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
M
A graduate student from a minority background is studying at a good university. She struggles however due to insufficient intensive courses at her undergraduate university. Her grades are not great.
A faculty member asks the sutdent to participate in meeting aimed at recruiting minority students for the university's graduate program.
The student is in doubt, because on the one hand she feels flattered, but on the other hand she is afraid that her coursework will suffer. +
An assistant professor agreed to take on a student as thesis advisor. Over the course of the year it becomes clear to the assistant professor that the supervision takes more time than she expected. In addition, the student does not seem to be at the level that the assistant professor had hoped. The student also appears to make little progressin her level. The assistant professor regularly fails to read all materials for the meetings with the student.
Then, a faculty colleague leaves the faculty and the assistant professor is pressured to take over one of his students.
It becomes more and more clear that she cannot attend to both students. She wants to let the first student go. +
Mertonian norms are the four norms of good scientific research first introduced by the American sociologist, Robert K. Merton. These norms are communism, universalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"' +
Meta-Analysis Map: relevant factors shaping public attitudes of science communication - policy brief +
The ''Meta-analysis Map'' report reviews and synthesises existing academic research to identify factors that influence how the public perceives and responds to science communication. It maps key determinants shaping attitudes toward scientific information, organising them into four main categories: (1) audience characteristics (e.g., psychological biases, prior knowledge, values), (2) communicator traits (e.g., trust, background, goals), (3) message features (e.g., content credibility, clarity), and (4) communication channels and media environments (e.g., social media effects). The report also examines how misinformation and conspiracy beliefs affect individuals’ interpretations of scientific communication, offering a conceptual foundation for later empirical work in the TRESCA project. It aims to support improved strategies for effective, trustworthy science communication by highlighting psychological and media-related processes that help or hinder public understanding and trust. +
This study examined the issue of biases in research that is considered to be the cause of reproducibility crisis. The results showed that extent of biases varied across fields and was relatively small. The authors did not find enough evidence that would indicate that biases were related to research productivity. They suggested that potential risk factors for producing unreliable results could be early-career status of a researcher, isolation, and lack of research integrity. +
The SIENNA D5.3 report outlines '''methods to promote ethical practices in the research, development, and application of human enhancement technologies (HET)'''. It focuses on creating practical tools and frameworks that help stakeholders integrate ethical reflection into both early and later stages of technology development. The core contributions include '''ethical guidelines''' tailored to human enhancement, a proposed '''research ethics framework''' that shapes how studies involving HETs are conducted, and a recommended '''international expert body''' to oversee ethical, social, and regulatory concerns. The report also argues for reconsidering how human enhancement is positioned within medical, legal, and societal contexts. It highlights dissemination strategies to ensure that these methods remain influential beyond the SIENNA project’s lifetime, supporting lasting ethical awareness among policymakers, technologists, and researchers. +
Bu modülde aşağıdaki konuları öğrenecek ve bu konular üzerine yorumlamalarda bulunacaksınız:
*'''Araştırma ile ilgili bir bağlamda yaşadığınız bir bilişsel çelişki deneyimi: '''Bilişsel çelişkinin dinamiklerini ve araştırma süreci ile olan ilişkisini fark etmeniz konusunda size yol gösterilecektir.
*'''Kendini haklı çıkarma stratejilerinin gerekliliği ve riskleri: '''Kullanma ihtimalinizin bulunduğu kendini haklı çıkarma stratejileri ve bu stratejilerin yol açabileceği olası istenmeyen sonuçlar – bilişsel önyargıların ortaya çıkması gibi – üzerine fikir yürütmeniz ve yorumlamalarda bulunmanız istenecektir.
