Why is this important? (Important Because)
From The Embassy of Good Science
A description to provide more focus to the theme/resource (max. 200 words)
- ⧼SA Foundation Data Type⧽: Text
C
Code of Professional Standards and Ethics in Science, Technology, and the Humanities distils national expectations for research integrity in New Zealand and clarifies what researchers and institutions in Aotearoa - New Zealand need to do to comply. It reduces ambiguity, aligns local practice with international norms, and offers actionable steps that improve transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access. For policy leads, it is a benchmark; for authors and administrators, it is a practical checklist. Published by nan in 2019, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
The Code is important because organoid research is advancing rapidly, but laws, regulations, and ethical frameworks have lagged behind. Without clear guidelines, researchers might inadvertently cross moral, legal, or societal boundaries, raising public concern and potentially undermining trust. The Code helps ensure that organoid development proceeds with accountability, transparency, and respect for human dignity. It supports ethics committees, institutions, and researchers in making better decisions about consent, usage, safety, and public engagement. Moreover, by defining responsible conduct, it contributes to harmonising practices across countries and institutions, which is vital in collaborative scientific research. Ultimately, it helps protect participants, donors, researchers, and society, while enabling innovation in a safer and more ethically informed manner. +
Codul General de Etică în Cercetarea Științifică - General code of ethics in scientific research (2015) +
Codul General de Etică în Cercetarea Științifică - General code of ethics in scientific research distils national expectations for research integrity in Romania and clarifies what researchers and institutions in nan need to do to comply. It reduces ambiguity, aligns local practice with international norms, and offers actionable steps that improve transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access. For policy leads, it is a benchmark; for authors and administrators, it is a practical checklist. Published by nan in 2015, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
In participating in the communal practice of science, we have to accept certain standards of excellence (related to values, like truth) and rules to follow (to give an accurate account of the authors’ contributions). Thus, we are likely to experience cognitive dissonance or moral distress, when confronted with conflicting imperatives (for instance the need to give an authorship to one’s superior, even if she did not contribute to the specific paper). Cognitive dissonance theory holds that when we experience cognitive or dissonance or moral distress, we tend to justify our behavior. The more often we engage in justifying our unethical behavior, the more we will perceive this unethical behavior as already justified and the more likely we are to engage in it again.
Although we will always be blind to our own ignorance to a certain degree, we can learn to recognize our self-justification strategies as indicators of our (evolving) vices. By recognizing why we engage in self-justification strategies and how they impact our decision-making, we can foster conditions for good research.
Virtue ethics emphasizes that we need to develop virtues in order to deal with imperatives that are detrimental to good research.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000026F-QINU`"' According to MacIntyre, “virtues serve three functions: to enable individuals to achieve excellence in practice, to protect the practice from threat of corruption by goods of efficiency, and to be constitutive components of the good human life”.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000270-QINU`"' So virtues can be seen as crucial to counter corruptive tendencies in the research system. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000271-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000272-QINU`"'
Cultivating sensitivity for cognitive dissonance and moral distress is an important element of research integrity education.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000273-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-00000274-QINU`"'It may support us in our attempts to find the right middle between being lenient and being too harsh on ourselves. What is the right middle depends on situational factors, as well as individual capabilities of the researcher. Knowing the right middle is not something that we can learn solely by understanding the underlying dynamics. It has to be learned in practice, over and over again. If we keep in sight the goods of excellence to achieve, we can be prepared not to be discouraged if we fail to assess a situation appropriately, but rather use any mistake we make as a means to fine-tune our cognitive strategies and moral behavior.
<br />
'"`UNIQ--references-00000275-QINU`"'
Collaborative Working Between Academia and Industry: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project +
The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] ('ECCRI' or 'ECoC') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.
They also allow users to reflect on and apply their own national and institutional research ethics and research integrity codes as well as other key regulatory documents and guidelines.
The goal is for the user to gain knowledge of the standards associated with good research practices and to make sense of these standards in different research contexts.
According to the ECCRI/ECoC, there are eight categories of research contexts that are covered by the standards of good research practice:
1) Research Environment
2) Training, Supervision and Mentoring
3) Research Procedures
4) Safeguards
5) Data Practices and Management
6) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063619#.X3cGT5NKjxQ '''Collaborative Working''']
7) Publication and Dissemination
8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing +
A lot of scientific work happens through collaboration. Yet, collaborations can also lead to conflict when there is lack of clarity about the roles of different collaborators, or when expectations are not met.
