (PhD student) in poster presentation and interview. It is unlikely that research by a PhD student is entirely based on research that the Master student has devised and carried out independently. The parties use a different definition in their research. This can be part ...
- Decision 2019-18Petitioner requests a revision of decision 2019-15. A request for review is only honored in the case of nova, which moreover are of such a nature that they may give rise to a different decision. The fact that the petitioner disagrees with the legal content of the decision does not constitute a novum.
- Advisory opinion 2019-17Patient complains about doctor. A conversation or discussion between doctor and patient about a scientific subject is not scientific practice. A letter from a doctor to his patient is not scientific practice either. The fact that the patient says he wants to have a scientific debate does not mean that the same intention should be ...
- Decision 2019-16The request is inadmissible because it was submitted too late by the petitioner's representative. The fact that the authorized representative is unfamiliar with the LOWI procedure does not make the term exceeding of the term excusable. Nor does the fact that the scientific research in question would be socially relevant. The LOWI does not issue ...
- Decision 2019-15Request is inadmissible because it was submitted too late. According to the LOWI, the shipping theory (Article 6:9) from the Awb is not applicable. The petition was also submitted by email. This was not allowed at the time. NB: it is now possible to submit a request by e-mail.