Text (Instruction Step Text)
From The Embassy of Good Science
Describe the actions the user should take to experience the material (including preparation and follow up if any). Write in an active way.
- ⧼SA Foundation Data Type⧽: Text
1
Thank you for taking this irecs module!
Your feedback is very valuable to us and will help us to improve future training materials.
We would like to ask for your opinions:
1. To improve the irecs e-learning modules
2. For research purposes to evaluate the outcomes of the irecs project
To this end we have developed a short questionnaire, which will take from 5 to 10 minutes to answer.
Your anonymity is guaranteed;you won’t be asked to share identifying information or any sensitive information. Data will be handled and stored securely and will only be used for the purposes detailed above. You can find the questionnaire by clicking on the link below.
This link will take you to a new page;[https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fforms.office.com%2Fe%2FK5LH08FyvQ&data=05%7C02%7CKChatfield%40uclan.ac.uk%7Cde983f54bcc64d66a02908dcd0b50ccd%7Cebf69982036b4cc4b2027aeb194c5065%7C0%7C0%7C638614723283127814%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=shLTj7qPsGmGj0JOoPRZV2LhKbl5XOOhAbo7F%2FWzW7s%3D&reserved=0 https://forms.office.com/e/K5LH08FyvQ]
Thank you! +
Thank you for taking this irecs module!
Your feedback is very valuable to us and will help us to improve future training materials.
We would like to ask for your opinions:
1. To improve the irecs e-learning modules
2. For research purposes to evaluate the outcomes of the irecs project
To this end we have developed a short questionnaire, which will take from 5 to 10 minutes to answer.
Your anonymity is guaranteed;you won’t be asked to share identifying information or any sensitive information. Data will be handled and stored securely and will only be used for the purposes detailed above. You can find the questionnaire by clicking on the link below.
This link will take you to a new page: [https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fforms.office.com%2Fe%2FUsKC9j09Tx&data=05%7C02%7CKChatfield%40uclan.ac.uk%7Cbe3ccf952ee04506e25608dd19dcde06%7Cebf69982036b4cc4b2027aeb194c5065%7C0%7C0%7C638695158651948095%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=P5sNoxm3jW6tLABNV7bNiETR3fHQUG2VODMd3wk3r9E%3D&reserved=0 https://forms.office.com/e/UsKC9j09Tx]
Thank you! +
[[File:Mm12.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
The final video in this module is the winning video from the [https://www.globalewerteallianz.ch/en/ FGVA] sponsored rap, dance and music competition held for the TRUST project. "We are the San", from !Khwa ttu Kids is a representation of the values of fairness, respect, care and honesty through song, film and dance. Congratulations to the team at [https://www.khwattu.org/ !Khwa ttu].
If you want to learn more, please visit the bibliography and further reading page for some relevant resources. +
[[File:AI Img10.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
You can try these questions to see whether your learning from this module addresses the intended learning outcomes. No one else will see your answers. No personal data is collected. +
[[File:Mm13.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
You can try these questions to see whether your learning from this module addresses the intended learning outcomes. No one else will see your answers. No personal data is collected. +
[[File:GovProc10.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
'''Accountability'''
In the context of research governance, accountability entails researchers and research institutions taking responsibility for the ethical conduct, integrity, and outcomes of their research activities. This includes adhering to regulatory requirements, ethical guidelines, and best practices in research methodology. Accountability in research governance also involves transparency in reporting findings, acknowledging conflicts of interest, and ensuring that research benefits society while minimising potential harm.
'''Ethics dumping'''
Ethics dumping is a term used to describe situations when researchers from privileged settings offshore unethical research to lower income settings. It can happen on purpose, but also due to lack of awareness and cultural misunderstandings. Probably the best-known type of ethics dumping is the application of double standards, where exploitative practises that are not accepted in a high-income setting are used in a lower income setting.
'''Methodology'''
Methodology refers to the systematic methods or procedures used in a particular field of study or discipline. It encompasses the principles, techniques, and rules for conducting research or investigation within that field. It can be regarded as a framework for planning, executing, and evaluating research activities.
