Text (Instruction Step Text)
From The Embassy of Good Science
Describe the actions the user should take to experience the material (including preparation and follow up if any). Write in an active way.
- ⧼SA Foundation Data Type⧽: Text
5
[[File:Ex-tech6.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
The hardware needed for VR and AR experiences, can vary depending on the complexity of the application and the level of immersion desired.
Click on the hotspots on the image below to find out more about the types of hardware used for VR. +
[[File:Bio2Image5.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
Use the links below to access and read the UK Biobank’s information sheet and consent form.
[https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/media/ei3bagfb/participant_information_leaflet-baseline.pdf Example of a biobank information sheet from the UK Biobank]
[https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/media/t22hbo35/consent-form.pdf Example of a biobank consent form from the UK Biobank]
'''Feedback'''
Broad consent models are commonly used by biobanks to streamline sample collection for diverse research purposes. These models allow participants to consent to a wide range of potential future studies, facilitating efficient research while maintaining ethical standards. However, ensuring transparency and understanding among participants regarding the scope of research remains paramount for ethical practice.
What type of consent model is UK Biobank using in these examples? +
Ever wondered about the ethical compass guiding scientific discovery? This video highlights the long history of teaching and learning, tracing it all the way back to Plato's Academy. While the specific subjects taught have evolved over time, the underlying ethical questions remain relevant. Ethics in research is not merely about compliance but also about moral reflection. Drawing on real-world examples, our training module aims to provide guidance and support for researchers in navigating ethical considerations. +
[[File:Ext.Image6.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
The use of XR also poses risks to mental health and wellbeing, inducing new problems and/or exacerbating existing concerns. Psychological impacts, including addiction and the need for a resting period after extended XR use, underscore the mental health dimensions associated with immersive technologies. However, it must be stressed that many of the alleged risks to mental health and wellbeing are currently tentative. Being a fairly new field of application and research, the evidence for harms and benefits is relatively scant.
Consequently, it is difficult to predict who precisely is at risk of harm, in what circumstances, and how this is best addressed. Nevertheless, adherence to the precautionary principle would entail that proactive measures to prevent harm are taken, even in the absence of conclusive scientific evidence. Click on the images to read more about some of the primary concerns for mental health and wellbeing that have been identified to date.
From a psychological perspective, there is ongoing debate about the welfare of children using immersive technologies. Children are identified as a highly vulnerable group and, as this module shows, there are many potential harms. Additionally, the long-term impacts upon psychological and emotional development are unknown. They necessitate careful examination to ensure the healthy growth and development of young XR users. +
<span lang="EN-GB">Given the already determined elements, the outputs of a baseline scenario should be elaborated, i.e. the practical outputs to be achieved if the identified stakeholders work effectively together, by use of the identified intervention points, towards the joint achievement of the set objectives under the given circumstances. These tangible outputs can include concrete products, such as educational materials or communication events, but also cover less material accomplishments, such as increased information exchange or a mutual learning process. </span>
<span lang="EN-GB">The scenario-building methodology uses design thinking to develop fresh ideas and an out-of-the-box perspective: You can start to think of a worst-case or a best-case scenario to trigger your creativity and vision. Our instruction uses the most feasible scenario as a starting point, i.e. a realistic plan to achieve, considering the crucial key variables. This initial brainstorming on the most strategic options for a scenario supports further idea generation towards a best-case and worst-case scenario. The best-case should deliberately go beyond what is really under the current conditions and aim to define outputs that are to be achieved in the future when the present assumptions and underlying enabling factors favourably change. The worst-case should serve as a reminder what could happen, if no action is taken or the well-intended initiatives to enhance trust in science are not properly planned or encounter insurmountable structural or organisational barriers.</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">· Most feasible scenario: What are the outputs to be realistically achieved given the current enabling and hindering conditions? </span>
<span lang="EN-GB">· Best-case scenario: What are the results to be ultimately aimed for when all the circumstances are ideal to apply the recommendation? </span>
<span lang="EN-GB">· Worst-case scenario: What can happen in case, e.g. the recommendation is applied to an inadequate context, stakeholders are not well-informed or well-addressed, no action can be taken, or the implementation is inadequately planned?</span>
Vulnerabilities increase during pandemics. Where possible, research approaches should be adapted to ensure the ethical inclusion of persons in vulnerable situations – with adequate protections – rather than adopting patronizing or convenience exclusions. +
Doing research with communities affected by climate change: Climate-conscious methodologies matrix (for students and citizen scientists) +
Use you own research to '''reflect on the cards''' questions
OR use the scenario described above to:
*'''Reflect''' on how the question applies in this setting.
