Academic Publishing Research integrity

Fousteri affair: Dutch integrity thwarted by academic indecency

Two and a half years after Maria Fousteri was found guilty of scientific misconduct by her former employer, the Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), exactly nothing at all happened. ERC and Molecular Cell ignored LUMC letters from June 2016, while Fouster's British co-authors interfered to save own papers. Of 4 scheduled retractions, none took place.

Two and a half years after the Greek molecular biologist and DNA repair researcher Maria Fousteri was found guilty of scientific misconduct by her former employer, the Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC) in the Netherlands, exactly nothing at all happened. LUMC, who requested retractions of 4 of her papers due to “falsification of data” (all in the journal Molecular Cell) met academic reality. Fousteri was paid out her €1.5 mn ERC grant up untill 31 October 2018 and in full, because ERC ignored the LUMC letter and even lied to me about having never heard of the case. In reality, LUMC sent on June 15th 2016 letters to all parties involved, including to EU officials (since also Fousteri’s investigated work at LUMC was EU funded). One letter was addressed to Molecular Cell and requested retraction of her two papers which originated at LUMC. Just like ERC, the publisher Cell Press decided to ignore that request. Not a single one of five investigated papers was retracted or corrected to date. That was also because Fousteri’s former British postdoc advisor, Alan Lehmann, had his University of Sussex run a counter-investigation to save his paper from retraction. It seems Lehmann also prevented a request for correction from being sent to American Society for Microbiology (ASM), regarding another Fousteri paper which LUMC found not awfully enough manipulated to warrant a retraction. The publisher ASM had absolutely no clue of LUMC findings till I informed them earlier this month. Fousteri’s collaborator Jesper Svejstrup at The Crick in London apparently did a similar thing, for another Fousteri co-authored paper which LUMC recommended for retraction. Both British universities then informed Fousteri’s present host institution in Greece, the Biomedical Sciences Research Center “Alexander Fleming” that her work was perfectly reliable. Fleming Institute had no choice but accept that, save for some crazy Dutchmen, nobody else, not even the paymaster European Union, has a problem with their group leader Fousteri and left it at it. At least until last week, as the ERC money was still flowing in. The Fousteri lab has been training the next generation of scientists, presently 5 PhD students and 4 postdocs, for all we know in the art of Photoshop.

Whistleblower denied graduation

For reference, I published therelevant  evidence and linked to the LUMC in my article from August 2016. Apparently, it was the first time LUMC had such an investigation, they even had to develop a protocol. Nowadays, Netherlands has a proper centralised code of conduct and procedure regarding research misconduct investigations.

A Dutch news site reported in 2017 in two articles by Jop de Vrieze (here and here) an article about the whistle-blower and former PhD student Saskia Vorstenbosch who uncovered Fousteri’s fraud and provided LUMC with all the evidence. Vorstenbosch, whose entire PhD project was based on someone else’s fake data, has left academia without getting her doctorate. LUMC told her she would have to start her PhD over again, from scratch. Meanwhile her former supervisor is faculty member at Fleming, retained her ERC funding and her fake papers, and recently even managed to publish in Nature Communications. That paper served its purpose to satisfy ERC about the success of their €1.5mn grant to Fousteri. Second chances, you know. Just not for whistleblowers.

Recently, I obtained from LUMC some of the letters they sent on June 15th 2016 to Molecular Cell and Fousteri’s co-authors, including her former LUMC boss Leon Mullenders, who was berated by his poor leadership and appalling attitude to good scientific practice and sent into emeritus retirement. Back then, Mullenders sided with Fousteri during the entire investigation and dismissed Vorstenbosch’s evidence with:

that’s not right, but that’s was probably only embellishing of the results. It does not hurt the truth, so it’s not a problem.”

The EU officials, who since 2011 gave Fousteri €1.7mn in total (starting with her Marie-Curie fellowship of €200k) to set up her own lab in Fleming Institute, did not allow LUMC to give me the letter they received. Obviously to support their previous claims that ERC and EU Commission were never informed, and hence didn’t have to do anything. Which is nothing less but a pathetic, shameful lie. But we already know how little ERC cares about research integrity, read here, here and here.

Perfectly trustworthy papers

The first two Molecular Cell papers were authored at LUMC, they proved also to be the most manipulated ones, hence the Dutch institution were in their right to request a retraction. Only that Molecular Cell wiped their bums with the request. Nothing at all happened. The dean of LUMC, Pancras Hogendoorn, told me in August 2018:

“We certainly did substantial efforts for retraction and are even frustrated to some extent that the journals did not act so far in public, though from recent communications it appears there is something happening finally.”

These are the two papers which Molecular Cell refused to retract despite explicit request from LUMC:

Maria Fousteri, Wim Vermeulen, Albert A. van Zeeland, Leon H.F. Mullenders

Cockayne Syndrome A and B Proteins Differentially Regulate Recruitment of Chromatin Remodeling and Repair Factors to Stalled RNA Polymerase II In Vivo

Molecular Cell 2006, DOI:

Jill Moser, Hanneke Kool, Ioannis Giakzidis, Keith Caldecott, Leon H.F. Mullenders, Maria Fousteri

Sealing of Chromosomal DNA Nicks during Nucleotide Excision Repair Requires XRCC1 and DNA Ligase IIIα in a Cell-Cycle-Specific Manner

Molecular Cell 2007 DOI:

mol cell

This get-lost attitude from Cell journals is actually nothing special, but rather a standard. They seem to only agree to retract a paper when authors themselves ask for it. Otherwise, the fraudulent customer is king with this Elsevier outlet of elite science. For reference, some relevant examples from my site, here and here. Or this: Cell deleted my comment on this Harvard paper which linked to official court- registered fraud evidence, available in public domain:

The following Fousteri paper was saved from retraction by the interference from corresponding author Svejstrup from The Crick. Svejstrup never replied to my emails. Incidentally, one of the co-authors, the French DNA repair biologist Jean-Marc Egly, is an expert in research integrity who recently investigated former CNRS president Anne Peyroche and found fraud in her papers. Maybe he should also apply same scrutiny to this paper of his? Because of Fousteri’s creative input, LUMC recommended its retraction. Only: nothing at all happened.

Roy Anindya, Pierre-Olivier Mari, Ulrik Kristensen, Hanneke Kool, Giuseppina Giglia-Mari, Leon H. Mullenders, Maria Fousteri, Wim Vermeulen, Jean-Marc Egly, Jesper Q. Svejstrup

A Ubiquitin-Binding Domain in Cockayne Syndrome B Required for Transcription-Coupled Nucleotide Excision Repair

Molecular Cell 2010 DOI:

Regarding the following papers, Lehmann previously wrote to me that his University of Sussex was conducting their own investigation. Apparently, Sussex decided to take back control and found LUMC to be slanderous European oppressors, best to be ignored.  Nothing at all happened to the following Molecular Cell paper which was supposed to be retracted. ASM was not informed about the findings in the Molecular Cell Biology paper and the need for at least a correction,. The editor of that latter ASM journal, Roger Davis, told me:

“There is no record of the university contacting ASM concerning the results of their investigation”.  

These are the two papers from Lehmann with his postdoc Fousteri, whom University of Sussex found innocent victims of a slanderous Dutch conspiracy.

Tomoo Ogi, Siripan Limsirichaikul, René M. Overmeer, Marcel Volker, Katsuya Takenaka, Ross Cloney, Yuka Nakazawa, Atsuko Niimi, Yoshio Miki, Nicolaas G. Jaspers, Leon H.F. Mullenders, Shunichi Yamashita, Maria I. Fousteri, Alan R. Lehmann

Three DNA Polymerases, Recruited by Different Mechanisms, Carry Out NER Repair Synthesis in Human Cells

Molecular Cell 2010 DOI:

Therina Theron, Maria I. Fousteri, Marcel Volker, Lorna W. Harries, Elena Botta, Miria Stefanini, Mitsuo Fujimoto, Jaan-Olle Andressoo, Jay Mitchell, Nicolaas G. J. Jaspers, Lisa D. McDaniel, Leon H. Mullenders and Alan R. Lehmann

Transcription-Associated Breaks in Xeroderma Pigmentosum Group D Cells from Patients with Combined Features of Xeroderma Pigmentosum and Cockayne Syndrome

Mol. Cell. Biol. 2005 DOI: 10.1128/MCB.25.18.8368-8378.2005

This is how science self-corrected itself. Not a single one of the fake Fousteri 4 papers was retracted as LUMC requested. The whistle-blower Vorstenbosch left the university and academia without a degree. €1.7 million were given to yet another scientist found guilty of fraud, while ERC is rejecting applications from her honest peers as not good enough scientifically.

The LUMC letters are here.

Update 19.11.2018. I now received the letter LUMC sent on 20.06.2016 to EU Commission (part of which is ERC). 2018-11-19 12-09-40

It now proves the ERC lied to me in their email from 16.08.2016 when they denied all knowledge of Fousteri investigation:

“The ERC Executive Agency was not aware of the information mentioned in your email and we will assess it”



If you are interested to support my work, you can leave here a small tip of $5. Or several of small tips, just increase the amount as you like. Your generous patronage of my journalism, however small it appears to you, will greatly help me with my legal costs.


6 comments on “Fousteri affair: Dutch integrity thwarted by academic indecency

  1. Nature. 2002 Nov 21;420(6913):333-6.
    A central role for J[U]NK in obesity and insulin resistance.
    Hirosumi J1, Tuncman G, Chang L, Görgün CZ, Uysal KT, Maeda K, Karin M, Hotamisligil GS.
    Author information
    Division of Biological Sciences and Department of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, 665 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.
    PMID: 12447443 DOI: 10.1038/nature01137

    Figure 4a.


  2. Great work and excellent that you formal WOB request has resulted in the release of this nice set of formal letters.

    You state “Nowadays, Netherlands has a proper centralised code of conduct and procedure regarding research misconduct investigations.” This statement is not totally correct, as it is already mandatory since 1 January 2005 for any researcher at any of the Dutch universities and at any of the research institutes of Royal KNAW and of NWO (and towards my opinon also for all researchers at any of the Academic hospitals in The Netherlands, as all of these Academic hospitals are closely connected to / part of a Dutch university) to act always, and always for the full 100% to the VSNU The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Academic Practice.

    See for an English version of the 2014 version of this CoC, see for the first version from 2004 (in force on 1 January 2005, only in Dutch).

    Item 6 of the Preamble of the first version refers already to deviations of the expected behaviour (an expanded version is listed in item 10 of the 2014 version) and refers for example also to LOWI, which was founded at the same time when the first version of the VSNU Code was developed. That’s the formal explanation how all Dutch universities had agreed with each other and already in 2004 (through VSNU) to react when for example people file formal complains with serious allegations of research misconduct and/or when Dutch newspapers report about cases of research misconduct (etc.). In reality, it has taken many years before all universities and research institutes (and thus apparently also LUMC) had indeed done properly their homework (so prepare good regulations how such an complaint must be investigated, etc., install a formal Committee for Scientific Integity, ensure that the University has an Ombudsman, etc.).

    VSNU has for example also prepared a very detailed model how to conduct such a research, also with definitions of research misconduct. The most recent version is dated June 2012 and can be downloaded from (only in Dutch). A virtually identical English version of RUG, the University of Groningen, can be downloaded from

    To put it in other words, item 10 of the Preamble of the 2014 version of the VSNU CoC connects both documents with each other (this item 10 contains the words ‘Landelijk Model Klachtenregeling Wetenschappelijke Integriteit’, and this is for example the above listed document of RUG.

    You are correct that things have been changed dramatically since 1 October 2018.


  3. Rix Rictor

    Yes very nice article.


  4. Pingback: De linke weekendbijlage (45-2018)

  5. Typos:
    1. “and DNA repair research Maria Fousteri”, research should be researcher;
    2. “The Fousteri lab has been training the next generation of scientists, presently 5 PhD students and 4 postdocs, for all we now in the art of Photoshop.” now should be know (I guess)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: