Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Figures
Publicly Funded Research and Its Results
Recommendations
References
All Topics
Philosophy
Ethics

European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies

Profile image of Barbara PrainsackBarbara PrainsackProfile image of Migle LaukyteMigle LaukyteProfile image of Nikola Biller-andornoNikola Biller-andorno

2023, Democracy in the Digital Age

https://doi.org/10.2777/078780
visibility

…

description

69 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

This is an Opinion by the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE)

Figures (3)

Related papers

Practical ethics in search of a toolbox: Ethics of science and technology at the crossroads
Matthias Kaiser

Gunning, Jennifer and Søren Holm (ed.), 2005

Say you have a moral dilemma and are sincerely uncertain what to do. One of the things you might do is to ask a good friend for ethical advice. How do you know the advice you get is a good advice? Well, you might ask yourself a number of questions along the lines of: How well does this friend know me? How well does this friend understand the problem I face? How experienced is she in addressing moral dilemmas? How much do I trust her judgement? Can this friend provide reasons for the advice that seem convincing to me? In ...

View PDFchevron_right
On Genies and Bottles: Scientists' Moral Responsibility and Dangerous Technology R&D
David Koepsell

Science and engineering ethics, 2010

The age-old maxim of scientists whose work has resulted in deadly or dangerous technologies is: scientists are not to blame, but rather technologists and politicians must be morally culpable for the uses of science. As new technologies threaten not just populations but species and biospheres, scientists should reassess their moral culpability when researching fields whose impact may be catastrophic. Looking at real-world examples such as smallpox research and the Australian “mousepox trick”, and considering fictional or future technologies like Kurt Vonnegut’s “ice-nine” from Cat’s Cradle, and the “grey goo” scenario in nanotechnology, this paper suggests how ethical principles developed in biomedicine can be adjusted for science in general. An “extended moral horizon” may require looking not just to the effects of research on individual human subjects, but also to effects on humanity as a whole. Moreover, a crude utilitarian calculus can help scientists make moral decisions about which technologies to pursue and disseminate when catastrophes may result. Finally, institutions should be devised to teach these moral principles to scientists, and require moral education for future funding.

View PDFchevron_right
Understanding International Perspectives in Science and Engineering Ethics
Thomas Powers

2016

Delaware Biotechnology Institute. His research concerns ethics in science and engineering, the philosophy of technology, and environmental ethics, and his publications range from topics in artificial intelligence and robotic ethics to the ethical aspects of design. Powers received aB.A. in philosophy (College of William and Mary) and a Ph.D. in philosophy (University of Texas at Austin) for a dissertation Immanuel Kant. He has been a DAAD-Fulbright dissertation-year fellow at the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, a National Science Foundation postdoctoral fellow in the School of Engineering andApplied Science at the University of Virginia, and a visiting researcher at the Laboratoire d'Informatique (LIP6) at the Université Pierre et Marie Curie in Paris, France.

View PDFchevron_right
Ethics, science and technology
Ivan Domingues

Kriterion: Revista de Filosofia, 2006

The article aims at thinking the relation between ethics, science and technology, emphasising the problem of their re-linking, after the split into judgements of fact and judgements of value, which happened in the beginning of modern times. Once the warlike ...

View PDFchevron_right
ETHICS OF SCIENCE NOW MATURING: EXPERIENCES SO FAR AND OUTLOOKS AHEAD
Matthias Kaiser

There is a common misunderstanding among practising scientists. The misunderstanding is that science is one thing, ethics is another, and that is why those that talk about the ethics of science at best deliver a more fashionable outfit to a body that remains essentially unchanged by the new appearances. At worst, it is the emperor's new cloths!

View PDFchevron_right
Summary: The Budapest meeting 2005 intensified networking on ethics of science
E. Szathmáry

Science and Engineering Ethics, 2006

The text below is part of a process that you are invited to join. The text is the introduction to a longer article that summarizes the discussions during a meeting of coordinators of EU funded projects in ethics of science and engineering. The meeting took place in Budapest in November 2005. The first version of the full article is online on {www.opragen.co.uk (Science and Engineering Ethics)} and on www.embeddingethics.net. The second version of this summary article will be published in the October 2006 issue of Science and Engineering Ethics. While the first version does not contain bibliographic references, in the second version notes and bibliographic references will be added, including references to publications and websites of the many EU funded projects and of other original research that is already mentioned in the summary article.

View PDFchevron_right
The Technolife project: an experimental approach to new ethical frameworks for emerging science and technology (2013)
Verrax Fanny

International Journal of Sustainable Development, 2013

Science and technology evolve fast both as a result of their internal dynamics and the increased emphasis on research and innovation in the so-called knowledge economy. Due attention to ethical issues and aspects of emerging science and technology is called for. This paper presents the development of an experimental methodology for empirical and participatory ethics of science and technology designed to detect, understand and mediate public concerns. The experimental approach of Technolife seeks for points of mediation by which varied public concerns can become embedded institutionally and secure sets of legitimate procedures. It is an open (experimental) question if the wide variety of technologies now in sway can be handled within a uniform ethical framework or if such ethical frameworks also need to evolve more sensitised to diverse technological challenges. Thus, our methodological approach is experimental in yet a further manner in that we seek to mediate between lay ethics, whether actually existent or else merely potential, and the discourse of professional ethicists, recognising the fragmented character of both layers. The methodology forms a central part of the European Union FP7-supported, ongoing (2010) project Technolife, which gives social and sociotechnical imaginaries a key role in the ethical framework.

