Search

Scientists are increasingly expected to incorporate socio-political considerations in their work, for instance by anticipating potential socio-political ramifications. While this is aimed at promoting pro-social values, critics argue that the desire to serve society has led to self-censorship and even to the politicization of science. Philosophers of science have developed various strategies to distinguish between influences of values that safeguard the integrity and freedom of research from those impinging on them. While there is no consensus on which strategy is the best, they all imply some trade-offs between social desirability and the aims of science. If scientists are to incorporate socio-political considerations, they should receive relevant guidance and training on how to make these trade-offs. Codes of conduct for research integrity as professional codes of ethics can help scientists navigate evolving professional expectations. Unfortunately, in their current status, these codes fail to offer guidance on how to weigh possibly conflicting values against the aims of science. The new version of the European Code of Conduct (2023) is a missed opportunity in this regard. Future codes should include guidance on the trade-offs that professional scientists face when incorporating socio-political considerations. To increase effectiveness, codes should increase the attention that scientists have for such trade-offs, make sure scientists construe them in appropriate ways, and help scientists understand the motivations behind pro-social policies. Considering the authority of these documents—especially the European one—amending codes of conduct can be a promising starting point for broader changes in education, journal publishing, and science funding.

OBJECTIVES Clinical research professionals must be equipped with adequate training in sound scientific methods and appropriate ethics. In this study, we aimed to assess the current clinical research self-efficacy of researchers at Hamad Medical Corporation (HMC). We also evaluated the effects of training courses on researchers’ self-efficacy. METHODS Utilizing a cross-sectional design, we used the shortened Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory (CRAI-12) through an online survey to assess the current clinical research self-efficacy of 600 researchers at HMC, Doha, Qatar. After conducting descriptive analyses, unpaired t test and ANOVA were used to determine significant mean percentages between variables. Pearson correlation coefficients were also calculated to measure the association among the interval variables. All tests were 2-sided, and significance was defined as P 5), reflecting higher self-efficacy for the topics covered in CRAI. Gender differences were significant across all factors, with males reporting higher levels of self-assessed efficacy and in clinical research. Other factors such as higher education degrees and previous (external) clinical research training were also associated with higher self-reported clinical research efficacy. CONCLUSIONS The findings of this study indicate that researchers at HMC possess high clinical research self-efficacy overall, but lower self-efficacy in securing funding. Gender and education level positively influence self-efficacy across CRAI factors. Notably, clinical research training boosts self-efficacy, especially when obtained outside HMC. In conclusion, healthcare providers are strongly encouraged to engage in effective clinical research training courses, both within and outside of their healthcare institutions, to improve their clinical research efficacy and enhance clinical practice.

IntroductionIn the evolving healthcare landscape, precision medicine's rise necessitates adaptable doctoral training. The European Union has recognized this and promotes the development of international, training-focused programmes called Innovative Training Networks (ITNs). In this article, we introduce TranSYS, an ITN focused on educating the next generation of precision medicine researchers. In an ambition to go beyond describing the consortium goals, our article explores two key aspects of ITNs: the training and collaboration.MethodsUsing self-report questionnaires, we evaluate the scientific, professional, and personal growth of ESRs over the duration of the ITN and investigate whether this can be linked to network activities.ResultsOur quantitative analysis approach reveals substantial improvements in scientific, professional, and social skills among young researchers facilitated by the engagement in this interdisciplinary network. We provide case studies underlining the advantages of collaborative environments, featuring innovative scientific exchange within TranSYS.DiscussionWhile challenging, ITNs foster positive growth in young researchers, yet exhibit weaknesses such as balancing stakeholder interests and partner commitment. We believe this study may benefit a variety of stakeholders, from prospective ITN creators to industry partners, to design better sustainable training networks going forward.

Responsible research practices are critical to maintaining integrity in research and the provision of institutional trainings is an important means of promoting research integrity. However, studies show contrasting results on the efficacy of institutional training and that these approaches may not be fully effective in promoting research integrity among individuals and improving the overall climate in research integrity. Therefore, a more comprehensive multi-dimensional learning strategy seems to be needed. This includes continuous and tailored training at different institutional levels, the incorporation of training sessions focusing on the development of the moral character of researchers, and the use of different mentoring practices. With this comprehensive approach, research institutions can foster a culture of integrity in research, improve the overall research integrity climate and promote responsible research practices by individuals.

