Search by property

This page provides a simple browsing interface for finding entities described by a property and a named value. Other available search interfaces include the page property search, and the ask query builder.

List of results

Responsible Open Science: Video Lectures + (In this lecture, Olivier Le Gall articulat … In this lecture, Olivier Le Gall articulates the foundational principles of Open Science. The initial segment of the lecture addresses the rationale for opening science and provides a comprehensive overview of its concept. The subsequent segment delves into the core values and guiding principles underpinning Open Science. Finally, the concluding segment elucidates the anticipated social benefits derived from the implementation of Open Science.'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.''' '''Further reading:''' The Embassy of Good Science: “[[Theme:Bbf561cd-7369-4314-ac74-2c870373af9d|Open Science]]”UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. (2021) [https://doi.org/10.54677/MNMH8546 https://doi.org/10.54677/MNMH8546 ]H8546 https://doi.org/10.54677/MNMH8546 ])
Responsible Open Science: Video Lectures + (In this lecture, Olivier Le Gall discusses … In this lecture, Olivier Le Gall discusses the responsible preparation of open datasets. The lecture covers several key topics: initially, he examines what responsible data preparation entails and its significance. Subsequently, he addresses the issue of dual use, and finally, he explores the risks posed to third parties.'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.''' '''Further reading:''' ROSiE General Guidelines on Responsible Open Science. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10046520 Open Research Europe, “Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines” https://open-research-europe.ec.europa.eu/for-authors/data-guidelines/Klein, O., Hardwicke, T. E., Aust, F., Breuer, J., Danielsson, H., Mohr, A. H., IJzerman, H., Nilsonne, G., Vanpaemel, W., & Frank, M. C. (2018). A Practical Guide for Transparency in Psychological Science. Collabra: Psychology, 4(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.158 Berkowitz, H., & Delacour, H. (2022). Opening Research Data: What Does It Mean for Social Sciences?. M@n@gement, 25(4), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.37725/mgmt.v25.9123Pernet, C., Svarer, C., Blair, R., Van Horn, J. D., & Poldrack, R. A. (2023). On the long-term archiving of research data. Neuroinformatics, 21(2), 243-246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12021-023-09621-xGomes, D. G., Pottier, P., Crystal-Ornelas, R., Hudgins, E. J., Foroughirad, V., Sánchez-Reyes, L. L., ... & Gaynor, K. M. (2022). Why don't we share data and code? Perceived barriers and benefits to public archiving practices. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 289(1987), 20221113. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2022.111389(1987), 20221113. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2022.1113)
Responsible Open Science: Video Lectures + (In this lecture, Olivier Le Gall examines … In this lecture, Olivier Le Gall examines open peer review, highlighting both its benefits and potential risks. The presentation starts by elucidating the rationale behind open peer review, and proceeds to discuss its benefits as well as the associated risks of opening it.'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.''' '''Further reading:''' The Embassy of Good Science: “[[Theme:Ecc7ac02-6e53-4634-b053-91045c50390c|Open peer review - transparent way of gatekeeping science]]”Schmidt, B., Ross-Hellauer, T., Edig, X. van, & Moylan, E. C. (2018). Ten considerations for open peer review (7:969). F1000Research. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15334.1 Ross-Hellauer, T., & Horbach, S. P. J. M. (2024). Additional experiments required: A scoping review of recent evidence on key aspects of Open Peer Review. Research Evaluation, 33, rvae004. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae004 Henriquez, T. (2023). Open peer review, pros and cons from the perspective of an early career researcher. mBio, 14(5), e01948-23. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.01948-23, e01948-23. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.01948-23)
Responsible Open Science: Video Lectures + (In this lecture, Panagiotis Kavouras addre … 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://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-114157)
Responsible Open Science: Video Lectures + (In this lecture, Panagiotis Kavouras discu … In this lecture, Panagiotis Kavouras discusses trust and trustworthiness in Open Science. The first segment describes trust and its relevance to science and it argues that trustworthiness is a more pertinent concept in this context. Furthermore, it is explained that transparency in research conduct is a condition of trustworthiness. The second segment examines how transparency relates to Open Science practices and how it can be viewed in the context of translational research innovation.'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.''''''Further reading:''' Peels, R., & Bouter, L. (2023). Replication and trustworthiness. Accountability in Research, 30(2), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1963708Robert K. Merton, The Normative Structure of Science (1942). (n.d.). Retrieved July 22, 2025, from https://www.panarchy.org/merton/science.html Kerasidou, A. (2017). Trust me, I’m a researcher!: The role of trust in biomedical research. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 20(1), 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-016-9721-6–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-016-9721-6)
Responsible Open Science: Video Lectures + (In this lecture, Rosemarie Barnabe discuss … In this lecture, Rosemarie Barnabe discusses how different stakeholders – researchers, the broader research community, and the general public – can benefit from Open Science. The lecture introduces components of Open Science and explains how these components benefit different stakeholders. '''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.''' '''Further reading:''' UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. (2021) https://doi.org/10.54677/MNMH8546 Tennant, J. P., Waldner, F., Jacques, D. C., Masuzzo, P., Collister, L. B., & Hartgerink, C. H. J. (2016). The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: An evidence-based review (5:632). F1000Research. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8460.3 Catalano, G., Delugas, E., & Vignetti, S. (2025). Costs and Benefits of Open Science: Contributing to the Development of a Rigorous Assessment Framework. In J. Gutleber & P. Charitos (Eds.), The Economics of Big Science 2.0: Essays by Leading Scientists and Policymakers (pp. 127–135). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-60931-2_10Arza, V., & Fressoli, M. (2017). Systematizing benefits of open science practices. Information Services and Use, 37(4), 463–474. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-170861Meskus, M., Marelli, L., & D’Agostino, G. (2017). Research Misconduct in the Age of Open Science: The Case of STAP Stem Cells. Science as Culture, 27(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2017.1316975 <div></div>–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2017.1316975 <div></div>)