View PDFchevron_right

References (171)

  1. Aizenberg, E. and Van Den Hoven, J., 2020. Designing for human rights in AI. Big Data & Society, 7(2), p.2053951720949566.
  2. Ali, M., Sapiezynski, P., Bogen, M., Korolova, A., Mislove, A. and Rieke, A., 2019. Discrimination through optimization: How Facebook's Ad delivery can lead to biased outcomes. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction, 3(CSCW), pp.1-30.
  3. Alonso, S., Keane, J. and Merkel, W. (eds.), 2011. The future of representative democracy. Cambridge University Press.
  4. Amnesty International, 2021. Dutch childcare benefit scandal an urgent wake-up call to ban racist algorithms. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/10/xenophobic-machines- dutch-child-benefit-scandal/
  5. Arendt, H., 1974. Interview with Roger Errera. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1978/10/26/hannah-arendt-from-an-interview/
  6. Bader, V., 2001. Associative democracy and the incorporation of minorities: Critical remarks on Paul Hirst's associative democracy. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 4(1), pp.187-202.
  7. Baptista, J.P. and Gradim, A., 2022. Who Believes in Fake News? Identification of Political (A) Symmetries. Social Sciences, 11(10), p.460.
  8. Bedginfield, W., 2020. Everything that went wrong with the botched A-Levels algorithm. Wired, https://www.wired.co.uk/article/alevel-exam-algorithm
  9. Bender, E.M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A. and Shmitchell, S., 2021. On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? In: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 610-623).
  10. Bender, E.M. and Koller, A., 2020. Climbing towards NLU: On meaning, form, and understanding in the age of data. In: Proceedings of the 58th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 5185-5198).
  11. Bertuzzi, L., 2023. AI Act: EU Parliament's crunch time on high-risk categorisation, prohibited practices. EurActive, https://www.euractiv.com/section/artificial-intelligence/news/ai-act-eu- parliaments-crunch-time-on-high-risk-categorisation-prohibited-practices/
  12. Birch, K., Chiappetta, M. and Artyushina, A., 2020. The problem of innovation in technoscientific capitalism: data rentiership and the policy implications of turning personal digital data into a private asset. Policy studies, 41(5), pp.468-487.
  13. Birch, K. and Muniesa, F. (eds.), 2020. Assetization: turning things into assets in technoscientific capitalism. MIT Press.
  14. Blum, C. and Zuber, C.I., 2016. Liquid democracy: Potentials, problems, and perspectives. Journal of political philosophy, 24(2), pp.162-182.
  15. Boggs, C., 2011. Phantom democracy: Corporate interests and political power in America. Springer.
  16. Buolamwini, J. and Gebru, T., 2018, January. Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Conference on fairness, accountability and transparency (pp. 77-91). PMLR.
  17. Boulianne, S., 2020. Twenty years of digital media effects on civic and political participation. Communication research, 47(7), pp.947-966.
  18. Bradley, S.H., Hemphill, S., Markham, S. and Sivakumar, S., 2022. Healthcare systems must get fair value for their data. BMJ 2022; 377:e070876.
  19. Brake, D.R., 2014. Are we all online content creators now? Web 2.0 and digital divides. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), pp.591-609. European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies 53
  20. Brown, A., 2001. Ten Years After the Soviet Breakup: From Democraticization to Guided Democracy. Journal of Democracy, 12(4), pp.35-41.
  21. Calhoun, B., 2012. Shaping the public sphere: English coffeehouses and French salons and the age of the enlightenment. Colgate Academic Review, 3(1).
  22. Chandwaney, A., 2020. After nearly 5 1/2 years, today is my last day at Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/ashok.chandwaney/posts/10220971727956399
  23. Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, 2012. Official Journal of the European Union, C83. Vol. 53, http://data.europa.eu/eli/treaty/char_2012/oj
  24. Chueri, J., 2022. An emerging populist welfare paradigm? How populist radical right-wing parties are reshaping the welfare state. Scandinavian Political Studies, 45(4), pp.383-409.
  25. Chueri, J., 2023. What distinguishes radical right welfare chauvinism? Excluding different migrant groups from the welfare state. Journal of European Social Policy, 33(1), pp.84-100.
  26. Cinelli, M., De Francisci Morales, G., Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W. and Starnini, M., 2021. The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(9), p.e2023301118.
  27. Civil Society Europe & Philea, April 2023. Joint Civil Society Contribution to the Defence of Democracy Package. http://civilsocietyeurope.eu/we-need-a-new-pillar-on-civil-society-to- defend-democracy/ Civil Society Europe & Philea, October 2022. The Defence of Democracy Package: Building a Resilient Democracy and a strong and vibrant civic space -Preliminary Proposals from Civil Society. http://civilsocietyeurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/The-Defence-of- Democracy-Package-Proposals-from-Civil-Society-1.pdf CJEU (Court of Justice of the European Union) Judgement of 6 October 2015. Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner, Case C-362/14. ECLI:EU:C:2015:650. CJEU Judgment of 15 June 2021. Facebook Ireland Ltd and Others v Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit, Case C-645/19. ECLI:EU:C:2021:483.
  28. CJEU Judgment of 16 July 2020. Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Limited and Maximillian Schrems, Case C-311/18. ECLI:EU:C:2020:559.
  29. CJEU Judgment of 10 July 2008. Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding v Firma Feryn NV, Case C-54/07. ECLI:EU:C:2008:397.
  30. Chueri, J., 2022. An emerging populist welfare paradigm? How populist radical right-wing parties are reshaping the welfare state. Scandinavian Political Studies, 45(4), pp.383-409.
  31. Cohen, J.E., 2019. Between truth and power. Oxford University Press.
  32. Cohen, J.E., 2013. What privacy is for. Harvard law review, 126(7), pp.1904-1933.
