Book review: Handbook on the Ethics of AI #1

Handbook on the Ethics of AI

For the impatient, a book's introduction might present an unwelcome delay to the main course, and course is the word with Gunkel's edited text and said introduction. As a nurse with a BA(Joint Hons.) in Philosophy and Computing this book deserved the close reading sought. In that respect - the learning is ongoing. A book so titled could be 'heavy' going; especially given the many associated technicalities (hard and soft), the sheer dynamism that is AI (as per the arrival of DeepSeek) and uncertainties this provokes.

So, is this heavy? No, the book isn't, it is a learned production. Speaking of which the quality of production (hardback - for which many thanks to the editor and Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd) is very high; the design, text, legibility, layout. Vital for me, there is an index that seems in-depth and spans just over ten pages. There are notes too. Chapter 15 did have me wondering. Initially I did not look up the note '1' in the title. Had I done so, I would known the adopted format aims to represent a conversation: so all good. If you don't check the notes as you meet them, you will play number-tracking for a minute or two. There are a couple of typos but these are repeated words e.g. is is (page 17). Otherwise, the bar is set very high. Added to the notes, which do add to the chapters, the introduction sets a well referenced tone. As an appetizer the five part intro divides the book as follows:

1. Definitions, Foundations and Context
2. Responsibilities
3. Rights
4. Politics and Power
5. Thinking Otherwise

As written previously, I get 'bogged' down with books - in a positive way - this one brings even more joy. My copy has many notes (light pencil!) in the margin and on various coffee receipts. The contents which includes and from each of the above:

1 What Is This Thing Called the Ethics of AI and What Calls for It?
2 AI Ethics before Frankenstein: Mary Shelley, Enlightenment Political Thought, and the Problem of Bad Education
4 What are Responsible AI researchers really arguing about?
5 Responding to the (techno) Responsibility Gap(s)
7 AI Ethics and Machine Ethics
8 From Ethics to Law: Why, When, and How to Regulate AI
9 AI, Design, and More-than-Human Justice
10 Anthropomorphism and its Discontents
11 A Relational Approach to Moral Standing for Robots and AI
13 AI and the Environment
15 The (Un)bearable Whiteness of AI Ethics
16 Ethics beyond Ethics: AI, Power, and Colonialism
19 Feminist Ethics and AI: A Subfield of Feminist Philosophy of Technology
21 Queering the ethics of AI

- is much needed across all disciplines, in education and professions. 

A political emphasis is evident already in the divisions 1-5 listed above. Preoccupied as I am with Hodges' model, to me this means the book is accurately balanced at this time. The contents may be daunting to some, but it is readable, and structured. The volume gels together in the prose style with some obvious individual differences which complement rather than jar. As a handbook it delivers and provides avenues for further reading - web resources in addition to more conventional text sources. As befits a handbook, the introduction part 6, reads Instructions for Use, which prompted the thought of Hodges' model as a self-directing* situated 'handbook'. Duly anthropomorphized, the book's cover looks east to new beginnings. I'm sure the editor did not realise the irony of the introduction's closing sentence:

'And in this effort - as I hope the handbook makes clear and evident in both its content and form - diversity is a valuable resource, as there is more to be gained from differences in approaches, perspectives, and methods than there is from the pretense to unanimity.'. p.12.

With US politics gradually unfurling itself; I thought too of irony² as AI wakes, efforts commence to erase wokeness.

Much more to follow ...

Book review: Handbook on the Ethics of AI #2

Book review #3: Handbook on the Ethics of AI

Handbook on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. David J. Gunkel (ed.). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978 1 80392 671 1245
https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/gbp/handbook-on-the-ethics-of-artificial-intelligence-9781803926711.html

*or group.

Book review: #5 - Handbook on the Ethics of AI

Handbook on the Ethics of AI

If there is an overall theme to the book it is - rather inevitably -   anthropomorphism. Some argue it is consequential in nature due to the risks we are running. Sandry's chapter 10 Anthropomorphism and its Discontents begins by highlighting duality, dichotomies, and  oppositions that instantly come into effect in this emerging  theoretical, practical and policy field. If a term anthropomorphic can be 'loaded' this one carries extra baggage: history, religion, natural, aesthetic, philosophy, physical, existential. The dual issue of making a machine that looks human; versus, machines that could deceive humans (used remotely today and in situ in the future?) is considered. In our interacting with AI Tech, I found intention (and attention) of specific interest. Sandry seeks definitions, starting with dictionaries, the discussion is helpful across arts too. The reader is left well briefed and technically too: intrinsic and extrinsic forms, the role of the intentional stance, 3-factors. ...

Health is not a primary focus of the book. The index does not list health, medicine, nursing, at least not where they may be expected. The index is comprehensive but I wonder if it could be improved. Care is suggested through social robotics (p.147). Design figures again, anthropomorphically of course (p.147). Specific attention to ethics and Taking Care With Language are given (sections 6-7). I scribbled! again about care for tech - in the material, energy, and production 'costs' in an ecological sense. SUVs annoy me (sorry!) are they all necessary? On language, I thought back to McDermott D (1985) Artificial Intelligence Meets Natural Stupidity, In MIND DESIGN, Haugeland J (Ed), MIT Press, London, p.144-145:

Naive holism, Hodges' model and a lesson from NeuroLinguistic Programming

Balance in subjectivity and objectivity of stances and resulting content / conclusions can be difficult to achieve and represent. The latter section prompts respond to frustration with the term anthropomorphism. I found myself in a couple's lounge, as a community mental health nurse, acutely aware of the role of proxies in dementia care; as Sandry described Paula Sweeney's 'fictional dualism' (8, 150). Hodges' model fits well here too, regards anxiety. To socialbots, I added carebots. There seems potential in sociomorphing.

