ENRIO Meeting Spring 2026: Key Definitions, Artificial Intelligence, and Security
Several important projects were presented at the ENRIO meeting in Tallinn in March/April. The National Research Ethics Committees (FEK) are widely involved.
On of FEK’s aims is to actively participate in the development of international frameworks in the field. Collaboration with other countries in Europe and globally is also important to ensure up-to-date knowledge. An important network is The European Network of Research Integrity Offices (ENRIO). At the turn of March/April, members met in Tallinn to discuss national and international developments, and common projects.
FEK Director Helene Ingierd sits on ENRIO’s board and leads the Key definition-project. She presented the work.
– The background for ENRIO’s work on key definitions is primarily the need for a shared understanding and harmonized terminology, where possible, within research ethics and integrity across countries, institutions, and disciplines. The working group has examined how eleven central concepts are defined in ENRIO’s member countries. This includes concepts such as research integrity, research ethics, research misconduct, and questionable research practices.
These are some of the main findings from the qualitative analysis:
- Most have a document that defines research integrity and related concepts, or refers to such definitions.
- There is significant variation among ENRIO members in how the concepts are included and defined.
- National documents rarely provide clear and unambiguous definitions of the concepts but usually elaborate on their content through principles and examples.
- Most definitions are not legally binding and are published in guidelines issued by both governmental and non-governmental bodies.
- Members report a need to define certain concepts that are unclear or evolving.
- Members report gaps in national systems for research ethics and research integrity.
The working group has also conducted a normative analysis of several of the concepts. The purpose is to develop recommendations on which elements should be included in good definitions. The results will be presented in a report later this year.
– It is essential for quality and legitimacy that researchers themselves define the content of research ethics norms and develop research ethics guidelines. Conceptual clarity should be an objective. This is an important prerequisite for achieving a joint effort in the work on research ethics and integrity in Europe. The report will result in a number of recommendations related to good definitions, including the need to clarify the boundaries between, for example, integrity and ethics, and links to principles in European frameworks for research integrity and ethics, where relevant, says Ingierd.
In addition, ENRIO is working on AI in research and research security as part of its broader work on research integrity. The working group on AI has, among other things, given input to a planned global standard for transparency regarding the use of artificial intelligence in research. This standard will be discussed at the upcoming World Conference on Research Integrity (WCRI) in Vancouver in May. The standard aims to harmonize practices internationally, clarify applicable requirements, and help strengthen accountability in the use of AI in research.
Work on research security has also recently started in ENRIO. ENRIO will map how the different member countries use the concept. The objectives are to gain more knowledge about the links between research security and research integrity, develop a shared understanding, and examine how developments affect the evolution of frameworks for research integrity.
All of these areas are central to ERA Action 18, which concerns developing and strengthening a common European framework for research ethics and integrity, and the SIMPLIFY project, in which ENRIO is a partner. Helene Ingierd is also the national contact point in Norway for ERA Action 18, which recently held its kick-off meeting in Brussels.
– FEK prioritizes international work because developments in the field take place in global forums. We bring important insights from the work of our committees and advisory bodies to international arenas, and we bring feedback back into our own work. International engagement means that we help shape key discussions on research ethics in Europe and globally, and it strengthens the quality of our work in Norway.