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
V
<span lang="EN-GB">VERITY is a three-year Horizon Europe project, which works to strengthen public trust in science by examining the complex ‘ecosystem of trust’ where trust is built, challenged, and maintained. In response to growing misinformation, public scepticism, and changing roles of scientific actors, VERITY introduces ‘Stewards of Trust’ (SOTs)—key individuals and institutions across eight domains, including science education, communication, and policy—whose actions and collaboration are essential for fostering public trust in science.</span> +
The VERITY Protocol is a structured framework of 100 actionable recommendations designed to foster public trust in science. Developed through research and co-creation with over 500 stakeholders, it identifies six strategies: building trustworthy science, public engagement, education, science communication, supportive policies, and collaboration. By guiding 'Stewards of Trust'—actors with authority or influence—it provides practical tools to strengthen societal trust in science and ensure an ethical, inclusive, and effective ecosystem of trust in science. +
This resource provides recommendations for Science Communicators— journalists, media outlets, influencers, and publishers—on how to foster public trust in science. It addresses challenges such as misinformation, fragmented media, undervaluation of communication in academia, and lack of inclusivity. The guidance emphasises open, contextualised, and two-way communication that respects scientific uncertainty and public diversity. It calls for institutional reforms, tailored strategies, and cross-sector collaboration to ensure science communication is accurate, engaging, ethical, and relevant to diverse audiences. +
This resource offers recommendations for Science Educators on how to foster public trust in science. It recognises the challenges science educators face—curriculum pressures, lack of training, fragmented policies, and limited institutional support—while highlighting opportunities to embed critical thinking, media literacy, and inquiry-based learning. The guidance encourages collaboration with communities, citizen science, and cross-sector initiatives. By adopting these approaches, educators can empower students, make science more accessible, and strengthen public trust in science. +
This resource provides recommendations for Science Funders—public and private agencies, philanthropic organisations, and advocacy bodies—on how to foster trust in science. It highlights systemic challenges such as short-term funding models, rigid evaluation metrics, and limited support for socially relevant or interdisciplinary research. The guidance emphasises embedding transparency, societal relevance, open science, and public engagement into funding practices. By adopting flexible, equitable, and accountable approaches, funders can strengthen science’s responsiveness, integrity, and credibility, reinforcing public trust in research. +
This resource provides recommendations for Science Implementers—industry institutions, technology transfer offices, innovation hubs, incubators, and accelerators—on how to foster societal trust in science. It highlights challenges such as weak dialogue with communities, short-term funding cycles, proprietary interests, and lack of inclusive engagement. The guidance emphasises embedding accountability, transparency, and co-creation into implementation processes. By aligning innovations with societal needs, ensuring ethical oversight, and strengthening cross-sector collaboration, implementers can translate scientific breakthroughs into trusted, socially relevant, and accessible solutions. +
This resource provides recommendations for Science Oversight and Protection Actors—ethics committees, compliance bodies, impact assessment organisations, and monitoring funders—on how to foster trust in science. It highlights weaknesses in current oversight frameworks, such as outdated standards, underfunding, fragmented practices, and limited capacity for fast-moving fields like AI. The guidance stresses harmonised, binding standards, expanded ethics training, transparent disclosure, and inclusive engagement. Strengthening oversight ensures research integrity, accountability, and responsiveness, reinforcing science as credible and socially trusted. +
This resource provides recommendations for Science Policymakers—legislators, regulatory agencies, science advisory bodies, think tanks, and international organisations—on how to foster societal trust in science. It highlights challenges such as politicisation, short-term agendas, opaque decision-making, and weak citizen engagement. The guidance emphasises transparency, integrity, and inclusive dialogue, alongside stronger investment in science-policy interfaces and open science practices. By aligning research with societal needs and ensuring meaningful participation, policymakers can build legitimacy and strengthen trust in science-informed governance. +
This resource provides targeted recommendations for Science Producers—scientists, research institutions, government agencies, private innovators, and public-private partnerships—on how to foster societal trust in science. The recommendations stress transparency, reproducibility, ethical practices, communication, open science, and co-creation. By adopting these approaches, Science Producers can strengthen trust across the broader ecosystem of science and society. +
This resource provides recommendations for Science-Society Facilitators—CSOs, advocacy groups, citizen science networks, NGOs, and community advisory boards—on fostering societal trust in science. It highlights challenges such as tokenistic participation, power imbalances, and structural barriers like short-term funding and limited institutional support. The guidance stresses co-creation, inclusivity, and sustained dialogue, along with ethical safeguards and recognition of citizen contributions. By bridging science and society through genuine collaboration, facilitators can strengthen trust and make research more relevant, equitable, and accountable. +
The Scenario-Building Training is a practical resource that guides stakeholders through structured exercises to test how the VERITY Recommendations for Fostering Trust in Science can be applied in real-world settings. By creating application scenarios, users can identify opportunities, challenges, barriers and risks, and plan for feasible, best-case, and worst-case outcomes. It supports Stewards of Trust and other relevant stakeholders in translating recommendations into actionable strategies to foster trust in science, and it can also be applied in broader contexts. +
In order to become certified VIRT2UE trainers, trainees need to complete the online and the face-to-face courses and train ten further researchers. The training of ten further researchers can be completed during or after the duration of the program. +
By registering for the VIRT<sup>2</sup>UE train-the-trainer program participants have the opportunity to become certified research integrity trainers. The certificate confirms that they are didactically skilled research integrity trainers. Participants receive the certificate when they have completed the online and the face-to-face courses and trained ten further researchers.
