A few years ago, I had a strange encounter on the train with Ronald Plasterk, whom I remember from my time in The Hague. Plasterk was a member of parliament and minister from 2007 to 2017. On the train, he spoke proudly about his scientific discoveries and how he had been able to profit from them. In 2018, Plasterk became a professor in Amsterdam and founded a biotech company (Frame Therapeutics), which he sold for €32 million in 2022. But after the conversation, I was left with a question: when did Plasterk do this research? A minister has almost no time for anything, certainly not for scientific research. I found the answer in one Reconstruction at the Norwegian Refugee Council From March 22, 2024: “How Ronald Plasterk Became a Millionaire—and Left College Behind.”
Plasterk applied for a patent for the knowledge he had developed mainly with the help of a colleague: microbiologist Jan Koster. He had built an open-access database that academics around the world could freely use for cancer research. The reconstruction at the NRC paints a picture of a former politician who used his name and network to make a lot of money at the expense of others. I found what happened next quite fascinating: it was not Plasterk but Koster who was reprimanded by the UMC in Amsterdam and the UvA initially justified Plasterk’s actions. Things took a completely different turn in politics after Geert Wilders proposed Plasterk for the post of prime minister in May. Highly respected figures like johann rimkes Then he questioned Plasterk’s integrity.
Questions about Plasterk’s integrity were enough for the PVV, VVD, NSC and BBB to stop nominating him for prime minister. The Plasterk case has also become a topic of debate in the legal world, including in June 2024 in the Nederlands Juristenblad by Expert Alexander Tsoutsanis. He put an end to Plasterk’s (and the UvA’s) defence that the patent grant had been granted in accordance with the rules. Tsoutsanis stated that the rights belonged to all the researchers and also to the university and that Plasterk should not have been granted this patent. He also expressed his belief that Plasterk’s actions violated the Dutch code of conduct for scientific integrity. Because of discussions elsewhere, the UvA woke up and decided that Plasterk’s actions were not good.
In science, we should learn more lessons from the Plasterk case. It is important to know whether this professor violated academic rules. If so, then measures should follow: honest science should not be stopped because researchers have a big name and a big network. It is also important to know when these types of patent applications fall within the rules.
We must also ask ourselves whether commercial thinking in universities has gone too far, and whether we should better protect academic researchers. There is perhaps shame at the UvA about how a clever former politician allowed himself to be taken for granted. This is also a good lesson: for the UvA, but also for all other universities.
