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
6
<span lang="EN-US">1. Read the introductory text of the first scenario, ask if everything is clear.</span>
<span lang="EN-US">2. Play the introductory video of the scenario which sets up the dilemma. The next screen will show the four possible ways to act in this situation. Read these aloud for the participants.</span>
<span lang="EN-US">3. After the introductory video, ask participants to individually write down on a piece of paper (this should take approximately 5 minutes):</span>
<span lang="EN-US">a. What they observe in this scenario</span>
<span lang="EN-US">b. What they recognize in this situation</span>
<span lang="EN-US">c. Which action choice would they pick (A, B, C, or D) and why</span>
<span lang="EN-US">4. Allocate each corner of the room to one of the action choices (e.g. corner 1 = A), ask participants to stand up and to stand in the corner of the room which corresponds to their choice. Participants may choose to be in between action choices (e.g. between A & D), just ask them where they stand.</span>
<span lang="EN-US">5. Go around each action choice and ask participants why they picked that choice. Do this until every participant has shared their views, or participants feel others have already shared their views. Also ask them reflect on what they saw in the scenario if it is a familiar scenario.</span>
<span lang="EN-US">6. Briefly ask if anyone would change their initial answer after this discussion, if yes ask what would they change it to and why.</span>
<span lang="EN-US">7. Ask participants to sit back down, and watch the outcomes videos of each action choice. Start with the video with the most responses.</span>
<span lang="EN-US">8. After watching all the videos and seeing the different outcomes discuss as a group:</span>
* <span lang="EN-US">a. If they were able to choose again, would they choose differently? If yes, what and why?</span>
* <span lang="EN-US">b. Which action did they find most empowering?</span>
* <span lang="EN-US">c. What did they learn from this scenario?</span>
<span lang="EN-US">9. Ask participants if there is anything they would like to add. Help summarize the discussion and the outcomes which were discussed. Draw attention to that there are many more different ways to act in these situations, and that it is important to evaluate and reflect on what they need in the situation.</span>
Test your knowledge! +
'''1. Main source'''
Verdonk, P. (Ed.). (2024). Coloring connections: Researching gender, intersectionality and health in the climate crisis. Dutch Society Gender & Health & Amsterdam UMC. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14047986
'''2. Intersectionality framework (IBPA foundation)'''
Hankivsky, O. (2014). ''Intersectionality 101''. The Institute for Intersectionality Research and Policy, Simon Fraser University. https://womensstudies.colostate.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/66/2021/06/Intersectionality-101.pdf
'''3. Climate justice (intersectional urban perspective)'''
Amorim-Maia, A. T., Anguelovski, I., Chu, E., & Connolly, J. (2022). Intersectional climate justice: A conceptual pathway for bridging adaptation planning, transformative action, and social equity. ''Urban Climate, 41'', 101053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2021.101053
'''4. Intersectionality in climate change (theoretical grounding)'''
Kaijser, A., & Kronsell, A. (2014). Climate change through the lens of intersectionality. ''Environmental Politics, 23''(3), 417-433. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.835203 +
[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1350508420973631 Pansera, M., & Fressoli, M. (2021). Innovation without growth: Frameworks for understanding technological change in a post-growth era. ''Organization'', ''28''(3), 380-404.doi.org/10.1177/1350508420973]
[https://www.postgrowth.earth/ Post Growth Social Innovation]
[https://sussex.figshare.com/articles/report/Media_Arts_and_Humanities_Sustainability_Educator_Toolkit/23492969?file=41201159 Theme #6: Degrowth and Postgrowth] +
Beth Stackpole, [https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/ai-has-high-data-center-energy-costs-there-are-solutions AI has high data centre energy costs - but there are solutions], MIT Management Sloan School, 7 Jan 2025.
UN environment programme, [https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/ai-has-environmental-problem-heres-what-world-can-do-about AI has an environmental problem. Here's what the world can do about that], 13 Nov 2025.