'''Methods'''
In research, the term ‘methods’ refers to the specific tools or processes that are used for data collection or analysis. For instance, methods might take the form of a survey, interviews or experiments.
'''Trustworthiness'''
Trustworthiness in the research context refers to the credibility, reliability, and integrity of the research process and its outcomes. It encompasses adherence to ethical standards, transparency in methods and reporting, consistency in findings, and the avoidance of biases or conflicts of interest. Trustworthiness is essential for establishing confidence in research results among peers, stakeholders, and the broader community.
'''Stewardship'''
In the research context, stewardship involves the ethical and responsible management of research resources, including funding, data, facilities, and intellectual property. It entails ensuring that these resources are used efficiently, transparently, and in accordance with established guidelines and ethical standards. Stewardship in research also involves promoting the integrity of the research process, fostering collaboration, and safeguarding the interests of participants, stakeholders, and the broader community.
[[File:ReImage11..png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
<div><div>
Now that you have considered this case in more depth, it’s time to decide whether you will approve the project.
Please answer the following question, your responses will be recorded anonymously.
</div>Question: What is your decision?
'''Feedback'''
Through this case study we have sought to explore the ethics issues associated with the use of VR, AI avatars and generative AI in a research proposal. The proposed project raises a broad range of concerns, some of which are anticipated in the proposal, but many of which are not mentioned. Hence the proposal is not yet ‘approval ready’. With the help of the document, The use of XR technologies in research: A checklist for research ethics committees, it should be possible for you to spot the omissions in the proposal and formulate a list of requirements.
However, even if the researchers address all these requirements appropriately, there may still be disagreements about whether the study can be approved, whether the potential for benefits justify the potential risks. Whatever your decision, we ask you to reflect back upon the first question we raised, ‘What experiences and understanding about the use of VR do you bring to this case study?’ Have your opinions and assumptions about the use of VR changed?
</div><div><div></div></div> +
[[File:AI Image12.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
In navigating the entry of new actors into the health domain, policymakers, healthcare providers, and technology companies must work together to ensure that innovations align with patient needs, adhere to ethical standards, and contribute to the overall improvement of healthcare delivery. Balancing innovation with regulatory oversight and patient protection remains a key challenge in this evolving landscape. +
[[File:Someone putting their thumb up and data appearing.jpg|alt=someone putting their thumb up and data appearing|center|frameless|600x600px|someone putting their thumb up and data appearing]]
Do you know what is meant by personal data? Look at the following options and identify those that are personal data. +
[[File:Gene Image13.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
UK Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/6/contents/enacted
Association for Responsible Research and Innovation in Genome Editing (ARRIGE): https://www.arrige.org/
European Parliament, Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services, A Nordberg, et L Antunes. Genome editing in humans – A survey of law, regulation and governance principles. European Parliament, 2022. https://doi.org/10.2861/07058.