Universities and other research institutions are increasingly providing additional training in research integrity to improve the quality and reliability of research. Various training courses have been developed, with diverse learning goals and content. Despite the importance of training that focuses on moral character and professional virtues, there remains a lack of training that adopts a virtue ethics approach. To address this, we, a European Commission-funded consortium, have designed a train-the-trainer programme for research integrity. The programme is based on (1) virtue ethics, (2) the ethos of science, (3) learning by doing and (4) learner-centred teaching. The blended learning programme combines e-learning modules with participatory group sessions. Trainers are taught how to guide researchers through a series of structured exercises for fostering reflection on scientific virtues, and how to promote understanding and application of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Trainers are provided with adaptable tools and resources that can be used and combined in different ways. The programme implementation began in Spring 2020 and 470 trainers have participated to date. When trainers were asked to grade – between 0 (very bad) and 10 (excellent) – the e-learning modules and the participatory exercises, 60% scored a grade 8 or higher (median = 8, IQR = 2) for the e-learning modules, whereas 80% scored a grade 8 or higher (median = 9, IQR = 1) for the participatory exercises. A majority felt that the training helped them as a trainer to learn about ways to organise and teach a research integrity course (82%) and would recommend the interactive exercises to others (92%). Trainers have educated over 3300 researchers in Europe using our virtue-based approach. The VIRT 2 UE train-the-trainer programme fosters research integrity by providing trainers with exercises and tools which enable them to stimulate the development of good researchers across Europe.

PhD students, also referred to as the early stage researchers (ESRs), that were participating in the European Union’s Horizon 2020 consortium, OrganoVIR, have the ambition to become top scientists in virology with innovative, animal-free, research models; organoids. To achieve this ambition, developing more self-confidence and resilience was used to strengthen personal leadership needed in such professional role. Towards this purpose, seven actions have been selected that guide the ESRs through their PhD journey and help them elevate their career perspectives and employability in the international labor market. In this essay, we share the seven personal development actions that have been carried out by the ESRs in the OrganoVIR H2020 Innovative Training Network (ITN) project, with the goal of demonstrating how training human skills can contribute to innovation and collaboration in European research. This article is an effort by OrganoVIR’s Training and Education Committee to provide views on personal growth and leadership awareness.

Abstract Background Existing research on perceptions of plagiarism and cultural influences mainly focuses on comparisons between the Western World and the Eastern World. However, possible differences within the Western World have hardly been assessed, especially among biomedical academics. The authors compared perceptions of plagiarism among European biomedical researchers who participated in an online survey. Methods The present work is based on the data collected in a previous online survey done in 2018 among biomedical researchers working in leading European and Chinese universities. Respondents based in Europe were grouped into three geographical regions (northern Europe, southern Europe and northwestern Europe) and their responses were analyzed using logistic regression analysis with adjustments for demographic factors. Results Data were available from 810 respondents (265 northern Europe, 101 southern Europe, 444 northwestern Europe). In addition to their generally similar responses, different perceptions of plagiarism were observed among respondents in the three European regions. In summary, among the three European regions, Nordic respondents identified the most types of practices as plagiarism. Compared to the southern respondents, Nordic and northwestern respondents were more likely to consider less evident practices as plagiarism, such as Rephrasing another person’s work without crediting the source [aORN|S 1.99 (95%CI 1.08;3.67), aORS|NW 0.50 (95%CI 0.28;0.91)] and With permission from the original author, using another’s text without crediting the source [aORN|S 3.16 (95%CI 1.90;5.25), aORS|NW 0.26 (95%CI 0.16;0.42)]. In contrast, the southern respondents were the most inclined to recognize recycling of one’s previously rejected research proposal as plagiarism. Conclusions In spite of a generally similar response pattern, the present study indicates different perceptions of plagiarism among European biomedical researchers. These intra-European differences should be considered when addressing plagiarism.

Abstract Mentors have the responsibility to guide their mentees through academic and scientific challenges that they might encounter during their educational and professional development. In embodying the role of mentors, senior academics are also expected to transmit knowledge and competencies on the topic of research integrity to their junior colleagues. However, senior academics do not always succeed in transmitting responsible research practices and enhancing the research integrity climate. The implementation of the concept of reverse mentoring can be an option to overcome this issue. Different from traditional mentoring, the flow of information is reversed, going from juniors to seniors. Reverse mentoring, as a developmental partnership between mentees and mentors, has been already used successfully within the private sector and in medical education. In times in which most universities invest resources in organizing dedicated research integrity trainings for PhD candidates and junior researchers, it would be valuable to consider reverse mentoring for fostering responsible research practices and enhancing the research integrity climate. PhD candidates and junior researchers can join and fully contribute to the endeavor of enhancing the research integrity climate by co-creating, together with their senior colleagues a new-shared learning environment.

