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
U
This course is important for a range of stakeholders: environmental researchers and marine scientists who study pollution and ecosystems;professionals and policymakers in maritime sectors like fisheries, shipping, tourism, aquaculture;NGOs or civil-society actors concerned with ocean conservation;educators and citizen-science advocates seeking to raise awareness about plastic pollution;and anyone involved in blue-economy development, circular economy, or sustainable marine resource management especially in Mediterranean countries. +
Recommendation on Science and Scientific Researchers' is important because it ensures credibility and trust in research by providing both preventive and corrective guidance. It prevents misconduct by educating researchers on standards, and offers frameworks for addressing violations fairly. In today’s interconnected research environment, having shared ethical codes strengthens international collaboration and consistency. For governments, institutions, and the public, this document demonstrates commitment to transparency, fairness, and societal responsibility. It is not just a guideline but a foundation for safeguarding the reliability of research outcomes. +
Understanding artificial intelligence ethics and safety: A guide for the responsible design and implementation of AI systems in the public sector +
The guide, ''[https://www.turing.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2019-06/understanding_artificial_intelligence_ethics_and_safety.pdf Understanding Artificial Intelligence Ethics and Safety],'' is the most comprehensive guidance on the topic of AI ethics and safety in the public sector to date. It identifies the potential harms caused by AI systems and proposes concrete, operationalisable measures to counteract them. The guide stresses that public sector organisations can anticipate and prevent these potential harms by stewarding a culture of responsible innovation and by putting in place governance processes that support the design and implementation of ethical, fair, and safe AI systems. +
It shows that media attention received by a study is not necessarily an indication of reliability or accuracy of reported results. +
When considering any research project, the potential net benefit should outweigh the potential net harm. This is in line with the universally recognized ethical principles of beneficence (doing good) and non-maleficence (not doing harm). These two principles stem from the belief that human beings have inherent dignity, which was formalized in the UN Declaration of Human Rights '"`UNIQ--ref-00000006-QINU`"'. In biomedical research, harms will almost inevitably be experienced alongside benefits. That’s why it’s important to carefully assess how important the benefits are and under what cost. These dilemmas should always be communicated to research participants, to ensure fully informed consent.
A number of mid-20th century studies, such as the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, were conducted to examine the natural history of a disease by either deliberately exposing human subjects to damaging stimuli, or by not giving them effective treatment '"`UNIQ--ref-00000007-QINU`"'. These are some of the most prominent examples of disproportionate harm to benefit.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000008-QINU`"' +
Besides referring to the relevant national legislation, this guideline describes what constitutes a fraudulent document, and the policy for investigation. +
Delving into both theoretical and practical details, this handbook provides a comprehensive overview of various aspects of ethical codes, focusing on the Estonian context. It sets the background by defining "ethics" in the professional context, and highlights the evolution of codes of ethics throughout history. Of immense practical value, it provides step-by-step guidance on how to develop a code of ethics, from whom to involve to its implementation. +
The development of innovative materials and devices for better treatment and health care are significant goals of medicine. New materials and devices must be tested on patients in a professional infrastructure, in controlled settings while properly following the ethical and legal regulation on clinical trials on medical devices. Informed consent and independent REC approval are necessary conditions. +
As described in the case: "Clinical trials are one of the most expensive steps in pharmaceutical and device development for biomedical companies. Each phase of the trial can cost up to twenty million dollars to run."'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"' However, clinical trials are an important step to ensure the efficiency, safety and dosage of a drug.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"' +
Learning is what the learner does, but it can be facilitated through what trainers do and through appropriate teaching activities.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000035-QINU`"' The Taxonomy of Significant Learning (sometimes also referred as the [https://www.buffalo.edu/catt/teach/develop/design/learning-outcomes/finks.html Fink’s taxonomy]) is not hierarchical in the same way as the other two, however, it builds on Blooms’ taxonomy by including a long-forgotten affective component into the discussion (namely caring).'"`UNIQ--ref-00000036-QINU`"' It encourages to include into the learning outcomes the objectives foundational knowledge, application, integration, a human dimension, caring, and learning to acquire competencies, thus providing a holistic approach to learning.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000037-QINU`"' However, since the existing material aligns with Bloom's and SOLO frameworks, this module will primarily describe these two to ensure coherence and consistency in training delivery. Nevertheless, we encourage trainers to also consider the more effective type of learning objectives proposed in the Taxonomy of Significant Learning.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000038-QINU`"' +
