The Challenge of Human Dignity in the Era of Autonomous Systems

Autonomous systems make decisions independently or on behalf of the user. This will happen more and more in the future, with the widespread use of AI technologies in the fabric of the society that impacts on the social, economic, and political sphere. Automating services and processes inevitably impacts on the users’ prerogatives and puts at danger their autonomy and privacy. From a societal point of view, it is crucial to understand which is the space of autonomy that a system can exercise without compromising laws and human rights. Following the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies 2018 recommendation, the chapter addresses the problem of preserving the value of human dignity in the context of the digital society, understood as the recognition that a person is worthy of respect in her interaction with autonomous technologies. A person must be able to exercise control on information about herself and on the decisions that autonomous systems make on her behalf.

Lessons from Theranos: Changing Narratives of Individual Ethics in Science and Engineering

The meteoric ascent and equally dramatic fall of Theranos has been covered prolifically in the media. Presented as an ambitious inventor gone rogue, the discursive construction of the Theranos scandal in popular media and in the biomedical community reifies tired narratives of the role of ethics in science and engineering fields more generally: narratives that emphasizes individual integrity and common sense rather than the structures and norms that leave scientists and engineers vulnerable to ethical quandaries. In this short critical engagement, I argue that the ways Theranos has been captured obscures important conversations about ethics in bioscience and biotechnology, both in the private sector and in university spaces. I call for STS scholars to engage with scientists and engineers to imagine ways to structurally embed ethics and justice in future technoscientific endeavors.

Between Innovation and Standardization, Is There Still a Room for Scientific Reports? The Rise of a Formatting Tradition in Periodontal Research

Everybody, regardless of their role, is aware that biomedical research is rapidly evolving, and the demand for reproducibility is increasing together with the amount of novel information. “Before reproducibility must come pre-producibility” “Checklists work to improve science”, just to quote some of the articles querying how to find a new bridge between ethics in science and the urgency for publishing. Looking for papers on anti-inflammatory compounds in periodontics, we came across a significant number of articles that could be considered a prototype of a consistent study format. The literature on the testing of active compounds on lipopolysaccharides- (LPS)-induced inflammation in gingival fibroblasts was searched to identify studies that followed a consistent format, to better understand their similarities and assess the appropriateness of their methods. Several studies were identified with a degree of similarity in their methods and formatting that was so high that it was possible to rule out that it was due to chance, and a format template common to these studies was outlined. Although this was most likely beyond the intentions of their authors, these studies may pose the basis for an in-vitro testing standard for anti-inflammatory compounds; however, the dangers of acritical uniformity are also apparent.

Writing Research Articles for Publication

‘Ethics’ is a branch of philosophy which examines the concepts of right and wrong. A journal will likely refuse to publish research, or writing, which they feel are not to an acceptable ethical standard. Ethics in science publishing refers to both the experiment and the written account. In terms of the experiment, publishers want to know that the researcher did not mistreat animals or human beings during the course of the study. Further to this, the writing is expected to be a truthful and honest account of the experiment. Finally, authors are expected to uphold a high standard of ethics by abstaining from any form of plagiarism. Interestingly, the United States National Academies begins their third edition of On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research with the statement, “The scientific enterprise is built on a foundation of trust” (2009). Not factual information, but trust that the information is indeed factual.