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics ethical review on genome editing: this document gives a good overview of the technique of gene editing as well as the ethical and legal questions surrounding it. From the examples given, there could be case studies being developed [https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/assets/pdfs/Genome-editing-an-ethical-review.pdf https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/assets/pdfs/Genome-editing-an-ethical-] [https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/assets/pdfs/Genome-editing-an-ethical-review.pdf review.pdf]
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics social and ethical review on genome editing and human reproduction: very helpful background information on the topic of gene editing which can be used for designing case studies or other kinds of training modules [https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/assets/pdfs/Genome-editing-and-human-reproduction-report.pdf https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/assets/pdfs/Genome-] [https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/assets/pdfs/Genome-editing-and-human-reproduction-report.pdf editing-and-human-reproduction-report.pdf]
A case study from The Royal Society about gene editing in human embryos: [https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/gene-tech/case-studies-keywords/case-study-genome-edited-human-embryos.pdf https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/gene-tech/case-studies-] [https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/gene-tech/case-studies-keywords/case-study-genome-edited-human-embryos.pdf keywords/case-study-genome-edited-human-embryos.pdf]
A case study from The Royal Society about non-heritable human genome editing: [https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/gene-tech/case-studies-keywords/case-study-non-heritable-genome-editing.pdf https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/gene-tech/case-studies-] [https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/gene-tech/case-studies-keywords/case-study-non-heritable-genome-editing.pdf keywords/case-study-non-heritable-genome-editing.pdf]
An overview of success stories related to gene editing and can be used for real life examples for what gene editing can and can’t do: [https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-021-02737-7/d41586-021-02737-7.pdf https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-021-02737-] [https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-021-02737-7/d41586-021-02737-7.pdf 7/d41586-021-02737-7.pdf]
This article reflects on the fundamental ethical dilemma of using gene drives in mosquitoes and its possible effects on people in Africa: [https://www.sciencenews.org/article/gene-drives-mosquito-malaria-crispr-africa-public-outreach https://www.sciencenews.org/article/gene-drives-mosquito-malaria-crispr-] [https://www.sciencenews.org/article/gene-drives-mosquito-malaria-crispr-africa-public-outreach africa-public-outreach]
This article discusses the events involving the birth of the first human babies who were genetically edited by a Chinese researcher to be resistant to HIV. Despite the researcher's intention to protect the babies from HIV, his actions were against the law according to the Chinese government and the scientific community. As a result, he was imprisoned. Nevertheless, the babies are currently alive: https://www.science.org/content/article/did-crispr-help-or-harm-first-ever-gene-edited-babies
[[File:Bio2Image14.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
'''Ethics review processes for biobanking'''
Ethics review processes for biobanking vary across the world. Looking at European countries as an example of the variations, we see that in many countries, independent ethics review bodies, typically RECs, evaluate the ethical acceptability of research projects that intend to use biobank resources. In some countries, RECs also review the establishment of a biobank itself. In other countries, REC approval for biobank research is only necessary in exceptional cases. For example, in the UK, biobanks may obtain general ethics approval to conduct a broad range of biobank research, thereby relieving researchers of the need to seek separate ethics approval. In Finland, REC permission is required to set up a biobank, and the evaluation of biobank research is typically performed by the directors of the biobank, with REC approval necessary only under specific circumstances.
It is also worth noting that in some countries, RECs are responsible for additional obligations, such as allowing biobank controllers to identify and contact gene donors to get their written consent for renewing, supplementing or verifying a description of their state of health. They might also be responsible for authorising the transfer of biobanked samples and health-related data to other biobanks established in the same country or abroad.
Different ethics governance practices across different biobanks in Europe also reflect different models of oversight recommended at the international level. For instance, the [https://www.oecd.org/health/biotech/guidelines-for-human-biobanks-and-genetic-research-databases.htm OECD guidelines for Human Biobanks and Genetic Research Databases] recommend that RECs should assess biobank research with a specific focus on determining whether the purpose of the planned biobank research study falls within the scope of previously given consent or whether it requires (re)consent. Meanwhile, the [https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-taipei-on-ethical-considerations-regarding-health-databases-and-biobanks/ WMA Taipei Declaration] expands the scope of ethical oversight by recommending that RECs should evaluate not only biobank research, but also approve the establishment of a biobank and monitor ongoing biobank activities.
[[File:Ge3Image10.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
'''Allele''': One of two or more versions of a gene. Organisms inherit one allele from each parent for every gene. Different alleles can produce variations in traits, such as eye colour or disease susceptibility.
'''Cas9 (CRISPR-associated protein 9):''' An enzyme that acts like molecular scissors, capable of cutting DNA at a specific location, allowing for targeted gene edits.
'''CRISPR-Cas9:''' A gene-editing tool that uses a protein called Cas9 and a guide RNA to cut DNA at specific locations, allowing for targeted modifications.
'''CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats):''' A sequence of DNA found in the genomes of bacteria and archaea that provides a genetic record of viral infections, used as the basis for gene editing technology.
'''Dominant trait:''' A trait that is expressed when at least one copy of the dominant allele is present.
