Why is this important? (Important Because)
From The Embassy of Good Science
A description to provide more focus to the theme/resource (max. 200 words)
- ⧼SA Foundation Data Type⧽: Text
M
This report is significant because '''human enhancement technologies raise profound ethical, social, and regulatory challenges''', from fairness and human dignity to societal inequality and consent. By proposing concrete ethical methods and governance suggestions, the report moves beyond abstract principles to offer guidance that can actually shape responsible innovation. Its ethical guidelines and frameworks help researchers and developers anticipate societal impacts, reduce harm, and align innovation with human rights values. The call for an international expert body addresses the need for '''coordinated, cross-national oversight''' over technologies that do not respect borders. As human enhancement expands in areas like neurotechnology, genetic editing, and performance augmentation, such ethics-centred approaches are crucial to ensure technologies benefit individuals and societies without compromising fundamental ethical standards. +
Program dahilinde üzerinde durulacak temel kavramlara ilişkin ortak bir anlayışa sahip olabilmek adına katılımcıların yüz yüze eğitime geçmeden önce bu online dersi tamamlaması oldukça önemlidir. +
This case demonstrates that it sometimes can be difficult to distinguish scientific misconduct from scientific errors. It shows that the definition of misconduct can be interpreted in different ways and it shows the importance of education of scientist to prevent ‘unintentional scientific misconduct’ and improve research integrity. +
Data fabrication in clinical trials endangers the health of both current participants and future patients that will be treated with the drug if it is ‘proven’ efficacious. In addition, data fabrication lowers public trust in science. Moreover, data fabrication and stealing of funding money for personal use may lead to the waste of precious research funding budgets on unscientific research. +
The '''PREPARED App''' is important because it offers practical, real-time ethical guidance to researchers working in fragile, crisis-affected, or rapidly changing environments—such as conflict zones, refugee camps, and disaster areas. In these settings, traditional research ethics procedures may be difficult to apply due to limited infrastructure, time pressure, or unstable conditions. The app supports researchers in making responsible decisions that uphold research integrity and protect participants, even when facing complex or urgent dilemmas. It includes scenario-based advice, fast-access to essential documents like the Fragile Settings Code, and tools to help with adapting research protocols quickly. Developed as part of the EU-funded PREPARED project, the app helps bridge the gap between standard ethical guidelines and the realities of working in the field. By empowering researchers with immediate support, it plays a critical role in maintaining ethical standards, minimizing harm, and improving the quality and trustworthiness of research in vulnerable contexts. +
Reflecting on a variety of moral dilemmas in a fun way makes researchers gain awareness about the moral content of their day-to-day actions and decisions. This might lead them to consider other stakeholders’ positions and justifications as well as their own, when faced with day to day moral dilemma. Moreover, the modified version of the RDG helps participants to reflect on their preferred course of action in light of the principles and practices presented in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. +
Reflecting on a variety of moral dilemmas with others in a fun way makes researchers gain awareness about the moral content of their day-to-day decisions and actions. That might lead them to consider and understand other stakeholders’ positions and justifications as well as their own in the light of RI values and the principles outlined in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity when faced a specific moral dilemma. +
Artificial intelligence is widely used across research, industry, and public services, making it essential to ensure its development aligns with ethics principles and societal values. Understanding AI in the context of the EU AI Act helps learners navigate emerging regulatory requirements.
This module emphasizes the importance of trustworthy, transparent, and accountable AI, in line with the High-Level Expert Group on AI guidelines, and introduces tools such as ALTAI to support responsible development and evaluation. +
A lot of scientific work happens through collaboration. Yet, collaborations can also lead to conflict when there is lack of clarity about the roles of different collaborators, or when expectations are not met. Collaborative work has become more important over the past few decades, partially due to the rise of interdisciplinary research. For instance, the average number of co-authors on research papers for the PNAS rose from 3.9 in 1981 to 8.4 in 2001'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"' .'"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"' +
Research integrity can involve a situation of moral conflict. This means that two courses of action are possible, which exclude one another. If one goes for one action, the alternative cannot be realized. Moreover, one has to choose between both actions;a third option, such as not making a choice, is not possible. An example is the choice between adding a person as an author to an article or not. There is no third option: either the person is made author, or not.
A moral conflict implies two conflicting values. In the case of authorship, these values might be gratitude (for a – albeit small - contribution) versus righteousness (acting in line with the authorship guidelines). Sometimes, moral conflicts can be resolved because one of the values clearly overrides the other. Thus, from a research integrity perspective, authorship requirements are more important than gratitude. In order to do justice to the value of gratitude, the person can be mentioned in an acknowledgement.