The Embassy of Good Science (https://www.embassy.science) aims to improve research integrity and research ethics by offering an online, open, 'go-to' platform, which brings together information on research integrity and research ethics and makes that information accessible, understandable, and appealing. It effectively organizes and describes research integrity and research ethics guidelines, educational materials, cases, and scenarios. The Embassy is wiki-based, allowing users to add -- when logged in with their ORCID researcher id -- new information, and update and refine existing information. The platform also makes the research integrity and research ethics community visible and more accessible in pages dedicated to relevant initiatives, news and events. Therefore, the Embassy enables researchers to find useful guidance, rules and tools to conduct research responsibly. The platform empowers researchers through increased knowledge and awareness, and through the support of the research integrity and research ethics community. In this article we will discuss the background of this new platform, the way in which it is organized, and how users can contribute.

Background: The areas of Research Ethics and Research Integrity (RE+RI) are rapidly evolving. In the EU and internationally, new legislation, codes of conduct and good practices are constantly being developed. New technologies (e.g. gene editing), complex statistical methods (e.g. biostatistics), pressure to publish and obtain grants, and growing emphasis on stakeholder driven science (e.g. public-private partnerships) increase the complexity of conducting science. In this complex and dynamic environment, researchers cannot easily identify the correct rules and best tools for responsible conduct of research. This also increasingly constitutes a challenge for RE+RI experts.Aim: Our aim is to create a platform that makes the normative framework governing RE+RI easily accessible, supports application in research and evaluation, and involves all stakeholders in a participatory way, thus achieving sustainability. The platform will foster uptake of ethical standards and responsible conduct of research, and ultimately support research excellence and strengthen society’s confidence in research and its findings.Vision: Our vision is that in order to make the normative framework governing RE+RI accessible, a dynamic online Wiki-platform, owned by the community of RE+RI stakeholders, is needed. The value of this platform will lie in the availability of practical information on how to comply with EU, national and discipline-specific RE+RI standards and legislation, including information on rules and procedures, educational materials, and illustrative cases and scenarios. Adopting open science (open source and open data) approaches, the platform will be easy to use, by applying novel techniques for data collection and comparison, enabling users to navigate quickly and intuitively to appropriate content. In order to keep the platform up-to-date and sustainable, it will be based upon active involvement of the RE+RI community, and will contribute to further development of this community by providing a podium for reflection and dialogue on RE+RI norms and practices.Objectives: EnTIRE’s work packages (WP) will: undertake an in-depth stakeholder consultation across EU countries exploring RE+RI experiences and practices in order to define the boundaries of data to be collected, and developing a mapping structure adapted to user needs (WP 2); assemble the relevant normative elements, including RE+RI rules and procedures, educational materials, and illustrative casuistry, and identify relevant institutions across EU countries (WP 3-5); develop a user-friendly Wiki-platform and online resources to foster and facilitate responsible research practices and to promote compliance amongst European researchers with RE+RI standards and pertinent legislation and regulations (WP 6); and foster further development of the RE+RI community, that will support the platform and be supported by it, will keep the information up-to-date, disseminate the project’s findings and develop innovative strategies for maintaining the platform and building relationships to relevant organisations for further dissemination, including sustainable funding (WP 7).Relevance to the work programme: The proposed project responds directly to the core requirement of call SwafS-16-2016 to ‘provide a dynamic mapping of the RE+RI normative framework which applies to scientific research conducted in the EU and beyond’. Our proposal does this by using a participatory approach, stimulating knowledge transfer regarding codes and regulations, resources and institutions, and cases, by applying innovative ICT solutions and open science approaches, and by further developing a community of active users, to enable sustainability after the end of the project.

