The Embassy of Good Science - User contributions [en]

Theme:F9a8ff8e-3f72-482f-81a8-6d7300037161

2026-06-02T15:59:03Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Title=Ethics in global digital psychiatry: balancing innovation and responsibility
|Is About=The rise of digital psychiatry brings both opportunities and ethical challenges. Technologies such as AI-driven diagnostics, mental health apps, and telepsychiatry services promise greater accessibility, but they also raise concerns about privacy, trust, equity, and bias. Without clear rules and oversight, it’s important to consider their impact.
|Important Because=Digital psychiatry is reshaping mental health care by increasing accessibility and offering new treatment tools. However, significant ethical dilemmas arise, including the risk of AI bias, potential breaches of privacy, the impact of digital therapies on traditional face-to-face care, and concerns over data security. Without strong rules and oversight, many questions remain. Understanding these issues is critical for ensuring that digital psychiatry develops in a way that respects human rights, safeguards vulnerable populations, and ensure fair access to mental health care.
|Important For=Technology Developer / Engineer;Research Participant;Health Care Professional;Health / Clinical Researcher;Policy Maker / Regulator
|Has Best Practice=Best practices in digital psychiatry focus on balancing innovation with patient rights and safety. Protecting privacy is key, as mental health data is sensitive and vulnerable to misuse. Transparency is essential—patients should know how digital tools work and how their data is handled.

AI and digital tools should support, not replace, human care. Digital mental health tools should undergo rigorous testing to prove their effectiveness and safety.

Improving digital literacy can help people make informed choices about their care. Ethical guidelines and clear regulations should evolve alongside technology to protect patients and ensure responsible innovation. By prioritizing fairness, privacy, and accountability, digital psychiatry can truly benefit those who need it most.
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:A247109d-33ff-45da-a307-efd40fe4b7a8;Theme:E5629f68-81f6-490d-84d6-fd1e63b8dbc7;Theme:B67f6cdd-a11f-4599-8154-f734d3785c36;Theme:A1a1b736-7002-405c-8375-711a11f20e04
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Availability;Confidentiality;Fairness;Integrity;Privacy
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=AI Ethics;Balancing Harm and Benefits
}}
# Galderisi S, Appelbaum PS, Gill N, et al. Ethical challenges in contemporary psychiatry: an overview and an appraisal of possible strategies and research needs. ''World Psychiatry''. 2024;23(3):364-386. doi:10.1002/wps.21230
# Torous J, Roberts LW. Needed Innovation in Digital Health and Smartphone Applications for Mental Health: Transparency and Trust. ''JAMA Psychiatry''. 2017;74(5):437-438. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.0262
# Gooding P, Kariotis T. Ethics and Law in Research on Algorithmic and Data-Driven Technology in Mental Health Care: Scoping Review. ''JMIR Ment Health''. 2021;8(6):e24668. Published 2021 Jun 10. doi:10.2196/24668
# Torous J. A path towards progress: lessons from the hard things about digital mental health. ''World Psychiatry''. 2022;21(3):419-420. doi:10.1002/wps.21003
<references />

Theme:D95899c3-8e4e-4ba4-adba-ddec07ba9106

2026-06-02T15:59:02Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:92439f75-5c0c-49d4-a21f-e9b41bd3a7db
|Title=Industry-funded continuing medical education – ethical conundrums
|Is About=Healthcare industry funding plays a major role in continuing medical education (CME) for healthcare professionals. CME is necessary to ensure the maintenance or development of new skills in the era of rapid increase in the number of complex treatments and technologies. While industry support provides access to high-quality learning, it also raises ethical concerns about bias, influence, and the integrity of medical decision-making.
|Important Because=Continuing education is essential for physicians navigating rapidly evolving medical knowledge, new therapies, and emerging technologies. However, high-quality CME is expensive, and many educational providers rely on pharmaceutical and device‑industry funding to sustain programs. This creates a structural tension: industry support can enhance educational reach, but it also risks shaping content, speaker selection, or topic emphasis in ways that align with commercial interests. (1)
|Important For=Health / Clinical Researcher;Health Care Professional
|Has Best Practice=Across Europe and the United States, a range of practices has been developed to manage the ethical challenges of industry-funded CME.

In Europe, the MedTech Europe “Code of Ethical Business Practice” prohibits direct sponsorship of individual healthcare professionals. Instead, industry provides dedicated educational grants to professional societies and healthcare organizations;with that shift, professional societies have become key intermediaries that manage grant applications, ensure compliance with the MedTech Europe and EFPIA Codes, and maintain the separation between commercial and scientific functions. (2)

In the United States, CME providers follow the ACCME Standards for Integrity and Independence, which separate education from promotion. The federal Sunshine Act adds transparency by requiring companies to publicly report all transfers of value to physicians, including educational support. Industry codes such as PhRMA and AdvaMed reinforce these expectations by prohibiting gifts, entertainment, and direct payment for attendance at educational events. (3)

Across both regions, these regulatory pressures have pressured organisations to adopt sponsorship models that protect educational integrity while still keeping programs financially sustainable. Multi-sponsor sessions, independent scientific tracks, and institution-managed hands-on training are increasingly common. Providers also rotate faculty to avoid over-reliance on industry-affiliated experts. Transparency portals, whether mandated by EFPIA in Europe or by federal law in the U.S., allow researchers, journalists, and the public to examine patterns of industry support and identify potential conflicts of interest.

Together, these practices show a clear global shift toward more transparent, accountable, and professionally governed CME.
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags}}

Theme:D85c805e-7c71-4871-8667-ced410be5d02

2026-06-02T15:59:01Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320
|Title=Intellectual conflicts of interest
|Is About=The term ‘intellectual conflicts of interest’ refers to the potential for a researcher to be attached to a specific point of view.<ref name=":0">Akl EA, El-Hachem P, Abou-Haidar H, Neumann I, Schünemann HJ, Guyatt GH. Considering intellectual, in addition to financial, conflicts of interest proved important in a clinical practice guideline: a descriptive study. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2014 Nov 1;67(11):1222-8.</ref> For instance, the researcher could be convinced that intervention A is more effective in treating a certain disease D, than intervention B even without the necessary evidence to back this view. Intellectual conflicts of interest usually occur based on the researcher’s prior research, education, institutional or other personal affiliations.<ref name=":0" /><ref>Bero L. What is in a name? Nonfinancial influences on the outcomes of systematic reviews and guidelines. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2014 Nov 1;67(11):1239-41.</ref> For instance, if the researcher has received more education about intervention A than B, they could be more likely to favor intervention A. In the field of psychotherapy, the term ‘researcher allegiance’ is used to refer to intellectual conflicts of interest.
<references />
|Important Because=There is concern that intellectual conflicts of interest may cause bias in research. The idea is that if researchers prefer one intervention over another, they will intentionally or unintentionally introduce bias into the design of the study, data analysis or data interpretation so that the results are in favor of the preferred intervention. However, there is not enough evidence on this. In psychotherapy research, it has been shown that researcher allegiance (i.e. intellectual conflicts of interest) is associated with study results: therapies with higher allegiance are shown to be more effective in randomized clinical trials.<ref>Luborsky L, Diguer L, Seligman DA, Rosenthal R, Krause ED, Johnson S, Halperin G, Bishop M, Berman JS, Schweizer E. The researcher's own therapy allegiances: A “wild card” in comparisons of treatment efficacy. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. 1999 Mar;6(1):95-106.</ref><ref>Miller S, Wampold B, Varhely K. Direct comparisons of treatment modalities for youth disorders: A meta-analysis. Psychotherapy Research. 2008 Jan 1;18(1):5-14.</ref><ref>Munder T, Gerger H, Trelle S, Barth J. Testing the allegiance bias hypothesis: a meta-analysis. Psychotherapy Research. 2011 Nov 1;21(6):670-84.</ref> It is not clear, though, whether this correlation is causal. It could be that researchers have allegiance towards more effective interventions because they are effective, rather than that the interventions appear to be more effective because the researchers have an allegiance to them.<ref name=":0">Leykin Y, DeRubeis RJ. Allegiance in psychotherapy outcome research: Separating association from bias. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. 2009 Mar;16(1):54-65.</ref> Although some argue that the association between researcher allegiance and study results might be causal since the association exists even when there is evidence that two interventions are equally effective, the evidence remains inconclusive on how researcher allegiance/ intellectual conflicts of interest might affect study results.<ref name=":0" />

At the same time, some argue that intellectual conflicts of interest are unavoidable.<ref name=":1">Bero L. What is in a name? Nonfinancial influences on the outcomes of systematic reviews and guidelines. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2014 Nov 1;67(11):1239-41.</ref> Researchers will have a certain educational background, prior research experience, and personal and professional affiliations, which will naturally make them more likely to favor one research outcome over another.<ref name=":1" /> Not only is this unavoidable, but it is what drives science forward: researchers would not spend years researching a topic that they did not feel passionate about. It is precisely the passion and intellectual interest that researchers have that inspires them to delve into research.

'''What conclusions can we make?'''

If intellectual conflicts of interest lead researchers to introduce systematic biases into their research (e.g. selection bias, reporting bias, etc.), then they can be said to be problematic.<ref name=":2">Ioannidis JP. Most psychotherapies do not really work, but those that might work should be assessed in biased studies. Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences. 2016 Oct;25(5):436-8.</ref> More evidence is needed to establish whether this is the case. However, if intellectual conflicts of interest do not lead to systematic bias, it is hard to argue that they are problematic even if they do affect study results.<ref name=":2" /> For example, if researchers that prefer intervention A are more likely to have results that favor intervention A even in the absence of systematic bias, it could be that:

1) they are better trained in intervention A than other researchers, or

2) they know more about intervention A than other researchers , or

3) they carry out intervention A more diligently than other researchers.

It would be difficult to argue that possibilities 1, 2 or 3 are problematic. Innovation in science is driven by passionate researchers who develop and propose new hypotheses, which they often strongly believe in. It makes sense that if these passionate researchers who know more about the hypotheses than others are not able to show their truthfulness, then no one else will be able to, indicating that the hypotheses are not correct. Yet, if the innovative researchers are able to provide evidence on the truthfulness of the hypotheses, the hypotheses remain open to a closer scrutiny by the rest of the scientific community.<ref name=":2" /> Since science is a self-correcting process, it may not matter if the researcher with the intellectual conflict of interest is more likely to obtain study results in line with their allegiances. Other researchers with different allegiances will be able to scrutinize and test the results, thereby correcting for the intellectual conflict of interest.
<references />
|Important For=Research Performing Organization;Research Funding Organization;Senior Researcher;Health / Clinical Researcher;Doctoral Student;Postdoctoral Researcher
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320;Theme:A6b06cb6-13ec-4d48-9f1e-efc84449f501;Theme:077cf9e7-62ff-4379-ab35-bed2a1821c15;Theme:B26ff7d4-fe82-4815-aaf9-42e200ab6195;Theme:7df709ce-fb89-4703-966f-b33e68b83ad5
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty;Transparency;Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Conflict of interest;Funders’ responsibilities;Institutional responsibilities;Bias
}}

Theme:C8fd60d6-107f-4cc6-abb3-57eeac6aaef2

2026-06-02T15:59:00Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:Bc0cb5c2-ac78-4c7a-b83d-b1e6033f16c6
|Title=Methods to increase data availability
|Is About=Research data availability is a growing burden due to the emerging number of studies, analytical improvements and unsatisfactory utilization of repository systems. One of the fast-growing initiatives that aim to increase data accessibility to the readers and other researchers is the ''open data movement''. An increasing number of repositories allows routine and open publication of raw datasets along with the manuscript (eg. ''Open Science Framework – OSF''), or alternatively upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.
|Important Because=Data access is extremely important for transparent modern science. The rising number of research studies impedes the filtering of research findings, aggravates peer-review process and increases the possibility of false study reports. Having in mind the direct implications of scientific findings on everyday practice, data availability is further prioritized. The ''open data movement'' follows the principles of transparency, participation, and collaboration (1). Open data policy is important because it nurtures the virtues of transparency and honesty, which allows each respondent to check the authenticity of the published results at any time. Data sharing represents a significant part of research ethics and nowadays, many journals require researchers to publish resources to make them available to other investigators (2,3). However, deposited published data may be incomplete, in some cases intentionally because authors could feel like losing priority in future publishing, which may complicate new analyses on previously published data (2).

