Regularly, doubts about the independence of research leads to heated discussion. This is especially true if things have gone wrong. This issue explores the question how research organizations and researchers can defend themselves against improper influence: the conscious and active pursuit of too positive research results by commissioners or government officials. This article outlines a number of dimensions of how establishing good, independent research can be structured in a systematic and sensible manner. Independent inquiry manifests itself in position, judgment, and appearance or image. Institutional safeguards form the basis for professional roles and responsibilities that can fulfill the requirements of independent research in the political arena.

The Dutch Safety Board is authorised to conduct safety investigations in nearly every area and sector. The Board is independent and aims to contribute to learning from incidents, accidents and disasters. In the essay, the authors reflect on what it means to conduct independent investigation in the public interest. They define independent investigation as a relational enterprise that requires reflexive investigators but also elementary and advanced safeguards in position, judgement and presentation.

If the stakes are high, policy researchers can find themselves under strong pressures from politicians or policy makers to compromise on issues like scope of a research project, research methodology, reporting, framing and interpretation of results, and timing of publication. Research organizations experiment with various formal and informal arrangements to cope with such pressures and guard their independence.
This article describes six coping strategies that are being explored by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL). These are: i) taking control in determining the project scope and the research questions; ii) making responsibilities explicit and guarding respective roles; iii) installing a broad based societal project advisory group; iv) having some researchers in a project that interact with stakeholders, while keeping others at a distance; v) having a differentiated communications strategy; vi) being fully transparent as to hypotheses and uncertainties regarding data and models.
Safeguarding independence in research through formal rules and provisions is generally insufficient to protect research from undue stakeholder influence. Also changes in labor routines, relationship management and organizational cultures are needed, not only on the researcher side, but on the stakeholder side as well. This calls for dialogue and joint learning processes.

The author discusses the practices, problems and pitfalls research in the biomedical field with regard to conflicts of interests. Medicines are not ordinary products: the exclusive right to prescribe lies with the doctor, and because of the potentially life-saving nature of medicines, their use, price and availability is surrounded by emotions, especially when there is only one medicine available for a serious illness. Nonetheless, these products are marketed by companies that have a primarily commercial interest and, on the basis of those interests, engage in pricing and advertising activities. In the research on medicines, there is close cooperation between the pharmaceutical industry and doctor-researchers, whereby independence is at stake due to the large financial interests and reimbursements. This pushes the design, outcome and publication of research in a direction that is favorable to the pharmaceutical industry, but that is not financially the best direction for society, or medically for patients.

In the relationship between the Ministry of Justice and Security and the Scientific Research and Documentation Center, safeguards to prevent improper influence of research were lacking. In the opinion of the WODC II investigation committee, civil servants were too close to the substantive execution of the investigation, as a result of which the WODC was given too little room for critical investigation. For other ministries and knowledge institutions the question is relevant as to what safeguards are needed for conducting independent research. Rules and procedures are not sufficient for creating and maintaining responsible research practices. It is also important that employees learn to recognize difficult situations, can discuss these with their colleagues, and know how to deal with dilemmas. Other organizations can learn from the WODC issue that they must maintain and recalibrate the formal and professional safeguards for the independence of scientific research. Trust in science stands or falls with independence and soundness in word and deed.

The goal of citizens participation increases the moments of contact between politicians, policy makers, welfare professionals and citizens. The shared responsibility for local decision making is not an easy task. Often conflicts emerge between parties with opposing needs and interests. Citizens oppose decisions or organize protest. These moments do not only challenge the goal of participation, they also jeopardize the quality of democracy. The democratic value of contentious moments, however, is often neglected. How can public professionals deal with the dilemma’s and chances that emerge during interactions that happen unexpectedly at the street-level? I answer that question by applying the agonistic approach to democracy to the action repertoire of public professionals dealing with conflict. A dramaturgical analysis of contentious interactions provides insights in how we can recognize and acknowledge contentious citizenship.

The Dutch central government has a long history in its search to meaningfully present policy effects. One of the instruments that was developed to this end is the Policy Conclusion (beleidsconclusie). This part of the annual report, which has been mandatory since 2013, should provide a judgement for every policy article on its results in the year 2017. To what extent has the Policy Conclusion been successful in its aims? And how do various governmental departments give substance to it? For this article, all policy conclusions that were composed for the most recent reporting year were examined. Among others, our analysis shows that departments differ greatly in their interpretation of what the Policy Conclusion should include, such as the usage of sources and the way in which intended results are (re)addressed. In addition, it was found in the Policy Conclusions that a tendency exists to put a strong focus on positive outcomes.

On 29 May, the highest court in the Netherlands, the Council of State, ruled that the government’s Nitrogen Emissions Program (PAS) did not comply with the European Habitats Directive. The PAS arranged permit applications for economic activities that caused extra nitrogen oxide emissions. According to the Council of State, the PAS proved to be insufficiently capable of protecting the ‘natural characteristics’ of Natura2000-protected areas against damage caused by nitrogen depositions. The ruling has led to a situation in which all pending license applications in construction and agriculture have been rejected or put on hold. This political ‘nitrogen crisis’ that resulted from this ruling has been characterized by major disagreements between the government coalition parties, large farmers’ protests, and a faltering coordination between the central government and provinces. This essay analyzes the root causes of the nitrogen crisis and presents some ideas about how to overcome the current deadlock. I argue that the PAS debacle symbolizes a failing, reactive agricultural and nature policy. More than ever, strong leadership and a clear future perspective for the Dutch food system are needed.

This article critically assesses and discusses the reports written by the three commissions of inquiry dealing with the so-called WODC affair.