Abstract Education of young researchers has been proposed as a way to promote research integrity. However, the effectiveness of research integrity education on PhD students is unknown. In a longitudinal design, we surveyed over 1000 starting PhD students from various disciplines regarding knowledge, attitude and behaviour before, immediately after and 3 months after a compulsory 3-h course given by a panel of experts. Compared with a control group who did not follow the course, the course recipients showed significant (multivariate analysis) but modest improvements in knowledge and attitude scores immediately after the course, but not after 3 months; a prolonged impact was apparent regarding behaviour. Moreover, the course spurred 93% of PhD students to have conversations about research integrity and 79% declared applying the content of the course. Among other interventions, formal education in research integrity may contribute to foster a climate of research integrity in academia.

Various stakeholders in science have put research integrity high on their agenda. Among them, research funders are prominently placed to foster research integrity by requiring that the organizations and individual researchers they support make an explicit commitment to research integrity. Moreover, funders need to adopt appropriate research integrity practices themselves. To facilitate this, we recommend that funders develop and implement a Research Integrity Promotion Plan (RIPP). This Consensus View offers a range of examples of how funders are already promoting research integrity, distills 6 core topics that funders should cover in a RIPP, and provides guidelines on how to develop and implement a RIPP. We believe that the 6 core topics we put forward will guide funders towards strengthening research integrity policy in their organization and guide the researchers and research organizations they fund.

Background: Recognising the importance of addressing ethics and research integrity (ERI) in Europe, in 2017, the All European Academies (ALLEA) published a revised and updated European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECoC). Consistent application of the ECoC by researchers across Europe will require its widespread dissemination, as well as an innovative training programme and novel tools to enable researchers to truly uphold and internalise the principles and practices listed in the Code.Aim: VIRT2UE aims to develop a sustainable train-the-trainer blended learning programme enabling contextualised ERI teaching across Europe focusing on understanding and upholding the principles and practices of the ECoC.Vision: The VIRT2UE project recognises that researchers not only need to have knowledge of the ECoC, but also to be able to truly uphold and internalise the principles underpinning the code. They need to learn how to integrate them into their everyday practice and understand how to act in concrete situations. VIRT2UE addresses this challenge by providing ERI trainers and researchers with an innovative blended (i.e. combined online and off-line approaches) learning programme that draws on a toolbox of educational resources and incorporates an e-learning course (including a YouTube channel) and face-to-face sessions designed to foster moral virtues. ERI trainers and researchers from academia and industry will have open access to online teaching material. Moreover, ERI trainers will learn how to facilitate face-to-face sessions of researchers, which focus on learning how to apply the content of the teaching material to concrete situations in daily practice.Objectives: VIRT2UE’s work packages (WP) will: conduct a conceptual mapping amongst stakeholders to identify and rank the virtues which are essential for good scientific practice and their relationship to the principles and practices of the ECoC (WP1); identify and consult ERI trainers and the wider scientific community to understand existing capacity and deficiencies in ERI educational resources (WP2); develop the face-to-face component of the train-the-trainer programme which provides trainers with tools to foster researchers’ virtues and promote the ECoC and iteratively develop the programme based on evaluations (WP3); produce educational materials for online learning by researchers and trainers (WP4); implement and disseminate the train-the-trainer programme across Europe, ensuring the training of sufficient trainers for each country and build capacity and consistency by focusing on underdeveloped regions and unifying fragmented efforts (WP5); and develop the online training platform and user interface, which will be instrumental in evaluation of trainers’ and researchers’ needs and project sustainability (WP6).Impact: The VIRT2UE training programme will promote consistent application of the ECoC across Europe. The programme will affect behaviour on the individual level of trainers and researchers – simultaneously developing an understanding of the ECoC and other ERI issues, whilst also developing scientific virtues, enabling the application of the acquired knowledge to concrete situations and complex moral dilemmas. Through a dedicated embedding strategy, the programme will also have an impact on an institutional level. The train-the-trainer approach multiplies the impact of the programme by reaching current and future European ERI trainers and, subsequently, the researchers they train.

