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
7
[[File:Mm.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
International cooperation among biobanks is essential for advancing scientific research, promoting data sharing, and accelerating global progress in healthcare. Biobanks employ several methods to facilitate this collaboration such as adhering to standardized protocols for sample collection, processing, and storage. Common practices ensure compatibility and comparability of data across different institutions and countries. Efforts to ensure data harmonization ensure that information collected follows standardized formats. This harmonization allows seamless integration and analysis of datasets from diverse sources.
Biobanks often participate in collaborative networks or consortia that span multiple countries. These networks foster communication, resource sharing, and joint research initiatives. Examples include the [https://dcc.icgc.org/ International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC)] and the [https://www.ga4gh.org/ Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH)]. Data sharing platforms that comply with established standards for security, privacy and interoperability* may be used to facilitate the exchange of data while addressing ethical and legal considerations. Additionally, institutions engaging in international collaboration may establish formal agreements through memorandums of understanding. These agreements outline the terms of collaboration, data sharing, and the responsible use of biological samples.
Collaborative research projects involving multiple biobanks encourage the exchange of data and samples for specific research objectives. These projects leverage the collective expertise and resources of participating institutions.
International collaborations may also involve capacity-building initiatives to enhance the capabilities of biobanks in developing countries as exemplified by the establishment of a biobank in [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211883723000989 Western Visayas in the Philippines]. Such inclusivity fosters a more equitable and globally impactful approach to research.
Biobanks navigate complex ethical and legal considerations when sharing data internationally. They establish clear frameworks for obtaining informed consent, protecting donor privacy, and complying with diverse national and international regulations. To regulate access to shared data, international biobanks often establish data access committees that evaluate research proposals and ensure adherence to ethical, legal, and privacy standards.
'"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000001-QINU`"' The term ''interoperability'' refers to the ability of different systems, devices, or software to seamlessly exchange and interpret information, allowing them to work together effectively and efficiently without hindrance. It ensures that diverse components can communicate, share data, and collaborate in a cohesive manner, fostering compatibility and synergy across various platforms or technologies.
By employing effective strategies for the sharing of biological samples, biobanks contribute to a global network of knowledge sharing, accelerating scientific discovery, and promoting advancements in personalized medicine and public health on an international scale.
Podcasting combines several elements covered in this module:
* clear audio communication
* structured delivery
* awareness of audience
* basic technical setup
Together, these shape how listeners understand and engage with content.
When creating a podcast, you are not only sharing information. You are shaping how that information is experienced through sound. +
<div>Sabin, L. Hastings, R. Evans, N (2026) Sustainability and Eco-Justice in Everyday Research. Amsterdam UMC. DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18390889</div><div></div> +
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. +
Urban Walker, M. 1998. Moral Understandings. A Feminist Study in Ethics. New York: Routledge.
Tronto, J. 1993. Moral Boundaries. A Political Argument For an Ethic of Care. New York: Routledge.
Noddings, N. 1982. Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. Berkeley: University of CA Press.
Gilligan, C. 1982. In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Harvard University Press.
Woodly, D., R.H. Brown, M. Marin, S. Threadcraft, C.P. Harris, J. Syedullah, and M. Ticktin. 2021. “The Politics of Care.” Contemporary Political Theory 20 (4): 890–925. '"`UNIQ--nowiki-0000003D-QINU`"'.
Wrigley, K. 2025. Care-full climate justice organising. Environmental Sociology, 1–13. '"`UNIQ--nowiki-0000003E-QINU`"'
Noddings, N. 2015. Care ethics and “caring” organizations. In: Engster D, Hamington M (eds) Care Ethics and Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 72–84.
Weil, S. 1977. Simone Weil Reader. New York: Moyer Bell.
Whyte, K. and C. J. Cuomo. 2016. “Ethics of Caring in Environmental Ethics: Indigenous and Feminist Philosophies.” In S. M. Gardiner and A. Thompson (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Ethics Oxford: Oxford Handbooks, 234–247.