Collaborative work has become more important over the past few decades, partially due to the rise of interdisciplinary research. The number of co-authors on a paper is a potential indifcatar for the rise of collaborations, with the average number of co-authors on research papers for the PNAS rose from 3.9 in 1981 to 8.4 in 2001. '"`UNIQ--ref-000001FC-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-000001FD-QINU`"' +
Columbia grad student faked data in study of socioeconomics and life experiences, says retraction notice +
It is important to present examples of retractions due to misconduct in areas such as economics and social sciences. A recent review'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' has found that ethics violations in social sciences and humanities are not as commonly encountered compared to medical and health sciences. +
Many people (both editors and investigators) feel that the misrepresentation of authorship is a form of research misconduct, and that honesty in reporting science should extend to authorship. They argue that, if scientists are dishonest about their relationship to their work, this undermines confidence in the reporting of the work itself. +
The brief is important because it provides robust, empirical insight into how citizens across different European countries consume and perceive science and science-related controversies. By documenting real attitudes toward hot-button issues (vaccines, climate change, GMOs, CAM), it reveals the social and communication dynamics that shape public understanding of science. As misinformation and distrust grow, this kind of evidence is critical to designing communication strategies that genuinely work. The recommendations help guide policymakers, scientists, media and institutions to communicate in ways that build trust, transparency, and public engagement essential for democratic decision-making on science and societal issues. +
Hier een verantwoording voor ....we dit faciliteren +
Conflict of interests erodes objectivity of science and leads to corruption, and most certainly create a space for bias in decision making. Conflict of interest can happen in a variety of research areas and human activities, but when we take consequences into consideration, in some areas such as science and research it becomes especially important.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000293-QINU`"' A recent review revealed that industry sponsored studies are more often in favour to the sponsors’ products compared with studies with other sources of funding.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000294-QINU`"' Because of the effect it can potentially have on research, scientific journals require a separate declaration of conflict of interest when submitting scientific articles.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000295-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000296-QINU`"' +
A variety of situations can lead to conflicts of interests within the CSIC, such as research-related collaborations and consultations, evaluations, training, publication, financial support provision and knowledge transfer activities. It is important for individual researchers and for research teams to be aware of these potential conflicts in order to avoid them. In addition, institutions should also have structures and systems in place to handle conflicts of interest. This document sets a framework for institutional measures. +
Currently, citizen science is becoming more and more important in different fields of science. For example, in natural sciences, it enables large-scale data collection by involving a vast number of individuals which would be challenging to achieve for traditional research methods within the same timeframe and resources. This training will guide you through the crucial elements of responsible citizen science, including protection of human research participants, plants, animals and ecosystems; rights of citizen scientists; conflicts of interest; quality of research outputs etc. By the end of this training, you will gain a deeper understanding of responsible open science and acquire the following skills and attitudes necessary for responsible practising of citizen science. +
When doing a research concerning a sensitive subject, it is important to think about the effect the results can have on the research population and to . +
It is unusual to encounter cases of ethics violations on citizen's science and similar disciplines. The author raises some interesting points for discussion. +
<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> +
It provides a framework or a set of rules to protect human dignity and the bio-rights of individuals. It is an important benchmark in the protection of human rights related to biomedicine and technology. +
Copy and paste: A slow university investigation into serious accusations of misconduct benefits no one +
This factual case demonstrates that there may be a significant time lapse between the noticing and reporting of a case of plagiarism (or indeed, other research ethics violation) to the appropriate resolution of such cases.
The article discusses solutions on shortening the investigation time for allegations in Universities as well as ways to encourage universities sticking to their own misconduct enquiry timelines and policies. +
Scientific misconduct in drug trials, especially the modification of research outcomes, severely endangers the health of future patients who will be treated with the drug. In addition, it leads to the waste of research funds and diminishes public trust in science. Therefore, offences such as these must be punished. +
Adding an initiative page for your project is one of the quickest and easiest ways to increase the visibility of your outputs (and hard work!) across the Embassy, and to get the most value from the platform. +
