Bert Gordijn’s research while affiliated with Dublin City University and other places

Background Working in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) or pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) entails making difficult decisions about children at the end of their lives that raise significant ethical issues. This review identified the ethical content of the papers containing expert guidelines and recommendations in relation to end-of-life decision-making in NICUs and PICUs, by analyzing ethical positions and ethical principles behind them. Methods Systematic search was limited to the period from 1990 to 2023 and encompassed 6 bibliographic databases (Medline, PubMed, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus), grey literature sources and relevant reference lists. The international, national, or institutional papers providing expert guidelines and recommendations comprehensively addressing either withholding/withdrawing of life sustaining treatment, palliative care, and/or intentional life terminating actions in NICUs and PICUs were included in analysis. Also, only papers published in English language were considered. Papers that were not developed by intensive care expert communities and those that were either too narrow (e.g., dealing with specific issues or specific patient groups) or broad (e.g., addressing issues of interest on general and abstract level) were excluded. The search data were gathered and deduplicated, partly by Mendeley software. Titles and abstracts were screened by three independent reviewers, and full-text papers further reviewed and assessed for eligibility. Subsequently, data of interest were extracted, and qualitative analysis was performed. Results Initial search retrieved 6784 papers from bibliographic databases and 363 from other utilized sources. Titles and abstracts from 2827 papers were screened. 17 full texts were further assessed resulting in a total number of 9 papers (6 from bibliographic databases and 3 from other sources) which met the inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. The papers were published from 2001 to 2021. Four papers primarily focus on NICU setting, while five on PICU. A total of 38 ethical positions were identified and were grouped under 5 themes according to the content of the positions, relating to: patients, parents, medical team, decision-making and treatment options. A total of 12 ethical principles were mentioned in the papers. The principle of beneficence emerged as the most prominent one. It was explicitly mentioned in all included papers except one. Conclusions This review has shown that papers containing guidelines and recommendations on end-of-life decision-making in the NICU and PICU promote similar stances. The ethical principle of beneficence is at the core of the decision-making process, and all decisions are made focusing on the child’s best interests.

Presented here is a systematic literature review of what the academic literature asserts about: (1) the stages of the ethical decision-making process (i.e. awareness, reasoning, motivation, and action) that are claimed to be improved or not improved by RI teaching and whether these claims are supported by evidence; (2) the measurements used to determine the effectiveness of RI teaching; and (3) the stage/s of the ethical decision-making process that are difficult to assess. Regarding (1), awareness was the stage most claimed to be amenable to improvement following RI teaching, and with motivation being the stage that is rarely addressed in the academic literature. While few, some sources claimed RI teaching cannot improve specific stages. With behaviour (action) being the stage referenced most, albeit in only 9% of the total sources, for not being amenable to improvement following RI teaching. Finally, most claims were supported by empirical evidence. Regarding (2), measures most frequently used are custom in-house surveys and some validated measures. Additionally, there is much debate in the literature regarding the adequacy of current assessment measures in RI teaching, and even their absence. Such debate warrants caution when we are considering the empirical evidence supplied to support that RI teaching does or does not improve a specific stage of the decision-making process. Regarding (3), only behaviour was discussed as being difficult to assess, if not impossible. In our discussion section we contextualise these results, and following this we derive some recommendations for relevant stakeholders in RI teaching. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11948-024-00493-1.

Background: This paper provides a systematic review of the literature discussing the ethics of using artificial intelligence in primary and secondary education (AIPSED). Although recent advances in AI have led to increased interest in its use in education, discussions about the ethical impacts of this new development are dispersed. Our literature review consolidates discussions that occurred in different epistemic communities interested in AIPSED and offers an ethical analysis of the debate. Method: The review followed the PRISMA-Ethics guidelines and included 48 sources published between 2016 and 2023. Results: Using a thematic approach, we subsumed ethical issues under seventeen categories, with four outlining potential positive developments and thirteen identifying perceived negative consequences.Discussion: We argue that empirical research and in-depth engagement with ethical theory and philosophy of education is needed to adequately assess the challenges introduced by AIPSED.

Presented here is a systematic literature review of how RI teaching is discussed in national and international research integrity (RI) codes. First, we set out to identify the codes that exist, and performed some generic analysis on them. Following a comprehensive search strategy, which included all 193 United Nations member states, we identified 52 national and 14 international RI codes. RI teaching is addressed in 46 national and 10 international codes. We then examined how the codes address RI teaching under the following headings: the aims, the target audience, the ethics approach proposed, the assessment and/or evaluation strategy, and any challenges identified in relation to RI teaching. There is considerable overlap between the aims of RI teaching in the various codes, for example, promoting awareness of RI. Most codes claim RI teaching is for all researchers, but without any in-depth guidance. While educational programmes, training, and mentorship/supervision are proposed for RI teaching, there is insufficient detail to identify the ethics approach to be used in such teaching. Lastly, only few address assessment and/or evaluation or challenges in RI teaching. Here, we analyzed how current codes address RI teaching; we identified some shortfalls, and in our discussion we advance recommendations.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform many aspects of scholarly publishing. Authors, peer reviewers, and editors might use AI in a variety of ways, and those uses might augment their existing work or might instead be intended to replace it. We are editors of bioethics and humanities journals who have been contemplating the implications of this ongoing transformation. We believe that generative AI may pose a threat to the goals that animate our work but could also be valuable for achieving those goals. In the interests of fostering a wider conversation about how generative AI may be used, we have developed a preliminary set of recommendations for its use in scholarly publishing. We hope that the recommendations and rationales set out here will help the scholarly community navigate toward a deeper understanding of the strengths, limits, and challenges of AI for responsible scholarly work .

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform many aspects of scholarly publishing. Authors, peer reviewers, and editors might use AI in a variety of ways, and those uses might augment their existing work or might instead be intended to replace it. We are editors of bioethics and humanities journals who have been contemplating the implications of this ongoing transformation. We believe that generative AI may pose a threat to the goals that animate our work but could also be valuable for achieving those goals. In the interests of fostering a wider conversation about how generative AI may be used, we have developed a preliminary set of recommendations for its use in scholarly publishing. We hope that the recommendations and rationales set out here will help the scholarly community navigate toward a deeper understanding of the strengths, limits, and challenges of AI for responsible scholarly work.

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.