SUMMARIES OF SELECTED CASES J. M INISTRY OF SCIENCE, INNOVATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION The following case concluded in 2013 was selected for publication as part of the Annual Report: 2013-8. Question of impartiality among members of the Committees on Scientific Dishonesty A scientist complained to the Ombudsman about the processing by the Da­ nish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) of two cases about her. In both cases, the DCSD had come to the conclusion that she had acted in a scientifically dishonest way. In the scientist’s opinion, some of the members of the DCSD should have been disqualified from processing her cases. She based her opinion particularly on the allegation that three of the DCSD members, by virtue of their employment at the same university as the two persons who had complained about her to the DCSD, had such a close connection to the two complainants that they should not have taken part in the decision. The Ombudsman did not find that he had any prospects of being able to criticise the DCSD’s decision not to consider the persons in question disqualified from processing the cases. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the mere fact that they were employed at the same university did not give grounds for considering them to be disqualified – it takes more than that. Among other things, the Ombudsman emphasised that, according to the available information, none of the three committee members had such connections to any other persons involved in the case that there were such circumstances as would, according to existing practice, be likely to lead to any doubt about their impartiality (the Public Administration Act, section 3(1)(v)). He pointed out, among other things, that there was no information about any close friendships between any of the three DCSD members and the two university employees who had brought the cases before the DCSD. Nor was there any information indicating such personal antagonism between any of the DCSD members and the scientist that this might point to a conflict of interest. It did not give the Ombudsman cause for comment that the DCSD had dismissed the suggestion that there was a conflict of interest in the DCSD because one of the two petitioners had been a deputy member of the DCSD for part 133