Abstract Background Research with cerebral organoids is beginning to make significant progress in understanding the etiology of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Brain organoid models can be grown from the cells of donors with ASD. Researchers can explore the genetic, developmental, and other factors that may give rise to the varieties of autism. Researchers could study all of these factors together with brain organoids grown from cells originating from ASD individuals. This makes brain organoids unique from other forms of ASD research. They are like a multi-tool, one with significant versatility for the scope of ASD research and clinical applications. There is hope that brain organoids could one day be used for precision medicine, like developing tailored ASD drug treatments. Main body Brain organoid researchers often incorporate the medical model of disability when researching the origins of ASD, especially when the research has the specific aim of potentially finding tailored clinical treatments for ASD individuals. The neurodiversity movement—a developmental disability movement and paradigm that understands autism as a form of natural human diversity—will potentially disagree with approaches or aims of cerebral organoid research on ASD. Neurodiversity advocates incorporate a social model of disability into their movement, which focuses more on the social, attitudinal, and environmental barriers rather than biophysical or psychological deficits. Therefore, a potential conflict may arise between these perspectives on how to proceed with cerebral organoid research regarding neurodevelopmental conditions, especially ASD. Conclusions Here, we present these perspectives and give at least three initial recommendations to achieve a more holistic and inclusive approach to cerebral organoid research on ASD. These three initial starting points can build bridges between researchers and the neurodiversity movement. First, neurodiverse individuals should be included as co-creators in both the scientific process and research communication. Second, clinicians and neurodiverse communities should have open and respectful communication. Finally, we suggest a continual reconceptualization of illness, impairment, disability, behavior, and person.

Abstract Background Even though research integrity (RI) training programs have been developed in the last decades, it is argued that current training practices are not always able to increase RI-related awareness within the scientific community. Defining and understanding the capacities and lacunas of existing RI training are becoming extremely important for developing up-to-date educational practices to tackle present-day challenges. Recommendations on how to implement RI education have been primarily made by selected people with specific RI-related expertise. Those recommendations were developed mainly without consulting a broader audience with no specific RI expertise. Moreover, the academic literature lacks qualitative studies on RI training practices. For these reasons, performing in-depth focus groups with non-RI expert stakeholders are of a primary necessity to understand and outline how RI education should be implemented. Methods In this qualitative analysis, different focus groups were conducted to examine stakeholders’ perspectives on RI training practices. Five stakeholders' groups, namely publishers and peer reviewers, researchers on RI, RI trainers, PhDs and postdoctoral researchers, and research administrators working within academia, have been identified to have a broader overview of state of the art. Results A total of 39 participants participated in five focus group sessions. Eight training-related themes were highlighted during the focus group discussions. The training goals, timing and frequency, customisation, format and teaching approach, mentoring, compulsoriness, certification and evaluation, and RI-related responsibilities were discussed. Although confirming what was already proposed by research integrity experts in terms of timing, frequency, duration, and target audience in organising RI education, participants proposed other possible implementations strategies concerning the teaching approach, researchers' obligations, and development an evaluation-certification system. Conclusions This research aims to be a starting point for a better understanding of necessary, definitive, and consistent ways of structuring RI education. The research gives an overview of what has to be considered needed in planning RI training sessions regarding objectives, organisation, and teaching approach.

Abstract Background Professional communities such as the medical community are acutely concerned with negligence: the category of misconduct where a professional does not live up to the standards expected of a professional of similar qualifications. Since science is currently strengthening its structures of self-regulation in parallel to the professions, this raises the question to what extent the scientific community is concerned with negligence, and if not, whether it should be. By means of comparative analysis of medical and scientific codes of conduct, we aim to highlight the role (or lack thereof) of negligence provisions in codes of conduct for scientists, and to discuss the normative consequences for future codes of conduct. Methods We collected scientific and medical codes of conduct in a selection of OECD countries, and submitted each code of conduct to comparative textual analysis. Results Negligence is invariably listed as an infraction of the norms of integrity in medical codes of conduct, but only rarely so in the scientific codes. When the latter list negligence, they typically do not provide any detail on the meaning of ‘negligence’. Discussion Unlike codes of conduct for professionals, current codes of conduct for scientists are largely silent on the issue of negligence, or explicitly exclude negligence as a type of misconduct. In the few cases where negligence is stipulated to constitute misconduct, no responsibilities are identified that would help prevent negligence. While we caution against unreasonable negligence provisions as well as disproportionate sanctioning systems, we do argue that negligence provisions are crucial for justified trust in the scientific community, and hence that there is a very strong rationale for including negligence provisions in codes of conduct.

