负责任创新中医疗人工智能应用技术的伦理审视

负责任创新是目前探讨人工智能技术在医疗领域应用的重要理论,也是引导医疗人工智能应用技术向善发展的理想图景,其基本结构主要包括预测、反思、协商、反应四个维度。当前,医疗人工智能应用技术受技术“黑箱特质”的影响,暴露了其在安全、隐私、道德、分配等方面的伦理风险,桎梏了其应用于医疗事业的广阔前景。面对医疗人工智能应用技术的伦理困境,从其技术研发、设计、应用、跟踪等全过程分析嵌入负责任创新四维度模型,能够有效缓解医疗人工智能应用技术在实践中存在的伦理风险,从而真正实现其为人类健康的精准赋能。

     

负责任创新理论在生物医学伦理治理中的应用及启示

“负责任创新”是目前全球公认的理想发展愿景,近年来成为生物医学伦理治理的重要理论,基于Web of Science核心数据库,运用VOSviewer软件,通过对生物医学伦理治理的文献分析,发现“负责任创新”理论被广泛运用于基础医学、临床治疗、全球医疗卫生系统等诸多生物医疗领域;在不同治理情景中界定出创新、价值和评价三类责任主体,政府责任在具体实践中起到重要作用;在案例实践中完善了四维度框架中的伦理审查方式,为更好地将该理论运用到我国生物医学伦理治理中提供借鉴意义。

     

Responsible Reporting: Neuroimaging News in the Age of Responsible Research and Innovation

Besides offering opportunities in both clinical and non-clinical domains, the application of novel neuroimaging technologies raises pressing dilemmas. ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’ (RRI) aims to stimulate research and innovation activities that take ethical and social considerations into account from the outset. We previously identified that Dutch neuroscientists interpret “responsible innovation” as educating the public on neuroimaging technologies via the popular press. Their aim is to mitigate (neuro)hype, an aim shared with the wider emerging RRI community. Here, we present results of a media-analysis undertaken to establish whether the body of articles in the Dutch popular press presents balanced conversations on neuroimaging research to the public. We found that reporting was mostly positive and framed in terms of (healthcare) progress. There was rarely a balance between technology opportunities and limitations, and even fewer articles addressed societal or ethical aspects of neuroimaging research. Furthermore, neuroimaging metaphors seem to favour oversimplification. Current reporting is therefore more likely to enable hype than to mitigate it. How can neuroscientists, given their self-ascribed social responsibility, address this conundrum? We make a case for a collective and shared responsibility among neuroscientists, journalists and other stakeholders, including funders, committed to responsible reporting on neuroimaging research.     

Practices of Responsible Research and Innovation: A Review

Science and Engineering Ethics - This paper presents results of a systematic literature review of RRI practices which aimed to gather insights to further both the theoretical and practical...     

Teaching Responsible Research and Innovation: A Phronetic Perspective

Science and Engineering Ethics - Across the European research area and beyond, efforts are being mobilized to align research and innovation processes and products with societal values and needs,...     

Responsible Authorship in Engineering Fields: An Overview of Current Ethical Challenges

The primary aim of this article is to identify ethical challenges relating to authorship in engineering fields. Professional organizations and journals do provide crucial guidance in this realm, but this cannot replace the need for frequent and diligent discussions in engineering research communities about what constitutes appropriate authorship practice. Engineering researchers should seek to identify and address issues such as who is entitled to be an author and whether publishing their research could potentially harm the public.     

On Being Responsible and Holding Responsible

A number of philosophers have recently argued that we should interpret the debate over moral responsibility as a debate over the conditions under which it would be “fair” to blame a person for her attitudes or conduct. What is distinctive about these accounts is that they begin with the stance of the moral judge, rather than that of the agent who is judged, and make attributions of responsibility dependent upon whether it would be fair or appropriate for a moral judge to react to the agent in various (negative) ways. This is problematic, I argue, because our intuitions about whether and when it would be fair to react negatively to another are sensitive to a host of considerations that appear to have little or nothing to do with an agent’s responsibility or culpability for her attitudes or behavior. If this is correct, then theories which make attributions of responsibility dependent upon the appropriateness of our reactions as moral judges will turn out to be fundamentally misguided. I am grateful to Barbara Herman, T. M. Scanlon, and two anonymous reviewers for The Journal of Ethics for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. I am also grateful to Pamela Hieronymi and the members of her Fall 2201 graduate seminar on moral responsibility at UCLA, and to the audience members at Simon Fraser University, for their valuable feedback on earlier versions of this material. My biggest debt of gratitude goes to Jean Roberts, for stimulating discussion and insightful commentary on multiple drafts of this paper.     

National Ethics Advisory Bodies in the Emerging Landscape of Responsible Research and Innovation

The article examines the role played by policy advice institutions in the governance of ethically controversial new and emerging science and technology in Europe. The empirical analysis, which aims to help close a gap in the literature, focuses on the evolution, role and functioning of national ethics advisory bodies (EABs) in Europe. EABs are expert bodies whose remit is to issue recommendations regarding ethical aspects of new and emerging science and technology. Negative experiences with the impacts of science and technology in the past have resulted in calls for increased transparency and broader participation and pluralism in expert advice and policy decision-making. Do national EABs function as inclusive, anticipatory “hybrid forums”? Or do they resemble more “classical” expert-oriented bodies, inspired by technocratic or decisionist approaches? As part of the empirical analysis of the role and functioning of institutional ethical advisory structures in 32 European countries, an extensive analysis of EAB websites and the content of publicly available documents on such institutions has been carried out, supplemented by an online survey of representatives of the EABs. One major finding of the empirical analysis is the very uneven distribution of “hybrid forum” features of EABs across Europe.     

The Ethical Implications of Social Media: Issues and Recommendations For Clinical Practice

The Internet and electronic communication technologies have taken the psychological field by storm. From the innovations of new web interventions for easier access to care to the increased ease of client scheduling and communication, these developments have greatly advanced mental health care. However, these advantages are also laced with ethical implications that warrant attention. Without judicious consideration, social media use by psychotherapists can lead to inadvertent self-disclosures to clients that risk damaging the therapeutic alliance, interfering with therapeutic processes, and placing both the client and clinician at risk. A better understanding of the ethical implications of social media use is warranted so that guidelines for appropriate use can be developed and implemented. This article highlights the potential risks associated with social media use by psychotherapists and, in absence of formalized guidelines, offers recommendations for best practices.     

Personality Differences between Responsible and Less Responsible Children

Social maladjustment has been related to an external locus of control orientation. It was hypothesized, therefore, that delinquent females would be more external than a control sample. Further, since alienation from others is also associated with maladjustment, it was expected that the delinquents would also prefer greater distance from others. These hypotheses were confirmed with discussion being in terms of implication for rehabilitation of delinquents.