Who Should Stop Unethical A.I.?

Matthew Hutson

The New Yorker

Originally published 15 Feb 21

Here is an excerpt:

Many kinds of researchers—biologists, psychologists, anthropologists, and so on—encounter checkpoints at which they are asked about the ethics of their research. This doesn’t happen as much in computer science. Funding agencies might inquire about a project’s potential applications, but not its risks. University research that involves human subjects is typically scrutinized by an I.R.B., but most computer science doesn’t rely on people in the same way. In any case, the Department of Health and Human Services explicitly asks I.R.B.s not to evaluate the “possible long-range effects of applying knowledge gained in the research,” lest approval processes get bogged down in political debate. At journals, peer reviewers are expected to look out for methodological issues, such as plagiarism and conflicts of interest; they haven’t traditionally been called upon to consider how a new invention might rend the social fabric.

A few years ago, a number of A.I.-research organizations began to develop systems for addressing ethical impact. The Association for Computing Machinery’s Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction (sigchi) is, by virtue of its focus, already committed to thinking about the role that technology plays in people’s lives; in 2016, it launched a small working group that grew into a research-ethics committee. The committee offers to review papers submitted to sigchi conferences, at the request of program chairs. In 2019, it received ten inquiries, mostly addressing research methods: How much should crowd-workers be paid? Is it O.K. to use data sets that are released when Web sites are hacked? By the next year, though, it was hearing from researchers with broader concerns. “Increasingly, we do see, especially in the A.I. space, more and more questions of, Should this kind of research even be a thing?” Katie Shilton, an information scientist at the University of Maryland and the chair of the committee, told me.

Shilton explained that questions about possible impacts tend to fall into one of four categories. First, she said, “there are the kinds of A.I. that could easily be weaponized against populations”—facial recognition, location tracking, surveillance, and so on. Second, there are technologies, such as Speech2Face, that may “harden people into categories that don’t fit well,” such as gender or sexual orientation. Third, there is automated-weapons research. And fourth, there are tools “to create alternate sets of reality”—fake news, voices, or images.

The info is here.

Can expert bias be reduced in medical guidelines?

Sheldon Greenfield
BMJ 2019; 367
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6882 

Here are two excerpts:

Despite robust study designs, even double blind randomised controlled trials can be subject to subtle forms of bias. This can be because of the financial conflicts of interest of the authors, intellectual or disciplinary based opinions, pressure on researchers from sponsors, or conflicting values. For example, some researchers may favour mortality over quality of life as a primary outcome, demonstrating a value conflict. The quality of evidence is often uneven and can include underappreciated sources of bias. This makes interpreting the evidence difficult, which results in guideline developers turning to “experts” to translate it into clinical practice recommendations.

Can we be confident that these experts are objective and free of bias? A 2011 Institute of Medicine (now known as the National Academy of Medicine) report1 challenged the assumption of objectivity among guideline development experts.

(cut)

The science that supports clinical medicine is constantly evolving. The pace of that evolution is increasing.

There is an urgent imperative to generate and update accurate, unbiased, clinical practice guidelines. So, what can we do now? I have two suggestions.

Firstly, the public, which may include physicians, nurses, and other healthcare providers dependent on guidelines, should advocate for organisations like the ECRI Institute and its international counterparts to be supported and looked to for setting standards.

Secondly, we should continue to examine the details and principles of “shared decision making” and other initiatives like it, so that doctors and patients can be as clear as possible in the face of uncertain evidence about medical treatments and recommendations.

It is an uphill battle, but one worth fighting.

Artificial Morality

Robert Koehler
www.citywathcla.com
Originally posted March 21, 2019

Here is an excerpt:

What I see here is moral awakening scrambling for sociopolitical traction: Employees are standing for something larger than sheer personal interests, in the process pushing the Big Tech brass to think beyond their need for an endless flow of capital, consequences be damned.

This is happening across the country. A movement is percolating: Tech won’t build it!

“Across the technology industry,” the New York Times reported in October, “rank-and-file employees are demanding greater insight into how their companies are deploying the technology that they built. At Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Salesforce, as well as at tech start-ups, engineers and technologists are increasingly asking whether the products they are working on are being used for surveillance in places like China or for military projects in the United States or elsewhere.

“That’s a change from the past, when Silicon Valley workers typically developed products with little questioning about the social costs.”