Learning is what the learner does, but it can be facilitated through what trainers do and through appropriate teaching activities.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000058-QINU`"' The Taxonomy of Significant Learning (sometimes also referred as the [https://www.buffalo.edu/catt/teach/develop/design/learning-outcomes/finks.html Fink’s taxonomy]) is not hierarchical in the same way as the other two, however, it builds on Blooms’ taxonomy by including a long-forgotten affective component into the discussion (namely caring).'"`UNIQ--ref-00000059-QINU`"' It encourages to include into the learning outcomes the objectives foundational knowledge, application, integration, a human dimension, caring, and learning to acquire competencies, thus providing a holistic approach to learning.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000005A-QINU`"' However, since the existing material aligns with Bloom's and SOLO frameworks, this module will primarily describe these two to ensure coherence and consistency in training delivery. Nevertheless, we encourage trainers to also consider the more effective type of learning objectives proposed in the Taxonomy of Significant Learning.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000005B-QINU`"' +
Çeşitli ahlaki ikilemler üzerine başkalarıyla birlikte eğlenceli bir yolla fikir yürütmek araştırmacıların kendi günlük karar ve eylemlerinin ahlaki içeriğine ilişkin farkındalık kazanmalarını sağlamaktadır. Bu, araştırmacıları belirli bir ahlaki ikilemle karşı karşıya kaldıklarında kendilerinin olduğu kadar diğer paydaşların da pozisyon ve temellendirmelerini - AD değerleri ve ECoC prensipleri ışığında - göz önünde bulundurmaya ve anlamaya yöneltebilir. Bunun yanı sıra, RİO’nun uyarlanmış versiyonu, katılımcıların ECoC’ta sunulan prensip ve uygulamalar ışığında kendi tercih ettikleri eylem tarzı üzerine fikir yürütmelerine de yardımcı olmaktadır. +
Çeşitli ahlaki ikilemler üzerine başkalarıyla birlikte eğlenceli bir yolla fikir yürütmek araştırmacıların kendi günlük karar ve eylemlerinin ahlaki içeriğine ilişkin farkındalık kazanmalarını sağlamaktadır. Bu, araştırmacıları belirli bir ahlaki ikilemle karşı karşıya kaldıklarında kendilerinin olduğu kadar diğer paydaşların da pozisyon ve temellendirmelerini - AD değerleri ve ECoC prensipleri ışığında - göz önünde bulundurmaya ve anlamaya yöneltebilir. +
V
Public trust in science is essential for scientific progress, democratic resilience, and informed policymaking. While confidence in science remains generally high in the EU and globally, persistent gaps exist between this trust and actual public adherence to science-based policies. The VERITY Protocol of Recommendations addresses this challenge with a comprehensive, evidence-based framework of 100 actionable recommendations designed to strengthen trust in science, research, and innovation.
Its importance lies in translating abstract trust into operational strategies that can be applied across the 'Ecosystem of Trust in Science.' By defining and supporting 'Stewards of Trust'—organisations, groups, and individuals with the capacity to influence perceptions of science—the Protocol ensures that trust-building is embedded in systems of governance, communication, and collaboration. The six overarching strategies—trustworthy science, public engagement, education, communication, supportive policies, and collaboration—offer a systemic roadmap for action.
The framework is co-created and validated with over 500 stakeholders, ensuring its recommendations are both scientifically robust and contextually relevant. It provides concrete tools for implementing Horizon Europe objectives, including societal engagement, ethical governance, and competitiveness in research. Ultimately, the VERITY Protocol is a critical resource for safeguarding science’s role in society. +
Science communication plays a decisive role in shaping how the public perceives and trusts science. In today’s digital-first environment, audiences increasingly rely on peer networks, influencers, and algorithm-driven platforms over institutional sources, leading to fragmentation, oversimplification, and the spread of misinformation. This dynamic not only undermines institutional trust but also makes it difficult to convey scientific uncertainty, particularly in polarised debates such as vaccines, climate change, or AI. Failures to provide nuance or contextualise evolving evidence risk backfiring and diminishing public confidence.
The recommendations in this resource are important because they reframe communication as an active, two-way process rather than a one-directional transfer of knowledge. By embedding dialogue, inclusivity, and contextualisation, communicators can bridge the gap between scientific expertise and societal values. Addressing systemic barriers—such as undervaluation of outreach in academia, limited funding, lack of training, and biased media representation—is essential to empower both professional communicators and scientists.
Implementing these recommendations strengthens the visibility of diverse voices, ensures accurate and ethical use of digital tools, and reinforces science as a public good. Ultimately, by making science more accessible, relatable, and participatory, communicators play a pivotal role in cultivating durable trust between science and society. +
Science educators are vital Stewards of Trust, shaping how future generations understand and engage with science. Yet they often work under systemic constraints: national curriculum demands, administrative burdens, and insufficient training in critical thinking, open science, and interdisciplinary approaches. These challenges are compounded by fragmented education policies, short political cycles, and weak institutional recognition of educators’ broader societal role. Without adequate support, science educators struggle to bridge the gap between scientific developments and public understanding.
The recommendations in this resource are important because they provide a roadmap for educators to build societal trust in science through practical and impactful methods. Embedding critical thinking, media literacy, and inquiry-based approaches equips students to navigate misinformation and appreciate the processes underpinning scientific knowledge. Strengthening links with communities via citizen science, outreach, and collaboration enhances the relevance of science to daily life, making it more inclusive and accessible.