Inguaggiato, G., Pallise Perello, C., Verdonk, P., Schoonmade, L., Andanda, P., van den Hoven, M., '"`UNIQ--nowiki-0000003F-QINU`"'amp;Evans, N. 2024. The experience of women researchers during the Covid-19 pandemic: a scoping review. Research Ethics, 20(4), 780- 811. '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000040-QINU`"'
Tronto, J.C. (2013). Caring Democracy: Markets, Equality, and Justice. New Yourk: NYU Press.
Gauthier P. E., Chungyalpa D, Goldman RI, Davidson RJ, Wilson-Mendenhall CD. 2025.
Mother Earth kinship: Centering Indigenous worldviews to address the Anthropocene and rethink the ethics of human-to-nature connectedness. Curr Opin Psychol. Aug(64): 102042. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102042. Epub 2025 Apr 11. PMID: 40288260. +
8
Reflect again. What differences did they experience? What felt better? Do they understand the choice of the other team and feel understood by that team themselves, and how did the style of conversation influence that? +
Varieties of goodness in research - a rotary style exercise (variation to original VIRT2UE exercise)) +
The same exercise as in round 3 can be repeated with the next group. The number of rounds is dependent of the number of subgroups and the time available. +
04 - Moral Case Deliberation: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
In this step, similarities and differences between the individual considerations are examined. Sometimes, two participants make a different choice based on the same value. Alternatively, participants may choose the same option based on different values or norms. Identifying similarities and differences may lead to better understanding and a better insight of what is at stake in a specific case. +
After the presentation, you may be invited to actively listen to what others have to say and share their views openly. While playing the game with several small groups, a plenary debrief may be useful to allow room for you to ask questions to each other and identify dilemmas, justifications for choices, and even more general themes. +
[[File:Modified Dilemma Game Table 1.png|thumb|'''Table 1: Which principles from European Code for Research Integrity can you identify in each dilemma?''']]
Ask participants to work in groups to fill out the below tables. You may suggest groups to assign a member as a spokesman to shortly present their discussions in the next step.
[[File:Modified Dilemma Game Table 2.png|thumb|'''Table 2. Which research misbehaviors can you identify in this dilemma?''']]
[[File:Modified Dilemma Game Table 3.jpg|thumb|'''Table 3. Which scientific virtues are important when deciding on a course of action?''']]
<br /> +
The link to the instruction "Interim Practice Work" can be found [https://public.3.basecamp.com/p/5PqnuPhVF5EtiYZJ9WCet1PN here]. +
This session aims to equip students with the knowledge to comprehend the meaning and importance of research integrity. This will be achieved through a practical hands-on approach, where real and fictional cases, outlining research integrity issues in biomedical research using animals, will be presented. We aim for students to identify and relate such examples of research misconduct and questionable research practices, with their own school work practices and environment. This will engage students in a group discussion and critical reflection about the importance of acting responsibly and with honesty in their own school work and within their life. +
Katılımcılardan tabloyu aşağıda gördüğünüz şekilde doldurmalarını isteyin:
{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="474"
| width="170" valign="top" |'''Erdem'''
| width="304" valign="top" |'''Norm/eylem'''
|-
| width="170" valign="top" |Adalet
| width="304" valign="top" |Katkıda bulunan herkesin adını vermeliyim.
|-
| width="170" valign="top" |Cesaret
| width="304" valign="top" |Düşündüklerimi açıkça söylemeliyim.
|}
Katılımcılara Araştırma Doğruluğuyla ilgili erdemler '''listesiyle''' birlikte '''örnek''' ve '''boş tablo'''ların bulunduğu çalışma kağıtları dağıtabilirsiniz (pratik ipuçları bölümüne bakınız). Boş tabloyla birlikte katılımcılara yapışkanlı kağıtlar da verin.
Bu arada, yazı panosuna (ya da tahtaya) tablonun aynısını üç sütunlu olacak şekilde çizin: perspektif, erdem, norm (aşağıdaki gibi). Bunu oturumdan önce de yapabilirsiniz.
