Do We Need To Teach Ethics And Empathy To Data Scientists?

Kalev Leetaru

Forbes.com

Originally posted October 8, 2018

Here is an excerpt:

One of the most frightening aspects of the modern web is the speed at which it has struck down decades of legislation and professional norms regarding personal privacy and the ethics of turning ordinary citizens into laboratory rats to be experimented on against their wills. In the space of just two decades the online world has weaponized personalization and data brokering, stripped away the last vestiges of privacy, centralized control over the world’s information and communications channels, changed the public’s understanding of the right over their digital selves and profoundly reshaped how the scholarly world views research ethics, informed consent and the right to opt out of being turned into a digital guinea pig.

It is the latter which in many ways has driven each of the former changes. Academia’s changing views towards IRB and ethical review has produced a new generation of programmers and data scientists who view research ethics as merely an outdated obsolete historical relic that was an obnoxious barrier preventing them from doing as they pleased to an unsuspecting public.

(cut)

Ironically, however, when asked whether she would consent to someone mass harvesting all of her own personal information from all of the sites she has willingly signed up for over the years, the answer was a resounding no. When asked how she reconciled the difference between her view that users of platforms willingly relinquish their right to privacy, while her own data should be strictly protected, she was unable to articulate a reason other than that those who create and study the platforms are members of the “societal elite” who must be granted an absolute right to privacy, while “ordinary” people can be mined and manipulated at will. Such an empathy gap is common in the technical world, in which people’s lives are dehumanized into spreadsheets of numbers that remove any trace of connection or empathy.

The info is here.

Code of Ethics Doesn’t Influence Decisions of Software Developers

Emerson Murphy-Hill, Justin Smith, & Matt Shipman
NC State Pressor
Originally released October 8, 2018

The world’s largest computing society, the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), updated its code of ethics in July 2018 – but new research from North Carolina State University shows that the code of ethics does not appear to affect the decisions made by software developers.

“We applauded the decision to update the ACM code of ethics, but wanted to know whether it would actually make a difference,” says Emerson Murphy-Hill, co-author of a paper on the work and an adjunct associate professor of computer science at NC State.

“This issue is timely, given the tech-related ethics scandals in the news in recent years, such as when Volkwagen manipulated its technology that monitored vehicle emissions. And developers will continue to face work-related challenges that touch on ethical issues, such as the appropriate use of artificial intelligence.”

For the study, researchers developed 11 written scenarios involving ethical challenges, most of which were drawn from real-life ethical questions posted by users on the website Stack Overflow. The study included 105 U.S. software developers with five or more years of experience and 63 software engineering graduate students at a university. Half of the study participants were shown a copy of the ACM code of ethics, the other half were simply told that ethics are important as part of an introductory overview of the study. All study participants were then asked to read each scenario and state how they would respond to the scenario.

“There was no significant difference in the results – having people review the code of ethics beforehand did not appear to influence their responses,” Murphy-Hill says.

The press release is here.

The research is here.

Hospitals are fed up with drug companies, so they’re starting their own

Carolyn Johnson
The Washington Post
Originally posted September 6, 2018

A group of major American hospitals, battered by price spikes on old drugs and long-lasting shortages of critical medicines, has launched a mission-driven, not-for-profit generic drug company, Civica Rx, to take some control over the drug supply.

Backed by seven large health systems and three philanthropic groups, the new venture will be led by an industry insider who refuses to draw a salary. The company will focus initially on establishing price transparency and stable supplies for 14 generic drugs used in hospitals, without pressure from shareholders to issue dividends or push a stock price higher.

“We’re trying to do the right thing — create a first-of-its-kind societal asset with one mission: to make sure essential generic medicines are affordable and available to everyone,” said Dan Liljenquist, chair of Civica Rx and chief strategy officer at Intermountain Healthcare in Utah.

The consortium, which includes health systems such as the Mayo Clinic and HCA Healthcare, collectively represents about 500 hospitals. Liljenquist said that the initial governing members have already committed $100 million to the effort. The business model will ultimately rely on the long-term contracts that member health care organizations agree to — a commitment to buy a fixed portion of their drug volume from Civica.

The info is here.

Japan Set to Allow Gene Editing in Human Embryos

David Cyranoski
Scientific American
Originally posted on October 3, 2018

Japan has issued draft guidelines that allow the use of gene-editing tools in human embryos. The proposal was released by an expert panel representing the country’s health and science ministries on 28 September.

Although the country regulates the use of human embryos for research, there have been no specific guidelines on using tools such as CRISPR–Cas9 to make precise modifications in their DNA until now.

Tetsuya Ishii, a bioethicist at Hokkaido University in Sapporo, says that before the draft guidelines were issued, Japan’s position on gene editing in human embryos was neutral. The proposal now encourages this kind of research, he says.

But if adopted, the guidelines would restrict the manipulation of human embryos for reproduction, although this would not be legally binding.

Manipulating DNA in embryos could reveal insights into early human development. Researchers also hope that in the long term, these tools could be used to fix genetic mutations that cause diseases, before they are passed on.

The info is here.

