Remarks (Has Remarks)
From The Embassy of Good Science
(MWBot) |
(MWBot) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | <!--------------------------------- | + | <!--------------------------------- MANAGED PROPERTY ----------------------------------><!-- |
<!-- DESCRIPTION --><div class="description-box">{{int:EGS Has Remarks Desc}}</div><!-- /DESCRIPTION --> | <!-- DESCRIPTION --><div class="description-box">{{int:EGS Has Remarks Desc}}</div><!-- /DESCRIPTION --> | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
| − | <!-- DISPLAYTITLE -->{{DISPLAYTITLE:Remarks}}<!-- /DISPLAYTITLE | + | <!-- DISPLAYTITLE -->{{DISPLAYTITLE:Remarks}}<!-- /DISPLAYTITLE --> |
| − | |||
| − | |||
Latest revision as of 16:09, 28 November 2023
Add any additional remarks that are not covered in the abovementioned fields
- ⧼SA Foundation Data Type⧽: Text
0
Ad. 1: Fraenkel stresses the importance of identifying whether the conflict is about ends or means to ends that have been agreed upon. Equally important is to establish the factual context of the situation.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000023-QINU`"'
Ad. 2: This step involves brainstorming for all the available action alternatives for the agent(s) facing the value conflict at hand.
Ad. 3 and 4: These questions are focused on the expected consequences of the different alternative actions available to those facing the value conflict. What might be the effects of each alternative respectively? Which parties might be affected? Could the consequences spill over to future generations? It might make sense here to distinguish between short- and long-range effects for the individual and other parties. In order to map these consequences, a Values Information Chart ('''Table 1''') could be used.
{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
| rowspan="3" width="62"|'''Facts'''
| rowspan="3" width="67"|'''Alternatives'''
| colspan="4" width="476"|'''Consequences'''
|-
| colspan="2" width="283"|'''Short-Range'''
| colspan="2" width="193"|'''Long-Range'''
|-
| width="136"|'''Self'''
| width="147"|'''Others'''
| width="97"|'''Self'''
| width="97"|'''Others'''
|-
| rowspan="3" width="62" valign="top"|
| width="67" valign="top"|
| width="136" valign="top"|
| width="147" valign="top"|
| width="97" valign="top"|
| width="97" valign="top"|
|-
| width="67" valign="top"|
| width="136" valign="top"|
| width="147" valign="top"|
| width="97" valign="top"|
| width="97" valign="top"|
|-
| width="67" valign="top"|
| width="136" valign="top"|
| width="147" valign="top"|
| width="97" valign="top"|
| width="97" valign="top"|
|}'''Table 1: Values Information Chart Template'''
Ad. 5: This question zooms in on the evidence supporting or refuting the potential effects of the alternative actions as identified above. If the case at hand is similar to case studies from the past, it might be useful to study what happened there. Data to that effect should be gathered, and their truthfulness and relevance to the case at hand established.
Ad. 6: A discussion of the desirability of the expected consequences is needed. This should happen based on certain criteria. These criteria might be of a moral, legal, aesthetic, ecological, economic, health and safety and/or a completely different nature. A Value Analysis Chart ('''Table 2''') could be used to keep track of the assessment of the different consequences along the different criteria. In the last column of this chart the desirability of the different consequences is ranked from the most to the least desirable.
Ad. 7: Fraenkel does not explain how the answer to this final question should follow from the analysis above. It seems to be implicit in his method that the answer automatically matches the alternative that turns out to be most desirable over all.
<br />
{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="604"
| rowspan="2" width="67"|'''Alternatives'''
| rowspan="2" width="120"|'''Consequences'''
| colspan="7" width="354"|'''Desirability from various points of view'''
| rowspan="2" width="64"|'''Ranking'''
|-
| width="41"|'''Moral'''
| width="39"|'''Legal'''
| width="55"|'''Aesthetic'''
| width="60"|'''Ecological'''
| width="58"|'''Economic'''
| width="51"|'''Health and Safety'''
| width="51"|'''Etc.'''