In an effort to enhance data-sharing practices, some journals have mandatory data availability statement (DAS). However, according to a recent study on data availability statements, 93% of authors of manuscripts with DASs that stated authors are eager to share their data either didn't respond or refused to share their data. In conclusion, the level of compliance is disappointing even when the authors state in their article that they will share data upon request, indicating that the DAS may not be enough to guarantee data sharing (4).
|Important For=Journal Editor;Health / Clinical Researcher;Researcher;Doctoral Student;Research Supervisor / Mentor
|Has Best Practice=To support wide data availability, authors should publish their data so it could provide inputs to new hypotheses, and innovation (5,6). Journals could increase awareness on data availability and request mandatory data deposition. Modern manuscript checklists should routinely include data availability part which should additionally emphasize its importance to the authors. Finally, all of this could improve the verification of result, and reduce the misconduction related to data fabrication and falsification, and could serve as training tools for junior researchers (6).
|Has Detail=1. Kitchin R. The Data Revolution: Big Data, Open Data, Data Infrastructures, and Their Consequences. SAGE;2014. 241 p.

2. Tedersoo L, Küngas R, Oras E, Köster K, Eenmaa H, Leijen Ä, et al. Data sharing practices and data availability upon request differ across scientific disciplines. Sci Data. 2021 Jul 27;8:192.

3. Fischer BA, Zigmond MJ. The essential nature of sharing in science. Sci Eng Ethics. 2010 Dec;16(4):783–99.

4. Gabelica M, Bojcic R, Puljak L. Many researchers were not compliant with their published data sharing statement: mixed-methods study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2022 May 30;150:33-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.019.

5. Sustainable Digital Data Preservation and Access Network Partners. NSF - National Science Foundation [Internet]. [cited 2022 Mar 2]. Available from: <nowiki>https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=503141</nowiki>

6. Tenopir C, Allard S, Douglass K, Aydinoglu AU, Wu L, Read E, et al. Data Sharing by Scientists: Practices and Perceptions. PLOS ONE. 2011 Jun 29;6(6):e21101.

<br />
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags}}

Theme:B2bce8c3-65f5-47d9-b6db-573b4b4f926f

2026-06-02T15:59:00Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:Bc0cb5c2-ac78-4c7a-b83d-b1e6033f16c6
|Title=Anonymisation and pseudonymisation
|Is About=An individual can be identified directly (e.g. by name, address, telephone number, photograph) or indirectly (e.g. by place of work, particular condition). Anonymisation and pseudonymisation remove or minimize the risk of re-identification of individuals by masking the data. When data is anonymised the individuals are no longer identifiable, while in pseudonymised data there is a residual risk of re-identification.
|Important Because=Data protection is defined as a fundamental human right and using personal data raises significant ethics issues <ref>1. Article 8, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union</ref>. Pseudonymisation and anonymisation are methods used to protect one's privacy and minimize the risk in the event of unauthorized access. Pseudonymised data are considered personal data and therefore are in the scope of GDPR, unlike irreversibly anonymised data which are no longer defined as personal data and are outside of the scope of GDPR <ref>1. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (Text with EEA relevance), [2016] OJ L 119/1.</ref>
<references />
|Important For=Doctoral Student;Researcher;Health / Clinical Researcher
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags}}

Theme:89632ee4-3433-4fbd-84d1-0e51eb942bee

2026-06-02T15:58:59Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Title=Ethics challenges of new technologies: Human digital twins
|Is About=<div>A human digital twin is a highly detailed digital representation of a real person that uses data, artificial intelligence, and simulations to replicate aspects of the individual’s body, behavior, or decision-making processes. Unlike simple avatars or profiles, digital twins are dynamic systems continuously updated with real-world data such as health records, biometric signals (e.g., wearables tracking heart rate variability), behavioral data, and environmental information.</div><div>Originally developed in engineering and manufacturing, digital twin technology is now expanding into healthcare, smart cities, and personalized services. In medicine, for example, a patient’s digital twin could simulate psychopharmacological responses or disease progression in psychiatric disorders like depression, allowing physicians to test therapies virtually before real-world application. In other sectors, digital twins may model human behavior for training, workforce optimization, or personalized consumer experiences.</div><div>However, as this technology advances, it raises profound ethical questions. Digital twins involve extensive personal data collection, predictive modeling, and the creation of digital identities that may persist independently from the individual they represent. These developments challenge existing ethical frameworks concerning privacy, autonomy, consent, and accountability.</div>
|Important Because=<div>The ethical implications of human digital twins are significant because the technology operates at the intersection of artificial intelligence, big data, and personal identity. If not carefully governed, it may introduce risks that affect individuals and society at large—such as a 2025 study estimating that biased twins could exacerbate healthcare disparities by up to 30% in underrepresented groups.</div><div>One major concern is privacy and data ownership. Digital twins require vast amounts of personal data, including sensitive health, behavioral, and genetic information. Questions arise about who owns this data, who controls the digital twin, and how securely this information is stored and used.</div><div>Another issue involves autonomy and consent. Individuals may consent to the use of their data at one point in time, but digital twins may continue to evolve and generate insights long after the original consent was given. This creates challenges in ensuring ongoing, informed consent and maintaining individuals’ control over how their digital representation is used.</div><div>There are also concerns about algorithmic bias and fairness. If digital twins are trained on biased datasets, they may produce inaccurate or discriminatory predictions. In healthcare, for instance, biased models could lead to unequal treatment recommendations across different populations.</div><div>Finally, the concept of a digital twin raises philosophical questions about identity and representation. If a digital twin can simulate decisions or predict behavior, to what extent does it represent the real person? And who is responsible when decisions are made based on simulations generated by the twin?</div>
|Important For=Health / Clinical Researcher;Data Protection Officer;Early Career Researcher;Health Care Professional;IT / Technical Professional;Legal Advisor;Policy Maker / Policy Maker / Regulator;Policy Maker / Regulator;Research Ethics Committee Member;Technology Developer / Engineer;Researchers, Research Ethics Committee Member;Researcher;Research Ethics Expert;Ombudsperson / Confidental counsellor
|Has Best Practice=<div>Addressing the ethical challenges of human digital twins requires a combination of technological, regulatory, and social approaches.</div><div>One important best practice is privacy-by-design, meaning that systems are designed from the beginning to minimize data collection, protect sensitive information (e.g., federated learning to avoid central data storage), and ensure strong cybersecurity measures.</div><div>Another key principle is transparent governance. Developers and organizations should clearly explain how digital twins are created, what data they use, and how predictions or simulations are generated via open-source audits or explainable AI tools. Transparency helps build trust and allows users to make informed decisions.</div><div>Dynamic and ongoing consent mechanisms are also essential. Because digital twins evolve over time, consent should not be a one-time agreement but an ongoing process allowing individuals to update or withdraw permissions as technologies change, with easy “kill switches” for twins.</div><div>In addition, fairness and bias mitigation strategies must be implemented in AI models that power digital twins. This includes diverse training datasets (prioritizing global representation), continuous monitoring of algorithmic performance, and independent audits.</div><div>Finally, multidisciplinary collaboration is crucial. Ethical governance of digital twins should involve not only engineers and data scientists but also ethicists, legal experts, healthcare professionals, and representatives of affected communities. Research communities should pilot these in controlled studies to refine standards.</div>
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:H5P-498
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=Present
|Has Location=University of Split
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=AI Ethics
}}

Theme:728c617d-d90a-4e2b-872f-ffd8236c12b6

2026-06-02T15:58:58Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:Dc1ed216-1d37-49a9-9725-2b34e90b3ede
|Title=Sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing company
|Is About=More and more clinical trials are being conducted all over the world as technology is advancing at a very fast pace. Many of these trials include companies that are bound to have great profits if the trial pans out. Sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing companies often leads to more favorable efficacy results with an industry bias becoming a real problem. <ref>Lundh A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, et al. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. ''Cochrane Database Syst Rev'' 2017;2: MR000033.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=When drug and device studies are conducted, results that are unfavorable to the sponsor can pose great financial risks to the sponsor companies. Several factors can explain the relationship between sponsorship and favorable outcomes, including a variety of biasing choices in the design, conduct, and reporting of studies.<ref>Lundh A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, et al. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. ''Cochrane Database Syst Rev'' 2017;2: MR000033.</ref> Inferior competing treatment alternatives may be chosen as well as less clinically relevant primary outcomes that have a better chance of achieving a significant effect. <ref>Djulbegovic B, Kumar A, Miladinovic B, et al. Treatment success in cancer: industry compared to publicly sponsored randomized controlled trials. ''PLoS One'' 2013;8: e58711.</ref> Of course, there is also another perspective, meaning that the observed success rates seen in industry-sponsored trials are also rooted in the way commercial sponsors invest in product development meaning that only proposals with promising data and a high likelihood of success progress to RCT testing.<ref>Fries JF, Krishnan E. Equipoise, design bias, and randomized controlled trials: the elusive ethics of new drug development. ''Arthritis Res Ther'' 2004;6: R250-5.</ref>

The higher success rates seen in industry-sponsored research are expected and can be explained by extensive research, development efforts, and multimillion dollars investments.<ref>DiMasi JA, Hansen RW, Grabowski HG. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. ''J Health Econ'' 2003;22: 151–185.</ref>

<span lang="HR"></span>
<references />
|Important For=Health / Clinical Researcher;Research Funding Organization;Technology Developer / Engineer
|Has Best Practice=To manage conflict of interests, which is inevitable and must always be declared, it is important to maximize transparency in industry-funded research. Some of the proposed approaches include a carefully constructed advisory board with specific responsibilities as well as strict guidelines to protect research quality.<ref>Plottel GS, Adler R, Jenter C, et al. Managing conflicts and maximizing transparency in industry-funded research. ''AJOB Empir Bioeth'' 2020;11: 223–232.</ref> It is important to fully disclose financial, personal, and professional interests. Oversight by an independent third party is recommended as well as pre-registration of the study. The role of commercial partners must be defined and the relationship has to be continuously monitored. <ref>Cullerton K, Adams J, Forouhi N, et al. What principles should guide interactions between population health researchers and the food industry? Systematic scoping review of peer-reviewed and grey literature. ''Obes Rev'' 2019;20: 1073–1084.</ref> The scientific community has improved recently in regards to some of the key indicators of research reproducibility and transparency. This includes information on funding, conflict of interests statements, and an increase in protocol and data sharing. There is also a growing number of fully available texts, although the majority of texts are still not fully available. Nevertheless, confusion about research transparency still exists, and even though there has been some improvement, the scientific community is far from perfect in terms of research transparency and reproducibility.<ref>Wallach JD, Boyack KW, Ioannidis JPA. Reproducible research practices, transparency, and open access data in the biomedical literature, 2015-2017. ''PLoS Biol'' 2018;16: e2006930.</ref>
<references />
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:417372db-ae2a-4f56-a7cd-fdb1f5ef4969;Resource:A2274d58-4f96-4263-83c8-5fd978d806be;Resource:75d30f1a-0683-43e2-832d-48f44c44b891
|Related To Theme=Theme:5e34933a-293e-447a-9ab4-9299a152e8a5;Theme:B962d39b-ee34-4562-951c-5193700beff6;Theme:Dc1ed216-1d37-49a9-9725-2b34e90b3ede
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:86f47366-a189-4395-9301-36ddb6d1fc68;Instruction:6ceba4e4-fb32-4953-9138-5436807fcde6
}}
{{Tags}}

Theme:6f267155-232e-401c-bddb-24b24b1588cc

2026-06-02T15:58:58Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320
|Title=The influence of pharmaceutical company on drug availability
|Is About=Given that the research is sponsored by a pharmaceutical company and that they deliver the drug to Croatia (drug is not available in Croatia), shipments of the drug may be delayed.
|Important Because=Delayed drug availability may affect research results.
|Important For=Researcher;Journal Editor;Health / Clinical Researcher;Doctoral Student;Research Supervisor / Mentor;Research Participant;Research Manager / Administrator;Support Staff;Senior Researcher;Civil Society / NGO Representative
|Has Best Practice=Good organization between the pharmaceutical companies, CRO and clinics where the research takes place.
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Related To Research Area=LS 07.11 - Medical ethics;LS 07.03 - Pharmacology, pharmacogenomics, drug discovery and design, drug therapy;LS 04.06 - Cancer and its biological basis
}}

Theme:5cfee1a6-7fa7-4801-8249-50d9c4e22a5c

2026-06-02T15:58:57Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors
|Title=Faking it in academia- the rise of authorship fraud
|Is About=Selling authorship for scientific articles is an unethical but increasingly prevalent issue in academia. This practice undermines the integrity of scientific research by allowing individuals to claim undeserved credit, creating mistrust in the scientific community. The topic investigates into how this trend threatens academic standards and highlights the challenges institutions face in combating this issue.