'''Ex vivo editing:''' A gene-editing technique where cells are modified outside the body (in a lab) and then reintroduced into the patient.
'''Gene:''' A segment of DNA that contains the instructions for producing a specific protein or trait.
'''Gene drive:''' A genetic mechanism that increases the likelihood of a particular gene being inherited by offspring, often used to spread specific traits through a population.
'''Gene editing:''' The process of making precise changes to the DNA of an organism, either by adding, deleting, or altering genetic material.
'''Genome:''' The complete set of genetic material (DNA) in an organism, including all its genes.
'''Genotype:''' The genetic constitution of an organism, referring to the specific alleles an individual carries.
'''Gene therapy:''' A medical approach that involves altering genes within a patient's cells to treat or prevent disease, often using tools like CRISPR-Cas9.
'''Germline editing:''' Gene editing of reproductive cells or embryos, resulting in changes that can be passed on to future generations.
'''Guide RNA (gRNA):''' A short RNA sequence that directs the Cas9 enzyme to the specific part of the genome that needs editing by matching its complementary DNA sequence.
'''Horizontal gene transfer:''' The movement of genetic material between organisms in a manner other than traditional reproduction.
'''In vivo editing:''' A gene-editing technique where the CRISPR-Cas9 system is delivered directly into the body to modify cells within the patient.
'''Knock-in:''' A genetic modification where new genetic material is inserted into a specific location in the genome using CRISPR-Cas9.
'''Knockout:''' A genetic modification where a specific gene is completely inactivated or "knocked out" to study its function or disable a harmful gene.
'''Mendelian Genetics:''' The branch of genetics that studies how traits are inherited according to the principles discovered by Gregor Mendel through his work on pea plants.
'''Mosaicism:''' If not all cells may receive the intended modification, this can lead to mosaicism whereby some cells carry the edited gene, while others do not. This is more commons when gene editing is done at the embryonic stage or in early development.
'''Mutation:''' A change in the DNA sequence of a gene, which can alter the function of the gene or result in a new trait.
'''Off-target effects:''' Unintended modifications made by CRISPR-Cas9 at sites other than the intended target, which can result in unwanted mutations.
'''On-target effects:''' Even at the intended target site, gene editing can result in unintended changes. For example, small insertions or deletions that can alter the function of nearby genes or regulatory elements.
'''Phenotype:''' The observable characteristics or traits of an organism, which are determined by its genetic makeup (genotype) and environmental factors.
'''Recessive trait:''' A trait that is expressed only when two copies of the recessive allele are present.
'''Somatic cells:''' All cells in the body except for sperm and egg cells. Somatic cell gene editing: Gene editing performed on somatic (non-reproductive) cells, affecting only the individual and not their offspring.
'''Targeted mutation:''' A deliberate alteration in a specific gene sequence to study gene function or produce a desired trait.
[[File:Man thinking.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
Critical reflection is the process by which adults identify the assumptions governing their actions, locate the historical and cultural origins of the assumptions, question the meaning of the assumptions, and develop alternative ways of acting (Stein, 2000, p1).
Now return to your description of the image above and reflect on the following questions:
* What assumptions are implicit in my account and where do they come from?
* What does my account imply about my basic ideals or values and my personal emotional, social, cultural, historical, or political assumptions?
* What might be the perspective of others and how/why is mine different? +
[[File:S3.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
In the following video there will be pop up information, be sure to click on the video to continue.
There are undoubtedly times when a blanket approach to protection is warranted for certain entire groups, like babies and young children, or for adults with severe cognitive impairment. However, this protectionist stance is often applied to entire groups of people who do have the capacity to provide consent (like impoverished persons, for example). So why does this happen? To answer this question, it is helpful to remember that research ethics codes originated in the biomedical domain, and were intended to prevent the kinds of abuses that occurred in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, whereby people might be subjected to a high risk of harm in research, without their knowledge or consent. The resolve to protect people from exploitation in research runs deep, but we need to be careful not to patronise participants by well-meaning exclusions that serve to perpetuate systemic inequalities and disadvantages. +
[[File:Ext.Image14.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
'''Video Transcript'''
Access to metaverses requires resources that are not available to most people, including a steady electrical supply, high speed internet connection, a headset and / or haptic devices, for an immersive experience, as well as a powerful computer. Over time, the costs of XR devices and hardware may come down, but it is hard to imagine a time when they will be accessible to all.
