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
O
This article presents the summative assessment of role-playing in teaching topics regarding the Responsible conduct of research (RCR) to graduate students in science and engineering. It suggests that this educational approach might promote a deeper appreciation of RCR. +
This blog post describes a case where a German researcher conducts his animal experimentation in China to avoid the European (stricter) regulations and public outcry. +
The article informs of the mini-conference that aimed to examine underserved areas of education in research ethics. Two topics were discussed - authorship and social responsibility. The presentations were later integrated into papers published in the Special Section of ''Science and Engineering Ethics.'' These papers illustrate similarities and differences in authorship and publication practices in different disciplines, such as engineering, the life sciences and the social sciences. +
The Ovideo convention is the only international legally binding instrument on the protection of human rights in the field of biomedical sciences. It was opened for signature in 1997 in Oviedo (Spain). +
P
This study presented a legal case from 2009, when the U.S. Supreme Court found guilty of fraud Scott Harkonen, CEO of drug company InterMune. Harkonen reported that a drug Actimmune had statistically significant survival benefits, when in reality it did not. +
PATTERN (Piloting Open and Responsible Activities and Trainings Towards the Enhancement of Researchers’ Networks) is a 42-month Horizon Europe project that promotes open and responsible research and innovation (Open RRI) by developing and piloting training activities for researchers at all career stages. The project identifies and builds training modules around eight key transferable skills: open access, FAIR data management, research integrity, science communication, dissemination and exploitation of results, citizen science, management and leadership, and gender/non-discrimination/inclusion in research. It co-designs these trainings with institutions through mapping workshops and “Open Studio” cycles, and offers them on a digital platform where learners can access the materials freely. PATTERN also generates policy recommendations to encourage institutions and funders to embed Open RRI practices in their training programmes. +
PERITIA (Policy, Expertise, and Trust in Action) was an EU-funded Horizon 2020 project (2020–2023) that studied how people trust experts and what makes expertise trustworthy. The multidisciplinary team – including philosophers, scientists, psychologists, policy experts and media specialists – explored how emotional, social, and normative factors influence trust in experts, beyond just their competence or reputation. Using climate change as a test case, PERITIA combined theoretical analysis with empirical research (surveys, lab studies, and citizen forums) to develop tools and indicators for evaluating trustworthiness. The project produced a “Trustworthiness Toolkit,” policy recommendations, and made its data publicly available through a Trust Hub. +
POIESIS is a three-year Horizon Europe funded project dedicated to tackling the growing societal mistrust in science. It studies how research practices grounded in integrity, transparency, and active involvement of citizens and stakeholders throughout the research process can influence public trust in science, research, and innovation. By promoting collaboration between researchers and society, POIESIS has develop strong policy recommendations that enhance credibility, openness, and co-creation in scientific work. Ultimately, the project seeks to build a more trustworthy and participatory research ecosystem that reinforces the connection between science and society. +
POIESIS Policy Recommendations for Promoting Trust in Science through Integrity, Integration, and Communication +
This report presents the final POIESIS policy recommendations which provide guidance on how European and national policymakers, research performing organisations, research funding organisations, researchers, and mediators can work to maintain trust in science and address current and future challenges. These recommendations address the three core areas of research integrity, societal integration in science, and science mediation, and build directly on the findings of the POIESIS project to provide robust empirically founded recommendations. Furthermore, all recommendations are accompanied by specific actions for relevant stakeholders, who are to be pivotal in ensuring societal trust in science. +
This set of recommendations (3 out of 9 POIESIS recommendations) focuses on strengthening research integrity through better institutional organization, governance, and culture. It calls for aligning the principles of integrity such as honesty, accountability, and transparency with actual research practices. This includes reforming incentive structures that may encourage questionable practices, supporting integrity training, and ensuring fair evaluation systems. The aim is to make integrity not just a formal requirement but an integral part of the daily research environment. +
This set of recommendations (3 out of 9 POIESIS recommendations) focuses on strengthening the connection between science and society through active inclusion of citizens and stakeholders in the research process. It advocates for participatory and co-creative approaches that allow public concerns, local knowledge, and social values to inform research design, implementation, and dissemination. The aim is to move beyond viewing the public merely as recipients of scientific results and instead treat them as partners in shaping research agendas. POIESIS emphasizes that engagement should be genuine, continuous, and mutually beneficial not a token exercise. When citizens and communities are involved from the start, scientific outcomes become more relevant, legitimate, and socially responsive. This approach also helps researchers better understand diverse perspectives and address potential ethical, environmental, or social impacts early in the process. Strengthening societal integration promotes inclusivity, builds mutual understanding, and ensures that science serves collective well-being. By fostering open dialogue, this recommendation contributes to bridging the gap between scientific institutions and the wider public, ultimately enhancing societal trust in science. +
This set recommendations (3 out of 9 POIESIS recommendations) examines how scientific information travels through different “chains of mediation” from researchers to communicators, journalists, policymakers, and the public and how these interactions affect trust in science. It calls for improved collaboration between scientists and professional communicators to ensure that research findings are presented accurately, clearly, and responsibly. The recommendation stresses the importance of transparency about uncertainty and limitations, especially in sensitive or politically charged areas such as health, environment, and technology. It also highlights the need for training scientists in communication skills and for supporting journalists in understanding complex research topics. By strengthening these communication chains, the goal is to prevent misinformation, misinterpretation, and oversimplification of science in media and policy contexts. The recommendation also promotes dialogue over one-way dissemination encouraging engagement that allows for questioning, reflection, and feedback. Ultimately, effective communication is seen as a cornerstone of trust, helping to sustain a well-informed public, a responsive scientific community, and sound evidence-based policymaking. +
The Code of Good Scientific Practice constitutes a framework for self-regulation. The content has been supervised and updated as part of the remit of the PRBB Good Scientific Practice Working Group (GSP Working Group).The GSP Working Group is made up of nominated representatives of all PRBB Centres +
The “Pro‐active Pandemic Crisis Ethics and Integrity Framework ” (PREPARED), has developed an operational research ethics and integrity framework which safeguards key ethical values, supports a rapid and effective research response to crises. The key output of the project are presented in this page and include (among others):
*a global code of conduct for research during pandemics;
*a global code of conduct for research in fragile settings;
*prioritization and fast-track guidance for research ethics committees;
*harassment briefings for researchers;
*an ethics brief on facilitating researcher mobility;
*a case study training app;
*and many educational resources. +
PREPARED Guidance for Fair and Fast Desk Assessment of Submitted Manuscripts during Times of Crisis +
The PREPARED "<span lang="EN-GB">Guidance for fair and fast desk assessment of submitted manuscripts during times of crisis” is addressed to editors and publishers. It covers the process</span> <span lang="EN-GB">for identification of manuscripts that meet the threshold criteria for peer review and the criteria against which the submission can be assessed.</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">Whilst the guidance was developed for crisis situations, it is also likely to be helpful during routine work of editors, publishers and research ethics committees.</span> +
This guidance offers practical advice on how to swiftly yet responsibly review research during public health emergencies. It integrates insights insights from the PREPARED project, WHO guidance, and others sources to propose an accelerated ethics review model. This includes pre-reviewing generic protocols, forming dedicated rapid-response ethics committees, and employing streamlined decision-making procedures. It emphasizes proportionality, matching review intensity to urgency, and collaboration between national and regional review bodies.
The recommendations also call for clear communication channels with public health authorities, multi-country coordination, and advance planning for data and sample sharing. By outlining these measures, the document aims to maintain ethical rigor without slowing critical research during crises, ensuring participant protection, scientific integrity, and public trust even under intense time pressure. +
The aim of this Horizon 2020 project is to enhance research integrity by improving integrity policies of national and international research organizations and also by providing better tools for research and managers. The project also aims to contribute to education of new generations of researchers with new tools. +
PRINTEGER is a project funded by the European Union in the framework of Horizon 2020. Its mission is to enhance research integrity by promoting a research culture in which integrity is part and parcel of what it means to do excellent research, and not just an external and restrictive control system. To promote such a culture, an improved governance of integrity and responsible research has to be informed by practice: the daily operation of researchers and the tensions of a complex research system. PRINTEGER will contribute to improve adherence to high standards of integrity in research warranting high levels of public support for the sciences. In the short term, it will do so by improving integrity policies of national and international research organisations, but also by providing better tools for research leaders and managers. In the longer term, PRINTEGER will contribute to improve ethical awareness and reflection through the education of new generations of scientists with next generation educational tools. Immediate contributions of PRINTEGER will include raised attention for realistic and effective integrity measures through dissemination, including a large conference, and immediate trial and use of much improved educational resources for teaching research ethics to future and young scientists. +
Researchers, policymakers, and regulators face numerous challenges when it comes to conducting responsible research and innovation across various fields. These challenges encompass ethical practices, regulatory inconsistencies and data protection legislation complexities. With this in mind, the EU-funded PRO-RES project aims to provide a comprehensive, flexible and durable guidance framework. Designed to cover a wide range of non-medical sciences, this framework will offer practical solutions complying with the highest research ethics and integrity standards. By incorporating successful examples and best practices, PRO-RES will establish strong links with existing projects, contributing to post-2020 European strategic funding policy and promoting responsible research engagements. Ultimately, this initiative will empower policymakers to make more effective use of non-medical scientific research information. +
With the European research landscape rapidly changing, nowadays, it is becoming increasingly essential to emphasise the virtue of research integrity and to start handling new scientific techniques in a comprehensible way.
Research integrity is a constituent of more innovation, growth and high-quality jobs. It leads to more efficient, appropriate, useful and reliable scientific evidence for policy-makers and entrepreneurs, where decisions based on research results lead to a better future. +