Examples in real world:

a)Authorship for sale platforms: Several online platforms (X, former Twitter, has had a public account with different price ranges for first (8 thousand dollars) to last author position (3 thousand dollars)), forums, or third-party brokers openly offer authorship on scientific papers. These services connect individuals willing to pay for co-authorship or even first authorship with researchers or predatory journals. The offer does not stop there, there all also sales for patent designs, book publications, conference abstracts.

b) Predatory journals: Many predatory journals accept payment in exchange for authorship or even guarantee publication without rigorous peer review. These journals exploit the academic pressure to publish while ignoring ethical guidelines.

c) Guest authorship: Senior academics or influential figures are sometimes added as authors, despite having no significant contribution, to increase a paper's credibility or likelihood of acceptance in prestigious journals.

d) Ghostwriting services: Ghostwriting companies write entire papers and assign authorship to paying clients. These clients often have little or no involvement in the research or writing process, misrepresenting their expertise and contributions.

e) Institutional pressure: In some institutions, there is an unspoken culture of rewarding quantity over quality in publications. This leads to unethical practices, such as honorary or undeserved authorship, particularly among faculty members seeking promotions or tenure.

f) Coercive authorship: Supervisors or senior researchers might pressure students or junior colleagues to include them as co-authors, regardless of their actual contribution, perpetuating unethical practices.

g) High-impact journal manipulation: Some researchers target high-impact journals by buying authorship on studies already accepted or under review, leveraging these publications for career advancement or securing funding.<div></div>
|Important Because=The credibility of scientific research hinges on transparency and ethical authorship practices. Selling authorship compromises these principles, leading to fraudulent publications, misrepresentation of expertise, and potential misuse of findings. This practice often stems from pressure to "publish or perish" in academia, incentivizing unethical behavior. Left unchecked, it erodes public trust in science and creates an uneven playing field for honest researchers. Addressing this issue is essential to safeguard the future of scientific integrity and uphold academic standards. By understanding the factors driving this problem, readers can explore potential solutions and contribute to fostering a culture of ethical research practices.
|Important For=Research Performing Organization;Researcher;Health / Clinical Researcher;Doctoral Student;Policy Maker / Regulator;Journal Editor;Research Integrity Officer / Committee Member;Undergraduate Student / Graduate Student
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:B00b6a77-94d1-4a35-889f-f0e7a6e2f2fd
}}
{{Tags}}

Theme:5c04ba35-2459-42bb-aa31-07396773cf4f

2026-06-02T15:58:57Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Other
|Title=The decision on ice
|Is About=In 1983, Trounson and Mohr<ref>Trounson A, Mohr L. Human pregnancy following cryopreservation, thawing and transfer of an eight-cell embryo. Nature. 1983 Oct 20-26;305(5936):707-9. doi: 10.1038/305707a0. PMID: 6633637.</ref> announced the first human pregnancy following cryopreservation, thawing, and transfer of an eight-cell embryo. Since then, embryo cryopreservation became a crucial tool that complements a standard in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedure by maximizing its effectiveness and reducing the risk of multiple pregnancies by limiting the number of embryos transferred. However, as a consequence, a growing supply of embryos in cryostorage has been reported worldwide<ref>Hoffman DI, Zellman GL, Fair CC, Mayer JF, Zeitz JG, Gibbons WE, Turner TG Jr;Society for Assisted Reproduction Technology (SART) and RAND. Cryopreserved embryos in the United States and their availability for research. Fertil Steril. 2003 May;79(5):1063-9. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(03)00172-9. PMID: 12738496.</ref><ref>Boulton A. Britain poised to extend storage of frozen embryos. BMJ. 1996 Jan 6;312(7022):10. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7022.10a. PMID: 8555843.</ref>.
|Important Because=When it is decided that no further fertility treatments will be pursued, couples are facing the challenging decision regarding the disposition of their frozen embryos, also known as “embryo disposal decision” (EDD) <ref>Bruno C, Dudkiewicz-Sibony C, Berthaut I, Weil E, Brunet L, Fortier C, Pfeffer J, Ravel C, Fauque P, Mathieu E, Antoine JM, Kotti S, Mandelbaum J. Survey of 243 ART patients having made a final disposition decision about their surplus cryopreserved embryos: the crucial role of symbolic embryo representation. Hum Reprod. 2016 Jul;31(7):1508-14. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dew104. Epub 2016 May 10. PMID: 27165623.</ref>. Essentially, at the end of the storage period, which varies amongst different countries and institutions, couples have 4 outcomes to choose from: to continue storage by paying an additional cost, to discard, or to donate embryos to research or to another couple. There is also the complex matter of “abandoned embryos” that refers to the cases where the couple cannot be reached and/or fails to provide the clinic with a decision pertaining to the embryos’ fate<ref>Newton CR, Fisher J, Feyles V, Tekpetey F, Hughes L, Isacsson D. Changes in patient preferences in the disposal of cryopreserved embryos. Hum Reprod. 2007 Dec;22(12):3124-8. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dem287. Epub 2007 Oct 24. PMID: 17962212.</ref>, so the embryologists become their custodians and guardians, which raises ethical questions, as well as bureaucratic challenges. To avoid such complications, some have advocated the use of a “properly prepared legal document, i.e., a pre-freeze agreement,”<ref>Jones HW Jr, Muasher SJ, Nusbaum RC. A step toward solving some of the problems of cryopreservation. Fertil Steril. 1992 Feb;57(2):278-84. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)54830-4. PMID: 1735476.</ref>. There are numerous studies describing patients’ views on the disposal procedure of their excess embryos. Some couples perceive them as barely, more than a group of cells, or a tissue, while others consider them as their unborn children<ref>Klock SC. Embryo disposition: the forgotten "child" of in vitro fertilization. Int J Fertil Womens Med. 2004 Jan-Feb;49(1):19-23. PMID: 15038505.</ref><ref>Nachtigall RD, Becker G, Friese C, Butler A, MacDougall K. Parents' conceptualization of their frozen embryos complicates the disposition decision. Fertil Steril. 2005 Aug;84(2):431-4. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.01.134. PMID: 16084886;PMCID: PMC2811165.</ref><ref>Nachtigall RD, Becker G, Friese C, Butler A, MacDougall K. Parents' conceptualization of their frozen embryos complicates the disposition decision. Fertil Steril. 2005 Aug;84(2):431-4. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.01.134. PMID: 16084886;PMCID: PMC2811165.</ref><ref>Provoost V, Pennings G, De Sutter P, Gerris J, Van de Velde A, De Lissnyder E, Dhont M. Infertility patients' beliefs about their embryos and their disposition preferences. Hum Reprod. 2009 Apr;24(4):896-905. doi: 10.1093/humrep/den486. Epub 2009 Jan 9. PMID: 19136479.</ref>. In a model of patients’ decision-making processes for the fate of frozen embryos, developed by Takahashi et al.<ref>Takahashi S, Fujita M, Fujimoto A, Fujiwara T, Yano T, Tsutsumi O, Taketani Y, Akabayashi A. The decision-making process for the fate of frozen embryos by Japanese infertile women: a qualitative study. BMC Med Ethics. 2012 May 20;13:9. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-13-9. PMID: 22607034;PMCID: PMC3405475.</ref>, this burden was expressed as “Mottainai,” a prevalent, culturally embedded moral standard in Japan. “Mottai” is a Buddhist term that refers to the intrinsic dignity or sacredness of a material entity. “Nai” is negation<ref>Selected Version of the Great Japanese Dictionary, 3rd edition. Tokyo:

Shougakukan Inc;2006 (in Japanese).</ref>. Therefore, “Mottainai” is an expression of sadness and guilt over the disrespectful and wasteful treatment of valuable entities<ref>Takahashi S, Fujita M, Fujimoto A, Fujiwara T, Yano T, Tsutsumi O, Taketani Y, Akabayashi A. The decision-making process for the fate of frozen embryos by Japanese infertile women: a qualitative study. BMC Med Ethics. 2012 May 20;13:9. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-13-9. PMID: 22607034;PMCID: PMC3405475.</ref>.
|Important For=Health Care Professional;Health / Clinical Researcher;Educator / Lecturer;Policy Maker / Regulator;Civil Society / NGO Representative;Research Participant;Researcher
|Has Best Practice=Worldwide, governmentally regulated limitations for maintaining embryos in cryostorage vary from 24 months to an infinite duration<ref>Klock SC. Embryo disposition: the forgotten "child" of in vitro fertilization. Int J Fertil Womens Med. 2004 Jan-Feb;49(1):19-23. PMID: 15038505.</ref>. Although consensus regarding the ethics of thawing and discarding does not exist, in the absence of explicit, contemporaneous consent, approaches to the issue of unclaimed embryos have been proposed by other advisory bodies. The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) Task Force on Ethics and Law has advocated standard time limits that can be renewed a limited number of times on a couple’s demand<ref>Shenfield F, Pennings G, Sureau C, Cohen J, Tarlatzis B;European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology Task Force on Ethics and Law. II. The cryopreservation of human embryos. Hum Reprod. 2001 May;16(5):1049-50. doi: 10.1093/humrep/16.5.1049. PMID: 11464803.</ref>, while the ASRM committee concluded that a clinic can consider embryos abandoned and discard them if 5 years has passed since the last contact with the couple and if significant efforts have been made to contact that couple<ref>Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Electronic address: asrm@asrm.org. Disposition of unclaimed embryos: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2021 Jul;116(1):48-53. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.02.020. PMID: 34148589.</ref>. Spanish regulations mandate that embryos should only be used for reproductive purposes, which makes embryo donation the only legal solution when couples do not want the embryos for their own transfer<ref>Bankowski BJ, Lyerly AD, Faden RR, Wallach EE. The social implications of embryo cryopreservation. Fertil Steril. 2005 Oct;84(4):823-32. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.02.057. PMID: 16213829.</ref>. Meanwhile, Malta is one of the countries whose legislation does not permit embryo discarding and allows to inseminate up to three oocytes while all resulting embryos are required to be transferred<ref>Mallia P. Problems faced with legislating for IVF technology in a Roman Catholic country. Med Health Care Philos. 2010 Feb;13(1):77-87. doi: 10.1007/s11019-009-9224-9. PMID: 19763882.</ref>. Although this immensely complicated issue is substantially discussed in the bioethical and philosophical literature, it is still one of the most significant ethical dilemmas in the world of Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART)<ref>Tonkens R. The moral unacceptability of abandoning human embryos. Monash Bioeth Rev. 2016 Mar;34(1):52-69. doi: 10.1007/s40592-016-0060-4. PMID: 27468864.</ref>
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5a9ad588-b163-494a-b4b3-fef69e519788;Resource:4a753160-6d6e-4eb4-b806-1443cb2d4146;Resource:Ad7f9f5c-a519-4744-a7c6-5fba091e9264
}}
{{Tags
|Related To Research Area=LS 07.08 - Health services, health care research
}}

Theme:57e2312f-e267-4b93-b6aa-5ba654525ee9

2026-06-02T15:58:56Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title=Grading the quality of evidence in clinical practice guidelines
|Is About=Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are designed to support the decision-making processes in patient care. A large number of guidelines are available both from medical associations and national health departments. The content of a CPG is based on a systematic review of clinical evidence - the main source for evidence-based care. Guidelines report the quality of the evidence used when they formulate the recommendations. For each recommendation in the guidelines, the level of evidence and strength of the recommendation are defined[[#%20ftn1|[1]]]. The quality of evidence has been defined as “reflecting the extent to which confidence in the estimate of an effect is adequate to support recommendations”[[#%20ftn2|[2]]]. The grading of the recommendations may vary across professional health agencies and scientific societies.

