Text (Instruction Step Text)
From The Embassy of Good Science
Describe the actions the user should take to experience the material (including preparation and follow up if any). Write in an active way.
- ⧼SA Foundation Data Type⧽: Text
5
1. ALLEA , All European Academies. (2023). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity – Revised Edition 2023. ALLEA. '"`UNIQ--nowiki-0000003C-QINU`"'
2. ALLEA , All European Academies. (2017). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity – Revised Edition 2023. ALLEA. '"`UNIQ--nowiki-0000003D-QINU`"' content/uploads/2017/05/ALLEA-European-Code of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf
3. EU, European Union (2020). Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment, and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088. '"`UNIQ--nowiki-0000003E-QINU`"' lex.europa.eu/legal content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32020R0852 +
Engaging with citizen scientists: Integrating environmental and climate considerations into research practice +
Use these questions to pause and reflect on your citizen science project. Consider what you have already addressed, where gaps may remain, and what you could improve to ensure that your project is ethical, inclusive, responsible, and meaningful for all participants. +
Towards an expanded scope of research ethics committees: Integrating environmental and climate ethics +
This section presents a proposed reflection tool to support RECs in identifying and considering environmental and climate-related ethical issues during ethics review. The tool is voluntary and illustrative and is intended to complement the European Commission’s Guidance Note on assessing and managing risks of environmental harm in EU funded research by translating its principles and questions into a REC-focused format that can be used within existing ethics review and approval processes. While the Commission Guidance Note primarily addresses applicants, researchers, and evaluators, the reflection tool is designed to support RECs in structured ethical reflection, without introducing new procedural requirements or additional layers of review.
'''1. Relevance screening (threshold question)'''
REC members should ask:
a. Does the proposed research have actual or foreseeable environmental or climate impacts, either:
i. directly (e.g. emissions, resource use, pollution, biodiversity impacts), or
ii. indirectly (e.g. policy influence, technological deployment)?
b. If yes → environmental and climate ethics review should be part of the ethics appraisal.
2. Research topic and purpose REC members should ask:
a. Does the research topic itself raise risks of environmental harm or ecological injustice?
'"`UNIQ--nowiki-0000003C-QINU`"'Note: For example, the Guidance Note highlights that research related to rare earths may raise environmental concerns.
b. Could the research contribute to:
i. increased greenhouse gas emissions,
ii. iii. iv. v. biodiversity loss, pollution, depletion of natural resources, unequal environmental burdens across communities or generations?
c. Are potential environmental harms proportionate to the expected scientific and societal benefits of the research?
3. Research methods REC members should assess whether:
a. The methods chosen are unnecessarily resource intensive.
b. Lower-impact alternatives (e.g. simulations, reuse of data) were considered and, if rejected, whether the justification is ethically adequate.
c. Projects using resource-intensive methods (such as AI) describe their computing and energy needs and any measures to limit them.
4. Research practices and operations REC members should consider whether: a. The project is expected to have a significant carbon footprint
b. (Where relevant) laboratory or operational practices take into account: i. use of disposable materials, ii. iii. hazardous waste, energy and water use.
c. Whether sustainability measures (reduce, reuse, recycle) are embedded in the project organisation.
5. Risk–benefit and “Do No Significant Harm” (DNSH) REC members should ask:
a. Has the applicant identified environmental risks and proposed mitigation measures?
b. Are these measures credible, proportionate, and monitorable?
c. Does the project plausibly comply with the DNSH principle?
d. If environmental harm is unavoidable:
i. is it ethically justified?
ii. iii. is it minimised? is it transparently acknowledged?
6. Justice, inclusion, and intergenerational considerations REC members should consider:
a. Are environmental risks or burdens unevenly distributed (e.g. disproportionally affecting vulnerable communities)?
b. Were affected communities or stakeholders meaningfully considered, where relevant?
7. Oversight, monitoring, and conditions REC decisions may include:
a. Requesting additional environmental risk documentation,
b. Requiring mitigation or monitoring plans,
c. Recommending the involvement of environmental experts, whose primary responsibility is to consider the environmental impacts of the research,
d. Imposing ethics requirements related to sustainability during project implementation.
The proposed tool should be understood as an illustrative example of the types of questions that may support ethical reflection. Importantly, a range of relevant guidance documents, self-assessment tools, and review checklists addressing environmental and sustainability aspects of research ethics already exist at European, national, and institutional levels. These resources provide a strong foundation that RECs can draw on, adapt, and combine to suit disciplinary, institutional, and national contexts. Readers are encouraged to consult the resources listed below for further guidance.
Learning Pathway for Policy Makers +
Fill in the missing key terms from the official EU AI Act definition of an AI system. +
6
Once you have designed the program and the time schedule you advertise the training and invite participants. In order to decide who to invite please consider that the VIRT2UE training primarily targets researchers or trainers/educators/teachers who have a background in research (i.e. are or have been working as researchers) and who want to become research integrity trainers. Trainees of your training should have a basic understanding of research integrity. To invite people to join your training you can use the template invitation letter. +
Remind participants about the fact that in order to become certified VIRT2UE trainers, they have to train 10 others, preferably trainers. If it is not feasible to train 10 trainers they may also train researchers who have the potential to be come trainers. +
Explain the difference between a debate and a dialogue. Do the participants recognise their answers in step 2 as describing a debate and their answers to step 3 as a dialogue? +
An impression of the 'Virtues & Norms Exercise' of the VIRT2UE Train-the-Trainer program.