As noted previously, reflection and relation-al points litter the text. In Jecker's chapter 11 A Relational Approach to Moral Standing for Robots and AI this is more explicit. Jecker refers to care of others - as animals too. In computer science and seeking to retain a socio-technical perspective, I've seen potential in capability and maturity frameworks. Section 2 provides some discussion of the former. One of the first words I looked up in the index was isomorphic. It wasn't listed but I found reference to it on page 157: '... a community of robots psychologically isomorphic to to human beings that share our psychology ...'. Maths is a focus here, even though I must try to utilise AI to aid my learning and understanding. This is - must be an outcome of reading HEoAI.

The section on (self-)counsciousness is engaging and not limited (again) to machine intelligence. Subjectivity arises again. I wrote a note re. the precautionary principle, my 'prompt' the ethical principle. A gift was dicovered in 3. A CONCEPTUAL REFLECTION and within 3.2 Relational Ethics, preceded by the potential of Kant, utilitarian and vurtue ethics. While not wishing to virtue signal I've long speculated on how other cultures could inform nursing theory and models of care. Jecker incorporates the African philosophy of ubuntu in relational ethics. Student's would enjoy this, especially as Jecker (Source: Author) provides tables laying out the ethical approaches and robot & AI capabilities. This can also encompass older adults and care contexts with social robots. Nussbaum's capabilities applied to human development is also adopted here - another useful reminder:

Hodges' model: axes and care domains

Hodges' model - as 'a' philosophy c/o TPM

(And, once again I recall Nussbaum's talk on Aristotle.) In post #4 I wrote of the rubbish scene in the film A.I. Artificial Intelligence, but it's here (p.166) that I wrote the note. There is so much I'm skimming over - believe it not.

The conclusion in mentioning a hybrid future consisting of both humanistic and mechanistic agents appears to find an additional theoretical and practical ally in Hodges' model?

Chapter 12 by Navas is AI Ethics, Aesthetics, Art and Artistry visits the history and philosophy of this subject too, esp. from 1700s. With Žižek and Deleuze there is much prepatory reading for would-be undergrads - and general readers keen to have an awareness of contemporary issues. There is quite a triad here - disassembled - across several sections. I have quoted from the volume many times, but p.179 concerns empathy: 

'Empathy challenges the ongoing optimization of technology, because it takes time to exercise it. A person needs time to think about whatever issue, situation, thing, or person they may empathize with. In other words, empathy is essential for humans to understand and figure their relation to others and their surroundings. Empathy, if practiced reflexively, can lead to critical thinking. which may not lead to clear results but the activity may and often does end in "wasted" time if framed under the drive for efficiency, which is clearly something Al is designed to achieve. And lastly, empathy, because it has been foundational to art, is also part of art's long-term resistance against capitalism's exponential dependence on speed of production. At the core of AI ethics, then, we find speed of production and consumption coming in conflict with human existence itself. Humans are proving to be inefficient actors in the very system they built for their own benefit, which obsessively demands faster cultural activity from people, which (to be blunt) translates to an unapologetic and incessant desire for profit.' pp.179-180.

Section 6 on creativity AND speed is fascinating, especially as human-machine (brain) interfaces develop apace. Concerned as I am with what is a metacognitive tool, 8 Metacreativity formed the conclusion of chapter 12. The notes refer to generative coding which has come up in various webinars.

Silent Running: Film

Briefly, chapter 13 covers AI and the Environment. It is amazing (or not) how in a few sentences your mind can be changed? From "Really!" upon reading 'species culling', to this being explained in the crown-of-thorns starfish (hence COTSbot) and the toll on coral in Queensland. There are robots-for-ecology. I smiled returning to Silent Running's Dewey, Huey, and Louie becoming reality. Facinating point in: what is collective must be recognised in terms of causation. Appropriatly, PEAS is an acronym: probalistic weather event attribution studies are a reality in conjunction with remote sensing and tracking.

Drones are also developing apace, and applied robotics - tree-climbing. Less reassuring (adding to nature's precarity?) are artificial insects to undertake pollination; more positively reducing the impact of chemical and toxic spills. Simulation for training is well established in medicine and nursing; section 2.3 addresses this were PEAS form super-ensembles of data (I like that). PEAS can also have a role in determining an evidence-base and demonstrating it is hoped provenance for that evidence in the movement of populations, for example, climate refugees. In conflicts, human rights and justice, forensic architecture is of course well established: Forensic Architecture (Care Forensics?)

The summative nature in closing chapter 13 is a helpful approach which I will possibly try to duplicate.

Socio-technical approaches are found in chapter 14 Uses and Abuses of AI Ethics by Frank & Klincewicz. Understandably, boundaries play a large role, as you would expect in deliberating value and values, moral patients and agents. The Collingridge dilemma is discussed, regards putting in place controls for a technology while it is still in development, otherwise control may be lost (p.213). Diversity, a story of the moment - closes out this chapter. There is a 'nice' continuity across chapters to
15 The (Un)bearable Whiteness of AI Ethics by Syed Mustafa Ali et al. (the first note highlights the format is a dialogue). The (colonial) politics of north-SOUTH are duly noted and Africa (section 4). Section 8 points to technological (and health) colonialism. I take as a positive that the 'hyphen' also has a place (S.10).