The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group have developed the GRADE system, which is intended as a common, sensible and transparent approach to grading the quality of evidence for the use in clinical guidelines[[#%20ftn3|[3]]]. The GRADE approach has a wide dissemination, with endorsement from more than 50 organizations worldwide, including WHO and Cochrane.
----[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Cura Della Redazione A. La costruzione delle linee guida [Clinical practice guidelines: what they are and how are developed]. Assist Inferm Ric. 2014;33:214-8.

[[#%20ftnref2|[2]]] Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck‐Ytter Y, Schünemann HJ, et al. GRADE: what is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ. 2008;336:995–8.

[[#%20ftnref3|[3]]] The GRADE working group [Internet]. GRADE [accessed 8 September, 2020]. Available online at: <nowiki>http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org</nowiki> 2013.
<br />
|Important Because=When clinicians apply or offer the treatment to their patients, they should be up to date with the most recent guidelines regarding the particular treatment. The recommendation in the guideline may arise from a well- conducted and large randomised controlled trial. In that case, clinician can provide the treatment while being aware of all the benefits and the risks. On the other hand, treatment recommendations may come from studies that are graded as evidence of lower quality. If so, the treatment should be applied bearing in mind possible undesirable effects or costs, so clinicians can help patients to decide according to their values and preferences. Since the recommendations in the guidelines affect patients' lives, guidelines and recommendations must therefore transparently indicate whether the evidence is one of high quality or there is an uncertain balance.
|Important For=Health / Clinical Researcher;Policy Maker / Regulator;Senior Researcher
|Has Best Practice=Experts in their respective fields and organizations who are in charge of creating clinical practice guidelines should be aware of discrepancies that may arise if the grading system is not well defined. Ratings of quality of evidence should be transparent and based on detailed and clear criteria, so it can be used by clinicians and patients. However, it can't be expected of clinicians or patients to comprehend a variety of grading systems. A simple, transparent grading of the recommendation, such as the GRADE system, is an example of a good solution. It's the system that provides their users to assess the judgments behind recommendations regarding health care.
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags}}

Theme:48dd2fc6-80da-4c18-b402-6ace079a7643

2026-06-02T15:58:55Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Principles & Aspirations
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:C744b389-ed99-4cc0-97fc-943c1e78a136
|Title=Ethical Challenges of AI-Driven Neurotechnology Devices
|Is About=AI-driven neurotechnology devices, such as brain–computer interfaces (BCIs), are emerging tools that enable direct interaction between the human brain and external digital systems. These technologies increasingly rely on artificial intelligence to interpret neural signals and facilitate communication or motor function in individuals with neurological impairments. While they offer promising therapeutic applications, their use in scientific research raises important ethical concerns related to mental privacy, informed consent, data protection, long-term safety, and potential cognitive enhancement. As such devices are often developed and tested by private companies in collaboration with academic institutions, they challenge existing frameworks for research ethics and integrity. This theme explores the key ethical issues associated with the development and research use of AI-driven neurotechnology devices and highlights the need for updated governance and oversight mechanisms.
|Important Because=The integration of artificial intelligence into neurotechnology research introduces ethical challenges that extend beyond traditional biomedical frameworks. Unlike other forms of health data, neural data may reveal sensitive information about thoughts, intentions, or emotional states, raising concerns about privacy, autonomy, and data governance. The involvement of private companies in developing and testing these technologies may also affect research transparency, participant protection, and the management of conflicts of interest. Furthermore, uncertainties regarding long-term safety and the potential use of such devices for cognitive enhancement complicate the process of obtaining truly informed consent from research participants. Addressing these issues is essential to ensure that innovation in neurotechnology does not compromise fundamental ethical standards in human subjects research.
|Important For=Legal Advisor;Technology Developer / Engineer;Research Participant;Research Ethics Expert;Researcher;Civil Society / NGO Representative;Health Care Professional;Health / Clinical Researcher
|Has Best Practice=Best practices in research involving AI-driven neurotechnology devices should include robust procedures for obtaining informed consent that clearly communicate potential risks, uncertainties, and long-term implications of device implantation. Researchers should ensure strong data governance frameworks to protect neural data from unauthorized access, misuse, or commercial exploitation. Independent ethical oversight is essential, particularly in studies funded or conducted by private companies, in order to minimize conflicts of interest and ensure transparency in reporting research outcomes. Long-term monitoring of research participants should be implemented to assess delayed adverse effects, and interdisciplinary collaboration between clinicians, engineers, ethicists, and legal experts should be encouraged to support responsible study design and oversight.
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:9826851b-c4fd-4398-b8f2-fae4dc391fe1;Instruction:C4523b81-9ff7-43af-ad8b-15dc95afcff5
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accauntability;Autonomy;Responsibility;transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=AI Ethics
}}

Theme:39868075-a4e2-4f56-829d-6ccfdc288bdf

2026-06-02T15:58:55Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors
|Title=Consent and assent in research on children
|Is About=<span lang="EN-GB">Research involving children presents unique ethical challenges, especially regarding obtaining consent for participation.</span>

<span lang="EN-GB">Two approaches must be followed to ensure that research involving children is transparent. The first is consent, which requires complete and informed consent from adults who understand all aspects of the research;the second is assent, which is not legally binding but reflects the children’s agreement, as their age prevents them from giving fully informed consent.</span>
|Important Because=<span lang="EN-GB">Providing assent alongside consent in research involving children is essential for several reasons.</span>

<span lang="EN-GB">Assent protects participants' rights by ensuring that the child's views are acknowledged and respected, even though the child is not legally able to give fully informed consent.</span>

<span lang="EN-GB">Upholding the principles of consent and assent is essential for conducting research ethically, honoring both autonomy and dignity.</span>

<span lang="EN-GB">Applying these principles ensures that all parties involved in the research are adequately informed and that the interests of all participants, especially when dealing with vulnerable groups such as children, are protected.</span>
|Important For=Health / Clinical Researcher;Research Ethics Committee Member;Civil Society / NGO Representative;Research Participant;Doctoral Student;Health Care Professional
|Has Best Practice=<span lang="EN-GB">Protecting the rights and well-being of children and adolescents is a key reason for requiring parental consent and child assent in research.</span>

According to the [https://cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/WEB-CIOMS-EthicalGuidelines.pdf International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans], prepared by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO), published in 2016.

Children and adolescents should take part in health-related research unless there is a strong scientific rationale for excluding them. Their unique physiology and health needs require special attention from researchers and ethics committees. However, their developing emotional and cognitive abilities may render them more vulnerable;without proper support, they might not be able to fully protect their interests. Therefore, additional protections are essential to ensure their rights and well-being in research.

Before undertaking research involving children and adolescents, the researcher and the research ethics committee must ensure that: a parent or a legally authorized representative of the child or adolescent has given permission;and that the agreement (assent) of the child or adolescent has been obtained in keeping with the child’s or adolescent’s capacity, after having been provided with adequate information about the research tailored to the child’s or adolescent’s level of maturity.

In general, a child or adolescent's refusal to participate or continue in the research must be respected unless, in exceptional circumstances, research participation is considered the best medical option for the child or adolescent.
|Has Detail=Legally, minor children and adolescents cannot give legally valid informed consent, but they can actively participate in research discussions—this is called assent.

This means that, with age-appropriate information, they are involved in the decision-making process based on their capacities rather than merely not expressing dissent. Obtaining assent must consider age, individual circumstances, life experiences, emotional and psychological maturity, and the family situation.

As adolescents approach the age of majority, their agreement may be ethically equivalent to consent, with parental consent regarded as "co-consent." If adolescents reach the legal age of majority during the research and become capable of independent informed consent, their written consent for continued participation must be obtained.
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:820083e4-816a-4ffb-8c41-b4fba0907bf8;Theme:F72dcd0f-c164-4604-83c1-17cbf52ca717;Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647;Theme:B14a910a-3bc4-40ff-a0e6-eb7119f51ed9;Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108;Theme:7f203e80-6f50-4469-9311-e4fe8b657506
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=University of Split Medical School
|Has Virtue And Value=Autonomy;Dignity;Resepct;Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Ethics;Informed consent;Obligations to Research Subjects;Research involving children;Research with Humans;protection of vulnerable groups
|Related To Research Area=SH - Social Sciences and Humanities
}}

Theme:29dbaf9d-46a8-4e5c-bf59-8ea0d763ff90

2026-06-02T15:58:54Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Principles & Aspirations
|Title=Precision medicine – future?
|Is About=Precision medicine, or personalized medicine, aims to prevent, diagnose, and treat the patient, taking into account their genetic and clinical picture. At the very heart of precision medicine is genetic testing as a diagnostic tool. The analysis of genome variants enables the detection of hereditary predispositions to diseases such as breast and colon cancer. In addition to oncology, precision medicine can also be used to treat rare diseases, various neurological conditions, and cardiovascular diseases.(1)
|Important Because=Precision medicine represents a shift in treatment approaches in healthcare systems across Europe. Instead of a standardized protocol in which a single drug is used to treat specific diseases, the approach to the patient is completely tailored to understanding their biological specificity. It enables earlier disease detection, more precise diagnosis, and more specific therapies that ultimately work better and reduce side effects in patients. When considering the health system context, this enables more effective treatments and minimizes resource waste from ineffective treatments and hospitalizations.