However, there are examples of situations in research where conflicts can be irresolvable, because the person who has to choose feels the obligation to do justice to two incompatible values. In such cases, one is confronted with a moral dilemma .'"`UNIQ--ref-00000006-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-00000007-QINU`"' A moral dilemma is a conflict situation in which the choice one makes causes a moral harm, which cannot be restlessly repaired. Take the example of how to respond when a fellow researcher needs help, but refuses your assistance. In light of the value of care, you should at least try to convince them that support is needed. On the other hand, the value of autonomy might indicate that you should not impose yourself upon them. Whatever you decide to do, you do harm to one of the two values involved. If you choose to try and get them to accept support, they might feel being treated as an incompetent researcher. If you choose to let go, they might get in serious difficulty with their research.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000008-QINU`"'
Manuscript processing and peer reviewing timelines may vary among journals. Waiting for a journal’s decision of acceptance (or, otherwise) of a manuscript can be frustrating for authors. However, as this case shows, advancing one’s career is not a sufficient justification for multiple submissions and breaching a journal’s guidelines. The case provides some food for thought as to why practices of multiple submissions may challenge research ethics. +
Ahlaki bir soru, ikilem ya da çatışma durumunda kişi, iyi düşünülmüş bir seçim yapabiliyor olmalıdır. Seçenekler üzerine düşünmek ya da bir fikir oluşturabilmek için ise sorunun bağlamını ve neyin kimin için risk altında olduğunu tam olarak anlayabilmelidir. Diyalog içerisindeyken kişinin tutumunun yavaşlama, hemen yargılamada bulunmama ve soru sorma üzerine şekillenmesi gerekir. Bu nedenle diyalog içerisindeyken katılımcılar, karşılarındaki kişiyi anlamaya odaklanmak ve onu (ve kendilerini) kendi davranış şekli ve bunun altında yatan sebepler üzerine düşünmeye yönlendirmek durumunda kalırlar. +
Ahlaki bir soru, ikilem ya da çatışma ile karşılaştığınızda iyi düşünülmüş bir seçim yapabiliyor olmanız gerekir. Seçenekler üzerine düşünmek ya da bir fikir oluşturabilmek için ise sorunun bağlamını ve neyin kimin için risk altında olduğunu tam olarak anlayabilmelisiniz. Diyalog içerisindeyken tutumunuz yavaşlama, hemen hüküm vermeme ve soru sorma üzerine şekillenmelidir. Başkalarıyla ahlaki bir soru, ikilem ya da çatışma üzerinde diyaloğa girdiğinizde, karşınızdaki kişiyi anlamaya odaklanmak ve onu (ve kendinizi) kendi davranış şekli ve bunun altında yatan sebepler üzerine düşünmeye yönlendirmek durumunda kalırsınız. +
Ahlaki bir soru, ikilem ya da çatışma durumunda kişi, iyi düşünülmüş bir seçim yapabiliyor olmalıdır. Seçenekler üzerine düşünmek ya da bir fikir oluşturabilmek için ise sorunun bağlamını ve neyin kimin için risk altında olduğunu tam olarak anlayabilmelidir. Diyalog içerisindeyken kişinin tutumunun yavaşlama, hemen yargılamada bulunmama ve soru sorma üzerine şekillenmesi gerekir. Bu nedenle diyalog içerisindeyken katılımcılar, karşılarındaki kişiyi anlamaya odaklanmak ve onu (ve kendilerini) kendi davranış şekli ve bunun altında yatan sebepler üzerine düşünmeye yönlendirmek durumunda kalırlar. +
Ahlaki bir soru, ikilem ya da çatışma durumunda kişi, iyi düşünülmüş bir seçim yapabiliyor olmalıdır. Seçenekler üzerine düşünmek ya da bir fikir oluşturabilmek için ise sorunun bağlamını ve neyin kimin için risk altında olduğunu tam olarak anlayabilmelidir. Diyalog içerisindeyken kişinin tutumunun yavaşlama, hemen yargılamada bulunmama ve soru sorma üzerine şekillenmesi gerekir. Bu nedenle diyalog içerisindeyken katılımcılar, karşılarındaki kişiyi anlamaya odaklanmak ve onu (ve kendilerini) kendi davranış şekli ve bunun altında yatan sebepler üzerine düşünmeye yönlendirmek durumunda kalırlar. +
N
The Nagoya Protocol outlines the conditions for access to genetic resources and promotes the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of these resources. +
There is an increasing emphasis on managing and sharing research data. This guide will help researchers learn more about the various aspects of research data management and sharing. It will also guide NTU researchers in meeting the university as well as funders’ requirements.
Research data is an important component of research. It has evidentiary value which is essential to ascertaining the integrity of research. Good stewardship of research data can bring many benefits to the researchers as well as their institutions. The success of your research project depends on how well you manage your data throughout the lifecycle of your research. +
National Policy on Academic Ethics (2019), Office of the Principal Scientific Adviser to the Government of India +
National Policy on Academic Ethics distils national expectations for research integrity in India and clarifies what researchers and institutions in India need to do to comply. It reduces ambiguity, aligns local practice with international norms, and offers actionable steps that improve transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access. For policy leads, it is a benchmark;for authors and administrators, it is a practical checklist. Published by Office of the Principal Scientific Adviser to the Government of India in 2019, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
National Research Integrity Framework of Tanzania distils national expectations for research integrity in Tanzania and clarifies what researchers and institutions in Tanzania need to do to comply. It reduces ambiguity, aligns local practice with international norms, and offers actionable steps that improve transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access. For policy leads, it is a benchmark;for authors and administrators, it is a practical checklist. Published by nan in 2020, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
National Statement on Scientific Integrity distils national expectations for research integrity in Spain and clarifies what researchers and institutions in Spain need to do to comply. It reduces ambiguity, aligns local practice with international norms, and offers actionable steps that improve transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access. For policy leads, it is a benchmark;for authors and administrators, it is a practical checklist. Published by COSCE, crue, CSIC in 2015, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
