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
T
This policy brief presents the main findings of the TiGRE project, an EU-funded study on trust and distrust in regulatory regimes. It explores how citizens, regulators, courts, media, businesses, and civil society interact in areas such as food safety, data protection, and finance across nine countries. The policy brief shows that trust in regulatory authorities is generally stronger than often assumed. It also explains that distrust can play a constructive role when it encourages accountability and oversight. Overall, the policy brief argues that a balanced combination of trust and watchfulness helps regulatory systems work better, remain legitimate, and protect the public effectively. +
The document 'Taiwan Code of Conduct for Research Integrity', developed in 2020 in Taiwan, is a national guideline that addresses the principles of research integrity. Authored by University System of Taiwan, and available in English and Chinese, it targets the research community in Taiwan. 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. +
Taiwan Junior Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (?) is a national framework authored by Chien Chou, in english, targeting Taiwan. Originating from Taiwan, it aims to formalise principles of research integrity and open practice. It emphasises honesty, accountability, professional courtesy, and stewardship of resources, linking these values to reproducibility, credibility, and societal trust in research. The text covers responsibilities of researchers, institutions, funders, and journals, spelling out expectations for good practice in planning, conducting, publishing, and reviewing research. Common provisions include clear authorship criteria, proper citation and acknowledgement, management of conflicts of interest, transparency of methods and data, responsible supervision, and fair peer review. It also establishes procedures for handling breaches of integrity, defining misconduct, and setting up investigation mechanisms that ensure due process, proportional sanctions, and learning opportunities. By aligning with international standards, it connects local policy to global norms, reinforcing mobility of researchers and comparability of practices across borders. The document integrates the principle of education—training for students and staff on responsible conduct—ensuring that integrity is taught as a core skill rather than assumed knowledge. It also incorporates guidance on emerging issues such as data management, digital tools, open science, and new forms of dissemination, embedding integrity in contemporary workflows. Practical tools often include checklists, codes of behaviour, reporting templates, and FAQs, translating high-level principles into day-to-day actions. The intended audience spans researchers, supervisors, institutions, and policymakers, all of whom need clarity on their roles in safeguarding the credibility of research. Equity and diversity appear as cross-cutting themes, recognising that integrity involves creating inclusive environments free from discrimination, harassment, or exploitation. Overall, the resource situates research integrity as both a personal commitment and an institutional responsibility, embedding it into the full research cycle from design to dissemination. Annexes may provide case studies, historical context, and references to international declarations such as Singapore or Montreal statements. Definitions and glossaries support consistent interpretation, and contact points or ombudsperson systems are described to lower barriers to reporting. These features help the resource serve not only as a policy but also as a practical handbook.
The document 'Taiwan Junior Code of Conduct for Research Integrity', developed in 2023 in Taiwan, is a national guideline that addresses the principles of research integrity. Authored by Chien Chou, Taiwan Association for Academic Ethics Education, and available in English, it targets the research community in Taiwan. 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 micromodule accompanies the RE4GREEN guide “Taking Part in Research: A Guide for Citizen Scientists on Environmental and Climate Considerations.” The guide explains what you should expect from a citizen science project, your rights (such as clear information, privacy, recognition, and the ability to withdraw), and your responsibilities (such as careful data collection and respecting nature).
Before completing this micromodule, you are invited to read the guide. The questions below help you reflect on common situations that can arise in citizen science projects, especially when environmental or location data may be sensitive. +
Te Ara Tika Guidelines for Māori research ethics: A framework for researchers and ethics committee members New Zealand, 2010 +
The document 'Te Ara Tika Guidelines for Māori research ethics: A framework for researchers and ethics committee members ', developed in 2010 in New Zealand, is a national guideline that addresses the principles of research integrity. Authored by Pūtaiora Writing Group , and available in English and Maori, it targets the research community in New Zealand. 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. +
Te Ara Tika: Guidelines for Māori research ethics: A framework for researchers and ethics committee members +
Te Ara Tika: Guidelines for Māori research ethics: A framework for researchers and ethics committee members () is a national framework authored by nan, in nan, targeting nan. Originating from New Zealand, it aims to formalise principles of research integrity and open practice. It emphasises honesty, accountability, professional courtesy, and stewardship of resources, linking these values to reproducibility, credibility, and societal trust in research. The text covers responsibilities of researchers, institutions, funders, and journals, spelling out expectations for good practice in planning, conducting, publishing, and reviewing research. Common provisions include clear authorship criteria, proper citation and acknowledgement, management of conflicts of interest, transparency of methods and data, responsible supervision, and fair peer review. It also establishes procedures for handling breaches of integrity, defining misconduct, and setting up investigation mechanisms that ensure due process, proportional sanctions, and learning opportunities. By aligning with international standards, it connects local policy to global norms, reinforcing mobility of researchers and comparability of practices across borders. The document integrates the principle of education training for students and staff on responsible conduct ensuring that integrity is taught as a core skill rather than assumed knowledge. It also incorporates guidance on emerging issues such as data management, digital tools, open science, and new forms of dissemination, embedding integrity in contemporary workflows. Practical tools often include checklists, codes of behaviour, reporting templates, and FAQs, translating high-level principles into day-to-day actions. The intended audience spans researchers, supervisors, institutions, and policymakers, all of whom need clarity on their roles in safeguarding the credibility of research. Equity and diversity appear as cross-cutting themes, recognising that integrity involves creating inclusive environments free from discrimination, harassment, or exploitation. Overall, the resource situates research integrity as both a personal commitment and an institutional responsibility, embedding it into the full research cycle from design to dissemination. Annexes may provide case studies, historical context, and references to international declarations such as Singapore or Montreal statements. Definitions and glossaries support consistent interpretation, and contact points or ombudsperson systems are described to lower barriers to reporting. These features help the resource serve not only as a policy but also as a practical handbook.