It also creates a database for developing national strategies. In addition, the exchange among member states provides a strong foundation for the development of good practices, policies, organizations, and innovation in this area. (2)(3)

Such databases include unique genomic data not only for the patient but also for their family members, and therefore, they belong to a special category of data. The collection, processing, and use of such data require the patient's personal consent or, when used in scientific research, must be protected with special mechanisms due to the sensitive nature of the data. Any use of personal data, including genomic data, is regulated by the GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679).
|Important For=Health / Clinical Researcher;Researcher;Technology Developer / Engineer
|Has Best Practice=One of the most successful projects is FinnGen — the Finnish genomic revolution. The project serves as an excellent example of how genomics can be integrated into the national health system. It was launched in 2017 through a collaboration among public-private partners, such as universities, hospitals, and national biobanks, and pharmaceutical companies such as AstraZeneca, Bayer, Genentech, Pfizer, and others. The goal of the project is to merge genomic sample data (citizens' data) with health registries. It was launched in 2017 and includes 520,000 individual patient records, representing about 10% of the population. The first and second phases of the project is centered on data collection and analysis. In contrast, the third phase, which started in 2023, is focused on pre- and post-diagnosis, patient responses to therapy, and monitoring biological mechanisms related to genetic markers. (4)
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags}}
<ref>https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/research-area/health/personalised-medicine_en.</ref><ref><nowiki>https://www.euro-access.eu/en/calls/491/European-Partnership-on-Personalised-Medicine?css=black.European</nowiki> Partnership on Personalised Medicine.</ref><ref>https://www.horizon-europe.gouv.fr/european-partnership-personalised-medicine-33730.</ref><ref>https://www.finngen.fi/en.</ref>

Theme:1fc47ad6-cb9d-42fa-8917-b4736a31a766

2026-06-02T15:58:54Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:9ce65544-f86a-4ee4-a4e7-f9bd7fec4f1c
|Title=Connecting Researchers Through ORCID
|Is About=ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor Identification) provides researchers with a unique digital identifier that distinguishes them from others and connects them to their scholarly work. It enables reliable linking of publications, datasets, and academic activities across platforms. By creating a persistent research identity, ORCID helps ensure that contributions are correctly attributed in an increasingly complex and collaborative research environment.
|Important Because=Correct attribution of research outputs is a central aspect of research integrity. However, identifying individual contributions can be difficult due to common names, name changes, inconsistent authorship practices, and long lists of collaborators. These issues can lead to misattribution, reduced visibility, or unfair recognition of work.

ORCID addresses these challenges by assigning a unique identifier to each researcher, ensuring that their work is accurately connected to them regardless of institutional affiliation or name variations. This improves transparency and accountability in research, while also supporting fair evaluation of academic performance.

In addition, ORCID simplifies administrative processes such as manuscript submission and grant applications, as researchers can reuse their verified profiles instead of repeatedly entering the same information. As its adoption grows, many publishers and funding bodies increasingly require ORCID identifiers, making it an essential tool in modern research practice.
|Important For=Health / Clinical Researcher
|Has Best Practice=* n everyday research practice, ORCID is increasingly integrated into key academic workflows. For example, many scientific journals require or encourage authors to provide an ORCID iD during manuscript submission. This ensures accurate attribution of publications and helps distinguish between authors with similar names.
* <br />Funding organizations also use ORCID identifiers in grant application systems. Applicants can link their ORCID profiles to automatically import their publication history, reducing administrative burden and improving the reliability of reported outputs. This allows funders to better track the outcomes and impact of the research they support. At the institutional level, universities often integrate ORCID into their research information systems. Researchers can connect their ORCID profiles with institutional databases, ensuring that their academic records are continuously updated and consistent across platforms. This is particularly useful for performance evaluations, reporting, and career progression. Researchers themselves use ORCID as a central hub for their academic identity. By maintaining an up-to-date ORCID record, they can link publications, datasets, peer review activities, and conference contributions in one place. This improves visibility and facilitates collaboration, as others can easily access a verified overview of their work. Despite these advantages, adoption varies, and some researchers may not fully utilize the platform. Encouraging consistent use and integration across systems remains an ongoing challenge in maximizing the benefits of ORCID.
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:H5P-498
|Related To Theme=Theme:66ccb878-3c99-4e54-931d-d718bc0cb246
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:304dbea6-9778-4675-b95c-2af7f01ecef5
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Academy of Sciences Presidium
|Has Timepoint=10-1-2020
|Has Location=Berlin
|Has Virtue And Value=Autonomy
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=AI Ethics
|Related To Research Area=SH 01 - Individuals,Institutions and Markets
}}

Theme:1c2abff8-daf5-45ed-8a3b-3e9d4b6d51bf

2026-06-02T15:58:53Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647
|Title=Informed consent in psychiatry
|Is About=This theme is about collecting informed consent in clinical, psychiatry research and the issues that follow this process.
|Important Because=This theme is important because it affects many researchers in their work. It is essential to collect transparent and accurate consent from all participants who are eligible to be in research.
|Important For=Journal Editor;Health / Clinical Researcher;Legal Advisor;Doctoral Student;Research Participant
|Has Best Practice=The best practices is the first step in the targeting the right population of the patients that will be included in research. Also, it is important to give them the informed consent at the beginning of the research, before any procedure.
|Has Detail=The big issue in clinical research is collecting an informed consent from all participants included in research. This can become a dilemma in psychiatry research, too. In psychiatry, the patient should be stable and informed about all procedures that will be taken. However, collecting an informed consent from psychiatry patient can become a challenge. A patient should be fit for work tasks and should be cognitive capable of understanding that he is a part of research.
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=American Journal of Psychiatry
|Has Location=Croatia
|Has Virtue And Value=Accuracy;Availability;Confidentiality;Morality
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Consent
|Related To Research Area=LS 07.11 - Medical ethics
}}

Theme:18f7ddb7-b0f3-4e1c-a53f-2a1fac460e4e

2026-06-02T15:58:53Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Principles & Aspirations
|Title=Research Integrity in Retrospective Clinical Studies
|Is About=This theme addresses research integrity in retrospective clinical studies, with a particular focus on metodological transparency, responsible data use, and ethical considerations in everyday medical research.

Retrospective studies are widely used in clinical practice;however, they require careful attention to data accuracy, bias control, patient confidentiality, and transparent reporting. This theme aims to stimulate discussion on how to strengthen ethical standards and scientific rigor in routine clinical research.
|Important Because=Retrospective studies are common in clinical research but carry risks of bias and data limitations. Ensuring research integrity improves the quality and reliability of findings.
|Important For=Health / Clinical Researcher;Undergraduate Student / Graduate Student;Health Care Professional
|Has Best Practice=Clear study design, transparent reporting, proper statistical analysis, ethical approval, and secure data handling.
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags}}

Theme:09d02462-6fbb-45eb-b83b-c7cd1da6d224

2026-06-02T15:58:52Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:Bc0cb5c2-ac78-4c7a-b83d-b1e6033f16c6
|Title=Imputation of missing data in clinical trials
|Is About=Missing data is always a limitation in the interpretation of clinical trial results. This missing data may seriously affect the inference from clinical trials. Therefore, it is necessary to establish the criteria to handle missing data prior to the clinical trial. Imputation is a potential tool to overcome the bias from missing data but it must be carefully used.
|Important Because=Missing data are unavoidable in clinical trials. Frequently, complete cases analysis is used only including individuals with no missing data <ref>Bell ML, Fiero M, Horton NJ, Hsu CH. Handling missing data in RCTs;A review of the top medical journals. BMC Med Res Methodol [Internet]. 2014 Nov 19 [cited 2022 May 30];14(1):1–8. Available from: <nowiki>https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2288-14-118</nowiki></ref>. However, that can generate bias and can lead to exclude several individuals, causing loss of precision and power <ref>Sterne JAC, White IR, Carlin JB, Spratt M, Royston P, Kenward MG, et al. Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. BMJ [Internet]. 2009 Jun 29 [cited 2022 May 30];338(7713):157–60. Available from: <nowiki>https://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b2393</nowiki></ref>. The risk of bias from missing data depends on the cause <ref>Little RJA, Rubin DB. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, 3rd Edition | Wiley [Internet]. 1991 [cited 2022 May 30]. Available from: <nowiki>https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Statistical+Analysis+with+Missing+Data%2C+3rd+Edition-p-9780470526798</nowiki></ref>:

Missing completely at random: There are no systematic differences between the missing values and the observed values.

Missing at random: Any systematic difference between the missing values and the observed values can be explained by differences in observed data.

Missing not at random: Systematic differences remain between the missing values and the observed values.

The determination of the type of missing values is difficult due to the nature of missing values <ref>Little RJ, D’Agostino R, Cohen ML, Dickersin K, Emerson SS, Farrar JT, et al. The Prevention and Treatment of Missing Data in Clinical Trials. N Engl J Med [Internet]. 2012 Oct 4 [cited 2022 May 30];367(14):1355–60. Available from: <nowiki>https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmsr1203730</nowiki></ref>. Therefore, practical guidelines are needed to deal with missing data.
|Important For=Researcher;Legal Advisor;Health / Clinical Researcher;Research Ethics Committee Member
|Has Best Practice='''Planning stage of the clinical trial'''

To reduce the risks of missing data in the panning of the clinical trial, statistical analyses should be specified, key data items should be identified, and the procedures to prevent missing data <ref name=":0">Jakobsen JC, Gluud C, Wetterslev J, Winkel P. When and how should multiple imputation be used for handling missing data in randomised clinical trials - A practical guide with flowcharts. BMC Med Res Methodol [Internet]. 2017 Dec 6 [cited 2022 May 30];17(1):1–10. Available from: <nowiki>https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-017-0442-1</nowiki></ref>.

'''Analysis stage'''

There are different strategies to deal with missing data that will depend on the specific clinical trial and type of missing data:

1. Complete cases analysis could be used when the proportions of missing data are below 5%and the potential impact of the missing data is negligible <ref>Jakobsen JC, Gluud C, Winkel P, Lange T, Wetterslev J. The thresholds for statistical and clinical significance - A five-step procedure for evaluation of intervention effects in randomised clinical trials. BMC Med Res Methodol [Internet]. 2014 Mar 4 [cited 2022 May 30];14(1):1–12. Available from: <nowiki>https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2288-14-34</nowiki></ref>.

2. Single imputation replaces missing values by a value defined by a certain rule. However, this method ignores the data variation and can potentially introduce bias and should be used with great caution <ref>Dziura JD, Post LA, Zhao Q, Fu Z, Peduzzi P. Strategies for Dealing with Missing Data in Clinical Trials: FromDesign to Analysis. Yale J Biol Med [Internet]. 2013 Sep [cited 2022 May 30];86(3):343. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC3767219/</ref>.

3. When the missing data accomplish certain characteristics, multiple imputation may be used to minimize bias . Missing values are replaced by a random sample of plausible values imputations. There are several multiple imputation methodologies that must be chosen according to the variable with missing values <ref name=":0" />.

To conclude, handling missing data validly is an important, yet difficult and complex, task. This theme showed different strategies to handle missing data but always statistical expertise’s advice is needed.
<references />
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:4fd2677d-bbd0-4396-94c8-7a8310e31b01;Resource:45a04c31-5a75-4816-8484-2dd9b71d1674
|Related To Theme=Theme:67a453dc-7fa0-4f58-a869-748fea8dec7f
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Victor Urbiola-Salvador
|Has Timepoint=30/05/2022
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability;Care;Excellence
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Bias;Clinical trials
|Related To Research Area=LS 02.10 - Bioinformatics;LS 02.12 - Biostatistics
}}

Theme:01e60c50-7d2c-4021-9a85-3ae5dc5a0520

2026-06-02T15:58:51Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B14a910a-3bc4-40ff-a0e6-eb7119f51ed9
|Title=Clarifying the aims of a research study
|Is About=One of the most important steps in informing potential research participants is clearly communicating the aims of the study and ensuring there are no misunderstandings. This has real practical implications. For example, Williams, Irvine, McGinnis, McMurdo & Crombie (2007) surveyed a group of individuals who opted out of a prior cross-sectional study when invited to take part. Although 54% of the individuals contacted refused to participate in the initial study, 61% of this original sample opted to participate in the follow-up study. They identified that the majority of this 61% opted out of the original study due to misunderstandings regarding the research aim and process.
|Important Because=This is important as a small participant sample may result in delayed publication of the research, an increase in research costs, and sampling bias (Williams et al., 2007).
|Important For=Research Performing Organization;Researcher;Research Supervisor / Mentor;Undergraduate Student / Graduate Student;Legal Advisor;Health / Clinical Researcher;Doctoral Student;Research Ethics Committee Member;Civil Society / NGO Representative
|Has Best Practice=Asking participants questions about the study and what they expect from it can reveal gaps in knowledge that need to be addressed. Taking time to ensure a realistic understanding of the study aims and outcomes is essential for the informed consent process and helps prevent participants dropping out.
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:D379e46d-87d3-4e28-891b-c47d5c905f79
|Related To Theme=Theme:48185295-9e1e-41fb-ab70-948596e588d5;Theme:7bef694c-a3df-40ae-8cfb-97b894a5f90e;Theme:E0384a98-fbfd-4df9-9caa-3fe4afa95951;Theme:7df709ce-fb89-4703-966f-b33e68b83ad5;Theme:81c131bb-58e4-42ef-97e6-97e0476f3731
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80;Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd;Instruction:6ceba4e4-fb32-4953-9138-5436807fcde6
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability;Beneficence;Care;Compassion;Credibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Academic Reputation;Appropriate respect for versus paternalist treatment of research participants;Beneficence;Communication
}}

