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
W
An anthropologist witnessed a murder, took notes, but denied to the police that she had any knowledge of the case (in line with the actions of the community she studied). +
Working with Research Integrity - Guidance for Research Performing Organisations: The Bonn PRINTEGER Statement +
This document presents the Bonn PRINTEGER Consensus Statement: Working with Research Integrity - Guidance for research performing organisations. The aim of the statement is to complement existing instruments by focusing specifically on institutional responsibilities for strengthening integrity. It takes into account the daily challenges and organisational contexts of most researchers. The statement intends to make research integrity challenges recognisable from the work-floor perspective, providing concrete advice on organisational measures to strengthen integrity. +
The WorldFAIR Project is a Horizon Europe initiative led by CODATA and the Research Data Alliance, dedicated to advancing the FAIR data principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) across disciplines and globally. It works through 11 case studies spanning fields like chemistry, nanomaterials, health, geochemistry, biodiversity, urban health, disaster risk, and cultural heritage to develop ''FAIR Implementation Profiles'' (FIPs) tailored to each domain. The project also defines a Cross-Domain Interoperability Framework (CDIF) to support seamless, machine-actionable data exchange, and produces policy recommendations and assessment guidelines to benchmark FAIRness in different research communities. +
In order to enhance productivity a lab director creates a climate of extreme competitiveness, which does not seem to be not conducive to collegiality and trust. +
This article is intended for writers of qualitative health research. It recommends translation of their findings into thematic statements, which can be translated later into language of intervention and implementation. +
X
The ''TechEthos Policy Brief: XR and General Purpose AI'' explains key ethical challenges and policy recommendations for governing eXtended Reality (XR) technologies and General Purpose Artificial Intelligence (AI) within the European Union. It argues that values and high-level principles alone are insufficient for effective regulation;policymakers need concrete norms and standards to guide developers and regulators.
The brief highlights issues such as the indistinguishability between humans and AI representations, the use of personal and biometric data from XR devices to train advanced AI systems, and risks related to transparency, manipulation, dignity, responsibility, autonomy, labour conditions, decency, environmental impact, privacy and security. It offers specific suggestions to supplement the existing ''Assessment List for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (ALTAI)'' and to operationalize ethical principles in practice. Addressed mainly to EU policymakers and technology developers, the document supports stronger, actionable governance frameworks for emerging AI and XR technologies. +
XR4Human is a three-year Horizon Europe project (2022–2025) that promotes the ethical and human-centered development of Extended Reality (XR) technologies. It aims to co-create living guidelines addressing policy, regulation, governance, and interoperability issues in XR to build public trust and support a competitive European XR ecosystem. Key deliverables include a European Code of Conduct for inclusive XR, a repository of test cases demonstrating best practices, a rating system for XR experiences, and an educational toolbox for informed user decision-making. The project engages industry, regulators, developers, and users to ensure XR design reflects human rights, privacy, well-being, diversity, and accessibility. +
Y
A factual case where ethical procedures for informing patients and getting their informed consent had either not been followed properly or had not been declared. +
A factual case where ethical procedures for informing patients and getting their informed consent had either not been followed properly or had not been declared. +
A factual case where ethical procedures for informing patients and getting their informed consent had either not been followed properly or had not been declared. +
This checklist helps authors to post preprints on bioRxiv. It offers a few tips to make this process easier. Before submitting a paper, authors must: obtain consent from their co-author(s), choose the right preprint server, prepare their files, make sure that all ethical requirements are met, and check that they have appropriate permissions for any proprietary data, patents, figures, maps, or other potentially copyrighted material. +
[
NOTE: This document is no longer in use and may contain erroneuos and obsolete information. It has been replaced with a new version in 2024, which can be found here: [[Resource:332d4b99-b626-44a6-b939-ed47e26d60c5]]
This detailed guideline by the Swedish Research Council sets down the principles for the ethical conduct of research to be followed by all its researchers. Starting with brief explanations of the philosophical basis of ethics and research, it goes on to describe the different regulatory systems in place, such as research ethics committees. The final sections are devoted to describing the different aspects of research such as planning, collaboration and publication, and also research misconduct. +
A Human Digital Twin (HDT) is a virtual representation of an individual that integrates data from multiple sources, including medical imaging, genomic information, electronic health records, laboratory results, wearable devices, and physiological measurements. Using artificial intelligence and advanced computational models, digital twins can simulate biological processes, predict disease progression, and support personalized treatment decisions (1,2).
Human digital twins have attracted increasing interest in healthcare because they may improve diagnosis, optimize treatment planning, and facilitate precision medicine (2,3). However, the creation and use of digital twins raise important ethical and research integrity concerns regarding privacy, data ownership, informed consent, transparency, and accountability (1).<div></div> +
Many times, research requires a collaborative effort in order for it to be completed and this could have a number of challenges. While a collaboration may be permanent or temporary, in both cases, the partners must consider the principles of their colleagues during their work. Although they shouldn’t ignore their own values, they have to be flexible and be able to adapt to their partners’ ways for the research to be a success. +
Cross-boundary research collaborations involve cooperation across disciplines, institutions and countries. Collaborations pose particular challenges, due to the coexistence of different research norms and practices. Professional guidelines may differ between disciplines, codes and accepted practices may differ between institutions, and legal and ethical requirements may differ between countries. +
Collaborations between high income countries and low- and middle-income countries are increasingly common in a globalized world. +
Confidentiality is the protection of personal information and data. In a research setting, this means safeguarding the identity of research participants and any sensitive data they provide. It includes controlling access to identifiable information, limiting its use to agreed purposes, and using secure procedures for collection, storage, analysis, and sharing +
Consent and assent are essential ethical requirements in research involving children. Because children are considered a vulnerable population and often cannot legally provide informed consent, permission must be obtained from parents or legal guardians. In addition, children should provide assent appropriate to their age and level of understanding. This process respects children’s developing autonomy while ensuring their protection and voluntary participation in research. Researchers must communicate information clearly and allow children the right to refuse or withdraw. +
When reviewers’ own interests, such as personal or work relationships, could influence the way they criticize an article and advise a journal editor, that situation is equivalent to an existing conflict of interest (COI).'"`UNIQ--ref-00000006-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000007-QINU`"' +
In the context of research, “a conflict of interest (COI) is a set of circumstances or conditions in which professional judgement of a primary interest, such as the integrity and quality of the research, tends to be unduly influenced by a secondary interest, such as personal financial gain”.<sup>[1]</sup> Consequently, COIs can incline researchers towards bias in favor of their secondary interest and thus undermine the reliability of research results. COIs as such are not breaches of research integrity or research ethics, but researchers having a COI are, all else equal, more likely to act inappropriately or unethically because they have unusually strong incentives to depart from good scientific practice. Thus, COIs require specific safeguards to ensure principles of research integrity and research ethics are followed.
This theme page describes in more detail what COIs are and why they can have detrimental effects on the reliability of research. It also provides an overview of different types of COIs and outlines how adequate safeguards can help avoiding and managing COIs. +