Equally important is supporting educators themselves, with updated training, resources, and leadership commitment. Recognising and rewarding their role in fostering trust ensures that science education empowers rather than merely informs. These recommendations position educators as key actors in cultivating an informed, engaged, and trusting public. +
Science funders are powerful Stewards of Trust, as their decisions shape not only which research is conducted but also how science is perceived by society. Current funding systems are often challenged by prioritising short-term outputs, reinforcing inequalities, and failing to incentivise openness, inclusivity, or public engagement. Evaluation frameworks that focus narrowly on publications and metrics discourage interdisciplinary, socially relevant, and co-created research. Concentration of resources in already well-resourced institutions further deepens inequities, while underfunding independent journalism and open dissemination limits transparency and accountability.
The recommendations in this resource are important because they reorient funding frameworks toward practices that build durable societal trust. By embedding transparency, societal relevance, and accountability into funding criteria, funders can support open science, citizen science, and science communication. Flexible grant schemes that allow long-term collaboration and compensate community contributions ensure that science remains connected to societal needs. Funders also play a critical role in safeguarding integrity by requiring disclosure of conflicts of interest, supporting independent validation, and promoting equitable access to research infrastructures.
Ultimately, funding systems that reward openness, collaboration, and inclusivity not only improve research outcomes but also strengthen societal trust in science. +
Science implementers play a pivotal role in translating research into real-world applications, but this process often prioritises technical feasibility, market potential, or efficiency over inclusivity and long-term societal impact. As demonstrated with AI, GMOs, and pandemic technologies, innovations that are scientifically sound may still encounter public resistance when developed without dialogue, transparency, or attention to social consequences. Tokenistic consultation, proprietary interests, and fragmented implementation processes deepen public scepticism and erode trust.
These recommendations are important because they provide implementers with strategies to align scientific innovation more closely with societal expectations and values. By embedding transparency, ethical oversight, and clear communication of both benefits and limitations, implementers can reduce mistrust and increase accountability. Genuine co-creation, particularly with marginalised communities, ensures that innovations are not only technically robust but also socially relevant and equitable. Sustainable feedback mechanisms, long-term community engagement, and institutionalised cross-sector partnerships further strengthen trust by demonstrating responsiveness and inclusivity.
Open, accessible, and understandable innovation processes counter perceptions of elitism or profit-driven agendas, and help science implementers foster durable trust by ensuring that the application of research delivers meaningful benefits to society while upholding integrity and accountability. +
Science oversight and protection actors safeguard ethical, legal, and safety standards, making them pivotal to sustaining public trust in science. Yet many existing frameworks are outdated, fragmented, or under-resourced, leaving them unable to keep pace with the complexity of modern research. Rapidly advancing fields like AI, synthetic biology, and data-intensive science highlight the limitations of non-binding ethical guidance, weak monitoring systems, and incentives that reward output over responsibility. These weaknesses are compounded by gaps in training, uneven global standards, and institutional resistance to reform.
Undervaluation of critical accountability mechanisms—independent science journalism, open access platforms, and peer review—further undermines transparency. The rise of predatory publishing and disparities in research infrastructure widen inequalities, while trust-related oversight remains overly concentrated in health sciences, neglecting areas such as climate and digital technologies.
The recommendations outlined in this resource are essential for revising and harmonising oversight mechanisms across disciplines and borders. Binding standards, stronger ethics training, and adaptive review systems are needed to address emerging risks. Transparency through open access, funding disclosure, and accessible communication must be reinforced. By institutionalising inclusive engagement and collaborating with civil society and media, oversight actors can ensure accountability, foster credibility, and build societal trust in science. +
Policymakers occupy a critical position in shaping science, research, and innovation agendas, yet public trust in science-informed governance remains fragile. Scientific advice is often politicised, selectively used, or dismissed, particularly in contentious domains like climate, vaccination, or energy policy. Short electoral cycles, limited institutional capacity, and weak cross-ministerial coordination further undermine the integration of robust evidence into long-term strategies. Citizens may support science-based policies in principle but resist them in practice when they are excluded from decision-making or when transparency is lacking.
These recommendations are important because they address the systemic and cultural barriers that weaken trust at the science-policy interface. By embedding transparency, openness, and integrity into policy frameworks, policymakers can protect the autonomy of research institutions and align agendas with societal priorities and the Sustainable Development Goals. Inclusive engagement—moving beyond tokenism toward co-creation with citizens, researchers, and civil society—ensures legitimacy and strengthens democratic accountability.
Investing in science-policy interfaces, fostering interdisciplinary capacity, and supporting communication about evidence, uncertainty, and ethical trade-offs are vital. Policymakers who adopt these approaches not only improve the quality of governance but also foster a culture of trust where science is seen as credible, participatory, and central to societal progress. +