Adam Zewe , [https://news.mit.edu/2025/explained-generative-ai-environmental-impact-0117 Explained: Generative AI's environmental impact], MIT News, 17 Jan 2025. +
Varieties of goodness in research - a rotary style exercise (variation to original VIRT2UE exercise)) +
The participants move clockwise to the next flip-over sheet*, so each subgroup now works on another Variety of Goodness. First they read what the previous group wrote down (or drew) on the sheet. They can augment on it, or ask questions to the other group in case they don't fully understand what's on the sheet.
Their task now is to link the Code of Conduct to the Variety of Goodness. Looking at the work of the previous group can help them to identify the relevant paragraphs.
'"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000001-QINU`"'depending on the logistics in the room, you can also chose to let the subgroups stay at their table and move around the flip-over sheets. +
Tobin, S. J., & Guadagno, R. E. (2022). Why people listen: Motivations and outcomes of podcast listening. PloS one, 17(4), e0265806. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265806
[https://www.duarte.com/blog/presentation-storytelling-audience-is-hero/#:~:text=Talking%20to%20the%20audience%20as,action,%20and%20foster%20authentic%20connections. Presentation storytelling 101: Your audience is the hero]
M.F. Dahlstrom, Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111 (supplement_4) 13614-13620, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320645111 (2014).
Matthew Z. Dudley, Gordon K. Squires, Tracy M. Petroske, Sandra Dawson, Janesse Brewer, The Use of Narrative in Science and Health Communication: A Scoping Review, Patient Education and Counseling, Volume 112, 2023, 107752, ISSN 0738-3991, [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0738399123001325?via%3Dihub link]
Dahlstrom, M. F., & Ho, S. S. (2012). Ethical Considerations of Using Narrative to Communicate Science. Science Communication, 34(5), 592-617. +
Starting a podcast does not require complex or expensive equipment. What matters most is having a clear setup that allows you to record understandable audio.
To get started, you need a basic recording device, such as a smartphone, laptop, or a USB microphone. Headphones are useful for monitoring audio quality and avoiding echo during recording. It is also important to choose a quiet environment, as background noise can make audio difficult to follow. Simple setups are often enough to produce clear and effective podcast episodes .
After recording, audio can be edited to improve clarity. Beginner-friendly tools can be downloaded for free and allow you to trim recordings and adjust volume levels. More advanced software exists, but it is not necessary when starting out.
To share a podcast, you need a hosting platform that allow you to upload episodes and distribute them to listeners .
Good tools support clarity, but they do not replace good content and structure. A simple setup that produces clear audio is enough to communicate ideas effectively, reach an audience, and build a consistent podcast. +
Incorporating gender, health, and climate justice in your research: A reflexive question card exercise +
'''1.''' Hankivsky, O. (2014). Intersectionality 101. The Institute for Intersectionality Research and Policy, Simon Fraser University. [https://bccampus.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Hankivsky-Intersectionality101-2014.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://bccampus.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Hankivsky-Intersectionality101-2014.pdf]
'''2.''' Hankivsky, O., Grace, D., Hunting, G., Giesbrecht, M., Fridkin, A., Rudrum, S., Ferlatte, O., & Clark, N. (2014). An intersectionality-based policy analysis framework: Critical reflections on a methodology for advancing equity. International Journal for Equity in Health, 13, 119. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-014-0119-x
'''3.''' Kaijser, A., & Kronsell, A. (2014). Climate change through the lens of intersectionality. Environmental Politics, 23(3), 417–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.835203
'''4.''' Verdonk, P., van Marlen, J., Tumas, N., & van Valkengoed, I. (2024). Coloring connections: Researching gender, intersectionality and health in the climate crisis. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14047986 +
'''Political action'''
Recognise that sustainable approaches to research and innovation exist within the context of wider political systems. Identify research and innovation priorities which can contribute to a just transition towards a sustainable society
Be aware of the access to knowledge, networks and platforms that your role entails, and use this to promote environmentally and socially responsible action. Strategically engage in policy dialogue and participatory processes for green initiatives as part of the research methodology or innovation cycle, when appropriate
'''Collective action'''
Remember the importance of teamwork and collective action in tackling environmental (including climate) issues. Demonstrate a capacity for accessible and collaborative work, for example through open science and FAIR data practices.