The Savage Mind

Again related, as per the book's structured parts, chapter 16 Ethics beyond Ethics: AI, Power, and Colonialism by Kim prompts the reader to revisit the concepts of 'other', alterity even if 'understood'. I pencilled 'Savage Mind' here. Machines are posited as the colonial other. There will be a repeated argument as in response to humankind's going back to the moon (to stay) and on to Mars. We should sort Earth out first. So too for inclusion and the machines. What about the people who are excluded, disenfranchised and increasingly so? I wondered (previously) if (even) more could be made a transparency? Noting the word subaltern, it appears this has suddenly been attributed to Ukraine? On disability and ableism reminded also of radio history and 'Does He Take Sugar?'

The statement: 'Machines are perceived as distant - temporally, spatially, or socially - and different from human culture.' p.234. Is, so true.

INDIVIDUAL

|

      INTERPERSONAL    :     SCIENCES               

HUMANISTIC  --------------------------------------  MECHANISTIC      

 SOCIOLOGY  :    POLITICAL 

|

GROUP

cognitive - conceptual 'spaces'	distance: time, space
human cultures societies	difference

'Binary-opposition' and the need to think outside of this is acknowledged. And as if (perhaps) to stress both distance and proximity, I wrote 'mobius' in the margin (p.238). Hutchings (2015) sounds a valuable reference: 'Ethical Encounters - Encountering Ethics'. The books I've read contribute to evidence to revalidate my nurse registration. I realise I've sold-myself short in listing the book's titles. Although not discussed here the remaining chapters are excellent critical reading at a time when diversity, equality and inclusion policies are being rolled-back and undone. I will highlight these:

• 17 Disabling AI: Biases and Values Embedded in Artificial Intelligence (quoted in 'Do you fit the description?')
• 18 The AI Imaginary: AI, Ethics and Communication
• 19 Feminist Ethics and AI: A Subfield of Feminist Philosophy of Technology
• 20 Buddhism and the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence
• 21 Queering the Ethics of AI

In chapter 16 'Ethics beyond Ethics...' just before the conclusion I will carry forward a sentence -

'Forming an identity requires that "I identify something or someone beyond me" - with one or more categories persons, non-human others, acts, ideals, values, or social systems' (p.243).

- and the points following, and end there.

Many thanks to David J. Gunkel (Editor), the many contributors, and Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd for my copy. I have greatly enjoyed and learned much from reading this book.

Handbook on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. David J. Gunkel (ed.). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978 1 80392 671 1245
https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/gbp/handbook-on-the-ethics-of-artificial-intelligence-9781803926711.html

Book review: Handbook on the Ethics of AI #1

Book review: Handbook on the Ethics of AI #2

Book review #3: Handbook on the Ethics of AI

Book review: #4 - Handbook on the Ethics of AI

Images:

Silent Running 
https://cdna.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/016/839/904/large/david-eagan-screenshot001.jpg?1553673214
The Savage Mind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Savage_Mind_(first_edition).jpg

Related previous posts: 'general + AI'

*That early streak of competitiveness was clearly educated out of me.

The Difference That Makes a Difference 2015 (DTMD 2015) Information and values: ethics, spirituality and religion

Dear colleague,

The Difference That Makes a Difference 2015 (DTMD 2015) is the third in a series of biennial workshop on the nature of information. The theme of this event is Information and values: ethics, spirituality and religion. It forms part of a larger summit on information organised by the International Society for Information Studies, held on the 3rd-7th June at the Vienna University of Technology, Austria. DTMD 2015 is organised by The Open University, UK.

This workshop starts from the premise that information and values coexist in a relationship of tension, and that they engage in a dialectical process in certain key areas of human society. Within these areas, information and values co-construct a synthesis which includes but transcends both aspects. This synthesis is particularly expressed in the fields of ethics, spirituality and religion.

Particular inspirations for this workshop include the work by West Churchman on The Systems Approach and its Enemies, which argued for a dialectical relationship between the rationalist ‘hard’ systems approach and perspectives such as morality, politics, religion and aesthetics which are apparently opposed to it. Ethics and religion have also been long-standing interests in various areas of cybernetics, which is the starting point for this exploration of information, and were central concerns in the later work of Norbert Wiener, Heinz von Foerster and Gregory Bateson. In this sense the workshop is continuing an ongoing stream of work.

As well as leading to new insights into ethics, spirituality and religion, this work also acts as a further lens through which to explore the nature of information. The language of information is increasingly used in many different disciplines, and comparing the usage in different fields contributes to a better understanding of information in its own right. The areas of spirituality, ethics and religion are somewhat less examined in the context of information than many other disciplines, and so this workshop will continue the ongoing process of exploring multi-disciplinary aspects of information.

This workshop follows two international workshops held in Milton Keynes, UK, in 2011 and 2013, both entitled The Difference that Makes a Difference. These workshops explored the nature of information in a range of disciplines (including physics, biology, sociology, computing, systems thinking, philosophy, geography and art, among others). Proceedings of both workshops can be found at http://www.dtmd.org.uk/.

Key questions which the workshop will address include:

• Can newly-emerging insights into the nature of information inform ethics, spirituality and religion? And does our understanding of ethics, information and religion contribute to a new understanding of the nature of information?
• If information is the new language of science as Von Baeyer suggests, can it also be a new language of ethics, spirituality and religion?
• If we are re-ontologising the world as an infosphere, does that make information ethics the new universal macroethic, as Luciano Floridi suggests?
• Is the language of information effective in talking about spirituality?
• Can we interpret the theologies, mythologies and praxis of religion using the language of information? How do religions use information and informational concepts? Conversely, what might it mean to think about information as theological or mythological?
• Can a theory of information provide a weltanschauung to replace or supplement religion as the motivation for ethics, spirituality and community, and if so, is such a replacement necessary and / or desirable?