Aside from the costs, there are inclusivity issues related to use by people with disabilities. For instance, the design of VR headsets can inadvertently exclude individuals with specific disabilities, limiting their participation in metaverses. Current commercially available XR technology may only be comfortable to wear for about 50–60% of the population. How can virtual environments and the technical means of navigating them be adapted to the needs of visually or hearing-impaired persons? Addressing the needs of individuals with disabilities is crucial for creating an accessible and welcoming metaverse, but industries might perceive the market of people with disabilities as less lucrative, potentially leading to a lack of tailored offerings.
The use of immersive technologies within the workplace is also a grey area. There has been increased use of immersive technologies in workspaces, and attention needs to be placed on the impact, either positive or negative, on these spaces. If the technology is not inclusive of all workers, then this raises ethical concerns. +
Researchers must always use respectful language when communicating through the press or the media, even when under pressure +
In this lecture, Søren Holm addresses problematic research practices that vary in severity from definite research misconduct to questionable practices. The initial segment of the lecture examines malpractice related to the provision of open data. The subsequent segment focuses on the misuse of open data and discusses issues concerning open code, materials, and open publication.
'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''
'''Further reading:'''
The Embassy of Good Science: “[[Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c#Research%20misconduct|Research Misconduct]]”
Flanagin, A., Fontanarosa, P. B., & Bauchner, H. (2020). Preprints Involving Medical Research—Do the Benefits Outweigh the Challenges? JAMA, 324(18), 1840–1843. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.20674 +
Thank you for taking this irecs module!
Your feedback is very valuable to us and will help us to improve future training materials.
We would like to ask for your opinions:
1. To improve the irecs e-learning modules
2. For research purposes to evaluate the outcomes of the irecs project
To this end we have developed a short questionnaire, which will take from 5 to 10 minutes to answer.
Your anonymity is guaranteed;you won’t be asked to share identifying information or any sensitive information. Data will be handled and stored securely and will only be used for the purposes detailed above. You can find the questionnaire by clicking on the link below.
This link will take you to a new page: [https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fforms.office.com%2Fe%2FUsKC9j09Tx&data=05%7C02%7CKChatfield%40uclan.ac.uk%7Cbe3ccf952ee04506e25608dd19dcde06%7Cebf69982036b4cc4b2027aeb194c5065%7C0%7C0%7C638695158651948095%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=P5sNoxm3jW6tLABNV7bNiETR3fHQUG2VODMd3wk3r9E%3D&reserved=0 https://forms.office.com/e/UsKC9j09Tx]
Thank you! +
Thank you for taking this irecs module!
Your feedback is very valuable to us and will help us to improve future training materials.
We would like to ask for your opinions:
1. To improve the irecs e-learning modules
2. For research purposes to evaluate the outcomes of the irecs project
To this end we have developed a short questionnaire, which will take from 5 to 10 minutes to answer.
Your anonymity is guaranteed;you won’t be asked to share identifying information or any sensitive information. Data will be handled and stored securely and will only be used for the purposes detailed above. You can find the questionnaire by clicking on the link below.