  33. Copeland, R., 2019. Google's 'Project Nightingale' Gathers Personal Health Data on Millions of Americans. The Wall Street Journal, https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-s-secret-project- nightingale-gathers-personal-health-data-on-millions-of-americans-11573496790
  34. Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services. OJ L 373, 21.12.2004, p. 37-43. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32004L0113
  35. Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin. OJ L 180 , 19/07/2000, p. 22-26. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0043:en:HTML Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16-22. https://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32000L0078
  36. Council of Europe, European Committee on Democracy and Governance (CDDG), 2021. Study on the impact of digital transformation on democracy and good governance. https://rm.coe.int/study-on-the-impact-of-digital-transformation-on-democracy-and-good- go/1680a3b9f9
  37. Council of Europe, Committee on Bioethics (DH-BIO), 2019. Guide to public debate on human rights and biomedicine. Council of Europe, https://www.coe.int/en/web/bioethics/public-debate Council of Europe, 128th Session of the Committee of Ministers, Elsinore (DK), 17-18 May 2018. Modernised Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data (ETS No. 108, 28.01.1981). https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=09000016807c65bf Council of Europe, Protocol amending the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (CETS No. 223). Council of Europe, Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (CETS No. 108).
  38. Delouya, S., 2022. Meta is being sued for giving US hospitals a data-tracking tool that allegedly ended up disclosing patient information to Facebook. Business Insider India, https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/meta-is-being-sued-for-giving-us-hospitals-a-data- tracking-tool-that-allegedly-ended-up-disclosing-patient-information-to- facebook/articleshow/93309108.cms
  39. Dewey, J., 1939. Creative Democracy: The Task Before Us. In: John Dewey and the Promise of America, Progressive Education Booklet No. 14, Columbus, Ohio: American Education Press. Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast). OJ L 204, 26.7.2006, p. 23-36. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32006L0054
  40. Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast). OJ L 204, 26.7.2006, p. 23-36, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32006L0054
  41. Dolan, K.A., 2022. Exclusive: Google Cofounder Sergey Brin Has Quietly Donated More Than $1 Billion Toward Parkinson's Disease. Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2022/12/09/exclusive-google-cofounder-sergey- brin-has-quietly-donated-more-than-1-billion-toward-this-one-specific- disease/?sh=2b3e8a2d4d59
  42. Dryzek, J.S., 1996. Democracy in Capitalist Times: Ideals, Limits, and Struggles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  43. Ebers, M., Hoch, V., Rosenkranz, F., Ruschemeier, H. and Steinrötter, B., 2021. Der Entwurf für eine EU-KI-Verordnung: Richtige Richtung mit Optimierungsbedarf -Eine kritische Bewertung durch Mitglieder der Robotics & AI Law Society (RAILS). RDi 2021, Heft 11, S. 528- 537.
  44. Ellis, E. and Watson, P., 2012. EU anti-discrimination law. OUP Oxford.
  45. Eubanks, V., 2018. Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin's Press.
  46. European Commission, Protection of databases, https://digital- strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/protection-databases
  47. European Commission, 2023. Proposal for a Regulation establishing the Union Secure Connectivity Programme for the period 2023-2027 ('infrastructure for Resilience, Interconnection and Security by Satellite'-IRIS). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022PC0057
  48. European Commission, 2022a. Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on harmonised rules on fair access to and use of data (Data Act) (COM(2022) 68 final). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52022PC0068
  49. European Commission, 2022b. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Union Secure Connectivity Programme for the period 2023-2027 (COM/2022/57 final). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022PC0057
  50. European Commission, 2022c. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on adapting non-contractual civil liability rules to artificial intelligence (AI Liability Directive) (COM/2022/496 final). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022PC0496
  51. European Commission, 2021a. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (artificial intelligence act) and amending certain union legislative acts (COM/2021/206 final). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52021PC0206
  52. European Commission, 2021b. Recommendation (EU) 2021/1534 of 16 September 2021 on ensuring the protection, safety and empowerment of journalists and other media professionals in the European Union. OJ L 331, 20.9.2021, p. 8-20. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32021H1534
  53. European Commission, Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, 2019a. The scale and impact of industrial espionage and theft of trade secrets through cyber. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2873/48055
  54. European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), 2019b. Understanding Citizens' Vulnerabilities to Disinformation and Data-Driven Propaganda. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC116009
  55. European Commission, 2016. The European Digital Competence Framework for Citizens, https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=15688&langId=en
  56. European Commission, 2008. Proposal for a Council Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation (COM/2008/0426 final). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52008PC0426