What if moral thinking — not in books and philosophical tracts, but in the real world, both corporate and political — were as large and complex as technical thinking? It could no longer hide behind the cliché of the just war (and surely the next one we’re preparing for will be just), but would have to evaluate war itself — all wars, including the ones of the past 70 years or so, in the fullness of their costs and consequences — as well as look ahead to the kind of future we could create, depending on what decisions we make today.

Complex moral thinking doesn’t ignore the need to survive, financially and otherwise, in the present moment, but it stays calm in the face of that need and sees survival as a collective, not a competitive, enterprise.

The info is here.

Europe’s biggest research fund cracks down on ‘ethics dumping’

Linda Nordling
Nature.com
Originally posted July 3, 2018

Ethics dumping — doing research deemed unethical in a scientist’s home country in a foreign setting with laxer ethical rules — will be rooted out in research funded by the European Union, officials announced last week.

Applications to the EU’s €80-billion (US$93-billion) Horizon 2020 research fund will face fresh levels of scrutiny to make sure that research practices deemed unethical in Europe are not exported to other parts of the world. Wolfgang Burtscher, the European Commission’s deputy director-general for research, made the announcement at the European Parliament in Brussels on 29 June.

Burtscher said that a new code of conduct developed to curb ethics dumping will soon be applied to all EU-funded research projects. That means applicants will be referred to the code when they submit their proposals, and ethics committees will use the document when considering grant applications.

The information is here.

Business ethics: am I boring you?

Katherine Bradshaw
The Guardian
Originally published November 8, 2012

Here is an excerpt:

We need to bridge the gap between ethics programmes and daily worklife – and stories can help us do that.

No matter how sophisticated we are as a society, stories continue to be our preferred way of communicating and sharing our experiences of life. From a book at bedtime to the latest cliffhanger of our favourite soap, stories help us connect and communicate our emotions and values with each other.

Business ethics training at its worst can include material which seems distant to staff and how they do their day-to-day job. A set of compliance dictats communicated with slides animated with clip art, or an eLearning programme with easy multiple choice questions conducted in isolation, is unlikely to engage anyone with what really matters.

Ethical values need to be embedded into company culture so that they are reflected in the way that business is actually done. This requires an ethics programme with objectives beyond just imparting knowledge and raising awareness of expected standards – the challenge is to communicate their relevance and importance at all levels and locations in a way that impacts on understanding, decisions and behaviours.

The article is here.

The media needs to do more to elevate a national conversation about ethics

Arthur Caplan
Poynter.com
Originally December 21, 2017

Here is an excerpt:

Obviously unethical conduct has been around forever and will be into the foreseeable future. That said, it is important that the leaders of this nation and, more importantly, those leading our key institutions and professions reaffirm their commitment to the view that there are higher values worth pursuing in a just society. The fact that so many fail to live up to basic values does not mean that the values are meaningless, wrong or misplaced. They aren’t. It is rather that the organizations and professions where the epidemic of moral failure is burgeoning have put other values, often power and profits, ahead of morality.

There is no simple fix for hypocrisy. Egoism, the gross abuse of power and self-indulgence, is a very tough moral opponent in an individualistic society like America. Short-term reward is deceptively more attractive then slogging out the virtues in the name of the long haul. If we are to prepare our children to succeed, then attending to their moral development is as important as anything we can do. If our leaders are to truly lead then we have to reward those who do, not those who don’t, won’t or can’t. Are we?

The article is here.

Welcker v. Georgia Board of Examiners of Psychologists

Legal Decision

Synopsis: Georgia State Board of Psychology is permitted to deny a license to an applicant, when the applicant's doctoral program does not meet the residency requirement, and, without substantial hardship.

Here are two excerpts:

Neither the Board's decision to deny Welcker a license nor their denial of her petition for waiver can be considered a contested case. Georgia law allows the denial of a license without a hearing where an applicant fails to show that she has met all the qualifications for that license. OCGA § 43-1-19 (a). Therefore, because no hearing was required by law before the denial of Welcker's license, the Board's denial of Welcker's license application does not present a contested case subject to judicial review.