Resource:F5e8362e-3dd6-4b95-a148-e0ccdb1cd4f3

2026-06-02T15:58:51Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=The Olivieri Debacle: Where Were the Heroes of Bioethics?
|Is About=This is a factual case about a blood researcher who is pressured by a pharmaceutical company into not sharing any details of a clinical trial which was terminated after the drug under investigation was suggested to be ineffective and maybe even harmful for the patients. The researcher received no support from the institution she was working for. The institution was later shown to have a conflict of interest. The article especially emphasizes the lack of action by the bioethical community in this case.
<references />
|Important Because=Publication of clinical trial results is important, especially if the drug under investigation is potentially harmful to the patients. If the pharmaceutical company tries to force the researcher to do otherwise, the institution should intervene and try to support its employee, even if this means that the institution receives no funding from the company. Similarly, the local bioethical community should offer support as well. The example at hand shows the potential consequences if this is not the case: the integrity of the research may be endangered, along with the health of both the patients and researchers. <br />
<references />
|Important For=Researcher;Research Ethics Committee Member;Research Performing Organization;Health / Clinical Researcher;Technology Developer / Engineer
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://jme.bmj.com/content/30/1/44
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108;Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320;Theme:Fe62e07c-2e75-4a55-82e6-1908fa543b7a;Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=1995
|Has Location=Canada
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect;Honesty;Transparency;Compassion;Collegiality;Safety
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Informed consent;Conflict of interest;Patient safety
|Related To Research Area=Clinical Medicine
}}

Resource:E9f0a211-639e-4328-bdff-75fe2a941117

2026-06-02T15:58:50Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Obstructive sleep apnoea
|Is About=This case is about a controversial study design of a clinical trial and the related publication. A letter to the editor briefly lists three ethical issues that makes the published trial ethical questionable: clinical equipoise, unfavourable risks-benefit ratio, and the use of deception.
|Important For=Research Ethics Committee Member;Journal Editor;Health / Clinical Researcher
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)75423-4/fulltext
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:E5629f68-81f6-490d-84d6-fd1e63b8dbc7
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability;Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Informed consent;Patient safety
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences
}}

Resource:E1f32efa-98f0-4036-857b-441c15bb39da

2026-06-02T15:58:50Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Unlicensed usage of medical devices on patients: a case of accusations
|Is About=The case is about a factual controversy that surrounded the experimental usage of a heart valve device called a Myxo ring. A doctor accused the inventor of the device of using the Myxo ring on patients with surgical needs without informing them the device is not licensed. The university refused the accusations arguing that the ring is FDA approved. Some conflict of interests issues are also discussed.
|Important Because=The development of innovative materials and devices for better treatment and health care are significant goals of medicine. New materials and devices must be tested on patients in a professional infrastructure, in controlled settings while properly following the ethical and legal regulation on clinical trials on medical devices. Informed consent and independent REC approval are necessary conditions.
|Important For=Research Ethics Committee Member;Health Care Professional;Health / Clinical Researcher
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2011/06/doctors-experimenting-on-humans-five-questions-with-dr-nalini-rajamannan.html
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:D44fd22a-ed5d-4120-a78b-8881747131fd;Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320;Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=7-6-2011
|Has Location=USA;United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect;Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Ethical approval by necessary body;Conflict of interest;Informed consent
|Related To Research Area=Basic medicine;LS 04.07 - Cardiovascular diseases;LS 07.01 - Medical engineering and technology
}}

Resource:Dff19bca-f034-4f96-8004-1c05f95821a2

2026-06-02T15:58:49Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
|Is About=An international convention that aims to protect the rights and freedom of people across Europe. In the convention, several articles protect basic human rights. Not only it protects basic rights such as the right to life, the right to a fair trial, but it also prevents harmful action by declaring the right to freedom from torture, freedom from slavery, among others.
|Important Because=47 Member States of the Council of Europe have signed the European Convention on Human Rights. Besides, any violation of the ECHR can be taken to the European Court of Human Rights. The European Convention on Human Rights has been endorsed by several European societies like the European Federation of Psychologists' Associations and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.
|Important For=Researcher;Research Performing Organization;Legal Advisor;Civil Society / NGO Representative;Health / Clinical Researcher;Policy Maker / Regulator;Research Ethics Committee Member;Peer Reviewer;Technology Developer / Engineer
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=European Court of Human Rights;Council of Europe;European Federation of Psychologists' Associations;European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
|Has Timepoint=1953
|Has Virtue And Value=Dignity
}}

Resource:Deca5ee1-560a-4b03-8656-4f2026c4ebfc

2026-06-02T15:58:49Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Political points
|Is About=A researcher is unsure how to disseminate potentially controversial findings regarding needle exchange programs and HIV infection rates.
|Important For=Early Career Researcher;Health / Clinical Researcher
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://bioethicsresearch.org/resources/case-studies/political-points/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:Db8f42bd-cf96-4b4a-9544-b20d8644e8b7;Resource:8d4936a8-4fe5-4768-b7e5-98c82524be34
|Related To Theme=Theme:E0384a98-fbfd-4df9-9caa-3fe4afa95951;Theme:4596ffa1-88cd-40bc-b346-a58837206404
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability;Honesty;Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Research methodology;Risk;Experimental design
|Related To Research Area=LS 07.09 - Public health and epidemiology
}}

Resource:C85fae6c-aabf-468e-8e12-378eec125a79

2026-06-02T15:58:48Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=The European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (ECHRBmed)
|Is About=The ECHRBmed is a legally binding convention aimed at the protection of human rights within the biomedical field. It uses as a framework the European Convention of Human Rights and focuses on a variety of topics and rights, especially those relevant for the medical and biomedical disciplines.
|Important Because=Bioethics and law are two matters very much controversial between states since they are related to the core beliefs of each state. Therefore, the ECHRBmed serves as a unifying point, providing basic and general principles. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology endorses the ECHRBmed in their Code of Ethics.
|Important For=Researcher;Civil Society / NGO Representative;Health / Clinical Researcher;Policy Maker / Regulator;Research Ethics Committee Member
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://rm.coe.int/168007cf98
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Council of Europe;European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
|Has Timepoint=1997
|Has Location=Oviedo
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability;Autonomy;Confidentiality;Confidentiality;Dignity;Non-discrimination;Privacy
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Consent
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences
}}

Resource:C71cc110-e8dd-4ca8-9230-024f7b3ae5cd

2026-06-02T15:58:48Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=You want to do what? Paper on anal swabs for COVID-19 retracted for ethical issues
|Is About=A factual case where ethical procedures for informing patients and getting their informed consent had either not been followed properly or had not been declared.
|Important Because=Even in exceptional and unprecedented times like a pandemic it is imperative that all stages of research are followed in a manner dictated by relevant research ethics protocols.
|Important For=Legal Advisor;Health / Clinical Researcher
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2021/04/15/you-want-to-do-what-paper-on-anal-swabs-for-covid-19-retracted-for-ethical-issues/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Informed consent
}}

Resource:C45de829-ef72-45a6-be31-ac749831f99a

2026-06-02T15:58:47Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Research or Services?
|Is About=Parents are told that if they enroll their babies in a research project, the babies will receive an EEG to look for signs of brain damage. Babies not enrolled will not receive this diagnostic test.
|Important For=Health / Clinical Researcher
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://bioethicsresearch.org/resources/case-studies/research-or-services/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:B24498af-a8e9-4af8-b5e7-12a560c219db;Resource:8a2719e6-7498-40c5-96a8-be0e10a81e27
|Related To Theme=Theme:820083e4-816a-4ffb-8c41-b4fba0907bf8;Theme:D0ad4326-4faa-47bf-85ab-a3eb78cb6540
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Vulnerable and non-competent subjects;Research involving children;Conflict of interests
|Related To Research Area=LS 05 - Neurosciences and Neural Disorders
}}

Resource:C3a111e8-651f-4db7-b630-563ee2fc6a51

2026-06-02T15:58:47Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Publishing complications and patient safety
|Is About=This is a factual but anonymised question to COPE forum. A doctor and editor of a medical journal would like to publish a series of cases of unsuccessful medical treatments in order to improve knowledge and future practice. S/he proposes anonymization of the actors involved (both patients and their doctors/therapists) as well as removal of possible demographics identification variables (age, gender etc). However, the written consent of those involved (patients and doctors/therapists) might be missing. Would that violate COPE guidelines?
|Important Because=There are several quick messages emerging here. An underlying implicit message is that even with the best intentions in mind, one may be in danger of unwillingly performing ethics misconduct.

Second, when unsure, once can ask for clarification of the best research ethics practices from the relevant institutions (in this case, COPE).

Third, the primary aim of this requested publication of cases is to inform future medical practice, and therefore, and provide an educational resource for trainees and practicing doctors. In answering, COPE provides ideas of ways to deal with this dilemma;several issues are considered in terms of privacy, stakes to be protected and legalities.

Finally, different countries might have different regulations, guidelines and practices for ethics in research, as well as different legal environments and systems when patient safety concerns are involved.
|Important For=Research Ethics Committee Member;Research Integrity Officer / Committee Member;Legal Advisor;Journal Editor;Health / Clinical Researcher
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://publicationethics.org/case/publishing-complications-and-patient-safety
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647;Theme:B14a910a-3bc4-40ff-a0e6-eb7119f51ed9
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Confidentiality;Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Consent;Anonymization
}}

Resource:C348a5da-9ee5-4437-aae2-be18a13e843b

2026-06-02T15:58:46Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Studying Vulnerable Individuals
|Is About=Mark would like to conduct research for his dissertation at a group home for developmentally disabled persons where he has worked as a social worker for several years.
|Important For=Health / Clinical Researcher;Research Ethics Committee Member
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://bioethicsresearch.org/resources/case-studies/studying-vulnerable-individuals/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:D0ad4326-4faa-47bf-85ab-a3eb78cb6540;Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Vulnerable and non-competent subjects;Confidentiality;Consent
|Related To Research Area=SH 04.03 - Neuropsychology
}}

Resource:Baeaad30-3c8d-4812-8a50-ca4aeb593707

2026-06-02T15:58:46Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=Ethical guidance for research with a potential for human enhancement
|Is About=This guidance document aims to help researchers to consider, examine, and address ethical issues associated with human enhancement. Human enhancement refers to a wide field of interventions and technologies that aim at improving human beings beyond what might otherwise be considered typical or average. The guidance in this document is designed to be cross-disciplinary, and not limited to a particular field of science, engineering or medicine. It aims to cover all fields in research and development (R&D) where human enhancement potential may occur. Although it has wider application, this document has been composed for Horizon Europe ethics review and it thereby also complements other documentation for the ethics review procedure in Horizon Europe. This document is intended for the following types of projects: (1) Projects in which human enhancement is an explicit aim, either through research intended to facilitate human enhancement applications, or through the development of products or techniques intended for human enhancement;(2) Projects that have unforeseen, unpredicted or unintended potential enhancement applications, by which is meant that research and/or development is undertaken for therapeutic or other non-enhancement purposes, but the results of the project also have a clear potential for human enhancement.
|Important For=Researcher;Civil Society / NGO Representative;Legal Advisor;Health / Clinical Researcher;Research Funding Organization;Policy Maker / Regulator;Senior Researcher;Research Ethics Committee Member;Peer Reviewer
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4783068
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:5682ba3d-ab7d-42e7-8a3a-684360ee216b
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=SIENNA;Erden;Brey
}}