*'''Identify''' possible tensions or risks (e.g., exclusion, harm, extractivism).
*'''Propose''' a climate-just, community-informed course of action. +
The purpose of the third exercise is for participants to easily gain an overall understanding of the differences between the two types of innovation by answering 10 True or False questions. +
In this lecture, Panagiotis Kavouras addresses the researcher's responsibility for the quality of data collection, processing, and storage. The first segment outlines the principles of responsibility and research quality. Subsequently, the lecture elaborates on the research cycle and highlights best practices critical to maintaining high standards in research.
'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''
'''Further reading:'''
Center for Open Science. “What is open science?” https://www.cos.io/open-science
Hofmann, B. (2022). Open Science Knowledge Production: Addressing Epistemological Challenges and Ethical Implications. Publications, 10(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications10030024
Nosek, B. A., Hardwicke, T. E., Moshontz, H., Allard, A., Corker, K. S., Dreber, A., Fidler, F., Hilgard, J., Struhl, M. K., Nuijten, M. B., Rohrer, J. M., Romero, F., Scheel, A. M., Scherer, L. D., Schönbrodt, F. D., & Vazire, S. (2022). Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science. Annual Review of Psychology, 73(Volume 73, 2022), 719–748. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-114157 +
Designed for researchers, publishers, and funders, these specialised courses deliver both theoretical knowledge and practical tools to enhance reproducible research practices.
Our comprehensive training program explores the core principles, methodologies, and discipline-specific challenges of research reproducibility, providing actionable strategies that participants can implement in their work.
Currently, three specialised modules are available online:
*Reproducibility primer for publishers
*Reproducibility primer for funders
*Reproducibility primer for qualitative research
*Reproducibility primer for AI-driven research
Additional modules covering epistemic diversity studies, tools and best practices, and more will be released soon to complete our training program.
Getting started is simple:
#Create a [https://openplato.eu/login/index.php free account] on the OpenPlato platform
#Enrol in either the comprehensive [https://openplato.eu/course/view.php?id=543 TIER2 Reproducibility Training Course] or individual modules based on your interests
#Learn at your own pace with the interactive content +
Introduction to the evaluation of the effectiveness of Research Ethics and Integrity (REI) training +
The table below outlines all the tools and provides evaluations of their functionality, feasibility, scale, term of effect as well as the potential impact of AI for their use. It is important to consider whether the measurement is vulnerable to unintended/undesirable use of AI especially in those cases when authentic learning tasks are utilised as indicators of training effect. There may also be cases in which AI use is neutral or even recommended along with instructions to learners to be mindful of the challenges with AI-created content and using any such content critically.
The table includes an assessment of appropriate level of training effectiveness (according to Praslova 2010/Kirkpatrick 1959), functionality, suggested instruments of analysis, feasibility, temporal dimension and potential manipulativeness by AI.
[[File:Tab1.png|center|frameless|500x500px]]
[[File:Tab2.png|center|frameless|500x500px]]
[[File:Tab3.png|center|frameless|500x500px]]
[[File:Tab4.png|center|frameless|500x500px]]
Measuring training effectiveness has two components: the tool to collect learning outputs (preferably one that also has a pedagogical function) and an instrument to analyse the collected information. We will start with analysis instruments as they can be used for analysis collected with different tools. +
Statistic is an easy measure for counting answers and identified topics. Learning analytics tools (especially those designed into an application) usually calculate the averages and divisions of responses and display them in graphs. Statistics tools like MS Excel, Google sheets or even SPSS (not to mention R) could be used to analyse the collected numerical data.
For example, ProLearning app creates ratios of students’ and teacher’s answers (figure 6):
[[File:Img13.png|center|frameless|350x350px]]
Figure 6. Students’ and teacher’s answers to the same question asked in 6 training sessions.
It is possible to count the answers given by learners (figure 7):
[[File:Img14.png|center|frameless|500x500px]]
Figure 7. Responses to various ethical analysis steps.
Even group dynamics can be displayed by counting the turn-taking of learners (as done by CoTrack app) (figure 8):
[[File:Img15.png|center|frameless|500x500px]]
Figure 8. Turn-taking of four learners (right) and the corresponding group dynamics display (left) (from Tammeleht et al., 2022).