Responsible Open Science: Video Lectures + (In this lecture, Rosemarie Bernabe address … In this lecture, Rosemarie Bernabe addresses the ethical challenges associated with implementing Open Science in practice. The lecture provides an overview through various examples of ethical and integrity issues encountered in Open Science practice. These include the risk of spreading misinformation, the emergence of new biases related to alternative metrics, among other concerns.'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.''' '''Further reading:''' ROSiE General Guidelines on Responsible Open Science. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10046520 UNESCO (2023). Open science outlook 1: status and trends around the world. https://doi.org/10.54677/GIIC6829 Kingsley, D. (2025, March 30). Show your working: How the ‘open science’ movement tackles scientific misconduct. The Conversation. http://theconversation.com/show-your-working-how-the-open-science-movement-tackles-scientific-misconduct-249020 Düwell, M. (2019). Open science and ethics. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 22(5), 1051-1053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-019-10053-3 Lindemann, T., & Häberlein, L. (2023). Contours of a research ethics and integrity perspective on open science. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 8, 1052353. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2023.1052353 Laine, H. (2018). Open science and codes of conduct on research integrity. Informaatiotutkimus, 37(4). https://doi.org/10.23978/inf.77414mus, 37(4). https://doi.org/10.23978/inf.77414)
Responsible Open Science: Video Lectures + (In this lecture, Søren Holm addresses prob … In this lecture, Søren Holm addresses problematic research practices that vary in severity from definite research misconduct to questionable practices. The initial segment of the lecture examines malpractice related to the provision of open data. The subsequent segment focuses on the misuse of open data and discusses issues concerning open code, materials, and open publication.'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.''''''Further reading:''' The Embassy of Good Science: “[[Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c#Research%20misconduct|Research Misconduct]]” Flanagin, A., Fontanarosa, P. B., & Bauchner, H. (2020). Preprints Involving Medical Research—Do the Benefits Outweigh the Challenges? JAMA, 324(18), 1840–1843. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.20674–1843. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.20674)
Responsible Open Science: Video Lectures + (In this lecture, Søren Holm examines the a … In this lecture, Søren Holm examines the appropriate methods for crediting the various contributions made by researchers and other participants in Open Science projects. The first segment concentrates on authorship and contributorship, while the second segment addresses the proper acknowledgement of contributions made by citizen scientists.'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.''''''Further reading:''' [https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html#two ICMJE, Recommendations, Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors.][https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2322557 Hosseini, M., Holcombe, A. O., Kovacs, M., Zwart, H., Katz, D. S., & Holmes, K. (2025). Group authorship, an excellent opportunity laced with ethical, legal and technical challenges. Accountability in Research, 32(5), 762–784]. [https://credit.niso.org/ CRediT]. (n.d.). CRediT.[https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00097 Larivière, V., Pontille, D., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2021). Investigating the division of scientific labor using the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT). Quantitative Science Studies, 2(1), 111–128].iT). Quantitative Science Studies, 2(1), 111–128].)
Responsible Open Science: Video Lectures + (In this lecture, Søren Holm outlines vario … In this lecture, Søren Holm outlines various practices to prevent research malpractice in Open Science. The first section of the lecture covers methods to avoid malpractice with open data, open code, and open materials and research sites. The second section examines Open Science beyond data and across borders. Lastly, the third section explores whether improved peer review practices can address issues related to research malpractice in Open Science.'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.''''''Further reading:''' Kingsley, D. (2025, March 30). Show your working: How the ‘open science’ movement tackles scientific misconduct. The Conversation. http://theconversation.com/show-your-working-how-the-open-science-movement-tackles-scientific-misconduct-249020Mabile, L., Shmagun, H., Erdmann, C., Cambon-Thomsen, A., Thomsen, M., & Grattarola, F. (2025). Recommendations on Open Science Rewards and Incentives: Guidance for Multiple Stakeholders in Research. Data Science Journal, 24. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2025-015rnal, 24. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2025-015)
Responsible Open Science: Video Lectures + (In this lecture, Theodora Konach discusses … In this lecture, Theodora Konach discusses intellectual property rights and how to use them in a responsible way within the Open Science framework. The first segment provides a brief introduction to intellectual property rights. Further, the next segment discusses principles of copyright and some other related basic concepts. The third segment outlines relevant exceptions and limitations to copyright. Finally, the fourth segment focuses on the public domain and open source as a resource of creativity and knowledge. '''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.''' '''Further reading:''' Aligning Intellectual Property Rights with Open Science. https://allea.org/portfolio-item/aligning-intellectual-property-rights-with-open-science European Commission: European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency, Your guide to IP and contracts – Stay ahead of the innovation game, Publications Office of the European Union, 2020, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2826/607724 European Commission: Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, Your guide to IP in Europe, Publications Office, 2019, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2826/94924European Commission: Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, European IP Helpdesk – Copyright, Publications Office of the European Union, 2021, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2826/128833 UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science (2021) https://doi.org/10.54677/MNMH8546Unitary Patent. https://www.epo.org/en/applying/european/unitary/unitary-patentCreative Commons Certificate Resources, Course Content 2021 and 2022; https://certificates.creativecommons.org/about/certificate-resources-cc-by/WIPO, (2016), Understanding Copyright and Related Rights, (2nd ed.) Geneva, https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_909_2016.pdfEuropean Commission: Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, New Directive on Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Single Market, Publications Office, 2019, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2826/429252WIPO, Summary of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886). https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/summary_berne.html The Europeana Public Domain Charter. https://pro.europeana.eu/post/the-europeana-public-domain-charter Statement of Principles on Copyright Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives (2009). https://www.ifla.org/publications/statement-of-principles-on-copyright-exceptions-and-limitations-for-libraries-and-archives-2009/ Ethics and Intangible Cultural Heritage—UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage. https://ich.unesco.org/en/ethics-and-ich-00866s://ich.unesco.org/en/ethics-and-ich-00866)
Virtues and Norms + (In this step you invite participants to pu … In this step you invite participants to put themselves in the case presenter’s shoes and think about which facts in the case need more clarification to gain a better understanding of the situation. All the relevant questions, which enable participants to put themselves in the shoes of the case presenter, should be asked at this point. presenter, should be asked at this point.)