*'''Araştırma doğruluğu konusunda kendi disiplininizle en ilgili olduğunu düşündüğünüz ihlaller ve muhtemel kendini haklı çıkarma stratejileri: '''Kendi disiplininizle en ilgili olduğunu düşündüğünüz araştırma doğruluğu ihlalini belirledikten sonra sizden, farklı kendini haklı çıkarma stratejileri yazmanız istenecektir. +
This is a factual case in which a psychologist who is found guilty of scientific misconduct. However, it is unclear whether the mistakes in the investigated publications are deliberately and thus a result of data fabrication or whether they are unintentional. This causes some to question whether the decision to declare the psychologist guilty is the right one, while others agree with the ruling.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000000-QINU`"' +
This short podcast concerns misconduct and fraud in clinical research. Former editor of the British Medical Journal dr Richard Smith discusses these issues from the definition of research misconduct to concrete examples. He also provides advices how to avoid it. +
A legal case about public access to documents is raising questions about the US Department of Energy's scrutiny of alleged scientific misconduct. On 6 April, a federal district judge in Boston, Massachusetts, dismissed a lawsuit that I had filed in 2009 under the US Freedom of Information Act. He concluded that the US government does not have to release a report on an investigation into a case of alleged scientific misconduct at a national laboratory. The ruling was disappointing but liberating: I finally had occasion to write about a case that has shown how the US Department of Energy (DOE) takes a strikingly hands-off approach to the oversight of such investigations. +
Controversy has been the watchword in a year dogged by dispute. Misconduct revelations, clashes over transgenic crops, and confusion over stem cells have threatened to overshadow triumphs in fields from palaeoanthropology to fundamental physics. ''Nature'''"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000001-QINU`"''s reporters recount the year's talking points. +
The legal quagmire, strain and bad press of misconduct investigations leave many universities tempted to ignore misconduct allegations. But getting an investigation right can reduce the pain and boost an institution's reputation. +
This factual case is about various instances of scientific misconduct by a psychiatrist. The scientific misconduct ranges from stealing research funds from the government for personal use to the fabrication of data. The psychiatrist is now banned from research funding for two years and must correct or retract four of his previously published papers. <br />
'"`UNIQ--references-00000000-QINU`"' +
A researcher believes that they should be included as a co-author after critically reviewing a study proposal. +
This case briefly reports on the result of an offical investigation of the National Science Foundation in the US. Investigation was focused on a researcher's potential misuse of researcher NSF grant and his undisclosed dual employment. +
The '''PREPARED App''' is a mobile tool developed to support researchers working in crisis-affected and fragile settings. It offers quick, practical guidance for navigating ethical and integrity challenges in real-time, especially when conducting research in unpredictable environments like conflict zones, refugee camps, or disaster areas. The app includes scenario-based prompts, decision-making tools, and access to key documents such as the Fragile Settings Code. It is part of the EU-funded PREPARED project, which aims to strengthen ethical research practices during global crises. Designed for use “on the go,” the app helps researchers uphold high standards of integrity and participant protection, even under pressure. +
Model Open Science Policy of Nigeria (2024) , Committee of Vice Chancellors of Nigerian Universities (CVCNU) +
The Model Open Science Policy of Nigeria (2024), produced by the Committee of Vice Chancellors of Nigerian Universities, provides national guidance for open science and open access, promoting openness as a default while respecting ethics, privacy, IP, and security. It links openness to research quality, reproducibility, rapid knowledge translation, and equitable access. The policy covers open access publications with preferred licenses, FAIR data principles, data management plans, and use of trusted repositories. It outlines responsibilities for researchers and institutions, justifies embargoes when necessary, and encourages enabling infrastructure and alignment with international frameworks like Plan S. Emphasis is placed on equity, responsible handling of sensitive data, and quality of openness, with guidance for implementation by researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers to ensure practical, interoperable, and inclusive open science. +
The [https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/strategy-and-policy/integrity/research-integrity/dilemma-game Rotterdam Dilemma Game] (RDG) is a game composed of dilemmas concerning a variety of research integrity issues. The game targets a diverse population of researchers and is designed to foster conversations about moral dilemmas that researchers might face during their career. RDG can be used for various purposes. For example, it can be used as an educational tool in a course setting with a group of young researchers to increase awareness of research integrity issues or it can be played by team members working at the same lab or institution to gain insight in each other’s perspectives on research integrity dilemmas.
The modified RDG has been developed within the scope of the VIRT2UE project to provide a focus on the virtues and values which are important for researchers in day-to-day activities and to bring attention to the principles and content of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. +
The [https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/strategy-and-policy/integrity/research-integrity/dilemma-game Rotterdam Dilemma Game] (RDG) is a game composed of dilemmas concerning a variety of research integrity issues. As the dilemmas are based on real cases, they are recognizable and relevant to those who take part in research activities. The game was developed by the Erasmus University Rotterdam for the use of researchers, coordinators, supervisors, administrators, reviewers, and all of those who are involved in research at different levels. The game consists of short descriptions of dilemmas, which are grouped in three main categories: researcher position, research strategy and research phase. Players can pick a case which corresponds to the issue they would like to discuss.
The game may be used as an exercise for exchanging experiences, opinions, perspectives and justifications. It could also be used to develop a shared understanding of formally defined principles and the moral content of our actions, as well as of roles of values and norms in decision-making.
The original game developed by the Erasmus University Rotterdam was adapted in the context of VIRT2UE project. The aim of this modification is to raise awareness about virtues and values in research processes and to bring attention to the principles adopted by the [https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/ European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity]. Concordantly, the modified RDG has several alterations, such as focusing on a dialogical approach while exchanging justifications for a moral choice and associating them with the virtues and values presented in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. +
This module introduces the basic concepts and ethics foundations of artificial intelligence (AI) within the European context. It explains what AI systems are according to the EU AI Act, presents key AI concepts, and explores how ethics requirements can be integrated into AI development through an ethics-by-design approach.
Learners will also become familiar with the main requirements for trustworthy AI, as outlined by the High-Level Expert Group on AI, and gain an introductory understanding of the ALTAI self-assessment framework. +