Resource:B4f4ebfd-feb8-425a-ab54-e4d86c90d404

2026-06-02T15:58:45Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=ICH Guidelines
|Is About=The International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) is unique in bringing together the regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical industry to discuss scientific and technical aspects of pharmaceuticals and develop ICH guidelines. ICH's mission is to achieve greater harmonisation worldwide to ensure that safe, effective and high quality medicines are developed, and registered and maintained in the most resource efficient manner whilst meeting high standards.
|Important Because=ICH’s mission has been embodied in its Articles of Association as follows:

* To make recommendations towards achieving greater harmonisation in the interpretation and application of technical guidelines and requirements for pharmaceutical product registration and the maintenance of such registrations;* To maintain a forum for a constructive dialogue on scientific issues between regulatory authorities and the pharmaceutical industry on the harmonisation of the technical requirements for pharmaceutical products;* To contribute to the protection of public health in the interest of patients from an international perspective;* To monitor and update harmonised technical requirements leading to a greater mutual acceptance of research and development data;* To avoid divergent future requirements through harmonisation of selected topics needed as a result of therapeutic advances and the development of new technologies for the production of medicinal products;* To facilitate the adoption of new or improved technical research and development approaches which update or replace current practices;* To encourage the adequate implementation and integration of common standards through the dissemination of, the communication of information about and coordination of training on, harmonised guidelines and their use;* And to develop policy for the ICH Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities Terminology (MedDRA) whilst ensuring the scientific and technical maintenance, development and dissemination of MedDRA as a standardised dictionary which facilitates the sharing of regulatory information internationally for medicinal products used by humans.
|Important For=Health / Clinical Researcher;Technology Developer / Engineer;Researcher;Research Manager / Administrator;Health Care Professional;Policy Maker / Regulator
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.ich.org/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:19344715-932f-4599-b6db-cef280258d52;Resource:B0e5c922-6867-4439-ba5d-e2a71ff3405b
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=ICH
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Adherence to Regulations;Research with Humans
|Related To Research Area=LS 07.03 - Pharmacology, pharmacogenomics, drug discovery and design, drug therapy
}}

Resource:B2456a64-b3e1-4d36-866e-a3ba117633e9

2026-06-02T15:58:45Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Handling of Scientific Dishonesty in the Nordic Countries: Early stages in the 1990's
|Is About=This factual case analyses the similarities and differences in history, composition and functioning of committees on scientific dishonesty in medical research in the Nordic countries of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. For instance, the respective committees from these countries use different definitions of scientific dishonesty. Furthermore, eight cases of potential scientific misconduct that were brought to the committees are being discussed.
|Important Because=Scientific dishonesty and misconduct in medical research may be detrimental in various ways, e.g. it may endanger the research subject’s well-being and the public trust in science. The severity and consequences of scientific misconduct depend on the form in which it takes place. Nonetheless, research shows that there is still a substantial number of researchers that have admitted to dishonest behaviour.<ref>Martinson BC, Anderson MS, De Vries R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 2005 Jun 9;435:737-8.</ref> Accordingly, prevention and punishment of both small and large instances of scientific dishonesty and misconduct are of utmost importance to ensure research integrity. The best institutions to issue these measures are independent committees that are free from personal and commercial biases. The present case may give insight into possible complications in the establishment of such committees, such as the definition of scientific misconduct. Therefore, it may aid in the formation and enhancement of systems to prevent scientific dishonesty and misconduct.
<references />
|Important For=Researcher;Senior Researcher;Research Ethics Committee Member;Health / Clinical Researcher;Research Integrity Officer / Committee Member
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(98)07133-5/fulltext
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:366d47ee-4b9d-4287-8c57-88ba847480bb;Resource:F68f2226-005e-4321-b2a4-fc541fdf6c8d;Resource:740210e9-b695-428b-90a3-f3af7a94a174;Resource:E8743444-88e1-46a7-a1c0-25ca501c0886
|Related To Theme=Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8;Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd;Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c;Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0;Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd;Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty;Finnish National Board on Research Integrity
|Has Timepoint=1992-1999
|Has Location=Norway;Finland;Sweden;Denmark
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Authorship;Ghost authorship;Dishonesty
|Related To Research Area=Clinical Medicine
}}

Resource:B24498af-a8e9-4af8-b5e7-12a560c219db

2026-06-02T15:58:44Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Ethics and children's rights: learning from past mistakes
|Is About=The paper discusses several instances in the past where research ethics requirements - protecting the rights of children participants - were not adequately followed.
|Important For=Health / Clinical Researcher;Health Care Professional
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.magonlinelibrary.com/doi/pdf/10.12968/bjon.2002.11.17.1132
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:F541a6f8-9745-465b-8178-083bc7a40d6a;Resource:6f86286f-e078-48ae-915d-33fa0702d502;Resource:8a2719e6-7498-40c5-96a8-be0e10a81e27
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect;Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=consent;Research ethics;Research with humans
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences
}}

Resource:A68a8967-26be-4d22-84e5-79a003b8e995

2026-06-02T15:58:43Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=The Suspect Questionnaire
|Is About=A physician gives a young anthropologist a questionnaire that appears to have been taken from a research proposal rejected by the physician.
|Important For=Research Performing Organization;Researcher;Health / Clinical Researcher;Peer Reviewer;Research Funding Organization
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.americananthro.org/LearnAndTeach/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=12932
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty;Respect;Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism;Misuse of Other's Ideas
|Related To Research Area=LS 07.08 - Health services, health care research;SH - Social Sciences and Humanities
}}

Resource:A17e0508-0a4b-46c6-bb54-6a0823996e17

2026-06-02T15:58:43Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Possible omission of information essential for conclusions in a research paper
|Is About=In 2013, a COPE member journal published a paper describing an observational study comparing two drugs (A and B) for the management of a chronic disease over a period of 10 years. The conclusion in the paper was that mortality was higher in group A (97 deaths) compared with the other group B (52 deaths) (hazard ratio 1.76, 1.22 to 2.53;P=0.003). This analysis was done after adjustment for a large number of confounders, and was approved by our statistical advisor. The authors of the papers did acknowledge that this was an observational study, and did state that residual confounding might be present.

In 2014 COPE received a letter of concern by a researcher, employed by the company selling drug A, who felt that the authors of the 2013 paper omitted essential information that might impact on the conclusions. It appears that the routine management of this disease has changed substantially over the 10 year period, and this should have been treated as a confounder for which statistical adjustments should have been made. This change in routine management of the disease is documented in a paper published in 2014, but the researcher felt that these authors were probably aware of this much earlier and should have disclosed this information during the review process of their 2013 paper.

In our initial response in July 2014 to the letter of concern, we asked the researcher who sent us the letter of concern to send us a detailed rapid response to the 2013 paper, which we could publish. We have also asked advice of our statistical advisor who reviewed the 2013 paper, and he acknowledged that this information might impact on the statistical calculations and thus the conclusions of the paper. But with the data available to him, he is not able to make a definitive assessment of how much impact it would have. He has suggested to put these questions to the authors of the 2013 paper.
|Important For=Research Performing Organization;Journal Editor;Health / Clinical Researcher
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://publicationethics.org/case/possible-omission-information-essential-conclusions-research-paper
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2014
}}

Resource:9984ebbc-f292-4b62-8c85-754cad2ce748

2026-06-02T15:58:42Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=The European Union Good Clinical Practice Directive
|Is About=The Good Clinical Practice Directive of the European Union, published in 2005, sets down detailed guidelines and principles for the conduct of good clinical practice, as this regards investigational medical products for human use, and their manufacture and importation.
|Important Because=Having strong guidelines for the conduct of good clinical practice is important for conducting medical research with integrity, and in such a way that the privacy and autonomy of patients and subjects is respected.
|Important For=Health / Clinical Researcher
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32005L0028
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:Dff19bca-f034-4f96-8004-1c05f95821a2
}}
{{Tags}}

Resource:900ac048-5363-4b4f-bffb-5dbf6af5f50e

2026-06-02T15:58:42Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=A case on deepfake AI-based psychotherapy for processing trauma and grief
|Has Related Initiative=Initiative:F4d945c9-461b-44f7-91ba-db70ca6332a1
|Is About=This case study examines the use of deepfake AI technology in psychotherapy to help patients process trauma and grief. AI-generated synthetic media can simulate conversations with a deceased loved one or a perpetrator of trauma, allowing patients to confront unresolved emotions. The approach aims to support emotional closure in situations where real interactions are impossible. Although early research shows potential therapeutic value, the technology raises concerns about psychological safety, consent, and the ethical use of sensitive personal data.
|Important Because=This case is important because deepfake therapy introduces a new form of AI-mediated psychological treatment that could help patients process trauma or grief when traditional therapy methods are insufficient. However, the technology also raises complex ethical questions about emotional manipulation, privacy, and the boundary between reality and simulation. Ensuring careful clinical supervision, informed consent, and strong safeguards is essential to protect patients and maintain trust in emerging AI-based mental health interventions.
|Important For=Health Care Professional;Researchers, Research Ethics Committee Member;IT / Technical Professional;Policy Maker / Regulator;Health / Clinical Researcher
|Has Best Practice=Best practices include using deepfake therapy only under strict clinical supervision and when other therapeutic options have been exhausted. Therapists should obtain informed consent from patients and ensure transparency about the simulated nature of the interaction. Sensitive data used to create deepfakes must be securely stored and handled responsibly. Mental health professionals should also evaluate the patient’s psychological readiness and monitor potential risks such as re-traumatization or emotional overattachment to the simulated character.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://cea.hal.science/cea-05091448v1
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Safety;Trustworthiness;Care;Respect;Consent;Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Re-traumatization of patients during simulated confrontations;Emotional overattachment;Misuse of images, voice, or data of deceased persons or perpetrators;Blurring boundaries between reality and simulation;Lack of safeguards or professional oversight in therapy
}}

Resource:9004bac4-8ae3-49e0-bfef-19d46a67a1ba

2026-06-02T15:58:41Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Macchiarini may be dismissed from Karolinska;dean of research resigns
|Is About=This is the factual case of a trachea transplant surgeon whose research and practice have made him famous for advancements in transplant medicine. Misconduct investigations, following allegations against him (e.g. for informed consent and relevant safeguarding issues), led to his dismissal.
|Important Because=The case shows the extent of adverse consequences for researchers, patients and research institutes when proper ethical guidelines and practices are not followed.
|Important For=Health / Clinical Researcher;Legal Advisor
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2016/02/22/macchiarini-may-be-dismissed-from-karolinska-dean-of-research-resigns/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Has Location=Sweden
}}

Resource:8a1eb14c-bbdf-45ca-a4bd-489ded21a601

2026-06-02T15:58:41Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=The European Union Clinical Trials Directive
|Is About=Directive 2001/20/EC, passed by the EU parliament and Council in 2001, is a directive that aimed to provide guidelines for the conduct of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials of medicines on human subjects. The directive aimed to protect public health by establishing a clear procedure for clinical trials conducted within the European Union.
|Important For=Health / Clinical Researcher;Technology Developer / Engineer
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2016-11/dir_2001_20_en_0.pdf
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags}}