{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="615"
| width="141" valign="top" |'''İsim'''
| width="170" valign="top" |'''Erdem'''
| width="304" valign="top" |'''Norm/eylem'''
|-
| rowspan="2" width="141" valign="top" |Louise
| width="170" valign="top" |Adalet
| width="304" valign="top" |Katkıda bulunan herkesin adını vermeliyim.
|-
| width="170" valign="top" |Cesaret
| width="304" valign="top" |Düşündüklerimi açıkça söylemeliyim.
|-
| width="141" valign="top" |Ben
| width="170" valign="top" |…
| width="304" valign="top" |…
|}
Katılımcılara değer ve normlarını yapışkanlı kâğıt üzerine (anlaşılabilir şekilde) yazmalarını söyleyin ve sonrasında kendilerinden yazı panosu üzerine çizdiğiniz tabloya isimlerini yazıp ellerindeki yapışkanlı kağıtları da isimlerinin yanına yapıştırmalarını isteyin. Böylelikle panoda perspektif, erdem ve normların genel bir listesi oluşmuş olacaktır. +
Sonuç kısmında sizden genel olarak süreç üzerine fikir yürütmeniz ve bu alıştırma bağlamında öğrenme hedeflerinin karşılanıp karşılanmadığına ilişkin bir değerlendirme yapmanız istenecektir. Bunun için, bu alıştırma ile neler öğrendiğiniz üzerine grup olarak kısa bir diyalog yürütmeniz talep edilecektir. Bu noktada sizden aşağıdakilere benzer sorulara yanıt aramanız istenebilir:
- Seçilen ikilem için ilgili prensip ve erdemleri belirlemek kolay oldu mu?
- Bu alıştırma sizin resmi olarak tanımlanmış prensipleri (ECoC) tespit edip bunlarla vakalar arasında bağlantı kurmanıza yardımcı oldu mu?
- Oyunu oynayan katılımcıların büyük çoğunluğu varılan nihai karara muvafakat etti mi?
- Anlaşmazlığa yol açan başlıca noktalar nelerdi?
- Katılımcıların bazı noktalarda hemfikir olmamasına sebep olan şeyler nelerdi (örn., kişilerin deneyimlerindeki, eğitimlerindeki, arka planlarındaki, değerlerindeki, normlarındaki vb. farklılıklar)
- Herhangi bir alternatif seçenek önerildi mi?
- Tartışma sonucunda herhangi bir katılımcı fikrini değiştirdi mi?
- Sizin iş ortamınızda ahlaki olarak iyi olana ulaşmak için neler gerekli?
- Tartışmada kullanılan en ikna edici argümanlar hangileriydi?
- Hangi noktalarda yeterince fikir birliğine varılmadığını düşünüyorsunuz?
- Gelecekte iş yaşamınızda bu gibi ikilemlerle en iyi hangi şekilde başa çıkabilirsiniz? +
Katılımcılardan grup halinde çalışarak tabloları doldurmalarını isteyin. Gruplara bir sonraki aşamada yürüttükleri tartışmanın sonuçlarını sunmak üzere grup üyelerinden birini sözcü olarak seçmelerini önerebilirsiniz. +
Beende den Dialog nach etwa 10 min und reflektiere mit der Gruppe über die Unterschiede zwischen einer Debatte und einem Dialog, indem du bspw. folgendes ansprichst / erfragst:
* Wahrnehmungen und Gefühle während der Debatte und während des Dialogs
* Wie sehr die Teilnehmer:innen sich gegenseitig verstanden haben
* Die Gruppendynamik (Welche Personen haben gesprochen? Hatte jede:r Gelegenheit, sich am Gespräch zu beteiligen?, usw.)
* Das Verständnis der Inhalte des Fallbeispiels (Motive und Interessen)
* Andere Erkenntnisse aus einer Debatte oder einem Dialog (z.B. neue Einblicke gewinnen)
Reflektiere mit der Gruppe die Unterschiede zwischen einer Debatte und einem Dialog. Hilfreiche Fragen findest du auch unter „Praktische Tipps“. Halte die Erkenntnisse der Reflektion auf einer Flip-Chart fest. +
Bitte die Teilnehmenden, jede:r für sich selbst eine Tabelle auszufüllen, die aussehen kann wie diese hier:
{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
| width="123" valign="top" |'''Wert / Tugend'''
| width="472" valign="top" |'''Norm / Handlung'''
|-
| width="123" valign="top" |Ehrlichkeit
| width="472" valign="top" |Ich sollte alle Beteiligten in meinem Manuskript nennen.
