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
C
This is a factual case discussing the Kennedy Krieger lead paint study, where a United States Court of Appeals condemned what it called a “non-therapeutic research programme” using children. The court ruled that a parent cannot consent to the participation of a child in “non-therapeutic” research in the state of Maryland . The case involves issues that had been given little attention by the courts, such as children’s participation in research, proxy consent, and the duties of medical researchers towards their participants. The analysis includes a discussion of the relevance of the “therapeutic” versus “non-therapeutic” importance and value of a study, as well as cost-benefit analysis, the design of research, and study aims. +
This statement, developed at the 7th World Conference on Research Integrity in Cape Town in May 2023, outlines 20 recommendations aimed at improving fairness and equity in research practices, from conception right through to implementation. +
This is a factual case about Carlo Croce, a famous cancer researcher who has been charged with data falsification and other scientific misconduct. +
This is a collection of fictional and real case studies in research ethics, including questions for discussion. The cases are presented in written or video format. Topics include research misconduct, data acquisition and management, reproducibility, safe laboratory practices and animal welfare. +
This resource is a database of ethics cases from different fields of science: natural sciences, life sciences, engineering, social sciences, and business. Each case study includes a short description of the case and a link to either a full text version of the case or to its location on a web site maintained by another organization. +
The resource includes brief videos illustrating research ethics issues arising in academic settings. The core areas included are: Data Acquisition, Management, Sharing and Ownership; Conflict of Interest and Commitment; Human Subjects; Animal Welfare; Research Misconduct; Publication Practices and Responsible Authorship; Mentor/Trainee Responsibilities; Peer Review; Collaborative Science. +
This case study from The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) describes the beginning of a collaboration between three researchers with different research backgrounds. Sharon, Ben, and Terra start drafting a grant proposal, but they are not sure how to handle logistic issues. With regard to that, they need to answer these questions:
* Who should submit the proposal, through which university?
* Do all three need to get IRB approval to work on the project?
* What will happen if their work has practical applications?
* How should they go about answering these questions?
* Are there other important questions that should be asked as well? +
The study described an interesting case of incidental finding. It regards a 38-year old patient who was found to have a large right ventricular aneurysm. +
Case-based ethics instruction: the influence of contextual and individual factors in case content on ethical decision-making +
In this study, authors explored case-based ethics instruction. They looked at the whether ethical decision making could be influenced by contextual and personal factors, which had been integrated into the case content. The cases were altered in such a way to provide a clear description of the social context of the case and indicate the goals of the fictional characters. One result of the study is that the social context was important to facilitate sensemaking, which resulted in greater ethical decision making. +
Different guidelines relating to the ethics of research involving human subjects interpret the different ethical considerations involved in research in different ways. Using the Emanuel framework allows us to respond to the discrepancies between different guidelines in a consistent way. +
Three cases are presented. Are these cases Research Misconduct, Questionable Research Practices or Responsible Conduct of Research? Participants are asked for their normative judgement, after which a discussion takes place. At the end of the case, it is explained what was decided in the real case.
The moderator asks the participants not only to make their normative judgement, but also to think about why. Which norms and values are at stake? On which norms and values did you base your judgement? Which values are in conflict and which are more important to you? +
This project aims to develop and foster transparency and reproducibility in the collection, analysis and dissemination of research data. Its two main objectives are to develop resources and support activities that promote open science practices and also to foster methodological innovations that increase the effectiveness of open science practices. +
This study aims to develop and validate a series of risk scores to identify fabricated data. The authors argue that these risk scores could become part of a series of tools that provide evidence-based central statistical monitoring. They conclude that this could improve the efficiency of trials and minimize the need for more expensive on-site monitoring. +
This fictional case is about an Associate Professor. She submitted a proposal which received a score too low to be funded. She is wondering what she should do now, because she is certain that her method will work. +
Archaeological heritage is any vestige of human activity, in any form of remains, that is associated with a great cultural load. This charter is aimed at the global management and protection of archaeological heritage, by targeting all the stakeholders involved in such discipline, from governments, researchers, to enterprises, and the general public. +
This checklist serves to researchers to examine whether their planned work could involve a higher than minimal risk or increased sensitivity. This is a part of the document Ethics in Social Science and Humanities provided by the European Commission in 2018. +
This blog post describes what led to the horrific death of a young chemist at UCLA because she was not wearing a lab coat. +
Child protection and confidentiality: Surveying children’s experiences of violence, abuse and neglect +
In 2008 the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) decided to set up a comprehensive UK-wide study of the prevalence and impact of violence towards children and young people at home, in school and in the community. The study was the first ever in the UK to ask children and young people directly about all forms of violence experienced during childhood and within the past year. A UK-wide household survey was conducted in 2009 with 6196 participants, of whom 2160 were parents/carers of children under 11 years, 2275 were children and young people aged 11 to 17 years and 1761 were young adults aged 18 to 24 years. See www.nspcc.org.uk/childstudy for further details. +
The guidance 'Opinions on Strengthening Research Integrity of Our Country' has been jointly developed by a number of Chinese ministries and organisations (Science and Technology, Education, Finance, Human Resources and Social Security, Health, General Armament Department of People's Liberation Army, Academy of Sciences, Academy of Engineering National Natural Science Foundation and the Association for Science and Technology) with the goal of strengthening research integrity and innovation. The 'opinions' are statements on five areas: 1) the Importance and Urgency of Strengthening Research Integrity Promotion; 2) Guidelines, Principles and Objectives of Research Integrity Promotion; 3) The Development of a Legal System and Norms Relevant to Research Integrity; 4) The Management Institutions Related to Research Integrity; 5) Research Integrity Education and the Professional Ethics of Science Practitioners; 6) Supervisory and Disciplinary Mechanisms, and Research Misconduct; 7) Organizational Work and Leadership, and an Environment Beneficial to Research Integrity. +
In 2009, the National Natural Science Foundation of China introduced standards of professional ethics and a code of conduct for its members, funders, and governors. The aim of this document is to ensure the fair and impartial distribution of resources to research programs. It includes concrete guidelines on review, confidentiality, project management and also guidelines for individual comportment, laying out professional duties and virtues (e.g. self-discipline and honesty) for members. +
