Ethical Impact Of Data Science Research Articles

What is data ethics?

This theme issue has the founding ambition of landscaping data ethics as a new branch of ethics that studies and evaluates moral problems related to data (including generation, recording, curation, processing, dissemination, sharing and use), algorithms (including artificial intelligence, artificial agents, machine learning and robots) and corresponding practices (including responsible innovation, programming, hacking and professional codes), in order to formulate and support morally good solutions (e.g. right conducts or right values). Data ethics builds on the foundation provided by computer and information ethics but, at the same time, it refines the approach endorsed so far in this research field, by shifting the level of abstraction of ethical enquiries, from being information-centric to being data-centric. This shift brings into focus the different moral dimensions of all kinds of data, even data that never translate directly into information but can be used to support actions or generate behaviours, for example. It highlights the need for ethical analyses to concentrate on the content and nature of computational operations-the interactions among hardware, software and data-rather than on the variety of digital technologies that enable them. And it emphasizes the complexity of the ethical challenges posed by data science. Because of such complexity, data ethics should be developed from the start as a macroethics, that is, as an overall framework that avoids narrow, ad hoc approaches and addresses the ethical impact and implications of data science and its applications within a consistent, holistic and inclusive framework. Only as a macroethics will data ethics provide solutions that can maximize the value of data science for our societies, for all of us and for our environments.This article is part of the themed issue 'The ethical impact of data science'.

The ethics of data and of data science: an economist's perspective.

Data collection and modelling are increasingly important in social science and science-based policy, but threaten to crowd out other ways of thinking. Economists recognize that markets embody and shed light on human sentiments. However, their ethical consequences have been difficult to interpret, let alone manage. Although economic mechanisms are changed by data intensity, they can be redesigned to restore their benefits. We conclude with four cautions: if data are good, more may not be better; scientifically desirable data properties may not help policy; consent is a double-edged tool; and data exist only because someone thought to capture and codify them.This article is part of the themed issue 'The ethical impact of data science'.

Privacy is an essentially contested concept: a multi-dimensional analytic for mapping privacy.

The meaning of privacy has been much disputed throughout its history in response to wave after wave of new technological capabilities and social configurations. The current round of disputes over privacy fuelled by data science has been a cause of despair for many commentators and a death knell for privacy itself for others. We argue that privacy's disputes are neither an accidental feature of the concept nor a lamentable condition of its applicability. Privacy is essentially contested. Because it is, privacy is transformable according to changing technological and social conditions. To make productive use of privacy's essential contestability, we argue for a new approach to privacy research and practical design, focused on the development of conceptual analytics that facilitate dissecting privacy's multiple uses across multiple contexts.This article is part of the themed issue 'The ethical impact of data science'.

Compelling truth: legal protection of the infosphere against big data spills.

The paper explores whether legal and ethical concepts that have been used to protect the natural environment can also be leveraged to protect the 'infosphere', a neologism used by Luciano Floridi to characterize the totality of the informational environment. We focus, in particular, on the interaction between allocation of (intellectual) property rights and 'communication duties', in particular, data breach notification duties.This article is part of the themed issue 'The ethical impact of data science'.

Faultless responsibility: on the nature and allocation of moral responsibility for distributed moral actions.

The concept of distributed moral responsibility (DMR) has a long history. When it is understood as being entirely reducible to the sum of (some) human, individual and already morally loaded actions, then the allocation of DMR, and hence of praise and reward or blame and punishment, may be pragmatically difficult, but not conceptually problematic. However, in distributed environments, it is increasingly possible that a network of agents, some human, some artificial (e.g. a program) and some hybrid (e.g. a group of people working as a team thanks to a software platform), may cause distributed moral actions (DMAs). These are morally good or evil (i.e. morally loaded) actions caused by local interactions that are in themselves neither good nor evil (morally neutral). In this article, I analyse DMRs that are due to DMAs, and argue in favour of the allocation, by default and overridably, of full moral responsibility (faultless responsibility) to all the nodes/agents in the network causally relevant for bringing about the DMA in question, independently of intentionality. The mechanism proposed is inspired by, and adapts, three concepts: back propagation from network theory, strict liability from jurisprudence and common knowledge from epistemic logic.This article is part of the themed issue 'The ethical impact of data science'.

Beyond privacy and exposure: ethical issues within citizen-facing analytics.

We discuss the governing forces for analytics, especially concerning citizens' behaviours and their transactions, that depend on which of three spheres of operation an institution is in (corporate, public sector/government and academic). We argue that aspirations and missions also differ by sphere even as digital spaces have drawn these spheres ever closer together. We propose that citizens' expectations and implicit permissions for any exploitation of their data require the perception of a fair balance of benefits, which should be transparent (accessible to citizens) and justifiable. We point out that within the corporate sphere most analytics does not concern identity, targeted marketing nor any direct interference with individual citizens; but instead it supports strategic decision-making, where the data are effectively anonymous. With the three spheres we discuss the nature of models deployed in analytics, including 'black-box' modelling uncheckable by a human mind, and the need to track the provenance and workings or models. We also examine the recent evolution of personal data, where some behaviours, or tokens, identifying individuals (unique and yet non-random) are partially and jointly owned by other individuals that are themselves connected. We consider the ability of heavily and lightly regulated sectors to increase access or to stifle innovation. We also call for clear and inclusive definitions of 'data science and analytics', avoiding the narrow claims of those in technical sub-sectors or sub-themes. Finally, we examine some examples of unethical and abusive practices. We argue for an ethical responsibility to be placed upon professional data scientists to avoid abuses in the future.This article is part of the themed issue 'The ethical impact of data science'.

Locating ethics in data science: responsibility and accountability in global and distributed knowledge production systems.

The distributed and global nature of data science creates challenges for evaluating the quality, import and potential impact of the data and knowledge claims being produced. This has significant consequences for the management and oversight of responsibilities and accountabilities in data science. In particular, it makes it difficult to determine who is responsible for what output, and how such responsibilities relate to each other; what ‘participation’ means and which accountabilities it involves, with regard to data ownership, donation and sharing as well as data analysis, re-use and authorship; and whether the trust placed on automated tools for data mining and interpretation is warranted (especially as data processing strategies and tools are often developed separately from the situations of data use where ethical concerns typically emerge). To address these challenges, this paper advocates a participative, reflexive management of data practices. Regulatory structures should encourage data scientists to examine the historical lineages and ethical implications of their work at regular intervals. They should also foster awareness of the multitude of skills and perspectives involved in data science, highlighting how each perspective is partial and in need of confrontation with others. This approach has the potential to improve not only the ethical oversight for data science initiatives, but also the quality and reliability of research outputs.This article is part of the themed issue ‘The ethical impact of data science’.

The ethics of big data as a public good: which public? Whose good?

International development and humanitarian organizations are increasingly calling for digital data to be treated as a public good because of its value in supplementing scarce national statistics and informing interventions, including in emergencies. In response to this claim, a 'responsible data' movement has evolved to discuss guidelines and frameworks that will establish ethical principles for data sharing. However, this movement is not gaining traction with those who hold the highest-value data, particularly mobile network operators who are proving reluctant to make data collected in low- and middle-income countries accessible through intermediaries. This paper evaluates how the argument for 'data as a public good' fits with the corporate reality of big data, exploring existing models for data sharing. I draw on the idea of corporate data as an ecosystem involving often conflicting rights, duties and claims, in comparison to the utilitarian claim that data's humanitarian value makes it imperative to share them. I assess the power dynamics implied by the idea of data as a public good, and how differing incentives lead actors to adopt particular ethical positions with regard to the use of data.This article is part of the themed issue 'The ethical impact of data science'.

Facilitating the ethical use of health data for the benefit of society: electronic health records, consent and the duty of easy rescue.

Advances in data science allow for sophisticated analysis of increasingly large datasets. In the medical context, large volumes of data collected for healthcare purposes are contained in electronic health records (EHRs). The real-life character and sheer amount of data contained in them make EHRs an attractive resource for public health and biomedical research. However, medical records contain sensitive information that could be misused by third parties. Medical confidentiality and respect for patients' privacy and autonomy protect patient data, barring access to health records unless consent is given by the data subject. This creates a situation in which much of the beneficial records-based research is prevented from being used or is seriously undermined, because the refusal of consent by some patients introduces a systematic deviation, known as selection bias, from a representative sample of the general population, thus distorting research findings. Although research exemptions for the requirement of informed consent exist, they are rarely used in practice due to concerns over liability and a general culture of caution. In this paper, we argue that the problem of research access to sensitive data can be understood as a tension between the medical duties of confidentiality and beneficence. We attempt to show that the requirement of informed consent is not appropriate for all kinds of records-based research by distinguishing studies involving minimal risk from those that feature moderate or greater risks. We argue that the duty of easy rescue—the principle that persons should benefit others when this can be done at no or minimal risk to themselves—grounds the removal of consent requirements for minimally risky records-based research. Drawing on this discussion, we propose a risk-adapted framework for the facilitation of ethical uses of health data for the benefit of society.This article is part of the themed issue ‘The ethical impact of data science’.

Data philanthropy and the design of the infraethics for information societies.

In mature information societies, sharing data is increasingly recognized as a crucial means to foster their development. However, competing tensions on data control and ownership, limited technical understanding, and the lack of an adequate governance framework pose serious challenges to attempts to share data among different actors. Data philanthropy, understood as the donation of data from both individuals and private companies, has been proposed as means to meet these challenges. While at first sight data philanthropy may seem an uncontroversial phenomenon, a closer analysis reveals a bewildering network of problems. In this article, I analyse the role of data philanthropy in contemporary societies and the moral problems that it yields. I argue that the solution to these problems rests on the understanding of the infraethical nature of data philanthropy and on the design of an ethical framework encompassing the right infraethics and the right ethics. This is a framework able to address the changes brought about by the information revolution and to harness the opportunities that these pose for the prosperity of current and future information societies.This article is part of the themed issue 'The ethical impact of data science'.

The ethics of smart cities and urban science.

Software-enabled technologies and urban big data have become essential to the functioning of cities. Consequently, urban operational governance and city services are becoming highly responsive to a form of data-driven urbanism that is the key mode of production for smart cities. At the heart of data-driven urbanism is a computational understanding of city systems that reduces urban life to logic and calculative rules and procedures, which is underpinned by an instrumental rationality and realist epistemology. This rationality and epistemology are informed by and sustains urban science and urban informatics, which seek to make cities more knowable and controllable. This paper examines the forms, practices and ethics of smart cities and urban science, paying particular attention to: instrumental rationality and realist epistemology; privacy, datafication, dataveillance and geosurveillance; and data uses, such as social sorting and anticipatory governance. It argues that smart city initiatives and urban science need to be re-cast in three ways: a re-orientation in how cities are conceived; a reconfiguring of the underlying epistemology to openly recognize the contingent and relational nature of urban systems, processes and science; and the adoption of ethical principles designed to realize benefits of smart cities and urban science while reducing pernicious effects.This article is part of the themed issue 'The ethical impact of data science'.

The dynamics of big data and human rights: the case of scientific research.

In this paper, we address the complex relationship between big data and human rights. Because this is a vast terrain, we restrict our focus in two main ways. First, we concentrate on big data applications in scientific research, mostly health-related research. And, second, we concentrate on two human rights: the familiar right to privacy and the less well-known right to science. Our contention is that human rights interact in potentially complex ways with big data, not only constraining it, but also enabling it in various ways; and that such rights are dynamic in character, rather than fixed once and for all, changing in their implications over time in line with changes in the context we inhabit, and also as they interact among themselves in jointly responding to the opportunities and risks thrown up by a changing world. Understanding this dynamic interaction of human rights is crucial for formulating an ethic tailored to the realities-the new capabilities and risks-of the rapidly evolving digital environment.This article is part of the themed issue 'The ethical impact of data science'.

The opportunities and ethics of big data: practical priorities for a national Council of Data Ethics.

In order to generate the gains that can come from analysing and linking big datasets, data holders need to consider the ethical frameworks, principles and applications that help to maintain public trust. In the USA, the National Science Foundation helped to set up a Council for Big Data, Ethics and Society, of which there is no equivalent in the UK. In November 2015, the Royal Statistical Society convened a workshop of 28 participants from government, academia and the private sector, and discussed the practical priorities that might be assisted by a new Council of Data Ethics in the UK. This article draws together the views from that meeting. Priorities for policy-makers and others include seeking a public mandate and informing the terms of the social contract for use of data; building professional competence and due diligence on data protection; appointment of champions who are competent to address public concerns; and transparency, across all dimensions. For government data, further priorities include improvements to data access, and development of data infrastructure. In conclusion, we support the establishment of a national Data Ethics Council, alongside wider and deeper engagement of the public to address data ethics dilemmas.This article is part of the themed issue 'The ethical impact of data science'.

Data science ethics in government.

Data science can offer huge opportunities for government. With the ability to process larger and more complex datasets than ever before, it can provide better insights for policymakers and make services more tailored and efficient. As with all new technologies, there is a risk that we do not take up its opportunities and miss out on its enormous potential. We want people to feel confident to innovate with data. So, over the past 18 months, the Government Data Science Partnership has taken an open, evidence-based and user-centred approach to creating an ethical framework. It is a practical document that brings all the legal guidance together in one place, and is written in the context of new data science capabilities. As part of its development, we ran a public dialogue on data science ethics, including deliberative workshops, an experimental conjoint survey and an online engagement tool. The research supported the principles set out in the framework as well as provided useful insight into how we need to communicate about data science. It found that people had a low awareness of the term 'data science', but that showing data science examples can increase broad support for government exploring innovative uses of data. But people's support is highly context driven. People consider acceptability on a case-by-case basis, first thinking about the overall policy goals and likely intended outcome, and then weighing up privacy and unintended consequences. The ethical framework is a crucial start, but it does not solve all the challenges it highlights, particularly as technology is creating new challenges and opportunities every day. Continued research is needed into data minimization and anonymization, robust data models, algorithmic accountability, and transparency and data security. It also has revealed the need to set out a renewed deal between the citizen and state on data, to maintain and solidify trust in how we use people's data for socialgood.This article is part of the themed issue 'The ethical impact of data science'.