Support environmental and climate positive initiatives within your research field. Collaborate with multiple actors (such as policy makers and local communities) to shape sustainable approaches to research and innovation
'''Individual initiative'''
Model sustainable practice in research and innovation – including methodology, materials selection, and project goals. Recognise that everyone has a role to play in fostering sustainable approaches to research and innovation. Be accountable for the environmental and social impacts of professional activities, and take corrective actions where needed. +
Doing research with communities affected by climate change: Climate-conscious methodologies matrix (for researchers and ethics reviewers) +
Use you own research to '''reflect on the cards''' questions
OR use the scenario described above to:
*'''Reflect''' on how the question applies in this setting.
*'''Identify''' possible tensions or risks (e.g., exclusion, harm, extractivism).
*'''Propose''' a climate-just, community-informed course of action. +
[https://calculator.green-algorithms.org/ Green Algorithms - Classic view] [accessed 10.05.24]
Grealey, J., Lannelongue, L., Saw, W., Marten, J., Méric, G., Ruiz-Carmona, S., & Inouye, M. ''The Carbon Footprint of Bioinformatics''. ''Molecular Biology and Evolution'', Volume 39, Issue 3.
Lannelongue, L., Grealey, J., & Inouye, M. (2021). “Green Algorithms: Quantifying the Carbon Footprint of Computation”. ''Advanced Science'', 8, 2100707. https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202100707 [accessed 10.05.24] +
On the previous page, you familiarized yourself with [https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/ the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity]. Now, it is time to reflect on and apply your new knowledge.
Your task is to choose one of the categories from the European Code of Conduct (e.g., research environment, training, supervision, etc.) and consider two examples:
# What aspects of your current research align with the European Code of Conduct?
# What aspects of your current research could be improved according to the European Code of Conduct? +
On 4 September 2018, a group of national research funding organisations, with the support of the European Commission and the European Research Council (ERC), announced the launch of cOAlition S, an initiative to make full and immediate Open Access to research publications a reality. It is built around Plan S, which consists of one target and 10 principles.
cOAlition S signals the commitment to implement the necessary measures to fulfill its main principle:
“With effect from 2021, all scholarly publications on the results from research funded by public or private grants provided by national, regional and international research councils and funding bodies, must be published in Open Access Journals, on Open Access Platforms, or made immediately available through Open Access Repositories without embargo.”
==== What is Plan S? ====
The main ambition of Plan S is to accelerate the transition to full and immediate OA. The guiding principle behind Plan S is that research that has been paid with public money should not be locked behind paywalls.
Plan S requires that, from 2021, recipients of research funding from cOAlition S organizations make the resulting publications available immediately (without embargoes) and under open licenses, either in quality OA platforms or journals or through immediate deposit in open repositories that fulfill the necessary conditions.
Plan S is applicable to research funded by organizations (incl. all beneficiaries of Horizon Europe) who have signed up to Plan S.
==== How to comply with Plan S? ====
cOAlition S released the [https://www.coalition-s.org/resources/journal-checker-tool-jct/ Journal Checker Tool (JCT)], a search engine that checks Plan S compliance. The JCT is a web-based tool which enables researchers to quickly identify journals or platforms that provide routes to compliance with Plan S.
Further reading:
[https://erc.europa.eu/news/erc-supports-full-open-access Statement by the European Research Council] on the support of the cOAlition S initiative.
[1] cOAlition S. (n.d.). What is cOAlition S? https://www.coalition-s.org/about/
[2] cOAlition S. (n.d.). Plan S principles. https://www.coalition-s.org/plan_s_principles/
[3] KU Leven. (n.d.). Plan S explained. https://www.kuleuven.be/open-science/what-is-open-science/scholarly-publishing-and-open-access/open-access-why-and-how/plan-s-explained
Members of [[Main Page|The Embassy of Good Science]] have developed a set of scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.
The scenarios are designed to help researchers and other entities to become better acquainted with The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.