The workshop organisers welcome submissions which address themselves to the above and related questions through the medium of art as well as traditional academic formats – DTMD 2013 had a major focus around the interplay between art and information, and we hope to continue this in the current workshop.

Submission deadline (extended abstracts of 750-2000 words): 27 February 2015
Notification of acceptance: 20 March 2015

Workshop organisers (all at The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK):

David Chapman, Magnus Ramage, Chris Bissell and Mustafa Ali (Department of Computing and Communications)
Derek Jones (Department of Engineering and Innovation)
Graham Harvey and Paul-Francois Tremlett (Department of Religious Studies)

Online version of call for papers: http://summit.is4is.org/calls/call-for-papers/the-difference-that-makes-a-difference-2015
...

Hope to see you in Vienna in June!

David

Book review: Handbook on the Ethics of AI #2

Handbook on the Ethics of AI

Well, I am sold. So, encouraging again to read 'reflect -ion' on the first page and throughout chapter 1:

'... why the very idea of AI gives rise to (or should give rise to) ethical reflection.' (p.21), and I'm sure the book as a whole.

Most readers may pass this by, but to me this matters. Ethics scholars however will see how important and conjoint reflection is to deliberation and argumentation of ethics. Especially, as noted in post #1 the five part division of the text Foundations and Context; Responsibilities; Rights; Politics and Power; and Thinking Otherwise. 

Tables break up and inform the text. I like the way for many tables the source is: Author's own elaboration.

Given the subject matter, yes, the authors have the literature but they are also formulating their chosen theme against the present, near future, socio-political scenarios and much more. So, reflection - this should be expected. With Hodges' model I'm often asked why are those concepts placed in that particular domain? Perhaps that is a question for general artificial intelligence? Subjectivity is a key challenge, and its effective communication.

If I say, chapter 1 is a great primer on What Is This Thing Called the Ethics of AI and What Calls for It? I'd sell the book short, the whole text fulfills this purpose. The definitions and responses to What is A.I. are very helpful, taking into account ancient to more recent history. I've a book in a box by David Chalmers (sorry Prof.) - one day - which helps here discussing intelligence and consciousness.

I'm primed to pick up on 'gaps' (Theory-Practice) and in human experience they are inevitably legion. The responsibility gap (and meaningfulness!) c/o Sven Nyholm is a place to return to, to debate why A.I. raises such a broad range of ethical issues. Patiency is never far away. Here, the patient is stark: in  moral agents and moral patients (p.20 and 89). This blog is littered with posts on Drupal, which to date I have never mastered. I remember sitting in DrupalCon presentations, in the midst very skilled professional coders. A member of the community stood at the podium recounting their lived experience of impostor syndrome. In November with a presentation of my own, I had my own encounter. Well into reading this book, it really did help. The conclusion of chapter 1 contrasts the frequent need for a big-picture overview and reflection on more specific issues. That's quite fitting for me.

I am biased in the encouraging kernels I find: as seek them I do. Yes, as chapter 2 AI Ethics before Frankenstein begins: 'there remains work to be done in charting the long-range conceptual development of  AI in the history of political thought.' (p.27, my emphasis). And much more I hope. Chapter 2 combines literature, myth and I enjoyed the discussion on techne, Prometheus, Hobbes, the interdisciplinary bridge of techno-politics and articulating the mechanistic in our lives. Focussed recently on thresholds and threshold concepts in revising two papers: Hunt writes, 'Frankenstein is a "threshold" text for "modern political science fiction" (p.31). 

This  resonated - especially 'for its prediction that the nascent Enlightenment-era sciences of chemistry, anatomy, and electricity could be used to artificially make a human being' (p.31). The exploration of bad education and bad governance through Shelley and social history is other-worldly in itself. Hunt's conclusion which includes 'Wollstonecraft was the pivotal figure in the process of refracting ideas of AI from Hobbes to Shelley, ...' left me wondering about the refactoring of code. 

Chapter 3, Smith's Faith, Tech, and Ethics of AI brings more reflect -ion with the bonus for me of Descartes. On faith, the human situation is also repeatedly stressed. Delving into creation too, this is detailed on forms of theology - Augustine, Bede, for example, and philosophy Bacon, Hume, Kant and their role in diminishing the influence of religious thought and epistemology (p.39). How long a push was that? Surely it is ongoing - in some quarters? Medieval thought is discussed, and I recall this broad period also being regarded as misunderstood [Medieval Philosophy - Bryan Magee & Anthony Kenny (1987)] . 

On a personal level, I've always placed belief in the intra- interpersonal domain of Hodges' model. In psychosis, depression, anxiety, phobias in short mental health, beliefs can be disrupted, and influenced of course when all is well. Religion I have framed at the individual and socio-political level. Clinically, it is the individual patient's beliefs, if they follow a particular religion that we also need to be cognizant of as health personnel. Machine, or human; object or being as Smith asks:

SELF / INDIVIDUAL  -  OBJECT / THING

|

      INTERPERSONAL    :     SCIENCES               

HUMANISTIC  --------------------------------------  MECHANISTIC      

 SOCIOLOGY  :    POLITICAL 

|

GROUP

the human - the machine -	- can become machine - can become human
socio-	-political

There is depth of discussion too: in AI and Power; a Christian response to AI ethics. This handbook is not just for quick reference. There is indeed redemption (p.43) to be found:

'It is easier to cover a blemish than examine why it resulted in the first place: genetics, diet, stress, or lack of self-care.'