  57. European Commission, Working Party on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data, 1998. Opinion 1/98: Platform for Privacy Preferences (P3P) and the Open Profiling Standard (OPS) (XV D/5032/98). https://ec.europa.eu/justice/article- 29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/1998/wp11_en.pdf European Convention on Human Rights, First Additional Protocol, 1952. https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf European Council Conclusions, 22-23 March 2018. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/european-council/2018/03/22-23/ European Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles for the Digital Decade, 2022. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/declaration-european-digital-rights-and- principles#Declaration European Economic and Social Committee, 2020. Finding a new consensus on European civil society values and their evaluation. https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/qe-01- 20-495-en-n.pdf European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE), 2022. Statement on Values in times of crisis: Strategic crisis management in the EU. European Commission, Directorate- General for Research and Innovation, Publications Office, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication- detail/-/publication/39416607-6bc5-11ed-9887-01aa75ed71a1/ European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE), 2021. Values for the Future: The role of ethics in European and global governance. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Publications Office, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/849e7ec4-cf13-11eb-ac72- 01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-245102876
  58. European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE), 2018. Statement on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and 'Autonomous' Systems. European Commission, Directorate- General for Research and Innovation, Publications Office, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication- detail/-/publication/dfebe62e-4ce9-11e8-be1d-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format- PDF/source-78120382 EGE hearing of 26/10/2022. Presentation of the European Commission's Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Unit D4.
  59. European Parliament, 2021a. Disinformation and propaganda: impact on the functioning of the rule of law and democratic processes (update). https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/653633/EXPO_STU(2021)65363 3_EN.pdf European Parliament, 2021b. Digital technologies as a means of repression and social control. Study requested by the DROI Subcommittee. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/653636/EXPO_STU(2021)65363 6_EN.pdf European Parliament, 2019. Disinformation and propaganda -impact on the functioning of the rule of law in the EU and its Member States. Study requested by the LIBE Committee. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/608864/IPOL_STU(2019)60886 4_EN.pdf European Parliament resolution of 17 April 2020 on EU coordinated action to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences (2020/2616(RSP)). OJ C 316, 6.8.2021, p. 2- 11, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020IP0054
  60. European Parliament resolution of 15 June 2017 on online platforms and the digital single market. OJ C 331, 18.9.2018, p. 135-145. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/GA/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52017IP0272
  61. European Parliamentary Research Service, 2020. The practice of democracy: A selection of civic engagement initiatives. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/651970/EPRS_STU(2020)65197 0_EN.pdf European Parliamentary Research Service, 2018. Prospects for e-democracy in Europe. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/603213/EPRS_STU(2018)60321 3_EN.pdf Federal Government of Germany, 2021. On the Application of International Law in Cyberspace -Position Paper. https://www.auswaertiges- amt.de/blob/2446304/32e7b2498e10b74fb17204c54665bdf0/on-the-application-of- international-law-in-cyberspace-data.pdf
  62. Fitzgerald, M. and Crider, C., 2020. Under pressure: UK government releases NHS COVID data deals with big tech. openDemocracy.
  63. Foa, R.S. and Mounk, Y., 2017. The signs of deconsolidation. Journal of democracy, 28(1), pp.5-15.
  64. Fraser, N., 1992. Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. In: C. Calhoun (eds.), Habermas and the Public Sphere (pp. 109-142). MIT Press.
  65. Freelon, D., Marwick, A. and Kreiss, D., 2020. False equivalencies: Online activism from left to right. Science, 369(6508), pp.1197-1201.
  66. Friedewald, M., Burgess, J.P., Čas, J., Bellanova, R. and Peissl, W., 2017. Surveillance, privacy and security. Taylor & Francis.
  67. Frischlich, L., Hellmann, J.H., Brinkschulte, F., Becker, M. and Back, M.D., 2021. Right-wing authoritarianism, conspiracy mentality, and susceptibility to distorted alternative news. Social Influence, 16(1), pp.24-64.
  68. Fundamental Rights Agency of the European Union (FRA), 2022. Bias in Algorithms -Artificial Intelligence and Discrimination. https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2022- bias-in-algorithms_en.pdf
  69. Gibbons, B., 2020. Most MPs studied for university degrees now classed as 'low value' by UK Government. Get Surrey, https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/most-mps- studied-university-degrees-18646647
  70. Goldberg, J., 2020. Why Obama fears for our democracy. The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/why-obama-fears-for-our- democracy/617087/ Gorokhovskaia, Y., Shahbaz, A.., Slipowitz, A., 2023. Freedom in the World 2023: Marking 50 Years in the Struggle for Democracy. Freedom House, https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2023/marking-50-years
  71. Gould, M., Joshi, I. and Tang, M., 2020. The power of data in a pandemic. Technology in the NHS Blog, 28.
  72. Gray, M.L. and Suri, S., 2019. Ghost work: How to stop Silicon Valley from building a new global underclass. Eamon Dolan Books.
  73. Habermas, J., 2022. Reflections and hypotheses on a further structural transformation of the political public sphere. Theory, Culture & Society, 39(4), pp.145-171.