Ideally, trainees should participate in all training sessions, practice the five exercises in the interim period between the meetings, and train 10 further researchers in at least three of the five exercises. However, these requirements can be adapted if necessary (for example in small research communities where it is difficult to find 10 interested researchers to train) and it is at the discretion of the trainer if a trainee has completed enough of the course to merit the certificate. If they feel confident about their skills, trainees can already train 10 further researchers during the interim period between the face-to-face meetings, rather than only practicing the exercises. +
The VIRT<sup>2</sup>UE Train-the-Trainer program provides participants with the knowledge and skills to conduct a research integrity course. Trainers are taught how to foster reflection on scientific virtues in researchers, and how to promote understanding of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. This free training program will be offered at different locations across Europe.
As a train-the-trainer program, VIRT<sup>2</sup>UE supports trainers and provides them with adaptable exercises and tools that can be used in their own teaching. +
This is a podcast series on research integrity aimed at academic researchers at all levels of expertise. It deals with the concept of research integrity itself, with research data management, with corrections and retractions, with authorship, with the use of genAI in research, and with how human vulnerability affects research integrity and vice versa.
Do you sometimes struggle to determine what "doing the right thing" truly means? This podcast invites you to take a step back for half an hour of reflection, interpretation, and additional background to help sharpen your moral compass and make informed decisions.
The Mind the GAP Podcast was jointly developed by VLIR (Flemish Interuniversity Council) and the five Flemish universities (Ghent University, KU Leuven, University of Antwerp, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, and Hasselt University). +
This is a podcast series on research integrity aimed at academic researchers at all levels of expertise. It deals with the concept of research integrity itself, with research data management, with corrections and retractions, with authorship, with the use of genAI in research, and with how human vulnerability affects research integrity and vice versa.
Do you sometimes struggle to determine what "doing the right thing" truly means? This podcast invites you to take a step back for half an hour of reflection, interpretation, and additional background to help sharpen your moral compass and make informed decisions.
The Mind the GAP Podcast was jointly developed by VLIR (Flemish Interuniversity Council) and the five Flemish universities (Ghent University, KU Leuven, University of Antwerp, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, and Hasselt University).
The podcast is an addition to the [https://mindthegap.vlir.be/ VLIR Mind the GAP online training course] on research integrity. +
Validated Model of Key Open Science Impact Pathways and Guidelines/Recommendations is a project deliverable from the European Commission-funded ''PathOS'' initiative. The document presents a validated model explaining how Open Science practices like Open Access publishing, FAIR data, and citizen science create impacts in academic, societal, and economic realms. Over three years, the project asked: What impacts does Open Science have? How do they occur? And what factors help or hinder these impacts? The report finds that Open Science accelerates knowledge sharing, encourages collaboration, and increases research visibility, but benefits are unevenly distributed. Societal impacts include empowering communities and improving outcomes in health and the environment. Economic gains such as reduced research costs and innovation potential are identified but often lack strong direct evidence. The deliverable also highlights challenges: access alone isn’t enough, equity must be ensured, and robust methods are needed to measure impact. Practical recommendations are offered for policymakers and institutions. +
A mid-career researcher has strong links to a pharmaceutical company. He learns that the company has made advances in relation to a process that results in compounds that can reduce mortality in relation to a neglected tropical disease and influenza, as well as treating the common cold. Because of prior use, neither the process nor the resulting compounds can be patented. The company wants to work for a further five years on the process and compounds in order to get ahead of rivals and make a profit from the developments in high income countries in relation to influenza and the common cold. However, in that time, thousands of people suffering from the neglected tropical disease could be saved. Should the researcher break a confidentiality agreement and reveal the process and compounds? This is a fictional case. +
Values are important beliefs or ideals of a person in a community, serving as a motivation for action. Norms are action-guiding rules. The difference between a value and a norm is that a value is general, referring to an overall ideal, whereas a norm is concrete, specifying certain things that have to be done (or omitted). Values can be operationalized in specifying norms;norms refer to and are justified by underlying values. +
