What is this about? (Is About)
From The Embassy of Good Science
A short summary providing some details about the theme/resource (max. 75 words)
- ⧼SA Foundation Data Type⧽: Text
R
Research Ethics Committees (RECs) face a number of challenges when reviewing research involving Artificial Intelligence (AI) in health and healthcare. In this policy brief the Horizon EU-funded project irecs highlights three key issues and provides recommendations for risk mitigation. +
Research Ethics Committees (RECs) face a number of challenges when reviewing research involving biobanking. In this policy brief the Horizon EU-funded project irecs highlights three key issues and provides recommendations for risk mitigation. +
Research Ethics Committees (RECs) face a number of challenges when reviewing research involving Extended Reality (XR). In this policy brief the Horizon EU-funded project irecs highlights three key issues and provides recommendations for risk mitigation. +
Research Ethics Committees (RECs) face a number of challenges when reviewing research involving Genome editing. In this policy brief the Horizon EU-funded project irecs highlights three key issues and provides recommendations for risk mitigation. +
Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project +
Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of eight scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.
This scenario presents a hypothetical narrative concerning [https://zenodo.org/record/4063746#.X3cXC5NKjxQ '''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.
It is interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators in their deliberations concerning the research integrity issues raised by the narrative. +
Citizen science, according to the [https://www.ecsa.ngo/ European Citizen Science Association (ESCA)], is "an ‘umbrella’ term that describes a variety of ways in which the public participates in science. The main characteristics are that: (1) citizens are actively involved in research, in partnership or collaboration with scientists or professionals;and (2) there is a genuine outcome, such as new scientific knowledge, conservation action or policy change." +
Oscar Martinez is a grad student who improved code used in Nick Manson's study. He later noticed that Manson published a paper which relied heavily on the new code and requested to be counted as one of the authors of the papers. Manson claimed that an acknowledgement was sufficient as he did the rest of the work on his own. The case study asks whether Martinez's contribution merits authorship. +
This study shows that delays between online and print publication of articles artificially increase the journal's impact factor (IF). Therefore, authors propose that calculation of the IFs should be based on the date of electronic publication. +
Citizen science, according to the [https://www.ecsa.ngo/ European Citizen Science Association (ESCA)], is "an ‘umbrella’ term that describes a variety of ways in which the public participates in science. The main characteristics are that: (1) citizens are actively involved in research, in partnership or collaboration with scientists or professionals;and (2) there is a genuine outcome, such as new scientific knowledge, conservation action or policy change." +
Some armed men look for an anthropologist by name in Central America. When the researcher discovers that the armed men are working for the government, he does not inform this research subjects. +
A new faculty member replaces the deceased mentor of a graduate student and takes credit for a manuscript prepared by the deceased. +
This activity has been designed to support participants in reflecting and learning about AI in healthcare. Before participating in this exercise participants are asked to follow the online [https://classroom.eneri.eu/node/377 modules developed by IRECS] on this topic.
By taking part in this activity participants work towards the following learning goals and become:<div>
*<span lang="EN-US">knowledgeable on relevant literature, developments and regulations with regards to the topic addressed </span>
*<span lang="EN-US">Able to indicate what ethical issues are pressing regarding research concerning AI in healthcare contexts</span>
*<span lang="EN-US">Able to apply relevant ethical concerns on a case </span>
*Aware how the learning materials are relevant for their professional practice
</div>In this activity, participants assume the roles of an expert group, tasked with reviewing and developing comprehensive advice for a complex case involving the use of AI in healthcare. +
This activity has been designed to support participants in reflecting and learning about AI in healthcare. Before participating in this exercise participants are asked to follow the online [https://classroom.eneri.eu/node/377 modules developed by IRECS] on this topic.
By taking part in this activity participants work towards the following learning goals and become:
<div>
*<span lang="EN-US">knowledgeable on relevant literature, developments and regulations with regards to the topic addressed </span>
*<span lang="EN-US">Able to indicate what ethical issues are pressing regarding research concerning AI in healthcare contexts</span>
*<span lang="EN-US">Able to apply relevant ethical concerns on a case </span>
*Aware how the learning materials are relevant for their professional practice
</div>In this activity, participants assume the roles of an expert group, tasked with reviewing and developing comprehensive advice for a complex case involving the use of AI in healthcare. +
Romanian Codul General de Etică în Cercetarea Științifică - General code of ethics in scientific research 2015 +
The document 'Codul General de Etică în Cercetarea Științifică - General code of ethics in scientific research', developed in 2015 in Romania, is a national guideline that addresses the principles of research integrity. Authored by MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, RESEARCH, AND YOUTH;NATIONAL AUTHORITY FOR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH;NATIONAL ETHICS COUNCIL, and available in Romanian, it targets the research community in National. It provides clear expectations for responsible conduct in research and defines practices that safeguard honesty, transparency, and accountability. The text outlines responsibilities of both individual researchers and institutions. It identifies misconduct such as plagiarism, data falsification, fabrication, and unethical authorship, while also promoting good practices in publication, peer review, and collaborative research. It emphasizes effective data management, openness in reporting, and respect for colleagues, participants, and the wider community. Institutions are encouraged to create supportive environments through policies, training, and oversight mechanisms. The document serves as an official reference for aligning national research standards with international expectations, reinforcing ethical norms across research fields. +
This is a factual case. +
Co-investigators plan on patenting a genetic test and want to share data with both collaborators and non-collaborators. +
Co-investigators plan on patenting a genetic test and want to share data with both collaborators and non-collaborators. +
S
The European Commission funded SATORI project has complied a page of resources on the ethical assessment of research and innovation. +
SHERPA is a European research project that examines how smart information systems especially AI and big data analytics affect ethics and human rights. Through stakeholder engagement (interviews, surveys, Delphi studies) and creative formats like case studies and artistic representations, SHERPA maps out the key ethical challenges of these technologies. It also develops practical tools including a workbook on responsible SIS development and proposes technical, regulatory, and governance options to promote more sustainable, human-centred information systems. +
The SHERPA Final Recommendations provide a comprehensive framework for addressing the ethical and human rights implications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and smart information systems in Europe. Viewing AI as a set of interconnected ecosystems involving technologies, stakeholders, and governance structures, the recommendations aim to ensure that AI development promotes human flourishing. They are organized into three domains: Concepts, Knowledge, and Governance.
First, SHERPA stresses the need for clear and appropriate definitions of AI to better identify ethically relevant issues. Second, it calls for a strong and sustainable knowledge base through AI impact assessments, ethics-by-design approaches, education and training pathways, inclusion of ethics in standardization, and security analysis of AI systems. Third, the recommendations propose robust governance mechanisms, including a mandatory EU regulatory framework, the establishment of an independent European Union Agency for AI, and the creation of AI Ethics Officers within organizations. Together, these measures aim to ensure trustworthy, rights-respecting, and socially beneficial AI systems. +