Resource:7082faff-d79c-4992-90bf-1c32b2d8c262

2026-06-02T15:58:40Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects
|Is About=The Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) published these guidelines in 2002, to replace guidelines published in 1992. This document provides 21 guidelines and commentary on issues relating to issues like the ethical justification of biomedical research, informed consent, confidentiality, and the conduct of research involving vulnerable groups.
|Important Because=The establishment of ethical standards and practices in biomedical research involving human subjects is important for avoiding unnecessary harm, and for making sure that research conducted in this area is done so safely and ethically.
|Important For=Health / Clinical Researcher
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://cioms.ch/publications/product/international-ethical-guidelines-for-biomedical-research-involving-human-subjects-2/#description
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:05f04469-5834-4411-9217-c2551a0c745a
}}
{{Tags}}

Resource:6db91721-501b-4ec2-aff7-a2c732c4806f

2026-06-02T15:58:40Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Jesse's Intent
|Is About=This factual case describes the story of a teenage boy who died during a clinical trial in which a gene therapy for a rare metabolic disorder was tested. The story is told in great detail from the perspective of the boy's father. Following his son's death, he discovered that the researchers leading the trial had conflicts of interest and that he and his son were not properly informed of the risks of the trial.
|Important Because=Participants of clinical trials must be well informed of the risks they are taking by participating in the trial, especially when the treatment under investigation is a non-therapeutic intervention. In these cases, the benefits should outweigh the risks, which was not true in the tragedy described here: adverse effects were reported in previous cases, whilst no efficacy of the gene therapy was observed in humans. As noted in the article, the trial most likely progressed regardless of these risks due to the principal investigator's conflicts of interest and faults by the responsible regulatory institutions. Therefore, this case is a prime example of how conflicts of interest may seriously harm the health of patients and trial participants. To prevent unnecessary deaths in the future, it is important to keep these stories in our collective memory and learn lessons from them. The detailed account presented here may help us do just that.
|Important For=Researcher;Research Performing Organization;Research Ethics Committee Member;Health / Clinical Researcher
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12739533
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:88b73549-fec0-4fb9-99f6-fe1055d6b76a;Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647;Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=1998 - 1999
|Has Location=USA;United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect;Autonomy;Accountability;Care;Honesty;Openness;Transparency;Objectivity
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Patient safety;Informed consent;Deception
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:66c95dca-9fbc-4937-be06-f5e147dd41dc

2026-06-02T15:58:39Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Reporting Adverse Effects
|Is About=A researcher finds out that a drug she is promoting at a pharmacological conference may have serious adverse effects.
|Important For=Health / Clinical Researcher
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://bioethicsresearch.org/resources/case-studies/reporting-adverse-effects/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:9c917ab2-c01d-446b-89c1-a9cd415afb00;Resource:2958e5c9-7d9e-44c9-aca0-7e3c0ad7afe8
|Related To Theme=Theme:0bd48e3b-3590-44ae-a21b-7cf2b425d6cb;Theme:88b73549-fec0-4fb9-99f6-fe1055d6b76a
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability;Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Selection bias;Conflict of interests;Mentor-trainee relationship;Withholding data
|Related To Research Area=LS 07.03 - Pharmacology, pharmacogenomics, drug discovery and design, drug therapy
}}

Resource:63745cba-5d23-4dcd-a160-aa68e414cad8

2026-06-02T15:58:39Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=UK Research Integrity Office's Code of Practice for Research
|Is About=Code of Practice for Research UKRIO: Promoting Good Practice and Preventing Misconduct.
This Code of Practice for Research is aimed at promoting research practices and outcomes of the highest status, by encouraging good science and preventing misconduct among all stakeholders involved in the UK research community. To do so, the code issues a set of principles that highlight those values relevant in research communities and a set of standards that guide all parties involved in research, from researchers to organizations. The code promotes good practices, training, mentoring, supervision, and leadership, encourages collaborative working, and provides a framework to properly deal with conflicts of interests, research involving human subjects or animals, personal data, health and safety, finances, IP, etc.
|Important Because=The principles in the code might serve as milestones for organizations to help them attain the funding and regulatory requirements. Besides, the code guarantees that important issues are considered and is endorsed by the European Association of Social Anthropologists.
|Important For=Researcher;Research Performing Organization;Health / Clinical Researcher;Legal Advisor;Data Protection Officer;Research Funding Organization;Technology Developer / Engineer;Policy Maker / Regulator
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://ukrio.org/wp-content/uploads/UKRIO-Code-of-Practice-for-Research.pdf
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=UK Research Integrity Office;European Association of Social Anthropologists
|Has Timepoint=2009
|Has Location=UK
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability;Integrity;Honesty;Safety;Excellence
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences
}}

Resource:63530b4d-df94-4dde-8235-2c0fa9c63b9d

2026-06-02T15:58:38Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity
|Is About=The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity is a framework used by the European research community as a tool to regulate all scientific and research areas and to ensure the integrity of research across Europe. The Code provides a set of fundamental principles for research integrity, a set of good research practices, and highlights the potential violations of research integrity.
|Important Because=The code provides a framework concerning emerging challenges and technological developments. The European Commission and all EU-funded research projects take the code as a core reference, that serves as a model for research organisations across Europe. Besides, it has been endorsed by the European Association of Social Psychology, in their Diversity and Scientific Integrity Statement.
|Important For=Researcher;Civil Society / NGO Representative;Health / Clinical Researcher;Early Career Researcher;Research Ethics Committee Member;Journal Editor;Policy Maker / Regulator;Peer Reviewer;Technology Developer / Engineer;Research Integrity Officer / Committee Member;Research Performing Organization
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=ALLEA Member Academies;ALLEA;European Association of Social Psychology
|Has Timepoint=2017
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability;Respect;Honesty;Reliability;Fairness
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Mentoring;Research Environments;Collaborative research;Data Protection;Publication Ethics;Reviewing;Plagiarism;Falsification;Fabrication;Fairness
|Related To Research Area=SH - Social Sciences and Humanities;PE - Physical Sciences and Engineering;LS - Life Sciences
}}

Resource:62ac5488-192b-4882-956c-6b79cdf6b724

2026-06-02T15:58:37Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=CIOMS International guidelines on good governance practice for research institutions
|Is About=These guidelines provide detailed guidance for research institutions, providing standards and best practices for institutions to implement to facilitate the conduct of good, ethical scientific research.
|Important For=Researcher;Research Performing Organization;Health / Clinical Researcher
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://cioms.ch/publications/product/international-guidelines-on-good-governance-practice-for-research-institutions/#description
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Council for International Organisations of Medical Sciences
|Has Timepoint=2023
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Good Practice;Governance
}}

Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01

2026-06-02T15:58:37Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity - 2017 Edition
|Is About=The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity serves the European research community as a framework for self-regulation across all scientific and scholarly disciplines and for all research settings. The Code provides a set of fundamental principles for research integrity, a set of good research practices, and highlights the potential violations of research integrity. The Code was published originally in English on 24 March 2017 and was translated to all official EU languages by the European Commission’s Translational Services and with the support of ALLEA Member Academies.
|Important Because=The 2017 revised edition of the Code addresses emerging challenges emanating from technological developments, open science, citizen science and social media, among other areas. The European Commission recognises the Code as the reference document for research integrity for all EU-funded research projects and as a model for organisations and researchers across Europe. It has been endorsed by the European Association of Social Psychology, in their Diversity and Scientific Integrity Statement.
|Important For=Researcher;Civil Society / NGO Representative;Health / Clinical Researcher;Early Career Researcher;Research Ethics Committee Member;Journal Editor;Peer Reviewer;Policy Maker / Regulator;Research Integrity Officer / Committee Member;Research Performing Organization
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=ALLEA;ALLEA Member Academies;European Association of Social Psychology
|Has Timepoint=2017
|Has Location=Europe
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability;Honesty;Quality;Reliability;Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Collaborative research;Data Protection;Fabrication;Fairness;Falsification;Mentoring;Plagiarism;Publication Ethics;Research Environments;Reviewing
|Related To Research Area=SH - Social Sciences and Humanities;PE - Physical Sciences and Engineering;LS - Life Sciences
}}

Resource:5b7dca43-25e9-4c3f-83c3-65a7c41abe24

2026-06-02T15:58:36Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Dutch psychology fraudster avoids trial
|Is About=The newsblog presents the case of a social psychology researcher who was investigated for allegations of data fabrication. The researcher has had more than 3 dozens of publications retracted, received reduced salaries, was ordered to do community work and had to return his PhD.
|Important Because=This factual case shows the magnitude of the penalties that can be issued on some confirmed cases of research ethics violations .
|Important For=Researcher;Senior Researcher;Health / Clinical Researcher
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=http://blogs.nature.com/news/2013/06/dutch-psychology-fraudster-avoids-trial.html
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Diederik Stapel
|Has Location=Germany
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Data fabrication and falsification
|Related To Research Area=SH 04.05 - Social and clinical psychology
}}

Resource:5395827e-af13-47b0-808b-43c0d40f0019

2026-06-02T15:58:36Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=You want to do what? Paper on anal swabs for COVID-19 retracted for ethical issues
|Is About=A factual case where ethical procedures for informing patients and getting their informed consent had either not been followed properly or had not been declared.
|Important Because=Even in exceptional and unprecedented times like a pandemic it is imperative that all stages of research are followed in a manner dictated by relevant research ethics protocols.
|Important For=Legal Advisor;Health / Clinical Researcher
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2021/04/15/you-want-to-do-what-paper-on-anal-swabs-for-covid-19-retracted-for-ethical-issues/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Has Location=China
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Informed consent
}}

Resource:51511d64-e166-4c49-9692-6126929f959b

2026-06-02T15:58:36Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Protecting peer review: Correspondence chronology and ethical analysis regarding logothetis vs. shmuel and leopold
|Is About=As the complexity of scientific investigation has advanced, bio‐medical research has progressively adopted a team‐based approach to research. In the life sciences, brain imaging is one of the most technically advanced and integrative disciplines. In this collaborative environment, scientific disagreements as well as inter‐personal conflicts inevitably arise. Investigators may disagree, for example, on the adequacy of the data for publication, the most appropriate analyses to be performed, or the appropriate conclusions to be drawn from the accumulated experiments. In the context of such disagreements, more fundamental disputes often arise, including the right of individual investigators to publish data acquired cooperatively. When efforts are made to publish disputed data, journal editors necessarily become involved.
|Important For=Research Performing Organization;Health / Clinical Researcher;Data Protection Officer;Peer Reviewer;Journal Editor
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2715868/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Nikos K. Logothetis;Amir Shmuel;David Leopold
|Has Timepoint=2008
|Has Location=Germany;Canada;USA
}}

Resource:4a753160-6d6e-4eb4-b806-1443cb2d4146

2026-06-02T15:58:35Z

0000-0003-4024-8548: mobo import Important_For______Clinical_Researcher-migrated

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=Declaration of Geneva
|Is About=The Declaration of Geneva is a medical code of ethics that highlights the humanitarian character of the physicians' profession and the field of medicine. Although it was first established in 1948, a new version of the Declaration of Geneva was adopted by the World Medical Association (WMA) General Assembly on October 14, 2017, in Chicago.
|Important Because=This declaration serves as an adaptation of the Hippocratic Oath to modern medicine. The declaration is a core document for medical ethics and, in many countries, it is even part of the medical profession code. The Biomedical Alliance in Europe and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology endorse the Declaration of Geneva in their codes of conduct and ethics, respectively.
|Important For=Legal Advisor;Health Care Professional;Health / Clinical Researcher;Research Ethics Committee Member;Civil Society / NGO Representative;Research Participant;Researcher
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://jamanetwork-com.vu-nl.idm.oclc.org/journals/jama/fullarticle/2658261
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology;Biomedical Alliance in Europe (Biomed Alliance)
|Has Timepoint=1948;2017
|Has Virtue And Value=Dignity;Non-discrimination;Professionalism;Confidentiality
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Beneficence;Confidentiality;Informed consent
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences;LS 07.08 - Health services, health care research
}}