[[File:Train-the-trainer program2.png|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZMDWGTLXWo|caption]] +
04 - Moral Case Deliberation: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
The aim of this step is to brainstorm in order to get a view on possible courses or actions which lie beyond the dilemma. +
If the previous step is not sufficient to identify the preferred course of action, a further step is required consisting of the analysis of foreseeable consequences of each course of action. The analysis of consequences depends on a good determination of the facts. It should include foreseeable consequences related to the persons involved, the working environment, the external environment, and society at large. +
02 - The Seven Steps Method: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
All things considered, make a choice. +
Turn the focus to a dialogue and present the characteristics of a dialogue: slowing down, listening instead of telling, postponing judgment, asking questions (see practical tips). You can distribute an overview of the differences between a debate and a dialogue among the participants (see practical tips). +
Explain how the game is played by mentioning the rules, the materials to be used, and steps to be followed. If using the app, the steps will include:
'''Playing the game (app version)'''
#Providing participants with the room code provided by the app.
#Share your screen in lecture mode, introduce the first dilemma.
#Invite the participants to choose one of the four alternative courses of action which best reflects how they would act in the dilemma situation.
#Collect the responses via the app. When all responses have been received, display the proportions choosing a, b, c, or d in lecture mode.
Emphasize that participants can ask technical questions to you any time, and let participants know how much time they will have to discuss the dilemma(s). +
You and your group will be asked to fill out tables to identify the principles and practices of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, and scientific virtues, that are relevant to the dilemma at stake.
[[File:Modified Dilemma Game Table 1.png|thumb|'''Table 1: Which principles from European Code for Research Integrity can you identify in each dilemma?''']]
<br />
[[File:Modified Dilemma Game Table 2.png|thumb|'''Table 2. Which research misbehaviors can you identify in this dilemma?''']]
<br />
[[File:Modified Dilemma Game Table 3.jpg|thumb|'''Table 3. Which scientific virtues are important when deciding on a course of action?''']]
<br /> +
Is there a positive balance between good and bad consequences? +
This part only has one instruction "Practicing Reflection in Dialogue", for both trainer and trainee, to be found [https://public.3.basecamp.com/p/vNfbMo7JdtnkVj4YmxrK1Eq1 here]. +
This module aims to equip students with the knowledge to comprehend the meaning and importance of research integrity through the lens of a subject that is highly relatable in our society and through which students can easily engage and discuss research integrity issues.
The primary focus of this module is on research integrity. We have chosen to pair it with the subject of Art to allow for a wider ethical discussion through a subject that is relevant to the target audience. +
Programı ve takvimi tasarladıktan sonra eğitimi ilan edin ve katılımcıları davet edin. Kimleri davet edeceğinize karar verirken lütfen VIRT2UE eğitiminin hedef kitlesinin öncelikle araştırmacılar veya araştırma konusunda deneyimi olan (yani araştırmacı olarak çalışmış ya da çalışıyor olan) eğitmenler/ eğitimciler/ öğretmenler olduğunu unutmayın. Eğitiminize katılan kişilerin araştırma doğruluğuna ilişkin temel bir anlayışı haiz olması gerekmektedir. Katılımcıları eğitime davet ederken örnek davet mektubunu kullanabilirsiniz. +
Vaka net bir biçimde anlaşıldıktan sonra katılımcılardan kendilerini vakayı sunan kişinin yerine koymalarını ve eğer sunucu yerinde kendileri olsa bu ikilemde hangi erdem(ler)in (iki tane erdem belirlenmesi yeterlidir ancak daha fazlası da mümkündür) rol oynayacağını düşünmelerini isteyin. Bunun için katılımcılara şu soruyu sorabilirsiniz:
“Eğer vakayı sunan kişinin durumunda olsaydınız ve ne yapacağınıza karar vermeniz gerekseydi, sizin için bu kararı verirken hangi erdem önemli olurdu?”
Lütfen belirtilecek erdemlerin ikilemin seçeneklerinden biriyle bağlantılı olması gerekmediğini unutmayın. Bu aşamada katılımcılar söz konusu durumda doğrulukla hareket edebilmek için hangi ahlaki niteliği (erdemi) hayata geçirmeleri gerektiği üzerine fikir yürütmek durumundadır. Bağlamsal olarak, katılımcılardan seçtikleri erdemi takip edecek eylem kuralının (normunun) ya da davranışın ne olduğu üzerine fikir yürütmelerini isteyin. Bunun için kendilerine şu soruları sorabilirler:
“Bu durumda bu erdeme uygun davranabilmek için ne yapmam gerekir?”
“Bu durumda bu erdemi hayata geçirebilmek için nasıl bir eylem kuralını takip etmem gerekir?”
Lütfen aynı erdemle farklı normların ya da aynı normla farklı erdemlerin ilişkilendirilebileceğini unutmayın. +
