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
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-00000000-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. +
The Montreal Statement presents 20 good principles underlying successful research collaborations. The message of the statement is that partners in collaborations need to "take collective responsibility for the trustworthiness of the overall collaborative research”.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' The statement covers the topics of general responsabilities and the responsibilities of managing collaborations, relationships and outcomes of research.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"' +
The Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations (2013), authored by the World Conference on Research Integrity (WCRI), is an international framework that sets principles for responsible conduct in global, cross-border research. Written in English and targeting a worldwide audience, it emphasises honesty, accountability, professional courtesy, and stewardship, linking these values to reproducibility, credibility, and trust in research. The Statement addresses responsibilities of researchers, institutions, funders, and journals, including clear authorship rules, proper citation, management of conflicts of interest, transparency of data and methods, responsible supervision, and fair peer review. It provides guidance for handling breaches of integrity with due process and proportional sanctions, while promoting education and training so that integrity becomes a core skill. A particular focus is placed on challenges in international collaboration, such as cultural differences, varying legal frameworks, and equitable participation of all partners. It promotes alignment with international standards to facilitate researcher mobility and comparability of practices, while encouraging inclusive, non-discriminatory environments. Practical tools like checklists, codes of conduct, and reporting templates help translate principles into daily action. The intended audience spans researchers, supervisors, institutions, policymakers, and funders, but it is especially important for international research teams and institutions engaged in cross-boundary collaborations, as it clarifies expectations, reduces ambiguity, and supports fair, transparent, and accountable partnerships worldwide. +
A moral conflict is a situation in which a person has two moral obligations, which cannot be met both at once. Behind these obligations lie conflicting values. Sometimes, the conflict can be resolved to the full satisfaction of the different parties involved, i.e. without leaving behind any regrettable remainder or residue. A moral dilemma is an irresolvable moral conflict, i.e. no fully satisfactory resolution is possible since all possible options for action leave behind a remainder that does not cease to be morally binding. +
In this fictional case, an assistant professor submits a paper manuscript for consideration to journal#1. Whilst awaiting for the journal’s decision that appears to be taking longer than expected, and feeling under pressure to meet certain deadlines in her career, the professor decides to submit the same manuscript to journal#2. +
From art-science collaborations to technological “fixes” like carbon capture to ancient myths, Sofia Greaves shares stories of projects at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre and beyond. Presented by Lucy Sabin.
Created for EU project RE4GREEN. Supported by the European Commission and the VU Open Science. All views shared are the speakers' own. +
<span lang="EN-US">This activity builds on the content of the third episode of Earth to Research, titled</span> <span lang="EN-GB">Myths and Rituals: Art-Science, Sustainable Tech, and Degrowth. This episode explores how research and innovation can be re-imagined in the context of ecological crisis. Guest Sofia Greaves describes her nonlinear journey from classics studies to art-science collaborations and degrowth studies, showing how interdisciplinary knowledge can reshape how we understand sustainability.</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">Degrowth is presented not as a singular doctrine but as a plural, evolving critique of economic growth that highlights the impossibility of infinite expansion on a finite planet. Sofia explains that degrowth involves questioning dominant assumptions, valuing multiple knowledge systems, and experimenting with alternative ways of organising society, science, and technology.</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">A major theme is the importance of collaboration between artists and scientists. Art-science projects can help researchers slow down, reflect, and develop more caring and embodied ways of relating to the environment. Examples include ritual-based research on forever chemicals and artistic inquiries into lithium extraction that reveal unseen ecological relationships. These collaborations foreground uncertainty, challenge technological “fix” narratives, and generate new stories and perspectives. The conversation concludes that sustainability is a social, ethical and epistemic challenge (not just a technological one) and that creative, reflexive, cross-disciplinary approaches are vital in research.</span> +
Bu alıştırma, eğitmenlerin diğer kişilerde diyalog becerilerinin gelişimini teşvik etmelerine ve diyalog yoluyla fikir yürütmenin teşvik edilebilmesi için neler yapılması gerektiğini açıklamalarına yardımcı olmaktadır. Bu alıştırma, diyaloğun ve diyalog becerilerinin genel olarak yorumlama ve fikir yürütme süreçlerinin ayrılmaz bir parçası olduğu ancak Araştırma Etiği ve Doğruluğu (AED) için özellikle önem arz ettiği kabulüne dayanarak geliştirilmiştir.
Bu alıştırmayı kullanarak:
- Deneyimsel öğrenme yoluyla başkalarında fikir yürütme/yorumlama süreçlerini teşvik edebilecek,
- Diyaloğu fikir yürütme süreçlerinde bir araç olarak kullanacak ve diyaloğun bu şekilde kullanılmasını nasıl destekleyeceğinizi/teşvik edeceğinizi öğreneceksiniz.
Bu alıştırma aynı zamanda daha derinlikli fikir yürütme/yorumlama araçlarına ya da alıştırmalarına geçmeden önce bir başlangıç çalışması olarak da kullanılabilir. +
Bu alıştırmada münazara ve diyaloğun değerini ve bu iki kavram arasındaki farkı deneyimleyeceksiniz. Bu alıştırma, diyaloğun ve diyalog becerilerinin genel olarak yorumlama ve fikir yürütme süreçlerinin ayrılmaz bir parçası olduğu ancak Araştırma Doğruluğu için özellikle önem arz ettiği kabulüne dayanarak geliştirilmiştir. Alıştırmada temel odak noktası münazara ve diyalog ortamlarının doğuracağı farklı etkileşim ve yorumlama şekillerini deneyimlemektir. Araştırma doğruluğu odaklı bir vaka üzerine münazara yaparak ya da diyalog kurarak bu iki etkileşim türünün yorumlama ve fikir yürütme süreçlerindeki güçlü ve kullanışlı yanlarını fark edecek ve anlayacaksınız. +
Bu alıştırma, eğitmenlerin diğer kişilerde diyalog becerilerinin gelişimini teşvik etmelerine ve diyalog yoluyla fikir yürütmenin teşvik edilebilmesi için neler yapılması gerektiğini açıklamalarına yardımcı olmaktadır. Bu alıştırma, diyaloğun ve diyalog becerilerinin genel olarak yorumlama ve fikir yürütme süreçlerinin ayrılmaz bir parçası olduğu ancak Araştırma Etiği ve Doğruluğu (AED) için özellikle önem arz ettiği kabulüne dayanarak geliştirilmiştir.
Bu alıştırmayı kullanarak:
- Deneyimsel öğrenme yoluyla başkalarında fikir yürütme/yorumlama süreçlerini teşvik edebilecek
- Diyaloğu fikir yürütme süreçlerinde bir araç olarak kullanacak ve diyaloğun bu şekilde kullanılmasını nasıl destekleyeceğinizi/teşvik edeceğinizi öğreneceksiniz.
Bu alıştırma aynı zamanda daha derinlikli fikir yürütme/yorumlama araçlarına ya da alıştırmalarına geçmeden önce bir başlangıç çalışması olarak da kullanılabilir. +