This link will take you to a new page;[https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fforms.office.com%2Fe%2F3puN6rfFYS&data=05%7C02%7CKChatfield%40uclan.ac.uk%7Cde983f54bcc64d66a02908dcd0b50ccd%7Cebf69982036b4cc4b2027aeb194c5065%7C0%7C0%7C638614723283142461%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=noGJNHMbkeQtmNkEzmf2zx2ua3sxX%2F7ta9F8pmckrSQ%3D&reserved=0 https://forms.office.com/e/3puN6rfFYS]
Thank you! +
[[File:AI img10.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
Comité Consultatif National D’Ethique pour les Sciences de la Vie et de la Santé:
Medical Diagnosis and Artificial Intelligence: Ethical Issues. Joint opinion of the CCNE and CNPEN,
CCNE Opinion 141, CNPEN Opinion 4. November 2022
https://www.ccne-ethique.fr/sites/default/files/2023-05/Opinion%20No.141.pdf
Council of Europe:
Guidelines on artificial intelligence and data protection (2019)
https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021- [https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/guidance/ethics-by-design-and-ethics-of-use-approaches-for-artificial-intelligence_he_en.pdf 2027/horizon/guidance/ethics-by-design-and-ethics-of-use-approaches-] [https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/guidance/ethics-by-design-and-ethics-of-use-approaches-for-artificial-intelligence_he_en.pdf for-artificial-intelligence_he_en.pdf]
Deutscher Ethikrat (German Ethics Council):
Opinion: Humans and Machines – Challenges of Artificial Intelligence (2023) https://www.ethikrat.org/en/publications/publication-details/?tx_wwt3shop_detail%5Bproduct%5D=168&tx_wwt3shop_detail%5Baction%5D=index&tx_wwt3shop_detail%5Bcontroller%5D=Products&cookieLevel=accept-all&cHash=4d430bf45ea980ea5f83daad9550ef88 (currently only available in German, an English translation will be available in due course)
European Commission:
Ethics By Design and Ethics of Use Approaches for Artificial Intelligence (2021)
https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021- [https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/guidance/ethics-by-design-and-ethics-of-use-approaches-for-artificial-intelligence_he_en.pdf 2027/horizon/guidance/ethics-by-design-and-ethics-of-use-approaches-] [https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/guidance/ethics-by-design-and-ethics-of-use-approaches-for-artificial-intelligence_he_en.pdf for-artificial-intelligence_he_en.pdf]
European Commission Science Policy, Advice & Ethics Unit, DG Research & Innovation:
The ethics appraisal scheme in Horizon Europe (2021)
https://www.bbmri-eric.eu/wp-content/uploads/The-Ethics-Appraisal-Scheme-_BBMRI-webinar-september-2021_version-for-dessimination.pdf
Chapter 8 of the ethics issues table in the EU ethics appraisal scheme is of particular importance in Horizon Europe as it specifically addresses research ethical aspects of AI. Other relevant chapters include chapter 1 on human participants, chapter 4 on personal data and chapter 10 on the potential misuse of results. The inclusion of a chapter on AI in Horizon Europe is a recent addition. The EC introduced this chapter because it identified pressing ethical concerns related to discrimination and bias, safety and liability, transparency and opaque algorithms, as well as privacy and data protection. These concerns were deemed highly urgent and thus warranted a dedicated section within the ethics appraisal scheme. The key values to be respected within the projects submitted to the EU appraisal scheme are (1) human agency and oversight, (2) privacy and data protection, (3) fairness, diversity and non-discrimination, (4) accountability, (5) transparency, and (6) societal and environmental wellbeing.
Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI (2019)
https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/ethics-guidelines- [https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai trustworthy-ai]
OECD Legal Instruments:
Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence (2019)
https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/oecd-legal-0449
UNESCO:
Recommendations on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (2022)
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137
World Health Organisation:
Ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health (2021)
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240029200
See Chapter 4 for an overview of laws, policies, and principles that apply to the use of AI in healthcare. Chapter 5 proposes six key ethical principles which can serve as useful reminders for those involved in research utilising AI in healthcare
Also worth exploring are guidelines produced by [https://blog.neurips.cc/2021/12/03/a-retrospective-on-the-neurips-2021-ethics-review-process/ Stanford University], [https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000380455#:~:text=AI%20actors%20and%20Member%20States,law%2C%20in%20particular%20Member%20States%27 UNESCO] and the Horizon Europe Project [https://www.sienna-project.eu/ SIENNA] which developed ethical frameworks and recommendations for AI and robotics.
Isaak, J., & Hanna, M. J. (2018). User data privacy: Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, and privacy protection. Computer, 51(8), 56-59. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8436400