I argue for Hodges' model as a tool to identify, (re)present, and relate the determinants of health: all of them. The points and paragraphs on theology, mind, body and self are well worth revisiting.

Johnson's chapter 4, What are Responsible AI researchers really arguing about? provides support for my ongoing belief in the value of sociotechnical theories and approaches, and another book on enactivism. Given the ethics of the global south (and technological/electronic colonialism) more could perhaps be made of LMIC, but the point is made in Table 4.1 (Examples of functionalist evaluations of AI models, p.52). Constructivism 2.2 is a rich seam for me. Table 4.2 touches on medical diagnosis and socio-technical. Johnson notes that in seeking answers to AI ethics problems, scientists see constructivist approaches and '.. constructivism as a metaethic, holding a rich space for more research into pluralistic AI-Alignment', (p.53). And, the potential for much more. This is suggested (for me) in reference to the need for a holistic view of AI model's genesis, and 'two sides of one coin' - dichotomy, polarity, oppositions, binary reductions ... ? 

Johnson's conclusion is an indirect thumbs up (cue Arnie style - of course) to Hodges' model as a project. Conceptual frameworks can indeed:

'... offer unique perspectives on the methods commonly employed and to understand and mitigate the risks and dangers of AI.' (p.62).

If ethics gets 'technical' then the book's full title is well-earned. Two case studies demonstrate functionalist and constructivist debates in responsible AI. I don't remember Capt. Kirk et al. stating to a malign alien 'intelligence' "The trophy doesn't fit in the suitcase because it's too large (small)," (p.58). The writer's put other solutions to the characters lips. Spock, however, would find the discussion here on 'Artificial General Intelligence, 4E Cognition and Enactivism' - "Fascinating!"

Much more to follow ...

Handbook on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. David J. Gunkel (ed.). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978 1 80392 671 1245
https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/gbp/handbook-on-the-ethics-of-artificial-intelligence-9781803926711.html

Book review: Handbook on the Ethics of AI #1

Related previous posts: 'general + AI'

Ethics and the 'big picture'

'It has been my experience that many of the most successful and creative heads of major research labs around the country came to their place from other disciplines. For example, one prominent geneticist that I know has his Ph.D. in chemistry. He told me that coming to genetics from outside the discipline gave him an awareness of structures and values that were invisible to those laboring inside the established system. Much as one has critical insights into the ambience of a city or culture when one comes from outside as a foreigner, so also is there critical understanding of academic disciplines. Thus, one response to the add-on question is to reply that the material you are providing can make your students better scientists by giving them a more global, contextual perspective. A global, contextual perspective allows one to consider divergent research designs that approach a problem in many directions. This is sometimes called "big picture" thinking. Part of the big picture includes other scientific contexts. For example, biology is seen in the context of chemistry, and chemistry is seen in the context of physics. But it is more than that. It also includes values. Should I, as a scientist, pursue all questions with the same vigor? Are there some questions that should be avoided because of the social consequences of their results? Is the scientist compelled to think in terms of helping humankind or helping himself to a Nobel Prize in any way he can? All of these involve values and ethics. They are critical components to global big picture thinking. Such a perspective is a valuable tool for anyone seeking excellence in scientific research.' p.28.

Boylan, M., & Donahue, J. (2003). Ethics across the curriculum : a practice-based approach. Lexington Books. 

INDIVIDUAL

|

INTERPERSONAL : SCIENCES              

humanistic ------------------------------- mechanistic

SOCIOLOGY : POLITICAL   

|

GROUP

PERSONAL ETHICS INDIVIDUAL INTEGRITY MY EXPERIENCE MY REFLECTIONS INTERSUBJECTIVITY PURPOSE BELIEFS CHARACTER EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

PROCESS OBJECTIVITY FACTS  EMPIRICISM 'We define ethics as the process of reflection on the moral meaning of actions.' p.5. 'BIG PICTURE' PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

PRACTICE COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE ETHOS^ (Chap. 6) 'Ethics is not a discrete body of knowledge that one simply acquires for application and use in particular situations. It entails the ongoing appropriation of ideas of the good as they relate to the changig situations, contexts, and developments in individuals and groups lives. ^ Ethics reflects on actions the actions of individuals and groups.' p.5.

PROFESSIONAL BODIES PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS PROFESSIONAL & COMMERCIAL - ACCOUNTABILITY PROFESSIONAL ETHICS DUTY OF CARE POLICY LAW JUSTICE autonomy; nonmaleficence; beneficence; justice*

^Stackhouse, M. (1972) Ethics and the Urban Ethos: An Essay in Social Theory and Theological Construction, Boston: Beacon Press. (Chap. 6, Boylan & Donahue)

*Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of biomedical ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press. (Chap. 6, Boylan & Donahue)

Book review: #4 - Handbook on the Ethics of AI

Chapter 7 is no doubt one of the engine rooms of this book. In AI Ethics and Machine Ethics, John-Stewart Gordon follows preceding authors citing Nyholm and others. This probably helps the overall coherence of the book, and underlines what is a dynamic and emerging field. Reading 'What is AI ethics?' (p.98), I made a note about our humanity's cognitive house-keeping (and other life-forms?) executed through sleep, the ability to unlearn, and forget. Efforts to mitigate machine bias are provided in a list 1-5 (p.100). As observed previously, this author is also thinking on their feet (and very well too) with 'Source: Author's own' in a figure for the systemic place of machine ethics and another (table) 7.1 'Four approaches to machine ethics'.

