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
D
If you face a moral question, dilemma, or conflict, you should be able to make a well-considered choice. In order to consider choices or form an opinion you should be able to fully understand the context of the issue, what is at stake and for whom. To have a dialogue, an attitude of slowing down, postponing judgments and asking questions is required. By engaging with others in dialogue you focus on understanding the other and helping the other (and yourself) think critically about his/her way of acting. +
When facing a moral question, dilemma, or conflict, one should be able to make a well-considered choice. In order to consider choices or form an opinion one should be able to fully understand the context of the issue, what is at stake, and for whom. To have a dialogue, an attitude of slowing down, postponing judgments and asking questions is required. By engaging with others in dialogue you focus on understanding the other and helping the other (and yourself) think critically about his/her way of acting. +
Im Angesicht einer moralischen Frage, einem Dilemma oder einem Konflikt, sollte man in der Lage sein, eine wohlüberlegte Entscheidung zu treffen. Um Entscheidungsmöglichkeiten abzuwägen und sich eine Meinung zu bilden, ist es wichtig, den Kontext zu verstehen – welche Risiken die Situation birgt, und für wen das relevant ist. Zu diesem Zweck ist es hilfreich, einen ''Dialog ''zu führen und dabei mit Fragen die Perspektiven anderer zu erkunden, ohne dabei vorschnell zu urteilen. Mit anderen Personen in einen Dialog zu treten, trägt zum gegenseitigen Verständnis bei und hilft uns und den anderen, die jeweiligen Handlungsweisen des Gegenübers kritisch zu hinterfragen. +
Im Angesicht einer moralischen Frage, einem Dilemma oder einem Konflikt, sollte man in der Lage sein, eine wohlüberlegte Entscheidung zu treffen. Um Entscheidungsmöglichkeiten abzuwägen und sich eine Meinung zu bilden, ist es wichtig, den Kontext zu verstehen – welche Risiken die Situation birgt, und für wen das relevant ist. Zu diesem Zweck ist es hilfreich, einen ''Dialog ''zu führen und dabei mit Fragen die Perspektiven anderer zu erkunden, ohne dabei vorschnell zu urteilen. Mit anderen Personen in einen Dialog zu treten, trägt zum gegenseitigen Verständnis bei und hilft uns und den anderen, die jeweiligen Handlungsweisen des Gegenübers kritisch zu hinterfragen. +
Deception to enroll in clinical trials can be a risk "to both subject safetey and study integrity that researchers should actively minimize when methods of verifying self-reported health data exist". '"`UNIQ--ref-00000024-QINU`"' +
This declaration serves as an adaptation of the Hippocratic Oath to modern medicine. The declaration is a core document for medical ethics and, in many countries, it is even part of the medical profession code. The Biomedical Alliance in Europe and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology endorse the Declaration of Geneva in their codes of conduct and ethics, respectively. +
The Declaration of Helsinki is especially important to protect the well-being of human subjects involved in biomedical research. It serves as a call of duty for physicians, that need to safeguard the welfare of the human subjects. Different European societies, such as the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons, the Biomedical Alliance in Europe, and the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association, have endorsed the declaration in their code of ethics and conduct. +
Although organ transplantation saves and improves many lives, exploitative and unethical practices are common, provoking harm especially to the poor and vulnerable. The declaration provides guidance and principles to ensure that organ transplantation is a safe practice, based on values like human solidarity, and to prevent harmful practices. Among many medical societies, the Declaration of Istanbul is endorsed by the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association. +
The case delivers yet another example of the many formats that plagiarism can take (see also Loui, 2002)'"`UNIQ--ref-0000012B-QINU`"'. It is also a reminder of how easily and, often unintentional, breech of ethical guidelines can occur, especially by those less experienced in a field.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000012C-QINU`"' +
Liest man verschiedene Research Integrity Verhaltenskodizes oder Leitlinien zur guten wissenschaftlichen Praxis, fällt auf, dass von den Wissenschaftler:innen oft erwartet wird, dass sie bestimmte Pflichten kennen und bestimmte Werte und Tugenden vertreten, und dass sie von alleine wüssten, wie sie sich entsprechend zu verhalten hätten. Beispiele sind: “Ehrlichkeit”, “Zuverlässigkeit”, “Verantwortung” und “Rechenschaftspflicht”.
Doch wie sollte man sich verhalten, um dem Wert “Ehrlichkeit” in bestimmten Situationen gerecht zu werden? Kann ein:e Wissenschaftler:in zu ehrlich sein? Oder nicht ehrlich genug? Diese Übung fördert die gemeinsame und kritische moralische Überlegung darüber, was es bedeutet, sich bestimmten Werten und Tugenden entsprechend zu verhalten - vor allem in Situationen, die eine Herausforderung für die eigene oder allgemeine Research Integrity darstellen. +
Liest man verschiedene Research Integrity Verhaltenskodizes oder Leitlinien zur guten wissenschaftlichen Praxis, fällt auf, dass von den Wissenschaftler:innen oft erwartet wird, dass sie bestimmte Pflichten kennen und bestimmte Werte und Tugenden vertreten, und dass sie von alleine wüssten, wie sie sich entsprechend zu verhalten hätten. Beispiele sind: “Ehrlichkeit”, “Zuverlässigkeit”, “Verantwortung” und “Rechenschaftspflicht”.
Diese Leitlinien sollen Wissenschaftler:innen darin anleiten, sich integer zu verhalten, wenn sie in ihrem Forschungsalltag mit moralischen Fragen konfrontiert werden.
