Should This Exist? The Ethics Of New Technology

Lulu Garcia-Navarro
www.NPR.org
Originally posted March 3, 2019

Not every new technology product hits the shelves.

Tech companies kill products and ideas all the time — sometimes it's because they don't work, sometimes there's no market.

Or maybe, it might be too dangerous.

Recently, the research firm OpenAI announced that it would not be releasing a version of a text generator they developed, because of fears that it could be misused to create fake news. The text generator was designed to improve dialogue and speech recognition in artificial intelligence technologies.

The organization's GPT-2 text generator can generate paragraphs of coherent, continuing text based off of a prompt from a human. For example, when inputted with the claim, "John F. Kennedy was just elected President of the United States after rising from the grave decades after his assassination," the generator spit out the transcript of "his acceptance speech" that read in part:

It is time once again. I believe this nation can do great things if the people make their voices heard. The men and women of America must once more summon our best elements, all our ingenuity, and find a way to turn such overwhelming tragedy into the opportunity for a greater good and the fulfillment of all our dreams.

Considering the serious issues around fake news and online propaganda that came to light during the 2016 elections, it's easy to see how this tool could be used for harm.

The info is here.

Series of ethical stumbles tests NIH’s reliance on private sector for research funding

Lev Facher
STAT News
Originally published August 1, 2018

Here is an excerpt:

Now, the NIH is seeking to bounce back from the hit to its reputation — and to demonstrate that the failures of recent years are isolated incidents and not emblematic of a broader cultural problem. At the same time, some congressional aides have hinted at more aggressive oversight of the foundation through which the NIH takes on many of its partnerships.

NIH officials told STAT this week the agency is completing a plan to ensure better ethical compliance and better delineate the actual process for private-sector collaboration. The officials said the plan will be presented to an advisory committee in December.

Already, as STAT reported in April, the NIH proactively nixed a long-touted plan to accept roughly $200 million from pharmaceutical manufacturers to pursue research on pain and addiction treatment, with an explicit acknowledgement that involving companies being sued for their role in the crisis could taint the perception of the research.

NIH Director Francis Collins acknowledged the setbacks in an interview with STAT this week, but defended his staff’s efforts.

The info is here.

How Should Physicians Make Decisions about Mandatory Reporting When a Patient Might Become Violent?

Amy Barnhorst, Garen Wintemute, and Marian Betz
AMA Journal of Ethics. January 2018, Volume 20, Number 1: 29-35.

Abstract

Mandatory reporting of persons believed to be at imminent risk for committing violence or attempting suicide can pose an ethical dilemma for physicians, who might find themselves struggling to balance various conflicting interests. Legal statutes dictate general scenarios that require mandatory reporting to supersede confidentiality requirements, but physicians must use clinical judgment to determine whether and when a particular case meets the requirement. In situations in which it is not clear whether reporting is legally required, the situation should be analyzed for its benefit to the patient and to public safety. Access to firearms can complicate these situations, as firearms are a well-established risk factor for violence and suicide yet also a sensitive topic about which physicians and patients might have strong personal beliefs.

The commentary is here.

Psychologist paying $550,000 settlement in toddler’s death

By Tom Jackman
The Washington Post
Originally published November 8, 2014

The mother of a 15-month-old boy who died while on a visit to his father in Manassas in 2012 will be paid a $550,000 wrongful death settlement from the psychologist who testified that it was safe to leave the boy with his father, Joaquin Rams.

The settlement was entered in Fairfax Circuit Court on Oct. 17, the same day that Prince William County prosecutors, who are seeking to prove that Rams killed his son, revealed that Virginia’s chief medical examiner had changed the official ruling on the cause of death from drowning to “undetermined.”

The entire article is here.

Evaluations of Dangerousness among those Adjudicated Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity

Edited by Christina M. Finello, JD, PhD
American Psychology Law Society
Winter 2013 News

In many states, following an indeterminate period of hospitalization, individuals adjudicated Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (hereafter called “acquittees” despite different international legal terminology) are typically discharged under conditional release with provisions for ongoing monitoring and recommitment (Packer & Grisso, 2011). Studies have identified factors associated with conditional release, recommitment, and reoffending in this population. However, few studies have evaluated whether risk assessment measures could assist in predicting recommitment to forensic hospitals.

A number of static factors may be associated with decisions to retain or conditionally release acquittees. For example, Callahan and Silver (1998) found that female acquittees, those with diagnoses other than Schizophrenia and those who committed non-violent offenses, were released most often. Additionally, low psychopathy and older age during one’s first criminal offense increased the likelihood of release (Manguno-Mire, Thompson, BertmanPate, Burnett, & Thompson, 2007). Dynamic and protective variables also influence decisions of retention versus release. For example, researchers identified that acquittees’ treatment compliance and responsiveness, substance use, risk of violence, and availability of structured activities in the community are relevant to release decisions (McDermott, Edens, Quanbeck, Busse, & Scott, 2008; Stredny, Parker, & Dibble, 2012).

Decisions regarding release versus retention involve determinations of future dangerousness (Jones v. United States, 1983), highlighting the relevance of violence risk assessment measures. However, available data do not indicate a strong relationship between scores on risk assessment measures and dispositional decisions. For example, McKee, Harris, and Rice (2007) observed that scores on the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG; Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 1998) predicted clinicians’ recommendations for retention versus transfer from a maximum security facility, but did not predict the ultimate decisions. Côté, Crocker, Nicholls, and Seto (2012) reported that, with the exception of previous violence, presence of major mental illness, substance use problems, active symptoms of major mental illness, and unresponsiveness to treatment - the factors of the Historical, Clinical, Risk Management-20 (HCR-20; Webster, Douglas, Eaves, & Hart, 1997) identified by researchers - corresponded poorly (if at all) with those raised by evaluators in review hearings.

The entire article can be found here.