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 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. +
Cases and assignments of the Research Ethics Training Virtual Course +
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. +
The CHANGER D1.2 Policy Brief outlines how research security (RS) has become a crucial dimension of contemporary science policy, especially in strategically critical fields like Artificial Intelligence, Quantum Technologies, and Biotechnology. It highlights how Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and Research Performing Organizations (RPOs) are increasingly exposed to risks such as knowledge or technology leakage, foreign interference, and misuse of research in geopolitical or security contexts.
The brief notes that “research security” is still a nascent, ambiguously defined concept across the research ecosystem, with varied understandings among stakeholders. It points out institutional challenges: balancing institutional autonomy, open science, and international collaboration with security obligations; the burden of compliance and administrative costs; and the lack of in-house expertise or risk-assessment tools to manage RS. One proposed idea is “research security-by-design”, analogous to “ethics-by-design,” meaning that security risks should be anticipated and addressed from project inception. The brief presents a series of policy recommendations aimed at clarifying responsibilities, enhancing capacities, and integrating RS into institutional governance all in ways that respect academic freedom and research integrity while safeguarding sensitive knowledge. +
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. +
Charter of ethics and guiding principles of scientific research in Lebanon (2016), Mouin Hamzé, Nayef Saade, Fawaz Fawaz +
The ''Charter of Ethics and Guiding Principles of Scientific Research in Lebanon'' (2016), authored by Mouin Hamzé, Nayef Saade, and Fawaz Fawaz, provides a national framework for research integrity and open practice. Written in Arabic and targeting Lebanon, it promotes honesty, accountability, professional courtesy, and stewardship of resources, linking these values to reproducibility, credibility, and public trust in science. The charter defines the responsibilities of researchers, institutions, funders, and journals in planning, conducting, publishing, and reviewing research. It sets clear rules for authorship, citation, conflict of interest management, transparent methods and data, fair peer review, and responsible supervision.
It also outlines mechanisms for addressing misconduct, ensuring due process, proportional sanctions, and opportunities for learning. Education is central, embedding training in responsible conduct for students and staff. The framework responds to emerging challenges such as open science, data management, digital tools, and new dissemination practices. Equity and diversity are emphasized as essential to integrity, ensuring inclusive, respectful environments. Practical tools like checklists, codes of behaviour, and reporting templates support daily application. Annexes provide case studies, international references, and contact points, making the charter both a guiding policy and a practical handbook. +
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 checklist, factsheet and gender glossary are capacity strengthening outputs as part of the Research Ethics and Integrity for the GREEN transition - RE4GREEN - project (funded by the European Union’s Horizon Grants for research). The project aims to develop a framework that will address ethics and integrity concerns within the green transition. The author of the outputs, Women Engage for a Common Future (WECF), is an ecofeminist network organisation and a partner on the RE4GREEN project, whose role is predominantly to strengthen the capacity of the partners to implement ecofeminist analysis and action throughout the project's implementation.
The glossary outlines key definitions that will be worked with throughout the capacity strengthening, and the fact sheet gives entry points for thinking about the connection between social identities, the green transition, and research ethics. The two checklists provide areas for reflection on report writing, in order to understand how the research we do can reproduce inequalities. +
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. +
The document 'Code of Conduct for Responsible Research', developed in 2023 in China, is a national guideline that addresses the principles of research integrity. Authored by Department of Supervision, Ministry of Science and Technology, and available in Mandarin, it targets the research community in China. 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. +
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. +
Through interactive exercises, learners explore the 9R strategies—Refuse, Rethink, Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Refurbish, Remanufacture, Repurpose, Recycle—and understand how these practices contribute to sustainability across product lifecycles. Participants reflect on the environmental, social, and economic impacts of circularity, developing systems thinking and adaptability skills. By the end of the module, learners will be able to integrate circular principles into research, innovation, and design processes, promoting resource efficiency, responsible consumption, and sustainable development. +
