Learning to Live with Strange Error: Beyond Trustworthiness in Artificial Intelligence Ethics.

Position papers on artificial intelligence (AI) ethics are often framed as attempts to work out technical and regulatory strategies for attaining what is commonly called trustworthy AI. In such papers, the technical and regulatory strategies are frequently analyzed in detail, but the concept of trustworthy AI is not. As a result, it remains unclear. This paper lays out a variety of possible interpretations of the concept and concludes that none of them is appropriate. The central problem is that, by framing the ethics of AI in terms of trustworthiness, we reinforce unjustified anthropocentric assumptions that stand in the way of clear analysis. Furthermore, even if we insist on a purely epistemic interpretation of the concept, according to which trustworthiness just means measurable reliability, it turns out that the analysis will, nevertheless, suffer from a subtle form of anthropocentrism. The paper goes on to develop the concept of strange error, which serves both to sharpen the initial diagnosis of the inadequacy of trustworthy AI and to articulate the novel epistemological situation created by the use of AI. The paper concludes with a discussion of how strange error puts pressure on standard practices of assessing moral culpability, particularly in the context of medicine.

Ethical Implications of e-Health Applications in Early Preventive Healthcare.

As a means of preventive medicine early detection and prevention examinations can identify and treat possible health disorders or abnormalities from an early age onwards. However, pediatric examinations are often widely spaced, and thus only snapshots of the children's and adolescents' developments are obtained. With e-health applications parents and adolescents could record developmental parameters much more frequently and regularly and transmit data directly for ongoing evaluation. AI technologies could be used to search for new and previously unknown patterns. Although e-health applications could improve preventive healthcare, there are serious concerns about the unlimited use of big data in medicine. Such concerns range from general skepticism about big data in medicine to specific challenges and risks in certain medical areas. In this paper, we will focus on preventive health care in pediatrics and explore ethical implications of e-health applications. Specifically, we will address opportunities and risks of app-based data collection and AI-based data evaluation for complementing established early detection and prevention examinations. To this end, we will explore the principle of the best interest of the child. Furthermore, we shall argue that difficult trade-offs need to be made between group benefit on the one hand and individual autonomy and privacy on the other.

Advance research directives: avoiding double standards.

BACKGROUND: Advance research directives (ARD) have been suggested as a means by which to facilitate research with incapacitated subjects, in particular in the context of dementia research. However, established disclosure requirements for study participation raise an ethical problem for the application of ARDs: While regular consent procedures call for detailed information on a specific study ("token disclosure"), ARDs can typically only include generic information ("type disclosure"). The introduction of ARDs could thus establish a double standard in the sense that within the context of ARDs, type disclosure would be considered sufficient, while beyond this context, token disclosure would remain necessary. MAIN BODY: This paper provides an ethical analysis of ARDs, taking into account the results of numerous empirical studies that have been performed so far. It will be argued that a revised understanding of informed consent can allow for context-sensitive disclosure standards. As a consequence, ARDs that include type disclosure can be acceptable under suitable circumstances. Such an approach raises a number of objections. A thorough examination shows, however, that they are not sufficient to justify a rejection of the approach. CONCLUSION: The approach presented in this paper avoids introducing a double standard. It is, therefore, more suitable for the implementation of ARDs than established approaches.

[The predictable human : Possibilities and risks of AI-based prediction of cognitive abilities, personality traits and mental illnesses]. / Der vorhersagbare Mensch : Chancen und Risiken der KI-basierten Prädiktion von kognitiven Fähigkeiten, Persönlichkeitsmerkmalen und psychischen Erkrankungen.

New approaches to the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to analyze data from neuroimaging but also passively collected data from so-called wearables, such as smartphones or smartwatches, as well as data that can be extracted from social media and other online activities, already make it possible to predict cognitive abilities, personality traits, and mental illnesses, as well as to reveal acute mental states. In this article, we explain the methodological concepts behind these current developments, illuminate the possibilities and limitations, and address ethical and social aspects arising from the use.

Moral ambivalence. A comment on non-invasive prenatal testing from an ethical perspective.

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has been available for almost 10 years. In many countries the test attracted considerable criticism from the start. While most critical comments in this context deal with the (alleged) problem of eugenic selection, I will concentrate on a somewhat broader issue. CONTENT: I will argue that NIPT clearly has the potential to increase reproductive autonomy and benefit expectant parents. However, NIPT can also put people in a situation that is morally overwhelming for them and from which there is no easy way out. In this sense, such tests can have a dilemma-generating effect. SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK: I will conclude that this can be adequately described by the term "moral ambivalence".

Your evidence? Machine learning algorithms for medical diagnosis and prediction.

Computer systems for medical diagnosis based on machine learning are not mere science fiction. Despite undisputed potential benefits, such systems may also raise problems. Two (interconnected) issues are particularly significant from an ethical point of view: The first issue is that epistemic opacity is at odds with a common desire for understanding and potentially undermines information rights. The second (related) issue concerns the assignment of responsibility in cases of failure. The core of the two issues seems to be that understanding and responsibility are concepts that are intrinsically tied to the discursive practice of giving and asking for reasons. The challenge is to find ways to make the outcomes of machine learning algorithms compatible with our discursive practice. This comes down to the claim that we should try to integrate discursive elements into machine learning algorithms. Under the title of "explainable AI" initiatives heading in this direction are already under way. Extensive research in this field is needed for finding adequate solutions.

Myth or Magic? Towards a Revised Theory of Informed Consent in Medical Research.

Although the principle of informed consent is well established and its importance widely acknowledged, it has met with criticism for decades. Doubts have been raised for a number of different reasons. In particular, empirical data show that people regularly fail to reproduce the information provided to them. Many critics agree, therefore, that the received concept of informed consent is no more than a myth. Strategies to overcome this problem often rest on a flawed concept of informed consent. In this paper, it is suggested that informed consent is a communicative act between two persons. The challenge is to elucidate the norms and constraints for successfully performing such a communicative act. The view developed here has major consequences with regard to the standards for information disclosure as well as for the general scope of informed consent.

Working with Research Integrity-Guidance for Research Performing Organisations: The Bonn PRINTEGER Statement.

This document presents the Bonn PRINTEGER Consensus Statement: Working with Research Integrity-Guidance for research performing organisations. The aim of the statement is to complement existing instruments by focusing specifically on institutional responsibilities for strengthening integrity. It takes into account the daily challenges and organisational contexts of most researchers. The statement intends to make research integrity challenges recognisable from the work-floor perspective, providing concrete advice on organisational measures to strengthen integrity. The statement, which was concluded February 7th 2018, provides guidance on the following key issues: § 1. Providing information about research integrity § 2. Providing education, training and mentoring § 3. Strengthening a research integrity culture § 4. Facilitating open dialogue § 5. Wise incentive management § 6. Implementing quality assurance procedures § 7. Improving the work environment and work satisfaction § 8. Increasing transparency of misconduct cases § 9. Opening up research § 10. Implementing safe and effective whistle-blowing channels § 11. Protecting the alleged perpetrators § 12. Establishing a research integrity committee and appointing an ombudsperson § 13. Making explicit the applicable standards for research integrity.

A comparative Analysis of Selected European Guidelines and Recommendations for Biobanks with Special Regard to the Research/ Non-Research Distinction

Classifying an activity as research has considerable normative consequences: On the one side research activities are especially protected (“freedom of research”), on the other side stricter ethical rules legal regulations may apply to such activities, e.g. compulsory review by ethics committees. It is therefore important to find criteria to delimit research form non-research activities. The aim of the present study is to analyse some European guidelines and recommendations for biobanks and to see whether these documents provide comments that help to elucidate the research/non-research distinction

La clasificación de una actividad como de investigación tiene muchas consecuencias normativas: por un lado, las actividades de investigación están especialmente protegidas (“ la libertad de investigación”) mientras que por el otro, se pueden aplicar a estas actividades unas reglas éticas y regulaciones legales más estrictas, como por ejemplo la revisión obligatoria de los comités de ética. Por consiguiente, es importante encontrar criterios que delimiten las actividades de investigación de las que no son. El objetivo de este escrito es analizar algunas directrices y recomendaciones europeas para los biobancos y analizar si estos documentos añaden comentarios para elucidar la distinción entre lo que es investigación y lo que no

Delimiting the concept of research: an ethical perspective.

It is important to be able to offer an account of which activities count as scientific research, given our current interest in promoting research as a means to benefit humankind and in ethically regulating it. We attempt to offer such an account, arguing that we need to consider both the procedural and functional dimensions of an activity before we can establish whether it is a genuine instance of scientific research. By placing research in a broader schema of activities, the similarities and differences between research activities and other activities become visible. It is also easier to show why some activities that do not count as research can sometimes be confused with research and why some other activities can be regarded only partially as research. Although the concept of research is important to delimit a class of activities which we might be morally obliged to promote, we observe that the class of activities which are regarded as subject to ethical regulation is not exhausted by research activities. We argue that, whether they be research or not, all the activities that are likely to affect the rights and interests of the individuals involved and impact on the rights and interests of other individuals raise ethical issues and might be in need of ethical regulation.

A comparative analysis of selected European guidelines and recommendations for biobanks with special regard to the research / non-research distinction.

Classifying an activity as research has considerable normative consequences: On the one side research activities are especially protected ("freedom of research"), on the other side stricter ethical rules legal regulations may apply to such activities, e.g. compulsory review by ethics committees. It is therefore important to find criteria to delimit research from non-research activities. The aim of the present study is to analyse some European guidelines and recommendations for biobanks and to see whether these documents provide comments that help to elucidate the research/non-research distinction.

What should we want to know about our future? A Kantian view on predictive genetic testing.

Recent advances in genomic research have led to the development of new diagnostic tools, including tests which make it possible to predict the future occurrence of monogenetic diseases (e.g. Chorea Huntington) or to determine increased susceptibilities to the future development of more complex diseases (e.g. breast cancer). The use of such tests raises a number of ethical, legal and social issues which are usually discussed in terms of rights. However, in the context of predictive genetic tests a key question arises which lies beyond the concept of rights, namely, What should we want to know about our future? In the following I shall discuss this question against the background of Kant's Doctrine of Virtue. It will be demonstrated that the system of duties of virtue that Kant elaborates in the second part of his Metaphysics of Morals offers a theoretical framework for addressing the question of a proper scope of future knowledge as provided by genetic tests. This approach can serve as a source of moral guidance complementary to a justice perspective. It does, however, not rest on the-rather problematic--claim to be able to define what the "good life" is.