  74. Hanitzsch, T., Van Dalen, A. and Steindl, N., 2018. Caught in the nexus: A comparative and longitudinal analysis of public trust in the press. The international journal of press/politics, 23(1), pp.3-23.
  75. Hartley, S., Raman, S., Smith, A. and Nerlich, B., 2018. Science and the politics of openness: Here be monsters (p. 352). Manchester University Press.
  76. Heckelei, N., 2016. Simulierte Demokratie. Books on Demand.
  77. Hinds, J., Williams, E.J. and Joinson, A.N., 2020. "It wouldn't happen to me": Privacy concerns and perspectives following the Cambridge Analytica scandal. International Journal of Human- Computer Studies, 143, p.102498.
  78. Hirst, P., 1996. Associative democracy-a comment on David Morgan. The Australian and New Zealand journal of sociology, 32(1), pp.20-26.
  79. Information Commissioner's Office of the United Kingdom, 2017. RFA0627721 -provision of patient data to DeepMind. https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve- taken/undertakings/2014353/undertaking-cover-letter-revised-04072017-to-first-person.pdf Ingelgom, V. for European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, 2023. Research on deliberative and participatory practices in the EU. Publications Office of the European Union, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/936254
  80. IPSOS Global Advisor, 2019. Trust in the media. IPSOS, https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2019-06/global-advisor-trust-in- media-2019.pdf
  81. Keane, J., 2017. When trees fall, monkeys scatter: Rethinking democracy in China. World Scientific Publishing Europe Ltd., London.
  82. Kelsen, H., 1920. Vom Wesen und Wert der Demokratie. Mohr. (English version: Kelsen, H. (author), Urbinati, N. and Invernizzi Accetti, C. (eds), 2013. The essence and value of democracy. Rowman & Littlefield.)
  83. Kickbusch, I., Piselli, D., Agrawal, A., Balicer, R., Banner, O., Adelhardt, M., Capobianco, E., Fabian, C., Gill, A.S., Lupton, D. and Medhora, R.P., 2021. The Lancet and Financial Times Commission on governing health futures 2030: growing up in a digital world. The Lancet, 398(10312), pp.1727-1776.
  84. Killeen, M., 2022. Digital citizenship: A new proposal for an inclusive future. EurActive, https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/digital-citizenship-a-new-proposal-for-an-for- inclusive-future/
  85. Kofman, A. and Tobin, A., 2020. Facebook Ads Can Still Discriminate Against Women and Older Workers, Despite a Civil Rights Settlement. ProPublica, https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-ads-can-still-discriminate-against-women-and- older-workers-despite-a-civil-rights-settlement
  86. Kuhlmann, S. and Trute, H.H., 2022. Die Regulierung von Desinformationen und rechtswidrigen Inhalten nach dem neuen Digital Services Act. GSZ 2022, S. 115-122.
  87. Kunig, P., 2008. Intervention, Prohibition of. In: Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law.
  88. Landemore, H., 2017. Deliberative democracy as open, not (just) representative democracy. Daedalus, 146(3), pp.51-63.
  89. Larkin, B., 2013. The politics and poetics of infrastructure. Annual review of anthropology, 42, pp.327-343.
  90. Ledford, H., 2019. Millions of black people affected by racial bias in health-care algorithms. Nature 574, 608-609.
  91. Leetaru, K., 2018. Should Social Media Be Allowed To Profit From Terrorism And Hate Speech? Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2018/12/14/should-social-media-be- allowed-to-profit-from-terrorism-and-hate-speech/
  92. Leonelli, S., 2023. Philosophy of Open Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  93. Levitsky, S. and Ziblatt, D., 2019. How democracies die. Crown.
  94. Lesher, M., Pawelec, H. and Desai, A., 2022. Disentangling untruths online: Creators, spreaders and how to stop them. OECD Going Digital Toolkit Notes, No. 23, Paris: OECD Publishing.
  95. Lorenz-Spreen, P., Oswald, L., Lewandowsky, S. and Hertwig, R., 2023. A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy. Nature human behaviour, 7(1), pp.74-101.
  96. Maki, K., 2011. Neoliberal deviants and surveillance: Welfare recipients under the watchful eye of Ontario Works. Surveillance & Society, 9(1/2), pp.47-63.
  97. Marcus, G., 2022. AI Platforms like ChatGPT Are Easy to Use but Also Potentially Dangerou. Scientific American, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ai-platforms-like-chatgpt-are- easy-to-use-but-also-potentially-dangerous/
  98. Mazzucato, M., 2021. Mission economy: A moonshot guide to changing capitalism. Penguin UK.
  99. McGoey, L., 2015. No such thing as a free gift: The Gates Foundation and the price of philanthropy. Verso Books.
  100. McMahon, A., Buyx, A. and Prainsack, B., 2020. Big data governance needs more collective responsibility: The role of harm mitigation in the governance of data use in medicine and beyond. Medical law review, 28(1), pp.155-182.
  101. Meijer, A.J., Curtin, D. and Hillebrandt, M., 2012. Open government: connecting vision and voice. International review of administrative sciences, 78(1), pp.10-29.
  102. Molnár-Gábor, F., Beauvais, M.J., Bernier, A., Jimenez, M.P.N., Recuero, M. and Knoppers, B.M., 2022. Bridging the European Data Sharing Divide in Genomic Science. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 24(10), p.e37236.
  103. Morrison, S.L. and Gomez, R., 2014. Pushback: Expressions of resistance to the "evertime" of constant online connectivity. First Monday.
  104. Molnár-Gábor, F., 2016. Data Protection. In: Max Planck Enyclopedia of Comparative Constitutional Law, OUP.
  105. Mouffe, C., 2000. Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism. https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/24654
  106. Mudde, C. and Kaltwasser, C.R., 2017. Populism: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
  107. Muldoon, J. and Booth, D., 2022. Socialist democracy: Rosa Luxemburg's challenge to democratic theory. Philosophy & Social Criticism, p.01914537221107403.