Doch wie sollte eine Person sich verhalten, um dem Wert “Ehrlichkeit” in einer konkreten Situation gerecht zu werden? Kann ein:e Wissenschaftler:in zu ehrlich sein? Oder nicht ehrlich genug? Was ist, am Beispiel von “Ehrlichkeit”, genau das richtige Maß an Ehrlichkeit für die spezifische Person in dem spezifischen Kontext?
Diese Übung soll Trainer:innen darin schulen, einen gemeinsamen kritischen moralischen Reflexionsprozess bei den Teilnehmenden zu fördern, um ihnen erfahrbar zu machen, was es heißt, werte-orientiertes Verhalten zu zeigen. +
Research Integrity-Übungen können zum oberflächlichen Auswendiglernen verleiten, ohne dass hinterfragt wird, was gute Forschung überhaupt ausmacht. Zu wissen, was ''gut'' in diesem Zusammenhang bedeutet und was gute Forschung ist, ist ein wichtiges Fundament für die Entwicklung und Übung von Research Integrity. Diese Reflexion lenkt die Aufmerksamkeit auf die zugrundeliegende Motivation, aufgrund derer wir uns mit der Integrität in der Forschung beschäftigen. +
Diskussionen über oder Übungen zu Research Integrity laufen Gefahr, zum Auswendiglernen zu verleiten und ihre Wirkung zu verlieren, wenn nicht hinterfragt wird, was gute Forschung überhaupt ausmacht. Diese Übung soll helfen, über die Grundlagen dessen nachzudenken, was wir unter ''guter Forschung'' verstehen. +
Research integrity and research misconduct are of immense interest to stakeholders both within and outside the scientific community. Integrity in research not only enables good quality research, supports effective collaborations and delivers benefits to the public, but also safeguards the trust of the public in the research community. Research misconduct, on the other hand, can diminish trust in science, affect the quality of research results and misspend public funds. To prevent this, it is crucial that researchers receive guidance on research integrity.
National documents are important in laying down specific norms that are to be followed. For instance, the Estonian document provides considerations to be taken into account during different stages of the research, such as planning, conduct and publication <sup>4</sup>. In the Danish and Swiss guidelines, the procedures to address a suspected breach of integrity are described in detail <sup>5, 6</sup>. The Swiss document, in addition, also provides the legal background and implications of misconduct <sup>6</sup>.
Whilst there is a value for countries to have their own RI code or statement, challenges can arise when there are divergences both among national documents and between national level documents and the ECoC regarding the guiding values of research integrity and what constitutes research misconduct. These divergences are important to map and define, for two broad reasons: firstly, it could mean that in cases of research misconduct in international collaborations, responses to misconduct may vary, depending on the national norms, and secondly, these divergences go against the harmonizing effect envisaged in the ECoC, and could affect the overall coherence of research integrity guidance <sup>4</sup>. These considerations are of importance not only to policy makers, but also to research institutions and researchers in general. +
Research integrity issues often require thorough consideration, as it is not always simple to apply rules and to know what is the right action given a code of conduct. A dialogue can help to find ways to deal with such issues. A dialogue can take place within the research team, or in a group aiming at reflection on research integrity issues.
The idea of dialogue is not only being nice and friendly. The aim is to come to a better view of the situation, gaining knowledge and understanding. This requires that one seriously investigates the relevance of the perspective of the other. Being open to the perspective of the other does not mean simply giving up one’s own point of view, but being prepared to learn from the other’s point of view. By exchanging perspectives, dialogue can result in a fusion of horizons.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000276-QINU`"'
It is important to distinguish dialogue from debate. In a nutshell, the most relevant differences are the following :'"`UNIQ--ref-00000277-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000278-QINU`"'
*Dialogue focuses on learning from differences; debate focuses on finding the one right answer
*Dialogue focuses on understanding the other; debate focuses on convincing the other
*Dialogue focuses on listening and questioning; debate focuses on speaking and arguing
*Dialogue focuses on looking for strengths in the position of the other; debate focuses on looking for weaknesses in the position of the other
*Dialogue focuses on exploring and considering; debate focuses on attacking and defending
*Dialogue focuses on thinking slow; debate focuses on thinking fast
*Dialogue focuses on reflection and learning; debate focuses on concluding and deciding
'"`UNIQ--references-00000279-QINU`"' +
It demonstrates the tensions that can arise between institutional research integrity committees and national research integrity bodies in the application of the standards governing conflicts of interests. Different interpretations of these standards can lead to diverging opinions regarding whether research misconduct has been committed. +
This fictional case is a firm reminder of the plurality of types of conflicts of interest one can come across in their research life. The case is presented alongside questions that provide a starting point for reflection on the dilemmas faced by researchers in relation to their contractual responsibilities as well as moral obligations when working in a team. +
An interesting example of a case, signifying that not all retractions are due to conscious manipulation of data/results by the papers' authors. +
Peer review is an important process to detect the flaws of to-be-published papers. This step of the publication process needs to be performed in order to increase the quality of scientific papers. When peer review is 'sloppy', or even allegedely fake, the quality will likely be low, and erroneous papers can be published.
<br /> +
Authors do not always set on purposely to deceive in all ethics violations allegations. For example, double submission may be in order to increase one's list of publications but it can also derive by luck of communication between authors (especially when in different countries/institutions) which may lead to such 'misshapen'. +