The Environmental Cost of AI: What Can we do about it? + (In this step you’ll learn about the energy and resource demands of generative AI, as well as realistic strategies that reduce environmental impacts while maintaining performance.)
04 - Moral Case Deliberation: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity + (In this step, participants are invited to … In this step, participants are invited to draw conclusions and develop a plan for action. The facilitator returns to the moral question formulated at the start of the MCD and asks the group to make explicit their conclusions. Reaching consensus is not necessary; the conclusion can also be that there is a plurality of ideas with different practical implications.eas with different practical implications.)
04 - Moral Case Deliberation: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity + (In this step, similarities and differences … In this step, similarities and differences between the individual considerations are examined. Sometimes, two participants make a different choice based on the same value. Alternatively, participants may choose the same option based on different values or norms. Identifying similarities and differences may lead to better understanding and a better insight of what is at stake in a specific case.ht of what is at stake in a specific case.)
04 - Moral Case Deliberation: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity + (In this step, the case presenter’s underly … In this step, the case presenter’s underlying moral question is made explicit. By formulating his/her moral question, the other participants can better understand what is at stake and what (morally) matters for the case presenter. Furthermore, to make the moral question more concrete, the case presenter is asked to formulate the situation in terms of a dilemma: what are the concrete choices available in this situation?crete choices available in this situation?)
Add and edit Theme pages + (In this step, you can learn to edit any th … In this step, you can learn to edit any theme page on the Embassy. Click the video to learn how.<div class="video-button" data-href="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-DX1TfHjXc4">Editing Theme Pages1:01 min</div>; 1:01 min </div>)
Add and edit Theme pages + (In this step, you will learn how to add yo … In this step, you will learn how to add your own theme pages on all topics related to research ethics and research integrity.Click the video below to see how you can make your own!<div class="video-button" data-href="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nuxciN6pT0g">Adding Theme Pages0:58 min</div>; 0:58 min </div>)
Circularity in Research and Innovation + (In this third and final exercise we summar … In this third and final exercise we summarise the key content that emerged from the previous two activities, while also helping you gain a deeper understanding of the 9R framework and its practical implications. The 9R strategy is a practical framework in the circular economy that guides how we can minimize waste and maximize the value of materials throughout their lifecycle. It emphasizes preventing unnecessary use, extending product life, and responsibly reusing, repairing, or recycling materials. By applying the 9R principles, we can design more sustainable systems that reduce environmental impact and support social and economic wellbeing.and support social and economic wellbeing.)
Preparatory Viewing: Introduction to Concepts & Themes + (In this video, ethical and unethical resea … In this video, ethical and unethical research behaviors are explained. [[File: Ethical decision making4.png|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRBJxLo6k5s&list=PLabbUwyulArzx9SIqxfDXbtTELS8uWdFD&index=3]]The video translates three common frameworks for ethical analysis (deontology, consequentialism, virtue ethics) into the context of research. These frameworks are described as complementary, since science may be seen as a communal practice that strives towards a common good (utilitarianism), which can only be done in compliance with certain principles, rules, and codes inherent in the scientific endeavor (deontology). Virtue ethics may foster the best side of deontology and consequentialism, as a virtuous person is both informed by rules or beneficial consequences and knows how to apply rules and how to appreciate consequences by having insight into concrete situations.uences by having insight into concrete situations.)
Expert Dialogues on Pandemic Preparedness by PREPARED + (In times of crisis, policy-makers urgently … In times of crisis, policy-makers urgently need advice from researchers. Can such advice take ethical values into consideration? [https://prepared-project.eu/ PREPARED] developed an ethics brief format around fairness, respect, care and honesty and launched a first brief with [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01014-z NATURE coverage] in April 2023. The PREPARED team met at the UNESCO headquarters in Paris in early June. Watch this annotated video and learn more about bringing ethics into policy making.Click below to watch the annotated video. Click below to watch the annotated video.)
Organizing the training + (Inform your trainees about what to do in p … Inform your trainees about what to do in preparation for the training by asking them to read "Preparation for Virt2ue training" (for trainees). Set clear deadlines and give clear instructions (including contact details) for the submission of the required preparatory material (i.e. Self-declaration sheet and case reflection form).claration sheet and case reflection form).)
IRECS Training format (template) + (Introduce a case (please select one among … Introduce a case (please select one among the ones presented in the IRECs module on the topic of the session). Ask participants to identify the main ethical issues in the case (the aim to increase awareness of the issues related with the topic introduced in the session). You can use the following question to encourage conversation among participants:- What are the main ethical issues in this case?'''Trainer Tip''' Allow for a brief open discussion but keep it focused to ensure you stay within the allocated time.but keep it focused to ensure you stay within the allocated time.)