|-
| width="67" valign="top"|
| width="120" valign="top"|
| width="41" valign="top"|
| width="39" valign="top"|
| width="55" valign="top"|
| width="60" valign="top"|
| width="58" valign="top"|
| width="51" valign="top"|
| width="51" valign="top"|
| width="64" valign="top"|
|-
| width="67" valign="top"|
| width="120" valign="top"|
| width="41" valign="top"|
| width="39" valign="top"|
| width="55" valign="top"|
| width="60" valign="top"|
| width="58" valign="top"|
| width="51" valign="top"|
| width="51" valign="top"|
| width="64" valign="top"|
|-
| width="67" valign="top"|
| width="120" valign="top"|
| width="41" valign="top"|
| width="39" valign="top"|
| width="55" valign="top"|
| width="60" valign="top"|
| width="58" valign="top"|
| width="51" valign="top"|
| width="51" valign="top"|
| width="64" valign="top"|
|-
| width="67" valign="top"|
| width="120" valign="top"|
| width="41" valign="top"|
| width="39" valign="top"|
| width="55" valign="top"|
| width="60" valign="top"|
| width="58" valign="top"|
| width="51" valign="top"|
| width="51" valign="top"|
| width="64" valign="top"|
|}
'''Table 2: Value Analysis Chart Template'''[[File:The Value Analysis Method.jpg|thumb|Figure 1. Fraenkel's value analysis method.]]
'"`UNIQ--references-00000024-QINU`"'
03 - Four Quadrant Approach: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
The original version of the 4QA was developed to deal with clinical decisions involving patients and dilemmas or conflicts within the doctor-patient relationship.[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c#_ftn1 <sup><sup>'"`UNIQ--nowiki-0000002F-QINU`"'</sup></sup>] Therefore, there is little room for developing, altering or adapting the method even in clinical settings.[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c#_ftn2 <sup><sup>'"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000030-QINU`"'</sup></sup>] Moreover, the four quadrants are said to be responsive to the four principles of biomedical ethics, specifically, autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice. This is a normative framework originally developed for biomedicine.
Here, we have adapted the “original version” to test its applicability in different research ethics and research integrity scenarios.
The basic structure and the general decision-making procedure embedded in the 4QA approach seem to be adaptable to any cases where various options for decision-making need to be assessed and clarified.
In adapting the 4QA, the aim is to enable a focused discussion around normative standards pertinent to research ethics and research integrity, leading to the application of case-based reasoning to the facts of the particular case at hand.
Consequently, the four quadrants of the procedure have been revised so that they not only are responsive to the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to a user’s respective organization in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity codes, but can be applied to non-clinical settings to deal with cases in research ethics and research integrity.
----[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c#_ftnref1 <sup>'"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000031-QINU`"'</sup>] Sokol DK. The “four quadrants” approach to clinical ethics case analysis; an application and review. J Med Ethics. 2008;34(7):513-516.
[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c#_ftnref2 <sup>'"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000032-QINU`"'</sup>] Schumann JH, Alfandre D. Clinical ethical decision making: the four topics approach. Semin Med Pract 2008;11:36–42.
By following the instructions, a user will be able to:
*Analyse specific research ethics and research integrity cases;
*Understand and explain the process by which they came to their judgment regarding a particular case;
*Identity and explain their reasons for their judgment.
In addition, by following the instructions, a research ethics committee ('REC'), research integrity office ('RIO') or institutional review board ('IRB') will be able to:
*Facilitate the analysis of research ethics and research integrity cases in accordance with an explicit procedure;
*Involve its members in structured deliberation and debate regarding a particular case in accordance with an explicit procedure;
*Generate a consensus regarding a specific case. +
A
Bu eğitim, N 741782 sayılı hibe sözleşmesi gereğince, Avrupa Birliği’ne ait H2020 araştırma programı tarafından fonlanan VIRT2UE projesi kapsamında geliştirilmiştir. +
Bu eğitim, N 741782 sayılı hibe sözleşmesi gereğince, Avrupa Birliği’ne ait H2020 araştırma programı tarafından fonlanan VIRT2UE projesi kapsamında geliştirilmiştir. +
Bu eğitim, N 741782 sayılı hibe sözleşmesi gereğince, Avrupa Birliği’ne ait H2020 araştırma programı tarafından fonlanan VIRT2UE projesi kapsamında geliştirilmiştir. +
C
'''Additional Resources'''
#Macey, G. P., Breech, R., Chernaik, M., Cox, C., Larson, D., Thomas, D., & Carpenter, D. O. (2014). Air concentrations of volatile compounds near oil and gas production: a community-based exploratory study. ''Environmental Health'', 13(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-13-82
#Resnik, D. B., Elliott, K. C., & Miller, A. K. (2015). A framework for addressing ethical issues in citizen science. ''Environmental Science & Policy'', 54, 475-481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.05.008 +
D
'''Translations:'''
These instructions are available in Turkish.
[[File:VIRT2UE Debate and Dialogue exercise Turkish translation.pdf|none|thumb|Münazara ve Diyalog (Debate and Dialogue)]]
'''List of contributors:'''
Margreet Stolper, Giulia Inguaggiato.