3.4 considers the challenges involved in developing ethical AI systems. As in healthcare, we see where the (problem of) 'many hands' emerges from:

'Developing ethical AI systems requires collaboration between computer scientists, ethicists, and other stakeholders, which can be challenging due to differences in expertise, terminology, and perspectives. Computer scientists bring technical expertise to the table, while ethicists provide insights on moral principles and values that should guide AI behavior. However, these experts often operate within their own domains and may lack a common language to effectively communicate and collaborate. 

Other stakeholders, such as policymakers, industry professionals, and end-users, also play vital roles in shaping the ethical development of AI systems. They bring diverse perspectives, needs and expectations that need to be considered and balanced during the design, implementation, and regulation of AI technologies. For instance, policymakers are responsible for creating guidelines and regulations that ensure the safe and responsible use of AI, while industry professionals must adhere to these standards and navigate the practical challenges of integrating ethical considerations into their AI-driven products and services.' p.104.

The solution includes having interdisciplinary and ethnically diverse teams, cross-disciplinary training, and a more holistic and comprehensive approach to AI development. Unintended consequences (a news item today (13th Feb 2025) are discussed, the dual-use nature of AI and technological 'delivery' surveillance acting for good and potentially ill (China's - Social Credit Point System).

AI ethics is also itself apparently a conceptual framework (p. 99,107).

What is permitted by law in a State clearly varies. Chapter 8 deals with From Ethics to Law: Why, When, and How to Regulate AI. Collingridge is another recurring citation, and presents a dilemma no-less (Section 3. p.116); one to follow up  (Coeckelbergh too, chap 9). I've always felt that some knowledge of social and economic history is a good foundation. History is reflected here in resort to 'masterly inactivity' (p.118) and regulatory approaches - as debated this past week at an AI Action Summit in France. 

I can still recall the sense of competition in having time in the sandpit at infants school.* Software developers will use sandboxes to develop and revise code in an isolated environment, before it goes live, or wild. With AI the book refers to mishaps, projects that have gone wrong. We need to take care regards the nature of the 'sandboxes' that are used. In a way this speaks to the utility of Hodges' model as a resource for lifelong learning, a learner being fully socialised into a profession and its evolving disciplines:

INDIVIDUAL

|

      INTERPERSONAL    :     SCIENCES               

HUMANISTIC  --------------------------------------  MECHANISTIC      

 SOCIOLOGY  :    POLITICAL 

|

GROUP

box	sand-
box	box

I had to look up the CREEPER (Curbing Realistic Exploitative Electronic Pedophilic Robots) ACT (p.121). We are accustomed to outsourcing, and its perverse effects facilitated through globalisation, with nations transferring their pollution - plastics, and e-wastes. There are efforts as Chesterman writes to limit outsourcing to AI in terms of the decisions (pp.122-123). I enjoyed the nods to Isaac Asimov too. 

Gellers in chapter 9 AI, Design, and More-than-Human Justice provides another cylinder to drive the text not just forward but acknowledges the future for all: organic and inorganic. Gellers is argues for attention to AI and justice, not merely the moral and legal status of AI. Reading of  'communities of justice' (p.128) the established notion of 'communities of practice' or the collective of users - socio-technically. Gellers highlights our being in the anthropocene and how the environment and nature is figuring in law. So, not just legal questions for humans but natural 'things' and entities also (posted previously: Person & Sense of Place: A River runs through it ...).

INDIVIDUAL

|

      INTERPERSONAL    :     SCIENCES               

HUMANISTIC  --------------------------------------  MECHANISTIC      

 SOCIOLOGY  :    POLITICAL 

|

GROUP

person- [what >] 'Who'	-hood (p.129) algorithmic
collective communities of practice	justice communities of justice

I don't think we are there yet? Even, accepting that built-in obsolescence is an established and legal thing. But AI could turn materialism on its head. Looking at the materials, metals, rare earth elements ... that goes in how long do they last and how are the materials recovered? AI, computing desperately needs the doughnut economy, must epitomize the doughnut. Looking for a place to live, you notice the way probably quite serviceable bathrooms and kitchens are ripped out. The suites on a skip. That is quite a scene on the rubbish tip in the film: 'A.I. Artificial Intelligence'. The amount of energy in total production and materials is still not wholly valued, even before other values are 'added'? The focus on design here is integral to such questions. It has brought me to care design, and care architecture. Socio-technical aspects are highlighted again by Gellers (for me, as noted on W2tQ, that hyphen matters). 

Unsurprisingly, Descartes also figures in this chapter, section -Technology in the anthropocene:

'First, for philosophers of technology, the Anthropocene obliterates the nature/culture divide intrinsic to Cartesian thinking (Conty, 2017) that altered the course of history by rebranding technical objects as artificial and thus divorced from nature (Hui, 2017).' p.131.

It is encouraging that there is now recognition that 'we are nature too'. While we can record thought - brain activity on an EEG, from the outset (school studies of biology, then human biology) I've always associated intelligence, mind, thought, emotion, hope, dreams and cognition .. with the intra- interpersonal domain. If you adopt a socio-technical approach (overview - mindset) then invariably the technosphere will straddle the HUMANISTIC <-> MECHANISTIC axis of Hodges' model:

'So far, I hope to have established that technology plays a prominent, if complicated, role in the Anthropocene. But how does this relate to justice? Technology's relationship to ecological systems holds important implications for determining who belongs to communities of justice. To begin, the Earth system consists of interrelated biological, physical, and mental "worlds" (Kotzé, 2020, p. 80). The mental world, also referred to as the "technosphere," is an autonomous amalgamation of energy, communication, transportation, and financial systems, along with cities, governments, factories, farms, and other built systems and their constituent parts (Haff, 2014, P. 127). Technological artifacts such as AI are therefore part of the technosphere.' p.132.