IRECS Training format (template) + (Introduce a case (please select one among … Introduce a case (please select one among the ones presented in the IRECs module on the topic of the session). Ask participants to identify the main ethical issues in the case (the aim to increase awareness of the issues related with the topic introduced in the session). You can use the following question to encourage conversation among participants: - What are the main ethical issues in this case?'''Trainer Tip''' Allow for a brief open discussion but keep it focused to ensure you stay within the allocated time.but keep it focused to ensure you stay within the allocated time.)
Debate and Dialogue + (Introduce the exercise by explaining its g … Introduce the exercise by explaining its goals (recognizing a moral dilemma, experiencing the difference between debate and dialogue, and understanding the value of dialogical attitude for fostering reflection in others) and explain the importance for research integrity. Make clear that for this exercise it is important to focus primarily on the process of the interaction. That means that the content of the case is of secondary importance and will mainly be used to foster a process of debate and/or dialogue.oster a process of debate and/or dialogue.)

Varieties of goodness in research - a rotary style exercise (variation to original VIRT2UE exercise)) + (Introduce the exercise, it's objectives and the 'varieties of goodness'.)

Mind-mapping exercise: Instructions for training researchers about ethics issues on gene editing + (Introduce the technique of mind-mapping st … Introduce the technique of mind-mapping stating why it is useful and how you are going to use it in the session. Mind-mapping is combined with a presentation of a case extracted from the irecs modules Gene editing: Ethics issues ([https://classroom.eneri.eu/node/308 A Case Of Gene Editing In Human Embryos Eneri]). You can use the information below to guide your participants: <div>'''3.1 Mind-mapping: explain what it is and why is it useful''' </div><div>''Mind-mapping: A brainstorming technique to visually organize information in groups and subgroups'' </div><div>*''Encourages lateral thinking, pushing to explore and investigate a topic from different angles''*''Organizing thoughts and concepts and identifying knowledge gaps''*''Reflecting while creating, allowing for an informal and comfortable space for reflexivity''''Allows to use it in combination with a case, as we will do today!'''''3.2 Explain and provide the instructions for the exercise.''' It is important that you do that before the presentation of the case, so participants can focus on one thing at a time. Before showing the case, you should provide the following instructions - it is better if the instructions are in a slide: *''First - division in subgroups, provision of jamboard/whiteboard''*''Second - Screening of the case''*''Third - Go to the Jamboard/whiteboard!''</div>*''Step 1 – assign a spokesperson in your group!''*''Step 2 – 5 min. Individual reflection - write single words related to the case on the jamboard. Do this step in silence. What are the words that come to your mind after hearing and watching this case?''*''Step 3 – 10 min. Start talking as a group. Organise the small concepts in big groups.''*''Step 4 – 10 min. Refine each category into smaller subgroups.'' *''Step 5 – 15 min. Back to plenary, discussion and reporting back.''<div><div>Trainer tip: Prepare the jamboards/physical boards and some sticky notes of various colors previously, and have the instructions always available for participants, so they can do their exercise autonomously. In step 2, you can decide if you want to give categories (such as: ''as: '''Benefits, Harms, Principles, Responsibilities''''') or if you want to keep the decision of the categories to participants.<div>'''3.3 Present the case, using the irecs video on the CRISPR-Cas9 case of Lulu and Nana.''' You can find it here: [https://classroom.eneri.eu/node/308 A Case Of Gene Editing In Human Embryos Eneri] - screening the video makes the session more interactive. If you cannot screen it, you can prepare a slide and read the text outloud. </div><div>'''3.4 After the video, divide the group in smaller subgroups and start the exercise of mind-mapping:'''*Divide participants into subgroups (4-5 members). Provide each group with a white board/digital board and some sticky notes of various colors. *Remind participants to assign a spokesperson in each group before they start the exercise! This is an important step!*Always keep the instructions (in the previous section) on the screen.*Walk around the subgroups (or jump from room to room if you are providing the training online) to make sure that they are following the steps.*You can spark conversation by using the following example questions in case some groups are quiet:*What are the main ethical concerns related to this case?*What potential benefits could result from this technology?*What potential harms might arise from using this technology? Why?*What principles (e.g., justice, autonomy) are most relevant to this case?*How do these issues appear in practice? What is an action that can arise of those?</div><div>Trainer tip: Keep track of time. You can have small breaks and check in with each subgroup while jumping from step to step to make sure that all the group is following the structure of the exercise. '''3.5 After the exercise, make all groups go back to the plenary''' *Ask the spokesperson of each group to present their analysis (5 minutes per group, depending on the number of groups).*Facilitate a plenary discussion to connect insights to real-world practices. Ask participants about their own experiences, (e.g. related real life examples they want to share them with the group). This part can be very interesting and insightful for participants, since it connects the exercise to real world practice, so it is good to keep time and energy for it. To prompt the discussion you can make use of the following questions:*How did you experience the exercise?*Did your view change?*Do you see any similarities in real life experiences?*Were you surprised by any particular point that was raised during the discussions?</div>ow did you experience the exercise? *Did your view change? *Do you see any similarities in real life experiences? *Were you surprised by any particular point that was raised during the discussions? </div>)
Mind-mapping exercise: Instructions for training researchers about ethics issues on gene editing + (Introduce the technique of mind-mapping st … Introduce the technique of mind-mapping stating why it is useful and how you are going to use it in the session. Mind-mapping is combined with a presentation of a case extracted from the irecs modules Gene editing: Ethics issues ([https://classroom.eneri.eu/node/308 A Case Of Gene Editing In Human Embryos Eneri]). You can use the information below to guide your participants:<div>'''3.1 Mind-mapping: explain what it is and why is it useful'''</div><div>''Mind-mapping: A brainstorming technique to visually organize information in groups and subgroups''</div><div>*''Encourages lateral thinking, pushing to explore and investigate a topic from different angles''*''Organizing thoughts and concepts and identifying knowledge gaps''*''Reflecting while creating, allowing for an informal and comfortable space for reflexivity''''Allows to use it in combination with a case, as we will do today!'''''3.2 Explain and provide the instructions for the exercise.'''It is important that you do that before the presentation of the case, so participants can focus on one thing at a time. Before showing the case, you should provide the following instructions - it is better if the instructions are in a slide:*''First - division in subgroups, provision of jamboard/whiteboard''*''Second - Screening of the case''*''Third - Go to the Jamboard/whiteboard!''*''Step 1 – assign a spokesperson in your group!''*''Step 2 – 5 min. Individual reflection - write single words related to the case on the jamboard. Do this step in silence. What are the words that come to your mind after hearing and watching this case?''*''Step 3 – 10 min. Start talking as a group. Organise the small concepts in big groups.''*''Step 4 – 10 min. Refine each category into smaller subgroups.'' *''Step 5 – 15 min. Back to plenary, discussion and reporting back.''</div><div><div>Trainer tip: Prepare the jamboards/physical boards and some sticky notes of various colors previously, and have the instructions always available for participants, so they can do their exercise autonomously. In step 2, you can decide if you want to give categories (such as: ''as: '''Benefits, Harms, Principles, Responsibilities''''') or if you want to keep the decision of the categories to participants.</div><div>'''3.3 Present the case, using the irecs video on the CRISPR-Cas9 case of Lulu and Nana.'''You can find it here: [https://classroom.eneri.eu/node/308 A Case Of Gene Editing In Human Embryos Eneri] - screening the video makes the session more interactive. If you cannot screen it, you can prepare a slide and read the text outloud.</div><div>'''3.4 After the video, divide the group in smaller subgroups and start the exercise of mind-mapping:'''*Divide participants into subgroups (4-5 members). Provide each group with a white board/digital board and some sticky notes of various colors. *Remind participants to assign a spokesperson in each group before they start the exercise! This is an important step!*Always keep the instructions (in the previous section) on the screen.*Walk around the subgroups (or jump from room to room if you are providing the training online) to make sure that they are following the steps. You can spark conversation by using the following example questions in case some groups are quiet:*What are the main ethical concerns related to this case?*What potential benefits could result from this technology?*What potential harms might arise from using this technology? Why?*What principles (e.g., justice, autonomy) are most relevant to this case?*How do these issues appear in practice? What is an action that can arise of those?</div><div></div><div>Trainer tip: Keep track of time. You can have small breaks and check in with each subgroup while jumping from step to step to make sure that all the group is following the structure of the exercise. '''3.5 After the exercise, make all groups go back to the plenary'''*Ask the spokesperson of each group to present their analysis (5 minutes per group, depending on the number of groups).*Facilitate a plenary discussion to connect insights to real-world practices. Ask participants about their own experiences, (e.g. related real life examples they want to share them with the group). This part can be very interesting and insightful for participants, since it connects the exercise to real world practice, so it is good to keep time and energy for it. To prompt the discussion you can make use of the following questions*How did you experience the exercise?*Did your view change?*Do you see any similarities in real life experiences?*Were you surprised by any particular point that was raised during the discussions?</div></div>questions *How did you experience the exercise? *Did your view change? *Do you see any similarities in real life experiences? *Were you surprised by any particular point that was raised during the discussions? </div></div>)
Modified Dilemma Game + (Introduce yourself. Briefly inform participants about the background, the aim, and the description of the game. Emphasize that the information shared during the exercise should be kept confidential.)
Virtues and Norms + (Invite participants to look at the overvie … Invite participants to look at the overview and ask the following questions in order to foster reflection: o What do you perceive as remarkable?o Are there similarities/differences between different perspectives? Are they in conflict with each other?o Are these virtues also mentioned or implied in the European Code for Research Integrity? If yes which ones?o Are we able to select a virtue which is supposed to be the most important in this situation? If so, why is this virtue the most important?o Putting yourselves in the case presenter’s shoes: what do you need (concretely) to act upon the virtue which the group selected? Are there any constraints?Report people’s answers on the board. You can use different colours, underline words, and take short notes.If you are using this exercise for the first time please use the above questions to facilitate a dialogical reflection. Don’t forget to mention the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. You could even consider bringing a copy of the code with you. Do not take too long for each question. If people start debating, or if they go off topic, guide them back towards the question at stake. If people cannot agree on one virtue that is also fine. Report the different conclusions on the table. TIP:Don't be afraid of silence. Let people think about the answer. Give them time but not too much, if there are no inputs move on. too much, if there are no inputs move on.)
Modified Dilemma Game + (Invite participants to reflect on their in … Invite participants to reflect on their individual choices and engage in a conversation with each other using the dialogical attitude. Provide a framework to create awareness of the socially desirable answer. You can support this by introducing the following questions: a. What would you do? Why? b. What would you ''ideally'' do? Why? b. What would you ''ideally'' do? Why?)
Virtues and Norms + (Invite participants to think about the ent … Invite participants to think about the entire process: what is the take home message of this session for them? Try to draw conclusions by asking participants:o Was it easy or difficult to relate the virtues and norms to each other? Why?o Did putting yourself in the case presenter’s shoes broaden the way you looked at virtues and, consequently norms and behaviors?o Did the virtues and norms/behaviors identified by others help you to look at virtues differently or more broadly? Do you think that will influence your thinking on research integrity dilemmas in practice?n research integrity dilemmas in practice?)
Virtues and Norms + (Invite the case presenter to describe the … Invite the case presenter to describe the case (previously selected) by focusing on why the case is experienced as morally troublesome. You and the group can help the case presenter to formulate the (two sides of) the dilemma (i.e. should I do A or B?). Yet, the case presenter determines what is the right formulation of their dilemma. In this phase try to focus on two alternative courses of action and avoid exploring third options or creative solutions. This helps to bring focus to the dialogue and encourages people not to start looking for a quick solutions or a way out of the dilemmas. Write down the dilemma and key words describing the case on a flip-chart.words describing the case on a flip-chart.)
Reflecting on Experiences and Practicing Exercises + (Invite trainees to facilitate exercises in the way they did in their own work setting give then feedback and ask them to elaborate on possible modifications in the structure or steps of the exercises.)
Specific Research Ethics and Integrity Considerations for Crisis Research + (Is it ethical to intentionally infect heal … Is it ethical to intentionally infect healthy volunteers with a deadly virus? This video discusses the ethical controversy surrounding human challenge studies, particularly those involving SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. While these studies can be valuable for scientific progress, they raise concerns about the Hippocratic Oath, which states "first do no harm." Human challenge studies have been used in the development of other vaccines, such as malaria. However, the comparison between malaria and COVID-19 is problematic, as there are approved treatment options for malaria, while at the time of the early COVID-19 human challenge studies, there were no treatment options. Additionally, COVID-19 can cause potentially severe long-term complications.otentially severe long-term complications.)
01 - Value Analysis: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity + (Is there a positive balance between good and bad consequences?)
05 - REalistiC Decisions: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity + (Is there disagreement between members of the committee? *On which issues and views do we disagree? *What reasons are given that either support or undermine my Early View?)
THE PREPARED CODE: A Global Code of Conduct for Research during Pandemics + (It is vital that researchers uphold the highest standards of research integrity, even when under significant pressure, to ensure the reliability of pandemic research results and to maintain public trust in science)
Münazara ve Diyalog + (Katılımcı grubunuzu iki alt gruba ayırın v … Katılımcı grubunuzu iki alt gruba ayırın ve her bir gruba ikilemdeki seçeneklerden hangisini savunacaklarını söyleyin. Alt grupları iki şekilde oluşturabilirsiniz: A) Katılımcılar kendileri bir tarafı seçebilir ya da B) eğitmen katılımcıları gruplara ayırabilir. Her iki yaklaşımın da göz önünde bulundurulması gereken kendine özgü olumlu ve olumsuz yönleri vardır: A seçeneğinde katılımcılar gruplarını kendileri tercih ettikleri için zaten benimsemiş oldukları tarafı/düşünceyi kolaylıkla savunma eğilimine gireceklerdir. B seçeneğinde ise benimsemedikleri bir görüşü savunmayı öğrenmek durumunda kalabilirler; bu da kendi savunacakları taraf için argüman aramak zorunda kalacakları anlamına gelir. Grubunuz içerisinde hiyerarşik bir yapı varsa – örneğin danışmanlar ve (doktora düzeyindeki) öğrenciler gibi – alt grupları oluştururken dikkatli davranmanız gerekecektir. Böyle bir durumda grupların eğitmen tarafından oluşturulması tavsiye edilir. Bu sayede katılımcılar bulundukları gruba eğitmen tarafından yerleştirildikleri için üstleriyle tartışırken daha az sıkıntı yaşayacaklardır.Toplantı salonunda yeterli alan varsa iki alt grubu karşılıklı olarak oturtun. Yani gruplar birbirinin karşısında konumlansın. Münazaraya başlamadan önce her bir gruba karşı grubu ikna edebilmek için gerekli argüman ve stratejiler üzerine düşünebilmeleri için birkaç dakika verin. düşünebilmeleri için birkaç dakika verin.)
Münazara ve Diyalog + (Katılımcı grubunuzu iki alt gruba ayırın v … Katılımcı grubunuzu iki alt gruba ayırın ve her bir gruba ikilemdeki seçeneklerden hangisini savunacaklarını söyleyin. Alt grupları iki şekilde oluşturabilirsiniz: A) Katılımcılar kendileri bir tarafı seçebilir ya da B) eğitmen katılımcıları gruplara ayırabilir. Her iki yaklaşımın da göz önünde bulundurulması gereken kendine özgü olumlu ve olumsuz yönleri vardır: A seçeneğinde katılımcılar gruplarını kendileri tercih ettikleri için zaten benimsemiş oldukları tarafı/düşünceyi kolaylıkla savunma eğilimine gireceklerdir. B seçeneğinde ise benimsemedikleri bir görüşü savunmayı öğrenmek durumunda kalabilirler; bu da kendi savunacakları taraf için argüman aramak zorunda kalacakları anlamına gelir. Grubunuz içerisinde hiyerarşik bir yapı varsa – örneğin danışmanlar ve (doktora düzeyindeki) öğrenciler gibi – alt grupları oluştururken dikkatli davranmanız gerekecektir. Böyle bir durumda grupların eğitmen tarafından oluşturulması tavsiye edilir. Bu sayede katılımcılar bulundukları gruba eğitmen tarafından yerleştirildikleri için üstleriyle tartışırken daha az sıkıntı yaşayacaklardır.Toplantı salonunda yeterli alan varsa iki alt grubu karşılıklı olarak oturtun. Yani gruplar birbirinin karşısında konumlansın. Münazaraya başlamadan önce her bir gruba karşı grubu ikna edebilmek için gerekli argüman ve stratejiler üzerine düşünebilmeleri için birkaç dakika verin. düşünebilmeleri için birkaç dakika verin.)