|-
| width="123" valign="top" |Mut
| width="472" valign="top" |Ich sollte mit meinem/meiner Betreuer:in sprechen.
|}
Zur Unterstützung kannst du für diese Übung folgende Dokumente austeilen, die im Handout 2 enthalten sind (siehe „Praktische Tipps“):
- Liste von Werten / Tugenden, die relevant für Research Integrity sind
- Tabelle mit Beispielen (wie oben)
- Leere Tabelle
- Haftnotizzettel
Zeichne in der Zwischenzeit dieselbe Tabelle auf ein Flipchart oder Whiteboard mit den folgenden drei Spalten: Perspektive, Wert / Tugend, Norm / Handlungsvorschrift (siehe unten). Diese Tabelle kann auch schon gut vor der Sitzung vorbereitet werden.
Beispieltabelle:
{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
| width="113" valign="top" |'''Perspektive'''
| width="123" valign="top" |'''Wert / Tugend'''
| width="368" valign="top" |'''Norm / Handlung'''
|-
| rowspan="2" width="113" valign="top" |Louise
| width="123" valign="top" |Ehrlichkeit
| width="368" valign="top" |Ich sollte alle Beteiligten in meinem Manuskript nennen.
|-
| width="123" valign="top" |Mut
| width="368" valign="top" |Ich sollte mit meinem/meiner Betreuer:in sprechen.
|-
| width="113" valign="top" |Ben
| width="123" valign="top" |Verlässlichkeit
| width="368" valign="top" |Ich sollte genau das tun, was ich meinen Kolleg:innen versprochen hatte.
|}
Bitte nun alle Teilnehmenden, ihre Werte / Tugenden und Normen deutlich lesbar auf einen Haftnotizzettel zu schreiben. Fordere sie dann auf, zur Flipchart zu gehen, um dort ihren Namen in das Feld „Perspektive“ zu schreiben und in der zugehörigen Zeile ihre Haftnotizzettel im Feld Wert / Tugend und Norm / Handlung zu kleben. Auf diese Weise entsteht ein schöner Überblick über die verschiedenen Perspektiven, Werte / Tugenden und Normen der Gruppe.
Ask participants to fill in a table with the same elements (see below), for example:
{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
| width="171" valign="top"|'''Virtue'''
| width="345" valign="top"|'''Norm/action'''
|-
| width="171" valign="top"|Justice
| width="345" valign="top"|I should credit all contributors
|-
| width="171" valign="top"|Courage
| width="345" valign="top"|I should speak up
|}
A hand-out with '''a list''' of research integrity related virtues, '''a table''' of examples and '''an empty table''' can be distributed (see practical tips). Together with the empty table, you should distribute some post-it notes.
In the meantime, draw the same table on a flip-chart (or white board) with three columns: perspective, virtue, norm (see below). You can also consider doing this in advance, before the session.
{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
| width="154" valign="top"|'''Name'''
| width="137" valign="top"|'''Virtue'''
| width="226" valign="top"|'''Norm/action'''
|-
| rowspan="2" width="154" valign="top"|Louise
| width="137" valign="top"|Justice
| width="226" valign="top"|I should credit all the contributors
|-
| width="137" valign="top"|Courage
| width="226" valign="top"|I should speak up
|-
| width="154" valign="top"|Ben
| width="137" valign="top"|…
| width="226" valign="top"|…..
|}
Ask all the participants to write their virtues and norms on a post-it (in clear writing) and then invite them to stand up and go to the table on the flip-chart to write down their name and place their post-its with their virtue(s) and norms next to their name. In this way an overview of perspectives, virtues and norms is created. +
Participants are supported in formulating a take-home message from the session. The teacher asks the participants to reflect on how their take home message will influence their practice. +
Facilitate a discussion about the topic's relevance to participants' professional lives/studies (splitting into smaller groups if needed) and guide them in formulating key take-home message. +