This scenario on [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4063746 'Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity'] presents a hypothetical narrative concerning the ethical and integrity standards governing peer review processes.
It focuses on issues regarding:
* The integrity of peer review processes;
* Institutional obligations to uphold the standards of good peer review practices;
* Plagiarism.
===== Your task is to: =====
# Read the narrative (Issue 1–2) and questions for researchers related to the presented issues
# Share your thoughts on research integrity issues raised by a narrative in a forum (at least one or two sentences per question; approx. 50 words)
# Discuss the best research practice with other participants (use the 'Discuss this topic' button; optional)
[1] Péter Kakuk. (2020). Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4063746 +
In this module, we would include Emilio Beladiez's interview to explain the work of the Plastic Oceans organisation and highlight the global environmental impact of plastic waste. Click to watch the video below +
'''Questions to consider:'''
• What trade-offs shaped my methodological choices (e.g., convenience vs. efficiency)?
• Were environmentally preferable alternatives considered?
• Can I briefly explain why certain options were selected?
'''Example :''' A research team models future economic trends while holding environmental and climate conditions constant for the sake of analytical simplicity. While such simplifications are common in research, practising transparency involves explicitly stating this assumption and explaining its implications. In particular, users of the research should be able to understand that the projections do not account for factors such as climate impacts, environmental degradation, or resource constraints that could affect economic feasibility or long-term sustainability. Making these limitations explicit supports responsible use of the results in contexts where environmental and climate conditions are likely to influence outcomes +
Towards an expanded scope of research ethics committees: Integrating environmental and climate ethics +
List of Resources:
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!Resource
!Type of resource
!Origin/issuing body
!Primary target audience
!Scope, focus & relevance
|-
|Ethics Review Checklist for Use of Gene Drive
|Ethics review checklist
|iRECS (Horizon Europe project, Grant agreement ID: 101058587)
|RECs, ethics reviewers
|Provides a structured, REC-facing checklist addressing ecological risks, long-term ecosystem impacts, uncertainty, reversibility, and governance of environmental harm. Offers one of the clearest operationalisations of environmental ethics within formal ethics review processes.
|-
|TechEthos D5.4 Criteria for Ethical Review by RECs in Emerging Technology Research
|Analytical report with recomm endations
|TechEthos (Horizon 2020 project, Grant agreement ID: 101006249)
|RECs, policymakers, ethics organisations
|Analyses structural and substantive challenges faced by RECs when reviewing emerging technologies, including climate engineering. Highlights difficulties in assessing long-term societal and environmental harms and calls for REC-specific guidance and capacity-building.
|-
|Checklist – JRF Ethics Committee
|Ethics self assessmen t checklist
|Johannes-Rau Forschungsge meinschaft (JRF) – Ethics Committee (Germany)
|Researchers (indirectly RECs)
|Prompts researcher reflection on ethical, societal, and environmental aspects of research, including sustainability considerations.
|-
|How to Complete Your Ethics Self Assessment (Part 7: Environment & Safety)
|Guidance document / ethics self assessmen t tool
|European Commission (Horizon Europe)
|Horizon Europe applicants; researchers; ethics reviewers;
|Mandatory ethics self-assessment guidance for Horizon Europe applicants. Part 7 operationalises environmental and safety considerations.
|-
|Environmental Sustainability as an Ethical Issue in Intensive Care Research
|Peer reviewed academic article
|Springer (medical ethics & clinical research literature)
|Clinicians, researchers, ethics scholars
|Frames environmental sustainability and climate impacts as ethical issues in medical research, strengthening the normative basis for integrating environmental considerations into ethics discourse, but does not provide governance mechanisms or REC review tools.
|-
|DFG Sustainability Guide for Research Processes
|Guidance / best practice document
|Deutsche Forschungsge meinschaft (DFG)
|Researchers, research institutions, funders
|Provides practical recommendations to reduce environmental footprints across the research lifecycle (e.g. energy use, mobility, procurement). Strong on sustainability practice, but largely disconnected from ethics review procedures or explicit REC mandates.
|}
Learning Pathway for Researchers +
Please select the correct answer. +