We thank the WP3 members and Rea Scepanovic, Marco Consentino, Vasalis Markakis, Armin Schmolmeuller, Ruzica Tokalic, Erika Löfström and Solveig Cornér for their constructive feedback during the process of developing!
This training has been developed by the VIRT2UE project, which has received funding form the European Union’s H2020 research programme under grant agreement N 741782. +
'''List of contributors:'''
Margreet Stolper, Giulia Inguaggiato.
We thank Rea Scepanovic, Marco Consentino, Vasalis Markakis, Armin Schmolmeuller, Ruzica Tokalic, Erika Löfström and Solveig Cornér for their constructive feedback during the process of developing!
This training has been developed by the VIRT2UE project, which has received funding form the European Union’s H2020 research programme under grant agreement N 741782.
This exercise has been translated [https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/images/6/69/VIRT2UE_Debate_and_Dialogue_exercise_Instructions_Trainee_TURKISH.pdf in Turkish]. +
Bu eğitim, N 741782 sayılı hibe sözleşmesi gereğince, Avrupa Birliği’ne ait H2020 araştırma programı tarafından fonlanan VIRT2UE projesi kapsamında geliştirilmiştir. +
Bu eğitim, N 741782 sayılı hibe sözleşmesi gereğince, Avrupa Birliği’ne ait H2020 araştırma programı tarafından fonlanan VIRT2UE projesi kapsamında geliştirilmiştir. +
Bert Molewijk, Giulia Inguaggiato, Rose Bernabe, Panagiotis Kavouras, Eleni Spayrakou, Vicko Tomic, Franca Marino.
This training has been developed by the VIRT2UE project, which has received funding form the European Union’s H2020 research programme under grant agreement N 741782. +
'''Beitragende''': Jan Helge Solbakk, Rosemarie Bernabe, Panagiotis Kavouras, Signe Mezinska, Volkan Kavas, Franca Marino.
Dieses Training wurde im Rahmen des Projekts VIRT2UE entwickelt, welches durch das H2020 Forschungsprogramm der Europäischen Union gefördert wurde (grant agreement N 741782). +
Beitragende: Jan Helge Solbakk, Rosemarie Bernabe, Panagiotis Kavouras, Signe Mezinska, Volkan Kavas, Franca Marino.
Dieses Training wurde im Rahmen des Projekts VIRT2UE entwickelt, welches durch das H2020 Forschungsprogramm der Europäischen Union gefördert wurde (grant agreement N 741782). +
Bu eğitim, N 741782 sayılı hibe sözleşmesi gereğince, Avrupa Birliği’ne ait H2020 araştırma programı tarafından fonlanan VIRT2UE projesi kapsamında geliştirilmiştir. +
Bu eğitim, N 741782 sayılı hibe sözleşmesi gereğince, Avrupa Birliği’ne ait H2020 araştırma programı tarafından fonlanan VIRT2UE projesi kapsamında geliştirilmiştir. +
E
Bu eğitim, N 741782 sayılı hibe sözleşmesi gereğince, Avrupa Birliği’ne ait H2020 araştırma programı tarafından fonlanan VIRT2UE projesi kapsamında geliştirilmiştir. +
'''Bu eğitimin içeriğinin hazırlanmasına katkıda bulunanlar:'''
Giulia Inguaggiato, Margreet Stolper.
Geribildirim ve katkıları için Signe Mezinska, Armin Schmolmüller, Rea Scepanovic, Tom Lindermann ve Daniel Pizzolato, Erika Lofstrom, Solveig Corner’a teşekkür ederiz.
Bu eğitim, N 741782 sayılı hibe sözleşmesi gereğince, Avrupa Birliği’ne ait H2020 araştırma programı tarafından fonlanan VIRT2UE projesi kapsamında geliştirilmiştir. +
'''Bu eğitimin içeriğinin hazırlanmasına katkıda bulunanlar:'''
Giulia Inguaggiato, Margreet Stolper.
Geribildirim ve katkıları için Signe Mezinska, Armin Schmolmüller, Rea Scepanovic, Tom Lindermann ve Daniel Pizzolato, Erika Lofstrom, Solveig Corner’a teşekkür ederiz.
Bu eğitim, N 741782 sayılı hibe sözleşmesi gereğince, Avrupa Birliği’ne ait H2020 araştırma programı tarafından fonlanan VIRT2UE projesi kapsamında geliştirilmiştir. +
'''Additional Resources:'''
#McAllister, J. W. (2012). Climate science controversies and the demand for access to empirical data. ''Philosophy of Science'', 79(5), 871-880. https://doi.org/10.1086/667871
#UNESCO (2023). Open science outlook 1: status and trends around the world. https://doi.org/10.54677/GIIC6829 +