The Board's decision to deny a petition for waiver also cannot be considered a contested case. OCGA § 43-1-19 (j) explicitly states that the "refusal to issue a previously denied license" shall not be considered a contested case under the Administrative Procedure Act and "notice and hearing with the meaning of the [Act] shall not be required"; however, the applicant "shall be allowed to appear before the board if he or she so requests." Nevertheless, such rulings are expressly made subject to judicial review under OCGA § 50-13-9.1 (f), which provides that "[t]he agency's decision to deny a petition for variance or waiver shall be subject to judicial review in accordance with Code Section 50-13-19."

(cut)

The Board denied Welcker's petition for waiver on two grounds: (1) her failure to meet the appropriate residency requirements "as per the Board rules in effect in 2007" and (2) her failure to prove a substantial hardship resulting from strict application of the rule.

The ruling is here.

Teaching Ethics In The Trump Era

Kelly Richmond Pope
Forbes Magazine
Originally posted January 15, 2017

Here is an excerpt:

Ethical leadership should be a nonpartisan value that we all share. Ethics is under attack and I am no longer sure how we defend it. In class, we often have discussions about conflicts of interests and the dangers conflicts of interest have on the auditor-client relationship. According to the AICPA website. ‘accountants in public practice should be independent in fact and appearance when providing auditing and other attestation services’. When my students see New York Times headlines like ‘Scott Pruitt, Trump’s EPA Pick Backed Industry Donors Over Regulators’, what should they think? Do ethics rules apply to everyone or only a few?

I spend my time teaching future CPAs that we must continue to adhere to a strict code of ethical conduct but I fear they are growing weary of this message. The headlines that my students are now seeing is very confusing and really causes them to question the role of ethical leadership. If we operate under the mantra of ‘do what I say and not what I do’ I fear that will be revisiting the 2008 financial crisis in the very near future.

The article is here.

How Winning Leads to Cheating

By Jordana Cepelewicz
Scientific American
Originally published on February 2, 2016

We live, for better or for worse, in a competition-driven world. Rivalry powers our economy, sparks technological innovation and encourages academic discovery. But it also compels people to manipulate the system and commit crimes. Some figure it’s just easier—and even acceptable—to cheat.

But what if instead of examining how people behave in a competitive setting, we wanted to understand the consequences of competition on their everyday behavior? That is exactly what Amos Schurr, a business and management professor at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, and Ilana Ritov, a psychologist at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, discuss in a study in this week’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “How can it be,” Schurr asks, “that successful, distinguished people—take [former New York State Gov.] Eliot Spitzer, who I think was a true civil servant when he started out his career with good intentions—turn corrupt? At the same time, you have other successful people, like Mother Theresa, who don’t become corrupt. What distinguishes between these two types of successful people?”

The article is here.

Anti-Gay Student's Suit Rejected

By Scott Jaschik
Inside Higer Ed

A federal appeals court has upheld the right of Augusta State University to enforce standards of its counseling graduate program -- even when a religious student objects to requirements to treat gay people in a nondiscriminatory manner.

While the ruling may be appealed, it represents a strong victory for advocates of counseling standards that require that students be trained to treat a range of clients in supportive, nonjudgmental ways. The student who sued Augusta State, and already lost in a lower court, maintained that her First Amendment rights were violated when the university required her to complete a "remediation plan" over her willingness to treat gay people.

She had stated her intent to recommend "conversion therapy" to gay clients and to tell them that they could choose to be straight. (A wide consensus among psychology and sexuality experts holds that people don't select their sexual orientation and that encouraging people to change their orientation can be seriously harmful to them.)

The student, Jennifer Keeton, argues that her religiously motivated beliefs are being challenged by Augusta State's policies -- and that a public university may not do so. Keeton was expelled when she declined to participate in the remediation plan, and she asked a federal district court and the appeals court to order her reinstatement in the program.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit found that Augusta State had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons to enforce its rules. The counseling program's accreditation depended in part on adhering to a code of conduct, and faculty members believed it was their responsibility to train students to work with a wide range of clients, the court found. The decision placed the counseling department's actions at Augusta State in the broader context of faculty members training professionals who must pay attention to the ethics of various fields.

"Just as a medical school would be permitted to bar a student who refused to administer blood transfusions for religious reasons from participating in clinical rotations, so ASU may prohibit Keeton from participating in its clinical practicum if she refuses to administer the treatment it has deemed appropriate," says the decision.

