| 1. |
- Berman, Alexander, 1979, et al.
(author)
-
Trustworthy AI in the public sector: An empirical analysis of a Swedish labor market decision-support system
- 2024
-
In: Technology in society. - 0160-791X. ; 76:2024, s. 1-15
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This paper investigates the deployment of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the Swedish Public Employment Service (PES), focusing on the concept of trustworthy AI in public decision-making. Despite Sweden’s advanced digitalization efforts and the widespread application of AI in the public sector, our study reveals significant gaps between theoretical ambitions and practical outcomes, particularly in the context of AI’s trustworthiness. We employ a robust theoretical framework comprising Institutional Theory, the Resource-Based View (RBV), and Ambidexterity Theory, to analyze the challenges and discrepancies in AI implementation within PES. Our analysis shows that while AI promises enhanced decision-making efficiency, the reality is marred by issues of transparency, interpretability, and stakeholder engagement. The opacity of the neural network used by the agency to assess jobseekers’ need for support and the lack of comprehensive technical understanding among PES management contribute to the challenges in achieving transparent and interpretable AI systems. Economic pressures for efficiency often overshadow the need for ethical considerations and stakeholder involvement, leading to decisions that may not be in the best interest of jobseekers. We propose recommendations for enhancing AI’s trustworthiness in public services, emphasizing the importance of stakeholder engagement, particularly involving jobseekers in the decision-making process. Our study advocates for a more nuanced balance between the use of advanced AI technologies and the leveraging of internal resources such as skilled personnel and organizational knowledge. We also highlight the need for improved AI literacy among both management and personnel to effectively navigate AI’s integration into public decision-making processes. Our findings contribute to the ongoing debate on trustworthy AI, offering a detailed case study that bridges the gap between theoretical exploration and practical application. By scrutinizing the AI implementation in the Swedish PES, we provide valuable insights and guidelines for other public sector organizations grappling with the integration of AI into their decision-making processes.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Munthe, Christian, 1962, et al.
(author)
-
Health‐related Research Ethics and Social Value: Antibiotic Resistance Intervention Research and Pragmatic Risks
- 2019
-
In: Bioethics. - : Wiley. - 0269-9702 .- 1467-8519. ; 33:3, s. 335-342
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- We consider the implications for the ethical evaluation of research programs of two fundamental changes in the revised research ethical guideline of the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. The first is the extension of scope that follows from exchanging “biomedical” for “health-related” research, and the second is the new evaluative basis of “social value,” which implies new ethical requirements of research. We use the example of antibiotic resistance interventions to explore the need to consider what we term the pragmatic risks of such interventions to evaluate the so- cial value of certain kinds of health-related research. These (pragmatic) risks severely threaten the social value of interventions in every area where human and social re- sponses significantly impact on their effectiveness. Thus, the social value of health-re- lated research needed to demonstrate its effectiveness depends on the successful management of such risks. Research designed to take into account pragmatic risks also gives rise to similar types of risks, and the potential for social value in light of those risks needs to be considered in ethical reviews based on the new guidelines. We argue that, to handle this new expanded task, the international system of research ethical review addressed by the guidelines needs institutional development. In particular, we consider lifting research ethical review to a level closer to actual health policy making.
|
|
| 5. |
- Munthe, Christian, 1962, et al.
(author)
-
Testing Interventions for Drastic Public Health Threats: "Social Value”, Pragmatic Risks and the Challenge of ”Health-related Research” Ethics – The Case of drug Resistance
- 2017
-
In: Matariki Research Ethics Workshop, Bader International Study Center, Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, UK, August 14-17, 2017.
