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
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. +
Science Producers are central to the Ecosystem of Trust in Science, as they directly generate research outputs, knowledge, and innovations that influence society. However, trust in their work is constrained by opaque knowledge-production processes, competitive funding structures, and performance metrics that prioritise outputs over societal value or collaboration. This environment discourages open science, interdisciplinary work, and co-creation with the public, weakening perceptions of science as a collective good.
At the same time, scientific research faces profound systemic changes. The rise of artificial intelligence, new funding mechanisms, and cross-sector collaborations provide opportunities to accelerate research and broaden participation. Yet they also raise concerns about transparency, accountability, and fairness, particularly as science becomes increasingly politicised and privatised. Such pressures risk undermining freedom of inquiry, distorting agendas, and eroding public confidence in science’s neutrality.
To sustain trust, Science Producers must adopt transparent, reproducible, and ethical practices. Disclosing funding, addressing conflicts of interest, embedding co-creation, and rethinking incentive structures are essential. By actively engaging with communities, fostering inclusivity, and promoting open science infrastructures, Science Producers can build durable and reciprocal trust within society and across the broader ecosystem. +
Science-Society Facilitators are essential Stewards of Trust, linking research with diverse communities and ensuring science addresses real societal needs. Yet, engagement efforts often fall short, reduced to tokenistic exercises that meet funding requirements without genuinely empowering citizens. This risks reinforcing perceptions of science as top-down, inaccessible, and detached from public concerns—particularly among historically marginalised groups who may carry negative experiences with scientific or healthcare institutions.
Structural barriers such as short-term funding, limited institutional backing, and rigid project structures further constrain meaningful engagement. Power imbalances within participatory processes, data privacy concerns, and weak inclusion of underrepresented groups undermine credibility. Religious, ideological, or political tensions may complicate coalition-building, while citizen science projects often struggle to extend beyond organised civil society.
The recommendations in this resource are important because they shift engagement from consultation toward true co-creation. By integrating local knowledge, ensuring fair recognition of citizen contributions, and building inclusive platforms for dialogue, facilitators can create sustained, equitable, and responsive models of engagement. Adequate funding, training, and ethical safeguards are critical. Through these practices, facilitators transform science from an elite endeavour into a collaborative, accountable, and trusted societal enterprise rooted in shared values and mutual learning. +
The Scenario-Building Training is important because it bridges the gap between recommendations and practice. It helps stakeholders move from abstract guidance to concrete implementation, ensuring that strategies to foster trust in science are realistic, adaptable, and sustainable. By anticipating risks and uncertainties, identifying enabling and hindering factors, and planning practical steps, the training supports users to turn ideas into action both within VERITY and in broader contexts.
<span lang="EN-GB">Beyond its methodological value, the training also serves a wider purpose of fostering public trust in science. By guiding Stewards of Trust (SOTs) through the application of VERITY’s recommendations, it supports systemic improvements in key areas such as building trustworthy science, strengthening education, engaging the public in research, building effective science communication, and developing supportive policy frameworks. It highlights the importance of collaboration across diverse actors in the ecosystem of trust, from policymakers and researchers to educators, communicators and funders, ensuring that scientific practices remain transparent, inclusive and responsive to societal needs.</span> +
The train-the-trainer program has an aspirational approach, and focuses on what it means to be a good and virtuous researcher. Instead of teaching about rules and norms, the training focuses primarily on promoting reflection on personal attitudes and behaviors. Participants learn how to train others to reflect on concrete cases and moral dilemmas in research, and to use tools that foster reflection in others. This will foster skills that enable trainees to integrate the European Code of Conduct in their day-to-day professional life. +
This work is important because it provides empirical evidence and a conceptual framework showing how Open Science contributes to research and society. By validating impact pathways, it helps policymakers, funders, and institutions understand not just ''that'' Open Science matters, but ''how'' it creates real benefits such as faster knowledge dissemination, increased collaboration, and broader societal engagement. It also identifies barriers and equity issues, helping leaders design more inclusive and effective research systems. Importantly, the guidelines can inform strategic decisions about investing in open infrastructures and measuring research value beyond traditional metrics. In an era where publicly funded research is increasingly expected to deliver societal return, this model supports more evidence-based strategies for advancing Open Science. +
Researchers can encounter dilemmas whilst working with private industry due to competing priorities and obligations (e.g. immediate interests of certain patient groups vs. financial sustainability of companies). +
In codes of conduct for scientific research, the concepts of values and norms are often used interchangeably. Yet, it is crucial to distinguish between the two concepts '"`UNIQ--ref-00000006-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000007-QINU`"'. Values are general ideals. They underlie norms, which are action-guiding rules. There are three kinds of such rules: permissions, orders or commands and prohibitions. Values show what persons and communities hold as important. Norms say what has to be done in order to realize values. Without a reference to underlying values, rules lack motivation and justification. Without corresponding norms, values lack specification and concrete direction.
Values and norms can be ''formal'' (that is: explicitly formulated) or ''informal'' (that is: implicitly assumed). Often, when values are discussed, corresponding norms are not explicitly mentioned. On the other hand, when norms are posed, the underlying values often remain implicit. Yet it is important to be aware of the concrete action-guiding rules envisaged when a certain value is mentioned, and of the general ideal behind a specific norm. An important aim of moral reflection is to provide such clarifications.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000008-QINU`"' +
This policy brief is important because it reframes science governance to include citizens as active partners rather than passive stakeholders. Doing so can strengthen democratic legitimacy, improve the social relevance of scientific outcomes, and boost public trust in science and policy. Particularly in contexts where science intersects with contentious issues (e.g., climate change, health policy), involving diverse publics early and meaningfully can reduce polarization and enhance collective decision-making. Its recommendations provide practical guidance to policymakers, research institutions, and civic actors on designing engagement methods that are inclusive, deliberative, and capable of integrating public values into science governance. +
==== Why use it? ====
* Improve your knowledge and application of equitable and responsible research practices
* Develop strong, comprehensive and deliverable research plans
* Articulate and evidence your research plans to funders
* Expand the real world impact of your research +
* Improve your knowledge and application of equitable and responsible research practices
* Develop strong, comprehensive and deliverable research plans
* Articulate and evidence your research plans to funders
* Expand the real world impact of your research
+
It shows that data and image integrity are part and parcel of modern research. +
It is crucial for participants to complete the online modules in advance of the face-to-face training in order to acquire a shared understanding of the program’s core concepts. +