"Every profession has its own ethical codes and dictates. When someone voluntarily chooses to enter a profession, he or she must comply with its rules and ethical requirements. Lawyers must present legal arguments on behalf of their clients, notwithstanding their personal views.... So too, counselors must refrain from imposing their moral and religious views on their clients."

Read more here.

Thanks to Ken Pope for this article.

California medical board fails to discipline 710 troubled doctors

By Molly Hennessy-Fiske, Los Angeles Times

California's medical board failed to discipline 710 troubled doctors even as they were disciplined by hospitals, surgical centers and other healthcare organizations in the state, according to a report released Tuesday.

The report by Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Public Citizen was based on an analysis of doctors' records in the National Practitioner Data Bank from 1990 to 2009. The Department of Health & Human Services uses the data bank to track doctors' discipline, medical malpractice payments and other actions. The data released to Public Citizen did not name the doctors or their workplaces.

Of the doctors who escaped state discipline in California, 35% had racked up more than one disciplinary action from another entity, according to the report.

"If the hospital or HMO has taken action, why hasn't the board?" asked Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen's health research group. "That's something that as a physician or a patient I would be worried about. Hospitals rarely discipline doctors. When they do, it's usually for very serious infractions."

Jennifer Simoes, a Medical Board spokeswoman, said officials have reviewed the report but more analysis is needed.

"We believe more data needs to be obtained, but like many state agencies, we have a 20% vacancy rate and we're trying to focus on our core functions," she said, noting that board officials had been contacted by Public Citizen about investigating the report's findings. "We told them we would do it when we had the resources." She said a state hiring freeze contributed to other deficiencies noted in the report.

At least 102 of the doctors who escaped discipline in California had their privileges to practice at a given facility suspended, limited or revoked after peer reviews, according to the report.

The entire story can be read here.

Amending the Ethics Code

APA’s Council of Representatives voted to amend the association’s Code of Ethics to make clear that its standards can never be interpreted to justify or defend violating human rights.

The action, which came during the winter meeting of APA’s governing Council of Representatives, amended the code’s Introduction and Applicability section, as well as Ethical Standards 1.02 and 1.03, to resolve any potential ambiguity in the original language. These changes become effective June 1, 2010.

“APA’s longstanding policy is that psychologists may never violate human rights,” said APA President Carol D. Goodheart, EdD, announcing the changes. “These standards now unquestionably conform to that policy.”

The standards, from APA’s “Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct” (2002), address situations where psychologists’ ethical responsibilities conflict with law, regulations, other governing legal authority or organizational demands. Previously, it appeared that if psychologists could not resolve such conflicts, they could adhere to the law or demands of an organization without further consideration. That language has been deleted and this new sentence added: “Under no circumstances may this standard be used to justify or defend violating human rights.”

These amendments to the Ethics Code provide clear guidance to psychologists regarding their ethical obligations when conflicts arise between psychology ethics and the law or ethics and organizational demands.

An APA Ethics Committee task force last revised Ethical Standard 1.02 on conflicts between ethics and law in September 2001. The standard, which had been previously revised in 1992, had been criticized by psychology practitioners, particularly those in the forensics community. The 1992 standard said that when ethics and law conflict, psychologists should “make known their commitment to the Ethics Code and take steps to resolve the conflict in responsible manner.” Practitioners were concerned because at times judges, who were unfamiliar with psychology ethics, would order that clients’ raw test data and psychotherapy notes be submitted into legal proceedings. Judges had also made custody, visitation or supervision recommendations without first seeking appropriate evaluations. Psychologists said they were being placed in a conflict between ethics and law.

The task force had responded to such concerns by revising Standard 1.02’s language to say that if a conflict arises between ethics and law, psychologists should make known their commitment to the Ethics Code and seek to resolve the conflict. If that process was not successful, a psychologist had the option of following the “law, regulations or other governing legal authority.”

The language created a process for resolving a conflict between ethics and law but did not require a psychologist to violate a court order and thus risk being jailed or fined. The psychologist could, however, engage in civil disobedience, if he or she chose. The ethics task force approved the revision with minor edits and APA’s Council of Representatives adopted it in 2002.

That solution was called into question after Sept. 11, 2001, when the Bush administration used abusive interrogation techniques that it defended under the law. The question arose as to what a psychologist’s ethical obligations would be if they were ordered to engage in torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and whether Ethical Standard 1.02 could be used as a defense.

The full story can be read here.