In addition, the learning process can be displayed on a graph to illustrate the development of understanding (SOLO levels 0-4) (figure 9):
[[File:Img16.png|center|frameless|400x400px]]
Figure 9. Development of 5 topics during 4 group-tasks and an oral presentation. Section +
Group discussions (e.g. groups solving cases, analysing vignettes, making a decision, discussing possible courses of action or value conflicts) reflect the groups’ understanding of the topics and are suitable in HE context and in different disciplines. Sometimes the entire training may consist of discussions but only at the end the group presents their outcome, and the facilitator evaluates that part (Kirkpatrick’s level 2). But the facilitator may choose to record the discussion and evaluate the entire discussion process. Group discussions can be monitored by facilitators on site with e.g. ECAG template or recoded and then evaluated afterwards based on the SOLO taxonomy. In addition, content criteria can be identified in the discussions and discourse analysis can be used to monitor attitudes and values.
For example, the figure 2 (from Tammeleht et al., 2022) displays a (recorded) group discussion timeline indicating the levels of understanding, the time devoted to certain topics (A-D) and the order of topics. Indeed, this takes a long time but can be done in case of small groups. ECAG is more convenient and can be used in-class for on-site evaluation.
[[File:Img20.png|center|frameless|500x500px]]
Figure 2. Group discussion timeline (from Tammeleht et al., 2022).
This tool is suitable for all target groups in HE context.
== Group discussionsGroup discussions (e.g. groups solving cases, analysing vignettes, making a decision, discussing possible courses of action or value conflicts) reflect the groups’ understanding of the topics and are suitable in HE context and in different disciplines. Sometimes the entire training may consist of discussions but only at the end the group presents their outcome, and the facilitator evaluates that part (Kirkpatrick’s level 2). But the facilitator may choose to record the discussion and evaluate the entire discussion process. Group discussions can be monitored by facilitators on site with e.g. ECAG template or recoded and then evaluated afterwards based on the SOLO taxonomy. In addition, content criteria can be identified in the discussions and discourse analysis can be used to monitor attitudes and values. ==
<span lang="EN-US">Guide participants by going through the following steps:</span>
#''' '''<span lang="EN-US">Players read the case and the solutions.</span>
#Then everyone individually picks the solution that they are most likely to support (this is an individual decision and discussion at that stage should be discouraged).
#<span lang="EN-US">When all players have made their choice, all individuals within a group should simultaneously reveal their choices to each other (easiest to do with simply raising the number of fingers corresponding to the solution). Often different solutions are chosen and realization of this peer disagreement is an important aspect of the methodology.</span>
#Each player then takes turns explaining their reasons behind their choice. Others listen without intervening, commenting or criticising.
#<span lang="EN-US">After everyone has provided their reasons, discussion begins with the aim of finding consensus in the group. Consider whether reaching a common decision is possible. Provide reasons for your choice and explain why other solutions may not seem as good. After listening to other players’ explanations, you can choose to either stick with your initial choice, change it or provide a new solution.</span>
#When you have reached a consensus (or decided not to achieve it), move on to the next case. +
<span lang="EN-GB">These FAIRsharing Collections provide a focal point for the discoverability and visualisation of standards (reporting requirements, terminologies, models/formats, identifier schemas) in the Social Science (147 standards: https://fairsharing.org/6224), Life Sciences (1043 standard: https://fairsharing.org/6225), as well as data policies from publishers and funders (272 policies). These Collections are dynamic, living representations of discipline-specific community’s recommendation and requirements by policy makers. At-a-glance views of other disciplines is available by selecting the relevant subject areas at: https://fairsharing.org/browse/subject</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">Detailed information of the content of these three specific Collection, showing coverages and relationships, is available in their respective narrative reports available at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/H4R6M</span> +
Wildlife research can provide important scientific insights into biodiversity conservation, but it also raises ethical concerns regarding animal welfare, ecosystem disruption, and community involvement. As scientists and researchers work to understand animal behaviors and ecosystems, ethical considerations are becoming more critical than ever. In this session, you will learn about key ethical issues that arise in wildlife ecology research. The goal is to help various stakeholders involved in wildlife research integrate ethical thinking into every stage of their work, ensuring that wildlife research advances science while protecting the lives and landscapes it depends on.
Watch the video below on "Ethical Issues in Wildlife Ecology Research?” which gives an overview of practical ethical concerns of wildlife research. +
Now that we have learned about care ethics and the way in which care has been conceptualized and enacted by indigenous evironmental movements let's look at a particular story brought to us by a microplastic researcher. In this story we hear few examples of how care-based and environmentally aware practices can be embedded in the context of research.