This guideline provides a state of the art and needs analysis of bioethical education. It can serve as a short introduction to bioethical education and can aid teachers to adopt bioethics education and critical thinking in their curricula. The guideline was published in 2019 by the Bioethical Education and Attitude Guidance for Living Environment (BEAGLE) project, and was co-funded by the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union. +
This training programme aims to acknowledge the importance of teaching controversial issues related mostly to recent past, religion, culture and identity in Northern Ireland. Intended mostly for principals, school leaders, managers and teachers, it consists of an overview, seven sessions and training guidance notes. +
This article offers information on a course in research ethics for medical and basic science students at a multidisciplinary faculty of the Medical College of Pennsylvania. It also provides a model for discussion among educators with different views on curricular design in research ethics. +
The article explores how using historical empathy can enhance understanding of the 1915 Gallipoli Campaign. Drawing upon his own experience of teaching historical empathy to young people, the author argues that historical empathy can foster students' understanding of the past and of persons with different set of beliefs. +
This study is about techniques that aim to enhance communication between conflicting parties. Its focus is on core aspects of the mediation process designed for management of clinical conflict. +
This study regards teaching ethics in baccalaureate, graduate and doctoral education in nursing with contemporary models of ethics teaching - the Moral Concepts Model, the Moral Issues Model, the Clinical Practice Model and the Ethics Inquiry Model. The aim of these different ethics teaching models is to produce a morally accountable practitioner with skills in ethical decision making. +
Effective RE/RI training benefits from active learning, reflective practices, experiential learning, and ongoing feedback.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000048-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000049-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-0000004A-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000004B-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000004C-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000004D-QINU`"' This module provides an overview of methods and approaches to teaching, which according to extant research, are the best ways to support learning in the context of research ethics and integrity. These methods and approaches are compatible with the training materials and resources produced within the selected EU-funded projects and presented in the BEYOND trainer guide. Indeed, many of the activities described in the project materials draw on a case-based approach, scaffolding and collaborative learning. To underpin the use of these methods and approaches, this guide provides an overview of why and how they support RE/RI learning, so that trainers may make their teaching choice based on research evidence.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000004E-QINU`"' +
Effective RE/RI training benefits from active learning, reflective practices, experiential learning, and ongoing feedback.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000007A-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000007B-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-0000007C-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000007D-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000007E-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000007F-QINU`"' This module provides an overview of methods and approaches to teaching, which according to extant research, are the best ways to support learning in the context of research ethics and integrity. These methods and approaches are compatible with the training materials and resources produced within the selected EU-funded projects and presented in the BEYOND trainer guide. Indeed, many of the activities described in the project materials draw on a case-based approach, scaffolding and collaborative learning. To underpin the use of these methods and approaches, this guide provides an overview of why and how they support RE/RI learning, so that trainers may make their teaching choice based on research evidence.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000080-QINU`"' +
This paper examines how instructors can teach student researchers to conduct Internet research ethically. Teaching this process presents different challenges for instructors and students. The paper documents the origins and development of this approach. +
This articles argue that teaching the graduate course in ethics and psychology receives almost no attention. The author describes rationale, method and evaluations for such a course. +
This article examines the ethical use of fiction to teach research methods. +
Team-based learning instruction for responsible conduct of research positively impacts ethical decision-making +
This study shows that a team-based learning (TBL) responsible conduct of research (RCR) curriculum has positive impacts on ethical decision making. The authors argue that this learning approach may provide a more effective method for RCR instruction than lectures and small group discussions. +
TechEthos (Ethics for Technologies with High Socio-Economic Impact) is a three-year EU-funded project that project that deals with the ethics of the new and emerging technologies anticipated to have high socio-economic impact. TechEthos aims to facilitate “ethics by design”, namely, to bring ethical and societal values into the design and development of new and emerging technologies from the very beginning of the process. +