  108. Müller, A., 2022. Sachverständigenstellungsnahme zur EU-Verordnung zu Künstlicher Intelligenz unter Einbeziehung von Wettbewerbsfähigkeit im Bereich Künstlicher Intelligenz und Blockchain-Technologie. Deutscher Bundestag, Ausschuss für Digitales, https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/911730/72880d80a804af16b5a69141ac8b2948/Stell ungnahme-Mueller-data.pdf
  109. Naeem, M., 2019. Uncovering the Enablers, Benefits, Opportunities and Risks for Digital Open Government (DOG): Enablers, Benefits, Opportunities and Risks for DOG. International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age 6(3).
  110. Nagenborg, M., 2009. Designing spheres of informational justice. Ethics and information technology, 11(3), pp.175-179.
  111. Nemitz, P., 2018. Constitutional democracy and technology in the age of artificial intelligence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376(2133), p.20180089.
  112. Nissenbaum, H., 2011. A contextual approach to privacy online. Daedalus, 140(4), pp.32-48.
  113. Norton, A., 2023. Wild Democracy: Anarchy, Courage, and Ruling the Law. Oxford University Press.
  114. Pasquale, F., 2016. The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Harvard University Press.
  115. Paxton, M., 2019. Agonistic democracy: Rethinking political institutions in pluralist times. Routledge.
  116. Pinker, S., 2015. The moral imperative for bioethics. The Boston Globe, https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/07/31/the-moral-imperative-for- bioethics/JmEkoyzlTAu9oQV76JrK9N/story.html
  117. Powles, J. and Hodson, H., 2018. Response to deepmind. Health and Technology, 8(1-2), pp.15-29.
  118. Powles, J. and Hodson, H., 2017. Google DeepMind and healthcare in an age of algorithms. Health and technology, 7(4), pp.351-367.
  119. Prainsack, B., El-Sayed, S., Forgó, N., Szoszkiewicz, Ł. and Baumer, P., 2022. Data solidarity - White paper. Growing up in a Digital World, The Lancet and Financial Times Commission. https://www.governinghealthfutures2030.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/DataSolidarity.pdf
  120. Prainsack, B., 2017. Personalized medicine. In: Personalized Medicine. New York University Press. Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services (Digital Services Act). OJ L 277, 27.10.2022, p. 1-102. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32022R2065&qid=1666857835014
  121. Regulation (EU) 2019/881 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on ENISA (the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity) and on information and communications technology cybersecurity certification (Cybersecurty Act). OJ L 151, 7.6.2019, p. 15-69. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/881/oj
  122. Reilly, S., 2018. Direct democracy: A double-edged sword. Lynne Rienner Publishers. Reporters Without Borders, 2022. 20th World Press Freedom Index. https://rsf.org/en/rsf-s- 2022-world-press-freedom-index-new-era-polarisation-0
  123. Robinson, L., Cotten, S.R., Ono, H., Quan-Haase, A., Mesch, G., Chen, W., Schulz, J., Hale, T.M. and Stern, M.J., 2015. Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information, communication & society, 18(5), pp.569-582.
  124. Rosenblum, N.L. and Muirhead, R., 2019. A lot of people are saying: The New Conspiracism and the Assault on Democracy. Princeton University Press.
  125. Runciman, D., 2018. How democracy ends. Profile Books.
  126. Sandel, M.J., 2000. What money can't buy: the moral limits of markets. Tanner Lectures on Human Values, 21, pp.87-122.
  127. Sapiezynski, P., Ghosh, A., Kaplan, L., Rieke, A. and Mislove, A., 2022. Algorithms that "Don't See Color": Measuring Biases in Lookalike and Special Ad Audiences. In: Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (pp. 609-616).
  128. Savaget, P., Chiarini, T. and Evans, S., 2019. Empowering political participation through artificial intelligence. Science and Public Policy, 46(3), pp.369-380.
  129. Schmidt, R., 2021. Grenzenlose Souveränität im Cyberspace: Eine Kritik des Positionspapiers der Bundesregierung zum digitalen Völkerrecht. Verfassungsblog.
  130. Schuman, R., 1964. Pour l'Europe. Nagel, https://www.schuman.info/democracy.htm
  131. Sen, A. (2009). Development as Freedom. Knopf.
  132. Sesing, A. and Tschech, A., 2022. AGG und KI-VO-Entwurf beim Einsatz von Künstlicher Intelligenz. MMR-Zeitschrift für IT-Recht und Recht der Digitalisierung, 25, pp.24-30.
  133. Shapiro, I. and Macedo, S. (eds.), 2000. Designing democratic institutions (Vol. 42). NYU Press.
  134. Sides, J., 2015. Why Congress should not cut funding to the social sciences. The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/06/10/why-congress- should-not-cut-funding-to-the-social-sciences/
  135. Sharon, T., 2022. Beyond privacy: there are wider issues at stake over Big Tech in medicine. Open Democracy, https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/technology-and-democracy/beyond- privacy-there-are-wider-issues-at-stake-over-big-tech-in-medicine/
  136. Sharon, T., 2021a. From hostile worlds to multiple spheres: towards a normative pragmatics of justice for the Googlization of health. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 24(3), pp.315- 327.
  137. Sharon, T., 2021b. Blind-sided by privacy? Digital contact tracing, the Apple/Google API and big tech's newfound role as global health policy makers. Ethics and Information Technology, 23(Suppl 1), pp.45-57.
  138. Soron, D. and Laxer, G., 2006. Thematic introduction: Decommodification, democracy and the battle for the commons. Not For Sale: Decommodifying of public life, pp.15-37.
  139. Spitale, G., Biller-Andorno, N. and Germani, F., 2023. AI model GPT-3 (dis) informs us better than humans. arXiv:2301.11924.
  140. Spitale, G., Germani, F. and Biller-Andorno, N., 2023. The PHERCC matrix. An ethical framework for planning, governing, and evaluating risk and crisis communication in the context of public health emergencies. Am J Bioeth, 4, pp. 1-16.
  141. Spitale, G., Merten, S., Jafflin, K., Schwind, B., Kaiser-Grolimund, A. and Biller-Andorno, N., 2021. A novel risk and crisis communication platform to bridge the gap between policy makers and the Public in the Context of the COVID-19 Crisis (PubliCo): protocol for a mixed methods study. JMIR research protocols, 10(11), p.e33653.
  142. Staab, P., 2019. Digital Capitalism: Market and Hegemony in the Economy of Superabundance. Suhrkamp.
  143. Steiger, D., 2021. Wehrhafte Demokratie im digitalen Zeitalter: Völkerrechtliche Grenzen in- und ausländischer Einflussnahme auf Wahlen. In: Die Herausforderungen der digitalen Kommunikation für den Staat und seine demokratische Staatsform (The Challenges of Digital Communication for the State and its Democratic State Form) (pp. 137-162). Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG.
  144. Steiner, G., 2015. The idea of Europe: an essay. Abrams.
  145. Strøm, K., Müller, W.C. and Bergman, T. (eds), 2003. Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies, Comparative Politics. Oxford University Press.
  146. Surden, H., 2007. Structural Rights in Privacy. MU Law Review 60: 1605-1629.
  147. Taylor, P.L., 2009. Scientific self-regulation-So good, how can it fail? Commentary on "The problems with forbidding science". Science and Engineering Ethics, 15, pp.395-406.
  148. Tech Transparency Project, 2023. Meta Creates Pages for ISIS, Undermining Anti-Terrorism Efforts, https://www.techtransparencyproject.org/articles/meta-creates-pages-for-isis- undermining-anti-terrorism-efforts
  149. Thiel, T., 2023. A polarizing multiverse? Assessing Habermas' digital update of his public sphere theory. Constellations 30:69-76.
  150. Tobler, C., 2005. Indirect discrimination: a case study into the development of the legal concept of indirect discrimination under EC law. Vol 10, Intersentia.
  151. Törnberg, P., 2023. How platforms govern: Social regulation in digital capitalism. Big Data & Society, 10(1), p.20539517231153808. Treaty on European Union. Official Journal C 326 , 26/10/2012 P. 0001 -0390, https://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12012M%2FTXT
  152. Troncoso, C., Payer, M., Hubaux, J.P., Salathé, M., Larus, J., Bugnion, E., Lueks, W., Stadler, T., Pyrgelis, A., Antonioli, D. and Barman, L., 2020. White paper on Decentralized Privacy- Preserving Proximity Tracing. https://nebelwelt.net/files/20DEB.pdf
  153. Turow, J., Hennessy, M. and Draper, N., 2015. The tradeoff fallacy: How marketers are misrepresenting American consumers and opening them up to exploitation. A Report from the Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania. United Nations Working Group on developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security, 2021. Final Substantive Report. https://front.un-arm.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Final-report-A-AC.290-2021-CRP.2.pdf United Nations, 2019. Report of the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights. General Assembly, https://undocs.org/A/74/493
  154. Van Bekkum, M. and Borgesius, F.Z., 2021. Digital welfare fraud detection and the Dutch SyRI judgment. European Journal of Social Security, 23(4), pp.323-340.
  155. Van den Hoven, M.J., 1997. Privacy and the varieties of moral wrong-doing in an information age. Acm Sigcas Computers and Society, 27(3), pp.33-37.
  156. Van Deursen, A.J. and Van Dijk, J.A., 2014. The digital divide shifts to differences in usage. New media & society, 16(3), pp.507-526.
  157. Van Dijk, N., Casiraghi, S. and Gutwirth, S., 2021. The 'Ethification' of ICT Governance. Artificial Intelligence and Data Protection in the European Union. Computer Law & Security Review, 43, p.105597.
  158. Voltaire, 1765. Collection des Lettres sur les Miracles ('Collection of Letters on Miracles'), letter no. 11. Von Thadden, E., 2023. Ändert das Digitale den Kapitalismus? Die Zeit Online, https://www.zeit.de/2023/02/digitalisierung-demokratie-kapitalismus-philipp-staab Walzer, M., 1983. Spheres of justice: A defense of pluralism and equality. Basic Books.
  159. Wagner, B., 2018. Ethics as an escape from regulation. From "ethics-washing" to ethics- shopping? In: Being profiled: COGITAS ERGO SUM -10 Years of Profiling the European Citizen. Amsterdam University Press.
  160. Walby, S., 2009. Globalization and inequalities: Complexity and contested modernities. Sage.
  161. Warren, M., 1992. Democratic theory and self-transformation. American political science review, 86(1), pp.8-23.
  162. Wei, L., 2012. Number matters: The multimodality of Internet use as an indicator of the digital inequalities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), pp.303-318.
  163. Weil, E., 2023. You Are Not a Parrot And a chatbot is not a human. And a linguist named Emily M. Bender is very worried what will happen when we forget this. Intelligencer, https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/ai-artificial-intelligence-chatbots-emily-m-bender.html
  164. Whittaker, M., Alper, M., Bennett, C.L., Hendren, S., Kaziunas, L., Mills, M., Ringel Morris, M., Rankin, J.,Rogers, E., Salas, M., Myers West, S., 2019. Disability, Bias, and AI. AI Now Institute at NYU, https://ainowinstitute.org/disabilitybiasai-2019.pdf
  165. Xu, X., Brennan, E. and Frater, J., 2023. EU bans TikTok from official devices across all three government institutions. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/28/tech/tiktok-eu-ban-intl- hnk/index.html
  166. Yeung, K., Howes, A. and Pogrebna, G., 2020. AI Governance by Human Rights-Centered Design, Deliberation, and Oversight. The Oxford handbook of ethics of AI, pp.77-106.
  167. York, J.C., 2022. Silicon values: The future of free speech under surveillance capitalism. Verso Books.
  168. Zhuravskaya, E., Petrova, M. and Enikolopov, R., 2020. Political effects of the internet and social media. Annual review of economics, 12, pp.415-438.
  169. Zuboff, S., 2021. The coup we are not talking about. The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/29/opinion/sunday/facebook-surveillance-society- technology.html
  170. Zuboff, S., 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. Public Affairs.
  171. Zuiderveen Borgesius, F., 2018. Discrimination, artificial intelligence, and algorithmic decision- making. Council of Europe, https://rm.coe.int/discrimination-artificial-intelligence-and- algorithmic-decision-making/1680925d73

Related papers

Introduction to the Ethics of New and Emerging Science and Technology
Tsjalling Swierstra

Handbook of Digital Games and Entertainment Technologies, 2015

View PDFchevron_right
Ethical Decisions in Emergent Science, Engineering and Technologies
D. Vallero
View PDFchevron_right
Ethical Aspects of Science and Technological Innovations
Dejan Dašić

International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE)

The progress of civilization depends on both science and ethics, on two different ideas. Unlike ethics, which deals with moral principles and ideals that guide human behavior, science is based on logical argumentation, empirical data, and methodical testing. However, as science develops, it often raises ethical questions that must be addressed. As a result, science and ethics are intertwined and both are essential for the moral and long-term advancement of science. This research examines the results of two interconnected processes: the quick development of science and technology and its moral ramifications, or the harm it does to people’s lives all around the world. The writers highlight the need for a qualitative shift in attitudes toward nature and society as a whole in order to address environmental challenges and remove the threat of a global ecological disaster by analyzing the substance and impact of these processes.

View PDFchevron_right
The Ethics of Science and Technology
Alloy S Ihuah

2010

Modern science and technology have enhanced man's power of manipulating and controlling nature, of reducing drudgery and improving the quality of human life though,its uses has generated many problems. Today, the historical dialectics of science and technology are increasingly assuming paradoxical dimensions, more purposeful and purposeless, more meaningful and bizarre, and more useful and destructive. While the achievements in science and technology have served to prolong life, they have also served to provide resources for its brutal extermination. This Book argues that, a pro-active ethical approach to scientific and technological endeavours guarantees asustainable and more human friendly development. The work explicates the healing power of the science of human conduct and recommends the morality of human integration as a catalyst that conducts humanity back into its essential nature on earth, to live a life that is in harmony with other members of the biotic community. This...

View PDFchevron_right
The TECHNOLIFE Project: An experimental approach to new ethical frameworks for emerging science and technology
Roger Strand

Abstract This paper presents the development of an experimental methodology for empirical and participatory ethics of science and technology. It is designed to detect, understand and mediate public concerns. Science and technology evolve rapidly as a result of their internal dynamics as well as the optimization of subsidy for research and innovation in recent times.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Ethics
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved