Ethics and society review: Ethics reflection as a precondition to research funding.
Ethics and society review: Ethics reflection as a precondition to research funding.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1073/pnas.2117261118
复制
发表时间：
2021-12-28
影响因子：
11.1
通讯作者：
Waeiss Q
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bernstein MS;Levi M;Magnus D;Rajala BA;Satz D;Waeiss Q
具有改善人类状况的变革可能性的研究领域也增加了负面道德和社会后果的风险。这些道德和社会风险不属于大多数研究评论的范围。我们引入了一个迭代审查过程，通过在完成该过程时限制获得赠款资金的机会，使这些领域反思和减轻道德和社会风险。对我们大学人工智能资助计划的方法进行的一年评估表明，这种方法受到研究人员的好评，并对他们的研究设计产生了积极影响。该流程还生成了常见风险和缓解策略的列表，为未来的流程提供了基础。计算机科学和政治学等不同领域的研究人员必须越来越多地应对其研究可能给社会带来的风险。然而，针对弱势个体的医学实验的历史影响了许多研究伦理审查，使其只关注对人类受试者的风险，而不是对人类社会的风险。我们描述了一个道德与社会审查委员会（ESR），它通过促进道德和社会反思作为获得资助的要求来填补这一道德空白：在研究人员完成其提案的 ESR 流程之前，研究人员无法从参与项目中获得资助。研究人员撰写了一份初步声明，描述了他们拟议的研究对社会、社会内的亚群体以及全球的风险，并致力于针对这些风险采取缓解策略。跨学科教师小组与研究人员反复讨论，以完善这些风险和缓解策略。我们与斯坦福 HAI 运行的人工智能资助项目合作，描述了 1 年多的 ESR 混合方法评估。对与 ESR 互动的研究人员的调查和访谈发现，100%（95% CI：87 至 100%）愿意继续向 ESR 提交未来的项目，58%（95% CI：37 至 77%）认为这影响了他们研究项目的设计。 ESR 小组最常确定的问题是对少数群体的伤害、将不同利益相关者纳入研究计划、双重用途以及数据集中的代表性。这些原则与可能的缓解策略相结合，为未来的研究设计提供了基础。
Research fields that hold transformative possibilities for improving the human condition also raise risks of negative ethical and societal outcomes. These ethical and societal risks fall outside the purview of most research reviews. We introduce an iterative review process that draws these fields into reflection and mitigation of ethical and societal risks by conditioning access to grant funding on completion of the process. A 1-y evaluation of our approach with an artificial intelligence funding program at our university suggests that this approach is well-received by researchers and positively influenced the design of their research. This process has also generated lists of common risks and mitigation strategies, to provide scaffolding for future processes. Researchers in areas as diverse as computer science and political science must increasingly navigate the possible risks of their research to society. However, the history of medical experiments on vulnerable individuals influenced many research ethics reviews to focus exclusively on risks to human subjects rather than risks to human society. We describe an Ethics and Society Review board (ESR), which fills this moral gap by facilitating ethical and societal reflection as a requirement to access grant funding: Researchers cannot receive grant funding from participating programs until the researchers complete the ESR process for their proposal. Researchers author an initial statement describing their proposed research’s risks to society, subgroups within society, and globally and commit to mitigation strategies for these risks. An interdisciplinary faculty panel iterates with the researchers to refine these risks and mitigation strategies. We describe a mixed-method evaluation of the ESR over 1 y, in partnership with an artificial intelligence grant program run by Stanford HAI. Surveys and interviews of researchers who interacted with the ESR found 100% (95% CI: 87 to 100%) were willing to continue submitting future projects to the ESR, and 58% (95% CI: 37 to 77%) felt that it had influenced the design of their research project. The ESR panel most commonly identified issues of harms to minority groups, inclusion of diverse stakeholders in the research plan, dual use, and representation in datasets. These principles, paired with possible mitigation strategies, offer scaffolding for future research designs.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.3
作者：
Fujii, Lee Ann
通讯作者：
Fujii, Lee Ann
DOI：
10.1073/pnas.2012021117
发表时间：
2020-12-01
影响因子：
11.1
作者：
McDermott, Rose;Hatemi, Peter K.
通讯作者：
Hatemi, Peter K.
DOI：
10.1007/s43681-020-00002-7
发表时间：
2020-10-06
期刊：
Ai and Ethics
影响因子：
--
作者：
Borenstein J;Howard A
通讯作者：
Howard A
影响因子：
9.1
作者：
Merton, Robert K.
通讯作者：
Merton, Robert K.
影响因子：
3.3
作者：
Cronin-Furman, Kate;Lake, Milli
通讯作者：
Lake, Milli