Münazara ve Diyalog + (Katılımcı grubunuzu iki alt gruba ayırın v … Katılımcı grubunuzu iki alt gruba ayırın ve her bir gruba ikilemdeki seçeneklerden hangisini savunacaklarını söyleyin. Alt grupları iki şekilde oluşturabilirsiniz: A) Katılımcılar kendileri bir tarafı seçebilir ya da B) eğitmen katılımcıları gruplara ayırabilir. Her iki yaklaşımın da göz önünde bulundurulması gereken kendine özgü olumlu ve olumsuz yönleri vardır: A seçeneğinde katılımcılar gruplarını kendileri tercih ettikleri için zaten benimsemiş oldukları tarafı/düşünceyi kolaylıkla savunma eğilimine gireceklerdir. B seçeneğinde ise benimsemedikleri bir görüşü savunmayı öğrenmek durumunda kalabilirler; bu da kendi savunacakları taraf için argüman aramak zorunda kalacakları anlamına gelir. Grubunuz içerisinde hiyerarşik bir yapı varsa – örneğin danışmanlar ve (doktora düzeyindeki) öğrenciler gibi – alt grupları oluştururken dikkatli davranmanız gerekecektir. Böyle bir durumda grupların eğitmen tarafından oluşturulması tavsiye edilir. Bu sayede katılımcılar bulundukları gruba eğitmen tarafından yerleştirildikleri için üstleriyle tartışırken daha az sıkıntı yaşayacaklardır.Toplantı salonunda yeterli alan varsa iki alt grubu karşılıklı olarak oturtun. Yani gruplar birbirinin karşısında konumlansın. Münazaraya başlamadan önce her bir gruba karşı grubu ikna edebilmek için gerekli argüman ve stratejiler üzerine düşünebilmeleri için birkaç dakika verin. düşünebilmeleri için birkaç dakika verin.)
Deneyimler üzerine fikir yürütme ve alıştırmaları uygulama + (Katılımcılara eğitimin genel hedeflerini hatırlatın ve kendilerinden alıştırmaların spesifik hedefleri ve bunların eğitimin genel hedeflerine yaptığı katkılar konusunda fikir yürütmelerini isteyin.)
Deneyimler üzerine fikir yürütme ve alıştırmaları uygulama + (Katılımcılara sertifikalı VIRT2UE eğitmeni … Katılımcılara sertifikalı VIRT2UE eğitmeni olabilmek için 10 farklı kişiye (tercihen eğitmenlere) bu eğitimi vermeleri gerektiğini hatırlatın. Eğitimin eğitmenlere verilmesinin mümkün olmaması durumunda eğitmen olma potansiyeli olan araştırmacılara verilmesi de mümkündür.an araştırmacılara verilmesi de mümkündür.)
Öz beyan yaklaşımı, araştırmada iyiliğin farklı şekilleri üzerine fikir yürütme + (Katılımcılara, öz beyan formunda verilen y … Katılımcılara, öz beyan formunda verilen yanıtların yalnızca ve yalnızca sınıf içinde, eğitim amaçlı olarak kullanılacağını hatırlatın ve formlarda sadece sınıfla rahatça paylaşabilecekleri ve zorunlu raporlama yapılmasını gerektirmeyecek bilgileri paylaşmaları gerektiğini belirtin. Bu alıştırma için katılımcılara gizlilik beyanı imzalatmanız şiddetle tavsiye edilir.yanı imzalatmanız şiddetle tavsiye edilir.)
Münazara ve Diyalog + (Katılımcılardan diyaloğun değeri ve grup h … Katılımcılardan diyaloğun değeri ve grup halinde gerçekleştirilecek fikir yürütme/yorumlama süreçlerini teşvik etmede nasıl kullanılabileceği üzerine düşünmelerini isteyin. Araştırmanın hedefleri ile ilgili olarak çıkarılan genel dersler üzerine odaklanın. Bunun için aşağıda örnek olarak verilmiş olan soruları sorabilirsiniz:* Alıştırmanın hedeflerini göz önünde bulundurarak: bu alıştırmadan neler öğrendiniz? Daha spesifik olarak:i. Diyalog ve münazara kavramlarının güçlü yanlarına ilişkin farkındalığınız arttı mı?ii. Diyalog yönteminin fikir yürütme süreçlerinde bir araç olarak nasıl kullanılacağını ve bu şekilde kullanılmasının nasıl teşvik edileceğini öğrenmeniz açısından bu alıştırmanın faydalı olduğunu düşünüyor musunuz?iii. Alıştırmadan çıkardığınız başka dersler var mı?* Bu alıştırmadan çıkardığınız dersler gelecekteki eylemlerinizi nasıl etkileyecek?* Diyaloğu teşvik etmek için nelere ihtiyaç duyarsınız?şvik etmek için nelere ihtiyaç duyarsınız?)
Münazara ve Diyalog + (Katılımcılardan diyaloğun değeri ve grup h … Katılımcılardan diyaloğun değeri ve grup halinde gerçekleştirilecek fikir yürütme/yorumlama süreçlerini teşvik etmede nasıl kullanılabileceği üzerine düşünmelerini isteyin. Araştırmanın hedefleri ile ilgili olarak çıkarılan genel dersler üzerine odaklanın. Bunun için aşağıda örnek olarak verilmiş olan soruları sorabilirsiniz:* Alıştırmanın hedeflerini göz önünde bulundurarak: bu alıştırmadan neler öğrendiniz? Daha spesifik olarak:i. Diyalog ve münazara kavramlarının güçlü yanlarına ilişkin farkındalığınız arttı mı?ii. Diyalog yönteminin fikir yürütme süreçlerinde bir araç olarak nasıl kullanılacağını ve bu şekilde kullanılmasının nasıl teşvik edileceğini öğrenmeniz açısından bu alıştırmanın faydalı olduğunu düşünüyor musunuz?iii. Alıştırmadan çıkardığınız başka dersler var mı? * Bu alıştırmadan çıkardığınız dersler gelecekteki eylemlerinizi nasıl etkileyecek?* Diyaloğu teşvik etmek için nelere ihtiyaç duyarsınız?şvik etmek için nelere ihtiyaç duyarsınız?)
Münazara ve Diyalog + (Katılımcılardan diyaloğun değeri ve grup h … Katılımcılardan diyaloğun değeri ve grup halinde gerçekleştirilecek fikir yürütme/yorumlama süreçlerini teşvik etmede nasıl kullanılabileceği üzerine düşünmelerini isteyin. Araştırmanın hedefleri ile ilgili olarak çıkarılan genel dersler üzerine odaklanın. Bunun için aşağıda örnek olarak verilmiş olan soruları sorabilirsiniz:* Alıştırmanın hedeflerini göz önünde bulundurarak: bu alıştırmadan neler öğrendiniz? Daha spesifik olarak:i. Diyalog ve münazara kavramlarının güçlü yanlarına ilişkin farkındalığınız arttı mı?ii. Diyalog yönteminin fikir yürütme süreçlerinde bir araç olarak nasıl kullanılacağını ve bu şekilde kullanılmasının nasıl teşvik edileceğini öğrenmeniz açısından bu alıştırmanın faydalı olduğunu düşünüyor musunuz?iii. Alıştırmadan çıkardığınız başka dersler var mı?* Bu alıştırmadan çıkardığınız dersler gelecekteki eylemlerinizi nasıl etkileyecek?* Diyaloğu teşvik etmek için nelere ihtiyaç duyarsınız?şvik etmek için nelere ihtiyaç duyarsınız?)
Uyarlanmış ikilem oyunu + (Katılımcılardan grup halinde çalışarak tabloları doldurmalarını isteyin. Gruplara bir sonraki aşamada yürüttükleri tartışmanın sonuçlarını sunmak üzere grup üyelerinden birini sözcü olarak seçmelerini önerebilirsiniz.)
Uyarlanmış ikilem oyunu + (Katılımcılardan gruplar içerisinde tartışı … Katılımcılardan gruplar içerisinde tartışılanlara ilişkin kısa bir özet sunmalarını isteyin. Toplu bir oturum yapılması katılımcıların birbirlerine sorular sormasına, yapılan seçimlerin ardında yatan sebeplerin anlaşılmasına ve daha genel temaların belirlenmesine yardımcı olacaktır. Bu aşamada katılımcılardan diğerlerini aktif bir biçimde dinlemelerini ve görüşlerini açıkça dile getirmelerini isteyin.şlerini açıkça dile getirmelerini isteyin.)
Uyarlanmış ikilem oyunu + (Katılımcılardan oturumu ve sizin kolaylaşt … Katılımcılardan oturumu ve sizin kolaylaştırıcı olarak performansınızı kısaca değerlendirmelerini isteyin. Bu noktada katılımcılara aşağıdakilere benzer sorular sorabilirsiniz:- Verilen talimatlar yeterince açık mıydı?- Ele alınan vakanın uygun olduğunu düşünüyor musunuz?- Oturumun farklı bir şekilde gerçekleştirilmesine yönelik önerileriniz var mı?- Bu oturumun güçlü yanları nelerdi?- Geliştirilmesi gereken noktalar var mı? Geliştirilmesi gereken noktalar var mı?)
Erdemler ve Normlar + (Katılımcılardan panodaki genel tabloya bak … Katılımcılardan panodaki genel tabloya bakmalarını isteyin ve fikir yürütme sürecini desteklemek için aşağıdaki soruları sorun:o Neler dikkatinizi çekiyor?o Farklı perspektifler arasında benzerlikler/ farklılıklar var mı? Birbirleriyle çatışıyorlar mı?o Burada gördüğünüz erdemlerden ECoC’ta bahsedilmiş miydi? Eğer öyleyse hangilerinden bahsedilmişti?o Bu durumda en önemli erdemi belirleyebilmemiz mümkün müdür? Eğer mümkünse neden bu erdem en önemlisidir?o Kendinizi vaka sahibinin yerine koyduğunuzda: grubun seçtiği erdeme uygun hareket edebilmek için (somut olarak) neye ihtiyaç duyarsınız? Önünüzde sizi engelleyecek şeyler var mı?Katılımcıların cevaplarını tahtaya yazın. Farklı renkte kalemler kullanabilir, kelimelerin altını çizebilir ya da kısa notlar alabilirsiniz.Bu alıştırmayı ilk kez uyguluyorsanız lütfen katılımcıların diyalog içerisinde fikir yürütmelerini teşvik etmek için yukarıdaki soruları kullanın. ECoC’a işaret etmeyi unutmayın. Kodun bir kopyasını oturuma getirmeniz de mümkündür. Sorular üzerinde çok uzun süre durmayın. Katılımcıların münazara yapmaya başlaması ya da konudan sapması durumunda dikkatlerini tekrar mevzubahis soru üzerine yöneltin.Katılımcıların tek bir erdem üzerinde fikir birliğine varamaması sorun değildir. Farklı çıkarımları da tabloya yazabilirsiniz.İPUCU:Sessiz bir ortam oluşmasından korkmayın. Katılımcıların cevap üzerine düşünmelerine izin verin. Zaman tanıyın ancak bu süre çok da uzamasın; eğer herhangi bir yorum gelmezse başka bir soru ile devam edin.um gelmezse başka bir soru ile devam edin.)