Aim This study is a systematic review that aims to assess how healthcare professionals manage ethical challenges regarding information within the clinical context. Method and Materials We carried out searches in PubMed, Google Scholar and Embase, using two search strings; searches generated 665 hits. After screening, 47 articles relevant to the study aim were selected for review. Seven articles were identified through snowballing, and 18 others were included following a system update in PubMed, bringing the total number of articles reviewed to 72. We used a Q-sort technique for the analysis of identified articles. Findings This study reveals that healthcare professionals around the world generally employ (to varying degrees) four broad strategies to manage different types of challenges regarding information, which can be categorized as challenges related to confidentiality, communication, professional duty, and decision-making. The strategies employed for managing these challenges include resolution, consultation, stalling, and disclosure/concealment. Conclusion There are a variety of strategies which health professionals can adopt to address challenges regarding information management within the clinical context. This insight complements current efforts aimed at enhancing health professional-patient communication. Very few studies have researched the results of employing these various strategies. Future empirical studies are required to address this.

The Embassy of Good Science (https://www.embassy.science) aims to improve research integrity and research ethics by offering an online, open, 'go-to' platform, which brings together all information on research integrity and research ethics relevant for researchers, and makes that information accessible, understandable, and appealing. It effectively organizes and describes research integrity and research ethics guidelines, educational materials, cases, and scenarios. The Embassy is wiki-based, allowing users to add -- when logged in with their ORCID researcher id -- new information, and update and refine existing information. The platform also makes the research integrity and research ethics community visible and accessible in pages dedicated to relevant initiatives, news and events. Therefore, the Embassy enables researchers to find useful guidance, rules and tools to conduct research responsibly. The platform empowers researchers through increased knowledge and awareness, and through the support of the research integrity and research ethics community. In this article we will discuss the background of this new platform, the way in which it is organized, and how users can contribute.

Abstract Background Parents are valued stakeholders in research, clinical practice and policy development concerning autism spectrum disorder (ASD). However, little is known about what drives and moves parents besides their obvious worries and help request when they ask for a diagnostic ASD assessment of their child. Methods Seventeen Flemish parents of 11 young children participated in a longitudinal study consisting of three in-depth interviews before and after their child’s diagnostic ASD assessment. Data were analysed in Nvivo 11 according to the procedures of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Results In this paper we report the results of the first series of interviews which were conducted after parents had asked for an ASD assessment of their young child, and before this assessment started. The pre-assessment experiences of the parents were dominated by the anticipation of various implications of an ASD diagnosis, comprising both positive and negative expectations. The theme of positive expectations consisted of two equally prominent subthemes: treatment-related implications but also expectations pertaining to their psychological and relational experiences. Conclusions This study suggests important issues for clinicians to bear in mind during a consultation with parents who request an ASD assessment of their young child. We argue that attending to and communicating about parents’ expectations prior to their child’s ASD assessment may help clinicians to better understand parents’ requests for help, and to address their needs more effectively.

Abstract Background Plagiarism is considered as serious research misconduct, together with data fabrication and falsification. However, little is known about biomedical researchers’ views on plagiarism. Moreover, it has been argued – based on limited empirical evidence – that perceptions of plagiarism depend on cultural and other determinants. The authors explored, by means of an online survey among 46 reputable universities in Europe and China, how plagiarism is perceived by biomedical researchers in both regions. Methods We collected work e-mail addresses of biomedical researchers identified through the websites of 13 reputable universities in Europe and 33 reputable universities in China and invited them to participate in an online anonymous survey. Our questionnaire was designed to assess respondents’ views about plagiarism by asking whether they considered specific practices as plagiarism. We analyzed if respondents in China and Europe responded differently, using logistic regression analysis with adjustments for demographic and other relevant factors. Results The authors obtained valid responses from 204 researchers based in China (response rate 2.1%) and 826 researchers based in Europe (response rate 5.6%). Copying text from someone else’s publication without crediting the source, using idea(s) from someone else’s publication without crediting the source and republishing one’s own work in another language without crediting the source were considered as plagiarism by 98, 67 and 64%, respectively. About one-third of the respondents reported to have been unsure whether they had been plagiarizing. Overall, the pattern of responses was similar among respondents based in Europe and China. Nevertheless, for some items significant differences did occur in disadvantage of Chinese respondents. Conclusions Findings indicate that nearly all biomedical researchers understand (and disapprove of) the most obvious forms of plagiarism, but uncertainties and doubts were apparent for many aspects. And the minority of researchers who did not recognize some types of plagiarism as plagiarism was larger among China-based respondents than among Europe-based respondents. The authors conclude that biomedical researchers need clearer working definitions of plagiarism in order to deal with grey zones.

