The new Dutch Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2018) offers an important document for strengthening good research practices. It can be used in training researchers, informing the general public on standards guaranteeing trustworthiness of scientific research and handling allegations of misconduct in this research. The code departs from a set of principles worked out in standards describing the do’s and don’ts of good research practice. The Dutch code distinguishes itself for amongst others having a special section on duties of care of the organization where researchers are appointed. The organization has special responsibilities to give support to its researchers to develop good research practice and to foster a research culture in which dilemmas of integrity can be discussed in an open atmosphere. In this article special attention is paid to the principle of dependency. It is with regard to this principle that the researcher is most vulnerable, especially when it comes to commissioned research projects. How can the researcher be supported when dependency and honesty are under pressure?

The new Dutch Intelligence and Security Services Act 2017 extends the (special) powers of the intelligence and security services and introduces a new system of checks and balances. In this article several of the most impactful changes and underlying issues are discussed. They include the technology neutral approach, the new bulk surveillance powers, oversight (its role, tasks, independence and the use of outside experts), complaints and whistleblowers procedure, the lack of appeal procedures and the exchange of information with foreign agencies.

The new Intelligence and Security Services Act 2017 has generated a lot of criticism in The Netherlands. Although the act was adopted in parliament in July 2017, the implementation will take place in May 2018. Beforehand an advisory referendum will give the public the opportunity to express their opinion on the new act: the modernisation of the investigatory powers of the services and the strengthening of the necessary safeguards and oversight mechanisms. Both have met with their share of criticism. In this paper the focus is on the enhanced oversight mechanism. It is argued that although different choices could have been made regarding the organisation of oversight, the new system fulfills the requirements set by the European Court of Human Rights. The real question is whether the new act provides for effective and strong oversight in practice to ensure a proper balance between national security and privacy protection in this digital era. The opportunities and challenges are explored.

This article focuses on witness protection programs for (former) criminals who witness against suspects in criminal procedures. It goes without saying that these witnesses run the risk of becoming the target of a contract killing. The author describes the conditions of admission to a witness protection program, as well as the various existing types of protection. Witnesses themselves are often not very enthusiastic about the program. Since they themselves have a criminal past, they look at the police as their enemy and often prefer to receive a lump sum and arrange their safety themselves, as becomes clear from several examples provided by the author.

The potential perils of robots and other forms of artificial intelligence (AI) have been a subject for discussion since the 1950s. Nevertheless it seems that society is still not prepared for the great impact of the rapid advancement of AI in the last decennium and the many ethical dilemmas involved. How can moral, social and legal values be integrated in the designing process of AI technologies? Is it imaginable that these AI systems would ever be considered as ethical entities? How to control these systems? The authors argue that we should not only analyze these problems, but also reflect on ethics itself. AI has the potential to change the way we live and work. But it is important to introduce restrictions and controls to guarantee our freedom, autonomy and fundamental human rights.

Dutch policies concerning the illegal stay of aliens are characterized by regular tensions between central and local governments. This article describes various concrete (proposals for) policy changes in the last twenty years and examines the reasons for these tensions while using the distinction between policy strategies based on denial versus strategies based on adaptation (Garland). When it comes to refugee policies, the central government works in the denial mode while local governments adapt and try to find solutions in order to bring problems under control. This attitude can be explained by the local governments’ duty to provide for in the case of humanitarian emergency situations.

The draft of the Dutch Whistleblower Protection Act that is currently discussed in Parliament can be regarded as an essential step forward in the protection of whistleblowers. However, it can be questioned if the Act will contribute in an optimal manner to the ideal of transparency and the fight against the abuse of power, which should be the main goal of the Act. The tasks and powers of the new House for Whistleblowers are rather unclear and they do not meet legal standards. The combination of advice and support to whistleblowers and independent research into major violations of integrity should be abolished.

In March 2008 the Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality put forward a bill on animal welfare and animal health to the Dutch Parliament. In this bill five acts on kept animals are integrated. The authors discuss whether the integration is a goal in itself or means to an end. In their view the choice of legislation involved in the integration is not a logical one, and it is questionable whether this integration is necessary at all. Furthermore, the bill in its present form is not an adequate instrument to attain the policy goals in the field of animal welfare and animal health.

In recent years the Dutch radical animal movement has manifested itself through arson, threats and destruction of property. This article describes the rise of the radical movement and its tendency towards violence. While the animal movement has its roots in nineteenth century romanticism, the anarchism of the sixties and the squatting movement of the eighties gave way to a more radical animal movement. The anti-establishment movement of the sixties turned against intensive farming. When the punk movement of the eighties freed itself from an overwhelming sense of doom, it gave rise to a new attitude, which rejected drugs, alcohol, and meat. The so-called Straight Edge Movement developed into one of the driving forces behind the recent animal related violence. Hiding behind the facade of the Animal Liberation Front the activists are strongly convinced that they have morality on their side while targeting farms, cattle trucks, and animal test facilities. Many animal activists feel that Dutch law as it is, does not protect animals in a sufficient way. Another problem is that animal laws are hardly being upheld. Inspections of farms, slaughterhouses and transportation vehicles are rare, prosecutors usually give no priority to animal cases, and judges and the rare judicial sentences are usually extremely mild. This leads radical activists to a conclusion that one of them wrote on a wall: ‘There is no justice, just us’.