Hodges' model: axes and care domains

We read of robots-in-ecology and robots-for-ecology. I was reminded of the SF film 'Silent Running' here. The real merit and encouragement for me in Geller's contribution, is section 4 which compares how we can approach more-than-human justice. Total eclipses are supposed to be rare, irrespective of what they might portend, now AI, the climate and life on Earth keep eclipsing each other: thus far partially. 4.1 Multispecies justice - Peter Singer really is ahead of his time (chapter 11 - here!); following socio-ecological justice 4.2, we arrive at planetary justice. Note (in Hodges' model) the 'distance' of what is generally deemed social and where the ecological in reality - physically resides. In the margin I'd scribbled 'Less a case of "take me to your leader" and more a case of "show me all your cards!"'. The synthesis and closing section on the design of robots specifically for more-than-human-justice helps here by including relationality, intersectionality and and contexts. 'Design justice' is something the book prompts me to carry forward (p.137).

Handbook on the Ethics of AI

One final post on HEoAI to follow ...

Handbook on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. David J. Gunkel (ed.). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978 1 80392 671 1245
https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/gbp/handbook-on-the-ethics-of-artificial-intelligence-9781803926711.html

Book review: Handbook on the Ethics of AI #1

Book review: Handbook on the Ethics of AI #2

Book review #3: Handbook on the Ethics of AI

Related previous posts: 'general + AI'

*That early streak of competitiveness was clearly educated out of me.

Book review #3: Handbook on the Ethics of AI

I've started several 'gap' lists, including a draft post or two. Seeking to help bridge the theory-practice gap is an original purpose for Hodges' model.

Friedman's chapter 5 Responding to the (techno) Responsibility Gap(s). It is almost as if Friedman's title is parameterised. We could insert the domains of Hodges' model (plus, spiritual - safeguarding!) in there. Then there is the magic of languages, for responsibility substitute accountability and do a deep-dive applying Hodges' model in a specific domain. Friedman notes it is not entirely accurate to talk of a single "responsibility gap". Can this provide evidence for the situated potentiality of Hodges' model's and role in fostering situational awareness? Although there is an ongoing roll-back of CSR - corporate social responsibility, I scribbled in the margin:

INDIVIDUAL

|

      INTERPERSONAL    :     SCIENCES               

HUMANISTIC  --------------------------------------  MECHANISTIC      

 SOCIOLOGY  :    POLITICAL 

|

GROUP

user	user
user	corporate

Of course, 'user' still applies in the political domain, as we are all citizens; users of the State (note also the socio-technical utility of keeping the 'user' in sight). There is also personal ethics, and the legal duty of care - as a nurse (in my case) and for a member of the public. Discussion on notions of responsibility, in light of AI, especially self-driving vehicles, and autonomous machines (weapons) is much needed. Regulatory gaps are recognised; amid current news of debate on the degree of regulation of national and international financial systems. Nyholm's four-fold formulation on responsibility is invaluable as examples are provided. There is a reference to nine notions of responsibility, and the link to accountability and retribution.  I like Friedman's  discussion of responses to responsibility gaps as; optimists - technological approach; human-centred and hybrid approaches; plus pessimists (4.3). The latter includes debate and campaigns to 'stop the killer robots'. Did this chapter, have a positive effect in extending thoughts about events in the middle east? There are two points here I will return to in the final post.

For students, Schwarz's chapter 6 takes readers back to a literally pivotal development in ethical thought and debate: Trolleyology, with the addition of algorithms and killer robots. What Searle's Chinese Room (noted p.276 here) argument is to AI; so trolley-based dilemmas are to ethics. A point made by Schwarz, referring to the development of subsequent variations. (Following on from #2, Brian Magee's interviews with John Searle on philosophy of language and Wittgenstein are also well worth a listen.) Schwarz's chapter (and the whole book) could be read in preparation for an undergraduate course: computing, law, policy, philosophy, and ethics, for example. The challenge of determining responsibility and accountability "the problem of many hands" (p.71), is not limited to AI. This is a global issue in achieving justice for many previously healthy, competent, quite 'ordinary' people.

The question posed above, applies "equally"(!) here too: 3. mathematical morality for war. Ever since reading of argumentation through the Open University and other sources, I'm sure this is applicable to Hodges' model (with its 'own' algebra)? I'm no mathematician but the book provoked excitement rather than anxiety as I read: 'Principle of Permissible Harm (PPH) and probabilistic reasoning - with formulae (pp.88-89). There are some important (imho) 'take-away' messages here, but I don't want to spoil things. Nurses need mathematical skills, in drug calculations and are assessed on the same. Statistics are used in research, of course but maths is hardly the primary motivation for entry into the care professions: 

'Designing technologies in a way that takes into account broader human-centric values is an important and laudable approach to responding to new and emerging technologies in any arena. It cannot, however, serve as a substitute for moral deliberation and the act of taking moral responsibility for harmful acts, especially when lives are at stake. Reducing this to a mathematical problem ignores everything that cannot be captured in discrete numerical terms or as data points. And in situations where people and their lives become nothing more than data points, non-computational aspects, such as relational or embodied dimensions of human life, are marginalized if not entirely obscured. The real world is not reducible to binary logic, it is rife with contested, contradictory, and clashing values that might all be equally relevant It is complex in ways that cannot always be neatly captured or mathematically modeled. In other words, ethics cannot be "solved."' p.91.

Handbook on the Ethics of AI

More to follow ...

