TILBURG - Oud-hoogleraar Diederik Stapel haalt in zijn boek 'Ontsporing' hard uit naar de commissie-Levelt. De analyse over waarom Stapel tot zijn daad kwam in het rapport van de commissie, voelt voor de oud-hoogleraar als karaktermoord. In het boek schrijft Stapel ook dat hij zelfmoord overwoog.
TILBURG - Former professor Diederik stapels strongly attacks the Levelt-Committee. The analysis of why Stapel did what he did in the committee's report, looks like character assassination for the former professor. In the book Stapel also writes he considered suicide.
Why not, indeed? Then again
he didn't, and there's only his word for it that he did consider it.
And indeed he may wriggle out of it, with the help from some of his
cronies in Dutch Labour, for his partner in crime, professor Roos Vonk,
was last Tuesday a guest in a radio-program hosted by the wife of one
of sick sadists of the Labour Party that threw me out of the University
of Amsterdam for insisting that there is such a thing as truth.
Stapel verklaart dat hij niet natrapt in zijn boek, niemand beschuldigt en niet zijn eigen straatje schoonveegt. Toch is hij hard over de onderzoeksmethoden van de commissie Levelt. Verder geeft Stapel in 'Ontsporing' een inkijkje in de wetenschappelijke wereld en legt hij uit hoe hij de fraude pleegde. Bovendien vertelt hij over zijn leven zoals het nu is.
Stapel says in his book that he is not kicking back, accuses nobody and does not attempt salvage his reputation. Yet he is tough on the methods of investigation used by the Levelt committee. Also Stapel provides in "Derailment" a look into the world of science and explains how he committed the fraud. Furthermore he talks about his life as it is now.
He clearly is kicking back,
is accusing others and does try to salvage his reputation, being the
knave he is. Incidentally, it seems from other reviews of the
book that Stapel does not really explain how he committed his
(his game seems to be that he is to distraught to recall), while his
tales about his present life are designed to evoke pity.
De commissie kon de gebruikte interview methode, protocol of onderzoeksvragen niet overleggen aan Stapel. De data waren niet meer beschikbaar en konden niet worden gecontroleerd. De commissie heeft een echte Stapel-fout gemaakt, zegt de ex-hoogleraar. Veel verhaal en weinig data.
The committee could not provide the method of interview, the protocol, or the questions investigated to Stapel. The data were not available and could not be controlled. The committee made a real Stapel-mistake, says the former professor. Lots of stories and little data.
Also, Mr Stapel - as far as I know - provides no proof, and I do not see why the Committee should provide him with their data, while he pretended ignorance about his frauds. And the Committee did not commit fraudulence - in at least 55 papers, of pretended "excellent science": Stapels did.
Diederik Stapel legt in zijn boek uit hoe de wetenschapscultuur invloed op hem had. De scoringsdrift van Stapel en het verlangen om applaus werd groter en groter. Zo groot dat hij, al in het begin van zijn carrière rommelde met gegevens. De tijds- en publicatiedruk op universiteiten wordt steeds groter en iedereen wil in vooraanstaande wetenschappelijke tijdschriften komen. Kwantiteit gaat steeds vaker boven kwaliteit, stelt Stapel.
Diederik Stapel explains in his book how the culture of science influenced him. The desire to score and the desire to get applause got stronger and stronger for Stapel. So strong that, already in th beginning of his career, he manipulated data. The pressures of time and publishing became ever stronger, and everybody wanted to be in prominent scientific journals. Quantity more than ever trumps quality, Stapel submits.
"It's the culture of
that did it; it's the pressures
of time and publishing, don't you
see?" In fact, he may have a point, and he may well have known or
suspected that colleagues of his also manipulated data, rather like
colleagues of Lance Armstrong may have suspected or have known he got
prominent on drugs and dope, and felt thereby justified to do the same:
"If everybody does it, wouldn't I be mad not to do it also?!", as Yossarian
asked. After all, what does one have a conscience and a free will for
if one cannot use them to lie and deceive for one's personal advantage?
ScoringsdriftClearly, the suggestions are that others are to be blamed, for they should have controlled him, and he should not to blamed for being an addict. As The UnDutchables - one of the few informed and honest reports on the Dutch - has it: "the authorities adopt the attitude that "These people are ill and should be helped, not persecuted"" (p. 188, edition 3.1)
In het boek beschrijft Stapel hoe hij baalde van mislukte onderzoeken. Hij wilde in tijdschriften komen, wilde opvallen. Aanvankelijk rommelde Stapel alleen met onderzoeksgegevens, later verzon hij hele onderzoeken. Omdat niemand hem controleerde, ging hij steeds verder. Stapel noemt zichzelf verslaafd en zelfs een junk,
The urge to score
In the book Stapel describes how he loathed failed research. He wanted to appear in journals, he wanted to stand out. In the beginning Stapel only manipulated research data, later he made up complete researches. Because nobody controlled him, he went further and further. Stapel calls himself an addict and even a junkie.
"I couldn't help it: the culture of science in Holand made me an addict - I should be helped, not prosecuted."
De voormalig hoogleraar blijkt in zijn boek uitermate kundig in het verzinnen of manipuleren van onderzoeksgegevens. Daarbij wordt duidelijk dat co-auteurs en promovendi werden misleid door Stapel.I am not amazed Stapel wants to impress others with his deftness: He also got known as someone rather like a genius in social psychology, until his fraud was uncovered, and clearly glorified in that. But his "deftness" in this case merely consists in abusing other people's trust, and in brazen lying, year after year, again and again, clearly speculating on the fact that in science one must mostly rely on the good faith, honesty and integrity of other scientists, for there simply is no money and no time to check on everyone's good faith, honesty and integrity.
The former professor is shown to be in his book extremely deft in making up or manipulating research data. It becomes clear how fellow authors and promovendi were misled by Stapel.
Onderzoeken die nooit hebben plaatsgevondenWhich is to say it all was clear, intentional, deliberate, planned fraud and deception, not merely of the "peer reviewers" of journals, but of his Dutch colleagues who might have found out, being more knowledgeable about Holland than foreign "peer reviewers". I suppose the subtext is: "Look how smart our poor Diederik is! He may be a fake scientist, but he is a fabulously fine fraud! Give him his due and admire his cleverness!"
Stapel beschrijft in het boek ook hoe hij op één dag naar Zwolle, Groningen en Utrecht reed, om daar te kijken waar hij de onderzoeken maanden daarvoor zou hebben kunnen laten plaatsvinden. Op die manier kon hij ondervangen dat er vragen zouden komen, naar aanleiding van de onderzoeken die er nooit zijn geweest.
Komen er wel genoeg studenten op het station in Zwolle? In welke kantine van de Universiteit Groningen had hij het onderzoek kunnen doen? Hoe lang is het rijden tussen Zwolle en Groningen? Dit zijn vragen die de hoogleraar zichzelf stelt om te kunnen verhullen dat de onderzoeken nooit hebben plaatsgevonden.
Researches that never really happened
Stapel describes in his book how he drove in one day to Zwolle, Groningen and Utrecht, to see where he could pretend his research hasd taken place in the previous months. Thus he would be able to answer eventual questions, inquiring into researches that never existed.
Are there sufficiently many students in the station in Zwolle? In which canteen in the University of Groningen could he have done his research? How long does it take to drive from Zwolle to Groningen? These are the questions the professor asked himself to be able to obscure that he never did the research.
Stapel leeft als een gevangene sinds de fraude ontdekt is. Zijn huis wordt vaak bezocht door journalisten die zijn verhaal willen optekenen. In zijn boek beschrijft hij een scène waarin hij zich een tijdlang in de keuken opsluit om maar niet gezien te worden door een journalist die aan de deur staat.
Withdrawn, suicideLord, how this poor man suffered! He hid himself in his kitchen! In fact, he only talks with journalists on his own terms, to play his game of the poor success addict, misled by the corrupting culture of science, and the pressures of publishing, who really meant well, and also has a family to take care of:
Stapel lives like a prisoner since the fraud was discovered. His house is often visited by journalists who want to write down his story. In his book he describes a scene in which he locks himself in the kitchen for a while, to prevent being seen by a journalist who stands before his front door.
In het boek beschrijft Stapel dat hij zo depressief is dat hij een einde aan zijn leven wil maken. Hij vertelt het zelfs zijn kinderen dat zij beter af zijn zonder hem. Maar uiteindelijk lukt hem niet om het ook daadwerkelijk te doen.
In the book Stapel describes that he is so depressive that he wants to terminate his life. He even tells his children that they are better of without him. But in the end he did not succeed in really doing it.
Sure: Pass your problems on to your small children, Diederik - and then use that to try to cultivate public pity! What a degenerate!
The man sickens me, but
indeed he does not astound me, for he has three valid points, if indeed
he made them: (1) The Dutch universities are sick, rotten and corrupt
many decades, and (2) it is quite likely there are quite a few more
in Holland, but there will be hardly any research into further
corruption, and (3) whistleblowers will get major problems, and may risk
being cast out of the university as I was, all to salvage the
reputation of Dutch science.
Indeed, I would not amazed if Stapel, quite possibly with the help of his mighty friends in Dutch Labour, whose political interests his fraudulent research served, may make a come back, and file for damages, e.g. on the ground that he did not really do anything many other Dutch scientists did not do, except that he was found out, and "therefore" - by Dutch moral logic - was treated unfairly.
The Dutch are like that: I have been told - screamed at, by 16 Dutch academic philosophers - that I must be "a dirty fascist" and "a terrorist", in the same years Diederik Stapel was studying in the same University of Amsterdam, namely for insisting that truth exists, that not all morals are wholly relative, and not all people equivalent.
If Stapel is a man, he should attack the University of Tilburg and Dutch science in the name of these principles which have been taught for 30 years to Dutch students, including him and me:
Because truth does not exist, fraud cannot not exist; because all morals wholly relative, there is no guilt, no knavishness, no crime and no inferiority, and he is just as good as his former colleagues, if not better, because he suffered so much; and since all people are equivalent in fact Diederik Stapel is the equivalent of Einstein, of Newton and Von Neumann, and should be thanked and honored rather than criticized.
Indeed it is a fact that he was taught these things, and that no one protested, except for me, and that I was thrown from the University of Amsterdam as "a fascist" and "a terrorist" - so he should be able to get away with it.
And I am quite
willing to appear in a Dutch court to explain this really is
If what Diederik and I were taught, which was taught in all Dutch universities for thirty years, is intellecually and morally valid (credible,. ''of this time") he cannot be guilty of anything whatsoever, and I must be a fascist and a terrorist, and he must - still - be the Dutch genius of social psychology.
For from a falsehood everything follows. And the Dutch universities have been based on widely cultivated falsehoods for decades - all to the huge benefit of very many of Stapel's equally talented and motivated colleagues, who were not found out, and maybe also did not do anything wrong, except being talentless liars, conformists, and moral and intellectual degenerates.
For more, see my
- Spiegeloog columns published in 1988-1989, very probably read by Mr Stapel, and indeed the most sarcastic and satirical criticism of the University of Amsterdam that has ever been published. But then I was removed for those opinions, and because I publicly asked
- 39 Questions about the qualities of education
and government in the Netherlands
I was removed from the faculty of philosophy of the University of Amsterdam because of the last item, "in spite of your illness, that we take seriously", and namely as "a fascist" and "a terrorst", according to 16 academic philosophers of the University of Amsterdam, supported by the Board of sadistic, fascistic and terrorist degenerate Directors of the University of Amsterdam, also thieves of tens of millions of tax-money, since when they never answered any of my complaints, and all Dutch journalists stonewalled all my complaints.
But then my parents
and grandparents and myself cannot have the same dignity and merit
former Professor Stapel! For years a near genius in Holland, admired
and lauded by colleagues and politicians!
And yes...I do insist that I am neither their equal nor their equivalent, nor were my parents and grandparents: The Dutch universities are and have been directed and led by very many collaborating degenerates, liars, frauds and thieves, many with the rank of professor, whatever frauds they did not commit, and I will support Mr Stapel if that is his case, though I do find him as sickening and inferior as his many professorial equivalents in Holland.