Epistemic Trust in Scientific Experts: A Moral Dimension.

In this paper, I develop and defend a moralized conception of epistemic trust in science against a particular kind of non-moral account defended by John (2015, 2018). I suggest that non-epistemic value considerations, non-epistemic norms of communication and affective trust properly characterize the relationship of epistemic trust between scientific experts and non-experts. I argue that it is through a moralized account of epistemic trust in science that we can make sense of the deep-seated moral undertones that are often at play when non-experts (dis)trust science.

Increasing equity in science requires better ethics training: A course by trainees, for trainees.

Despite the profound impacts of scientific research, few scientists have received the necessary training to productively discuss the ethical and societal implications of their work. To address this critical gap, we-a group of predominantly human genetics trainees-developed a course on genetics, ethics, and society. We intend for this course to serve as a template for other institutions and scientific disciplines. Our curriculum positions human genetics within its historical and societal context and encourages students to evaluate how societal norms and structures impact the conduct of scientific research. We demonstrate the utility of this course via surveys of enrolled students and provide resources and strategies for others hoping to teach a similar course. We conclude by arguing that if we are to work toward rectifying the inequities and injustices produced by our field, we must first learn to view our own research as impacting and being impacted by society.

Tan lejos de la investigación científica, tan cerca de la inteligencia artificial / So far from scientific research, so close to artificial intelligence

En este editorial se exploran los posibles riesgos que representa el uso de la inteligencia artificial para la elaboración de trabajos académicos y científicos. Además, se presenta una lista de riesgos para la investigación científica elaborada por la plataforma ChatGPT con el objetivo de explorar su precisión en la generación de textos.

This editorial explores the possible risks posed by the use of artificial intelligence for the preparation of academic and scientific work. Additionally, a list of risks for scientific research is presented by the ChatGPT platform with the aim of exploring its accuracy in generating texts.

Ten simple rules for socially responsible science.

Guidelines concerning the potentially harmful effects of scientific studies have historically focused on ethical considerations for minimizing risk for participants. However, studies can also indirectly inflict harm on individuals and social groups through how they are designed, reported, and disseminated. As evidenced by recent criticisms and retractions of high-profile studies dealing with a wide variety of social issues, there is a scarcity of resources and guidance on how one can conduct research in a socially responsible manner. As such, even motivated researchers might publish work that has negative social impacts due to a lack of awareness. To address this, we propose 10 simple rules for researchers who wish to conduct socially responsible science. These rules, which cover major considerations throughout the life cycle of a study from inception to dissemination, are not aimed as a prescriptive list or a deterministic code of conduct. Rather, they are meant to help motivated scientists to reflect on their social responsibility as researchers and actively engage with the potential social impact of their research.

France introduces research integrity oath.

Mandatory pledge will be part of Ph.D. defense.

Trends in science: successes and responsible research conduct.

Science, particularly in life sciences and biotechnologies, is continuing to make remarkable progress in the past decade. This has been possible due to the governments and people recognizing that scientific discoveries bring development and prosperity to the nation. The new trend in research is to collaborate across disciplines with large teams of participants across the globe. This has brought success but has led to varying standards in ethics and responsible conduct which require harmonization. Recent discoveries point to a need for new approaches to ethics. The rise in cases of misconduct and retraction of research papers from high-profile individuals has been a cause for concern. It is encouraging that many countries that have detected misconduct in research have instituted strong steps to correct the situation. This brief review discusses the recent developments of interest to me, the issues of global research, ethics and responsible conduct.

ISSCR's Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation: Supporting development of safe and efficacious stem cell-based interventions.

The ISSCR's revised Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation reflect the organization's commitment to opposing premature commercialization of stem cell-based interventions and supporting the development of products that meet stringent ethical, scientific, and regulatory standards. The Guidelines contain five important new recommendations concerning clinical translation of stem cell products.

Truth even unto its innermost parts.

Challenging anyone who spreads falsehoods is an important part of respecting the truth in both science and the wider world.

Optimal Conflict in Team-Based Laboratory Culture.

One critical determinant of success that is not part of standardized scientific training programs is the development of the right mindset for competitive team science. Mindset has been categorized as fixed and growth. People with fixed mindset who believe that virtues such as goodness and intelligence are naturally endowed and thus fixed are reportedly less likely to succeed than people with growth mindset who believe that such abilities are malleable and scalable. People with growth mindset handle conflicts more effectively. As it stands in academic culture, mostly dominated by the education mission, conflict is a taboo. Administrators generally view conflict as something that must be avoided or resolved. Yet the American Psychological Association, among many others, recognize that good science requires good conflict. Team science efforts must recognize the perils of artificial harmony. Artificial harmony is a state wherein members of the team act as if they are getting along in a setting where serious issues remain unattended. Artificial harmony stifles open communication. Open communication within the team is essential to uphold rigor in science. The threat of conflict triggers the flight or fight response in us. Flight, motivated by conflict avoidance, favors artificial harmony. Fight, in its optimal form, empowers teammates to express their opinion leading to healthy disagreement and debate. Teams must find their own optimal conflict point. Mastering that art of identifying and achieving the optimal conflict point for any given team will return lucrative dividends in the form of competitive edge.