Abstract Background Biomarkers such as amyloid imaging are increasingly used for diagnosis in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease. Very few studies have examined this from the perspective of the patient. To date, there is only limited evidence about how patients experience and value disclosure in an early disease stage. Methods Semistructured interviews were carried out with 38 patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment as part of an investigator-driven diagnostic trial (EudraCT, 2013-004671-12; registered on 20 June 2014) in which participants could opt to know the binary outcome (positive/negative) result of their amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) scan. Verbatim transcripts of the interviews were evaluated using qualitative content analysis and NVivo 11 software. Results Eight of 38 patients received a positive amyloid PET scan result, and the remaining 30 patients received a negative amyloid PET scan result. After disclosure of the result to the patients, we interviewed each patient twice: 2 weeks after disclosure and 6 months after disclosure. Patients had difficulties in repeating the exact words used during disclosure of their amyloid PET scan result by the neurologist; yet, they could recall the core message of the result in their own words. Some patients were confused by the terminology of an amyloid-positive/negative test result. At 6 months, two of eight patients with a positive amyloid PET scan result experienced emotional difficulties (sadness, feeling worried). Three of 30 patients with a negative amyloid PET scan result started to doubt whether they had received the correct result. Patients reported that they experienced advantages after the disclosure, such as information about their health status, the possibility of making practical arrangements, medication, enjoying life more, and a positive impact on relationships. They also reported disadvantages following disclosure, such as having emotional difficulties, feeling worried about when their symptoms might worsen, the risk of a more patronizing attitude by relatives, and the possibility of a wrong diagnosis. Conclusions This exploratory study shows that the majority of patients can accurately recall the information received during disclosure. The experienced advantages and disadvantages reported by our patients depended on the outcome of the result (positive or negative) and the interval of the conducted interview (2 weeks or 6 months after amyloid PET disclosure). Discrepancies were found between patients’ expectations according to the interview prior to amyloid PET disclosure (Vanderschaeghe et al. [Neuroethics. 2017;10:281–97]) and their actual experiences after their amyloid PET disclosure.

Introduction: Clinicians working with children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) occupy an important position between parents and the wide-ranging research findings. However, it is not widely known how clinicians view and experience ASD in children, even though their perspective has been shown to significantly influence their work.Material and methods: Sixteen physicians working with preschool children without a diagnosis of (intellectual or other) disability with a (presumed) diagnosis of ASD participated in a semistructured interview. They described their professional views on ASD, and how they experienced its use in their clinical practice. The data were analyzed by applying the qualitative research method of interpretative phenomenological analysis of the data through Nvivo 11.Results: The main topic of the interviewed physicians’ views and experiences of ASD in a young child comprised three inductively established themes: 1) physicians’ views on ASD are multifaceted but fit within their personal clinical styles; 2) the ASD diagnosis is a “descriptive” part of a clinical trajectory; and 3) ASD treatment is a mix of “standard” approaches and a personalized search. These physicians’ perspectives on ASD are composed of multiple and sometimes ambiguous facets. However, their views are embedded in their personal clinical styles in general (i.e., beyond ASD) and are experienced as clinically “workable.” With the aim of finding an adequate approach to the problems parents bring to their office, many interviewed physicians say that—complementary to or rather than a classificatory diagnosis—they prefer using a personalized “profile” of a child in a therapeutic “process.”Conclusions: The interviewed physicians consider doubts and concerns to be an inherent part of their clinical work with ASD in young children, but do not experience this ambiguity as an obstacle to clinical care. These physicians deal with the multiplicity of their views on ASD by basing their eclectic views on their generally adopted clinical styles, and by selecting what works for them, and for the parents and child, from what they regard as the ‘textbook knowledge’ on ASD. We discuss the implications of these findings for translating research results to the clinic.

Incidental findings (IFs) are well known in medical research and clinical practice as unexpected findings having potential health or reproductive importance for an individual. IFs are discovered under different contexts but do not fall within the aim of a study, and/or are unanticipated or unintentionally revealed, and/or are not the specific focus or target of the particular research or clinical query. Today, in forensic settings, we can consider as incidental findings all the information that is neither related to the cause of death nor to the dynamic of the event or the scope of the forensic investigation. The question whether and how professionals should consider traditional values as guiding notions in the reporting of IFs in the context of forensic assessments is the focus of this article. We propose a descriptive analysis, which focuses on the forensic field, describing forensic situations in which IFs may occur, and whether and to whom they may be disclosed. Some considerations will be provided regarding forensic experts concerning their moral commitment to warn relatives about IFs.