Listen to the podcast below. +
[[File:A group of different people.jpg|center|frameless|600x600px]]
<div><div>
This checklist is intended for use as a supplement to the usual ethics review process regarding matters that are mainly specific to gene editing in humans. All usual aspects of research ethics review will also need to be considered, for instance, the appropriate processing of sensitive data or the involvement of vulnerable persons, like young children. Additionally, the checklist is not exhaustive;there may be other issues pertaining to individual studies that are not included here. Nevertheless, alongside general guidelines and processes, it provides a useful starting point for ethics reviewers.
'''<br />'''
'''1. Somatic or germline gene editing'''
a. Does the project aim to involve somatic or germline gene editing or both?
b. If germline gene editing, does the project comply with national legislation?
c. If germline gene editing, what steps have been undertaken to ensure societal acceptability?
d. If somatic gene editing, could the intervention affect the germline accidentally?
'''<br />'''
'''2. Novelty of gene editing in the project'''
a. Does the project use a novel technique, one that has already been tried in humans, or both?
b. If this is the first time it has been tested in humans, have comprehensive studies been undertaken in vitro and in animals to demonstrate proof of concept and safety?
c. If the technology has already been tested in humans, what do the findings tell us about potential risks and benefits?
'''<br />'''
'''3. Technological and other risks'''
a. Are risks of on-target effects clearly described and addressed?
b. Are risks of off-target effects clearly described and addressed?
c. Are risks of genetic mosaicism clearly described and addressed?
d. Are risks of immunogenicity clearly described and addressed?
e. Are risks associated with the treatment process clearly described and addressed?
f. Are risks of incidental findings clearly described and addressed?
'''4. Enhancement and slippery slope'''
a. Is the gene editing to be used purely for therapeutic purposes?
b. If for therapeutic purposes, are there risks that the technology could also be applied for enhancement purposes?
c. If so, how is this risk addressed?
'''5. Consent'''
a. How is the consent process being managed?
b. How is the option to opt out of the procedure being managed?
c. Is participant information sufficiently comprehensive and comprehensible so that the potential participants (or their legal representatives) will understand enough about the technology to assess the potential for harms and benefits meaningfully?
d. Are the potential participants being offered adequate support and time to reach a decision?
'''6. Data'''
a. What measures and protections are in place to prevent the exploitation of genetic and/or other biological data, for example, for profit?
b. What measures and protections are in place to prevent the misuse exploitation of genetic and/or other biological data and leading to, for example, discrimination, harassment, or marginalisation?
'''7. Equity'''
a. Who are the potential beneficiaries of this study?
b. Will the resultant therapy or other benefits be broadly accessible?
c. How are any matters of potential inequity in access addressed and justified?
'''8. Study justification'''
a. Is there a medical need for this study?
b. Might the same objectives be achieved via less risky and/or less costly methods?
[https://classroom.eneri.eu/sites/default/files/2024-10/Checklist%20for%20gene%20editing.pdf You can download the checklist here]
</div></div><div></div>
Yüz yüze alıştırmaları kolaylaştırıcı olarak yönetme ve kullanma konusundaki deneyim ve uzmanlığınıza dayanarak;katılımcılarla birlikte, kendi hedef gruplarının yeterlilik düzeyi ve öğrenme ihtiyaçları, bu grupların ayrıntılı olarak tartışmak istediği şeyler ve bu konuların alıştırmalara nasıl katılabileceği üzerine tartışın. Katılımcılara İyi Bilim Elçiliği web sitesindeki eğitim materyallerine nasıl erişebileceklerini gösterin. Ayrıca, bu platformdaki toplulukla platformun tartışma sayfası üzerinden nasıl etkileşime geçebileceklerini ve eğitim materyalleri üzerinde nasıl değişiklik talep edebileceklerini de açıklayabilirsiniz. +
[[File:Gene Image6.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
Gene editing and stem cell research intersect in many different ways. For instance, stem cells, particularly induced pluripotent stem cells, can be derived from patients with genetic diseases. These cells can then be edited using CRISPR-Cas9 to introduce or correct disease-causing mutations, allowing researchers to study the underlying mechanisms of the disease in a controlled laboratory environment. This approach can also be used to screen potential drugs for treating genetic disorders.
Additionally, by combining stem cell technology with gene editing techniques, researchers aim to develop more effective and targeted gene therapies for a wide range of disorders. There are three main types of stem cells, embryonic stem cells, induced pluripotent stem cells and adult stem cells. +
