The AI Carbon Footprint and Responsibilities of AI Scientists

This article examines ethical implications of the growing AI carbon footprint, focusing on the fair distribution of prospective responsibilities among groups of involved actors. First, major groups of involved actors are identified, including AI scientists, AI industry, and AI infrastructure providers, from datacenters to electrical energy suppliers. Second, responsibilities of AI scientists concerning climate warming mitigation actions are disentangled from responsibilities of other involved actors. Third, to implement these responsibilities nudging interventions are suggested, leveraging on AI competitive games which would prize research combining better system accuracy with greater computational and energy efficiency. Finally, in addition to the AI carbon footprint, it is argued that another ethical issue with a genuinely global dimension is now emerging in the AI ethics agenda. This issue concerns the threats that AI-powered cyberweapons pose to the digital command, control, and communication infrastructure of nuclear weapons systems.

Introduction

Chapter 1 explains and motivates the project of advancing an African moral theory, after which it provides an overview of the book. An African moral theory is a basic, comprehensive principle distinguishing right from wrong actions that is informed by mores salient particularly in the sub-Saharan region. It is advanced as a rival to the principles of utility and of respect for autonomy, the primary Western answers to the important question of what all right actions have in common. Part I of the book discusses the meta-ethical issue of how to justify an African moral theory. Part II identifies three major candidates for a moral theory in the African tradition, and argues that one, grounded on communal relationship, is most promising. Part III argues that the relational moral theory does better than the principles of utility and of respect for autonomy at accounting for a wide array of applied controversies.

Responsibility, second opinions and peer-disagreement: ethical and epistemological challenges of using AI in clinical diagnostic contexts

In this paper, we first classify different types of second opinions and evaluate the ethical and epistemological implications of providing those in a clinical context. Second, we discuss the issue of how artificial intelligent (AI) could replace the human cognitive labour of providing such second opinion and find that several AI reach the levels of accuracy and efficiency needed to clarify their use an urgent ethical issue. Third, we outline the normative conditions of how AI may be used as second opinion in clinical processes, weighing the benefits of its efficiency against concerns of responsibility attribution. Fourth, we provide a ‘rule of disagreement’ that fulfils these conditions while retaining some of the benefits of expanding the use of AI-based decision support systems (AI-DSS) in clinical contexts. This is because the rule of disagreement proposes to use AI as much as possible, but retain the ability to use human second opinions to resolve disagreements between AI and physician-in-charge. Fifth, we discuss some counterarguments.

Institutional Review Board (IRB) Shopping- Accessible for Public Comment

Context: IRB Forum Shopping is an under-researched yet highly-relevant ethical issue in the context of clinical research. IRB members review the proposed research methods to ensure the ethical principles. The IRB has the authority to approve or disapprove the research proposals that fall within the institutional policy and adheres to SOP (Standard Operating Procedures). When the research project has obtained an unfavorable or conditional IRB review, the researcher bypass the process of addressing the IRB’s decision by deserting the IRB and selecting another forum that will provide favorable review. Currently, proposed regulations to prohibit IRB shopping are available for public comment. The FDA report made clear that no empirical evidence exists to support the widespread of IRB shopping.

An Ethical Issue After the Nuclear Accident in Fukushima: Young People’S Perspectives of Thyroid Cancer Screening and its Harms

Background Overdiagnosis of thyroid cancer has become a major global medical issue. Ultrasound-based thyroid cancer screening has promoted overdiagnosis, and recently international recommendations indicate that such screening should not be conducted, even after a nuclear accident. The Fukushima thyroid cancer screening program was initiated in 2011 as a health policy after the nuclear accident, although the risk for radiation-induced thyroid cancer was unlikely given the low radiation levels. However, the thyroid cancer screening program has continued at 2-year intervals with a relatively high participation rate and is now in its fifth round. Therefore, it is crucial to clarify whether those targeted for screening understand the disadvantages of screening and identify factors that influenced their decision to participate. Methods We conducted an anonymous mail-based questionnaire that included young people from Fukushima (subjects) and a neighboring prefecture that was not targeted for screening (non-subjects). We asked them about the significance of the thyroid cancer screening in Fukushima, the reasons for taking or not taking a screening, their perception of the harms of screening, and their opinions on thyroid examination at school. Then we compared the results of the questionnaire between subjects and non-subjects and examinees (who accepted screening) and non-examinees (who declined screening). Results Only 16.5% of respondents were aware of the harms associated with thyroid cancer screening, with most perceiving that the benefits outweighed the harms. Comparison of subjects’ and non-subjects’ responses showed there were no significant differences between subjects and non-subjects. In addition, among subjects, there were no differences of responses between examinees and non-examinees. The most common reason for participation in screening was that the screening was conducted in schools and perceived as obligatory. Conclusions These results highlighted a serious ethical issue in that school-based screening leads to making young people think that it is mandatory screening in an opt-out and default setting manner, with a lack of knowledge about the disadvantages of screening. Based on the autonomy of the subjects and the ethical principle of the post-disaster, surveys after a nuclear disaster should be conducted in an opt-in style without an opt-out style such as school-based screening.

A vaccine tax: ensuring a more equitable global vaccine distribution

While COVID-19 vaccines provide light at the end of the tunnel in a difficult time, they also bring forth the complex ethical issue of global vaccine distribution. The current unequal global distribution of vaccines is unjust towards the vulnerable living in low-income countries. A vaccine tax should be introduced to remedy this. Under such a scheme, a small fraction of the money spent by a country on vaccines for its own population would go into a fund, such as COVAX, dedicated to buying vaccines and distributing them to the world’s poorest. A vaccine tax would provide a much-needed injection of funds to remedy the unequal distribution of vaccines. The tax allows for a distribution that, to a lesser degree, reflects the ability to pay and is superior to a donation-based model because it minimises the opportunity for free-riding.

Participants’ Preferences and Reasons for Wanting Feedback of Individual Genetic Research Results From an HIV-TB Genomic Study: A Case Study From Botswana

The feedback of individual results of genomics research is an ethical issue. However, which genetic results African participants would like to receive and why, remains unclear. A qualitative study was conducted to collect data from 44 adolescents and 49 parents/caregivers of adolescents enrolled in a genomic study in Botswana. Almost all the participants wanted to receive genetic results. Parents and caregivers wanted to receive results across all categories of genetic conditions discussed in the study, while adolescents were reluctant to receive results for severe, non-preventable, and unactionable conditions. Participants expressed different reasons for wanting feedback of results, including for awareness, improving lifestyle, accepting one’ situation, and preparing for the future. Our findings also reveal that participants’ context, relations, and empowerment are important to consider in interpreting their preferences for feedback of results.