The removal of Darwin and evolution from schools is a backwards step

Michael Dixon
The Guardian
Originally posted in October 3, 2018

In recent weeks there have been alarming reports from both Israel and Turkey of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution being erased from school curriculums. In Turkey, this has been blamed on the concept of evolution – which is taught in British primary schools – being beyond the understanding of high school students. In Israel, teachers are claiming that most students do not learn about evolution; they say their education ministry is quietly encouraging teachers to focus on other topics in biology.

This news follows the astonishing statements made by India’s minister for higher education earlier this year. Satyapal Singh claimed Darwin was “scientifically wrong”, and is demanding that the theory of evolution be removed from school curriculums because no one “ever saw an ape turning into a human being”.

It is tempting to shrug off these latest attacks on Darwin’s greatest contribution to natural science. After all, no other scientific theory has attracted the same level of impassioned opposition and detraction – certainly not for more than 150 years. But that would be to miss the particular urgency of improving our scientific understanding of the natural world and how best to protect it for the future.

The info is here.

Bringing back professionalism in the practice of law is key

Samuel C. Stretton
The Legal Intelligencer
Originally published October 4, 2018

Here is an excerpt:

All lawyers ought to review the Pennsylvania Rules of Civility. Although these rules do not have disciplinary consequences, they set forth the aspirations all lawyers should achieve in the legal profession. Perhaps lawyers have to understand what it means to be a professional. To have the privilege of being admitted to practice law in a state is a wonderful opportunity. The lawyer being admitted becomes part of the legal profession which has a long and historic presence. The legal profession can take great credit for the evolving law and for the democratic institutions which populate this country. Lawyers through vigorous advocacy and through much involvement in the community and in the political offices have help to create a society by law where fairness and justice are the ideals. Once admitted to practice, each and every lawyer becomes part of this wonderful profession and has a duty to uphold the ideals not only in terms of representing clients as vigorously and as honestly as they can, but also in terms of insuring involvement in the community and in society. Each generation of lawyers help to reinterpret the constitution and make it a living document to adjust to the modern problems of every generation. It is a wonderful and great honor to be part of this profession and perhaps one of the greatest privileges any lawyer can have. This privilege allows a lawyer to participate fully in the third branch of public. This privilege allows a lawyer to become part of the public life of their community and of the country in terms of representation and in terms of legal and judicial changes.

The information is here.

Bolton says 'excessive' ethics checks discourage outsiders from joining government

Nicole Gaouette
CNN.com
Originally posted October 31, 2018

A day after CNN reported that the Justice Department is investigating whether Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has broken the law by using his office to personally enrich himself, national security adviser John Bolton told the Hamilton Society in Washington that ethics rules make it hard for people outside of the government to serve.

Bolton said "things have gotten more bureaucratic, harder to get things done" since he served under President George H.W. Bush in the 1990s and blamed the difficulty, in part, on the "excessive nature of the so-called ethics checks."

"If you were designing a system to discourage people from coming into government, you would do it this way," Bolton said.

"That risks building up a priestly class" of government employees, he added.

"It's really depressing to see," Bolton said of the bureaucratic red tape.

The info is here.

My take: Mr. Bolton is wrong.  We need rigorous ethical guidelines, transparency, enforceability, and thorough background checks.  Otherwise, the swamp will grow much greater than it already is.

We Need To Examine The Ethics And Governance Of Artificial Intelligence

Nikita Malik
forbes.com
Originally posted October 4, 2018

Here is an excerpt:

The second concern is on regulation and ethics. Research teams at MIT and Harvard are already looking into the fast-developing area of AI to map the boundaries within which sensitive but important data can be used. Who determines whether this technology can save lives, for example, versus the very real risk of veering into an Orwellian dystopia?

Take artificial intelligence systems that have the ability to predicate a crime based on an individual’s history, and their propensity to do harm. Pennsylvania could be one of the first states in the United States to base criminal sentences not just on the crimes people are convicted of, but also on whether they are deemed likely to commit additional crimes in the future. Statistically derived risk assessments – based on factors such as age, criminal record, and employment, will help judges determine which sentences to give. This would help reduce the cost of, and burden on, the prison system.

Risk assessments – which have existed for a long time - have been used in other areas such as the prevention of terrorism and child sexual exploitation. In the latter category, existing human systems are so overburdened that children are often overlooked, at grave risk to themselves. Human errors in the case work of the severely abused child Gabriel Fernandez contributed to his eventual death at the hands of his parents, and a serious inquest into the shortcomings of the County Department of Children and Family Services in Los Angeles. Using artificial intelligence in vulnerability assessments of children could aid overworked caseworkers and administrators and flag errors in existing systems.

The info is here.

When Tech Knows You Better Than You Know Yourself

Nicholas Thompson
www.wired.com
Originally published October 4, 2018

Here is an excerpt:

Hacking a Human

NT: Explain what it means to hack a human being and why what can be done now is different from what could be done 100 years ago.

YNH: To hack a human being is to understand what's happening inside you on the level of the body, of the brain, of the mind, so that you can predict what people will do. You can understand how they feel and you can, of course, once you understand and predict, you can usually also manipulate and control and even replace. And of course it can't be done perfectly and it was possible to do it to some extent also a century ago. But the difference in the level is significant. I would say that the real key is whether somebody can understand you better than you understand yourself. The algorithms that are trying to hack us, they will never be perfect. There is no such thing as understanding perfectly everything or predicting everything. You don't need perfect, you just need to be better than the average human being.

If you have an hour, please watch the video.