-
Conference paper (other academic/artistic)abstract
- The recently revised CIOMS guidelines radically broaden both that scope of the guidelines from medical to all kinds of health research), and the basis on which such research may be assessed ethically, not least what is called ”social value” of research. This makes these guidelines less on a par with the WMA’s Declaration of Helsinki principles for biomedical research, e.g. with regard to what kind of benefits may justify risks to research subjects and others, and ethical requirements regarding the management of such risks. While DoH still mostly expresses an orthodox individualist research ethical perspective of a sort that has enjoys traditional support in bioethics, but has attracted some criticism from a public health ethical perspective, the new CIOMS guidelines seem to open up for more consideration of collective, institutional and public goods, and possibility of having these traded off against risks to individuals. This paper uses interventions meant to prevent or mitigate problems due to antibiotic resistance as a case in point, to discuss how a sound research ethical regulation should position itself with regard to research regarding health interventions of great importance for (global) public health. A particular focus will be the balancing of individual and collective goods/bads in face of threats of having core institutions and central public goods undermined.
|
|
| 6. |
- Nijsingh, Niels, 1977, et al.
(author)
-
Justifying Antibiotic Resistance Interventions: Uncertainty, Precaution and Ethics
- 2020
-
In: Jamrozik E., Selgelid M.J. (eds) Ethics and Drug-Resistance: Collective Responsibility for Global Public Health. - Cham, Switzerland : Springer. - 2211-6680. - 9783030278731
-
Book chapter (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This chapter charts and critically analyses the ethical challenge of assessing how much (and what kind of) evidence is required for the justification of interventions in response antibiotic resistance (ABR), as well as other major public health threats. Our ambition here is to identify and briefly discuss main issues, and point to ways in which these need to be further advanced in future research. This will result in a tentative map of complications, underlying problems and possible challenges. This map illustrates that the ethical challenges in this area are much more complex and profound than is usually acknowledged, leaving no tentatively plausible intervention package free of downsides. This creates potentially overwhelming theoretical conundrums when trying to justify what to do. We therefore end by pointing out two general features of the complexity we find to be of particular importance, and a tentative suggestion for how to create a theoretical basis for further analysis.
|
|
| 7. |
- Persson de Fine Licht, Karl
(author)
-
Hostile urban architecture: A critical discussion of the seemingly offensive art of keeping people away
- 2017
-
In: Etikk I Praksis. - : Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) Library. - 1890-3991 .- 1890-4009. ; 11:2, s. 27-44
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- For many years, some urban architecture has aimed to exclude unwanted groups of people from some locations. This type of architecture is called "defensive" or "hostile" architecture and includes benches that cannot be slept on, spikes in the ground that cannot be stood on, and pieces of metal that hinder one's ability to skateboard. These defensive measures have sparked public outrage, with many thinking such measures lead to suffering, are disrespectful, and violate people's rights. In this paper, it is argued that these views are difficult to defend and that much more empirical research on the topic is needed.
|
|
| 8. |
- Persson de Fine Licht, Karl
(author)
-
Responsibility and health: explanation-based perspectives
- 2014
-
Doctoral thesis (other academic/artistic)abstract
- There is a growing trend of holding people responsible for their lifestyle-based diseases. For example, policymakers as well as researchers have argued that medical conditions caused by smoking, overweight, or extreme sports should be given lower priority in publicly funded healthcare. This view on resource allocation is grounded in a common belief that people are responsible for these diseases and that it is fair to hold them responsible because of this. It is far from clear, however, that we are responsible for anything we do, never mind our ill health. A wide range of skeptical arguments seem to show that the notion of responsibility is misplaced. Though these arguments are controversial, they have by no means been successfully refuted. Furthermore, even if these skeptical arguments were shown to be invalid, there are additional, more mundane, excusing conditions that might relieve people of responsibility, such as those from nonculpable ignorance and addiction. Responsibility and Health: Explanation-Based Perspectives presents four papers that address this problem from a new angle. The first two papers show that the discussion about the conditions for responsibility should be reframed, and they provide new grounds for rejecting the skeptical arguments. The third paper discusses the validity of the skeptical arguments further and shows that even though healthcare personnel should reject the skeptical arguments, poli-cymakers should not. The fourth paper examines whether the obese are re-sponsible for being obese and finds that they are not. This, in conjunction with other arguments, gives us reason to prioritize overweight surgery. Taken together, the four papers offer new insights in the discussion about responsibility and health and a promising avenue for making progress in the responsibility debate.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