Handbook on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. David J. Gunkel (ed.). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978 1 80392 671 1245

https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/gbp/handbook-on-the-ethics-of-artificial-intelligence-9781803926711.html

Book review: Handbook on the Ethics of AI #1

Book review: Handbook on the Ethics of AI #2

Related previous posts: 'general + AI'

Tuskegee Healing, the Moral Determinants of Health, and the Ethics of Research on Black Health

My source: SpiritOf1848 list - Lachlan Forrow

Research Ethics Consortium: Tuskegee Healing, the Moral Determinants of Health, and the Ethics of Research on Black Health

February 17, 2023 | 12:30 - 2 p.m. ET | Live on Zoom | Register Here

The USPHS Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male at Tuskegee and Macon County began in 1932, after US Public Health Service doctors recorded a 39.8% prevalence of syphilis among patients seen in Macon County, Alabama during a treatment study in one corner of the county. While these data might have raised many possible research questions, USPHS doctors chose to focus on the natural history of untreated syphilis.

They not only denied participants the treatments available in the 1930’s; they also chose to continue to study untreated syphilis long after highly-effective, inexpensive, and extraordinarily safe treatment with penicillin became widely available. While the research methods they used are now universally condemned, far less attention has been given to more fundamental questions about the ethics of research, including:

What should the goals of research even be? Who should decide those? What are the most crucial ethical characteristics of relationships between investigators and research subjects?

Introductory Remarks:

• Carmen J. Thornton, MPH, MCHES
  Director of Research, Development, and Workforce, American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
  Consultant, Voices for Our Fathers Legacy Foundation
  Granddaughter of Fred Tyson, subject in USPHS Syphilis Study at Tuskegee

Presenters:

• Susan M. Reverby, PhD
  Marion Butler McLean Professor Emerita in the History of Ideas
  Professor Emerita of Women's and Gender Studies, Wellesley College
  Author of Examining Tuskegee: The Infamous Syphilis Study and Its Legacy
• Jesse Milan, Jr., JD
  President and CEO, AIDS United
• Wangui Muigai, PhD
  Assistant Professor, Brandeis University
  Greenwall Faculty Scholar, class of 2025

Moderator:

• Lachlan Forrow, MD
  Director, Ethics & Palliative Care Program, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
  Lecturer on Global Health and Social Medicine, Part-time, Harvard Medical School
  President, The Albert Schweitzer Fellowship

Commentator:

• David Augustin Hodge, Sr., DMin, PhD
  Associate Director of Education and Associate Professor, National Center for Bioethics in Research and Health Care, Tuskegee University

Support provided by the Oswald DeN. Cammann Fund at Harvard University.

This will build from two November 2022 events (see their flyers below) commemorating the 90th/50th/25th anniversaries of the USPHS Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male at Tuskegee and Macon County, the first organized/hosted by the National Center for Bioethics at Tuskegee University, the second organized/hosted by CDC (see details and video of that here; the first 2min30sec include Dr. Termika Smith’s wonderful intro [60 seconds] and President Biden’s remarks [90 seconds]. 

I would also strongly recommend watching ~5 minutes starting at 11min45sec – Mrs. Lillie Head, daughter of Fred Tyson, one of the men in the Study, and founder/leader of Voices for Our Fathers Legacy Foundation, explaining what the Study was really about (i.e. the moral issues were racism, dehumanization, etc. etc., not just “failures of informed consent”). 

For our Feb 17 session, after presentations by Carmen J. Thornton (Lillie Head’s daughter, i.e. granddaughter of Fred Tyson) and Susan Reverby (arguably the leading historian of the Study), and then presentations about applying this framework to 3 concrete areas of severe and ongoing “Black health disparities” (Jesse Milan, President/CEO of AIDSUnited on HIV/AIDS; Wangui Muigai on the history and current realities of Black maternal/infant mortality; and I hope [not yet confirmed] Rev. Jeffrey Brown [co-chair of Embrace Boston] on gun violence) the “Commentators” will be Dr. David Hodge, Associate Director of the National Center, who organized their Nov 2022 event, and Dr. Termika Smith, who organized and moderated the CDC event. Then Carmen J. Thornton, as granddaughter, will have closing words -- what her grandfather might say, and what she herself thinks, about MLK’s question: Where Do We Go From Here? 

Ada Lovelace Day: Enid Mumford - Socio-technical perfume down the mine

I had to enter a pledge and join the call today to post in response to Ada Lovelace Day - an international day of blogging to draw attention to women excelling in technology.

Women’s contributions often go unacknowledged, their innovations seldom mentioned, their faces rarely recognised. We want you to tell the world about these unsung heroines. Entrepreneurs, innovators, sysadmins, programmers, designers, games developers, hardware experts, tech journalists, tech consultants. The list of tech-related careers is endless.

Recent research by psychologist Penelope Lockwood discovered that women need to see female role models more than men need to see male ones. That’s a relatively simple problem to begin to address. If women need female role models, let’s come together to highlight the women in technology that we look up to. Let’s create new role models and make sure that whenever the question “Who are the leading women in tech?” is asked, that we all have a list of candidates on the tips of our tongues.

It was soon after this blog first appeared that I learned of the news of Enid Mumford's death. I never had the pleasure of meeting Prof. Mumford, but came across her work whilst doing my own studies and a degree at Bolton. We have something in common in being raised in Merseyside. In the NW of England there is also a tradition of mining...

Studying geology at school we went on a field trip down the pit at Golborne Colliery. Strange to be told after an underground train ride we where under the East Lancashire A580. Enid Mumford's early work took her underground, but her impact extended far beyond her perfume bottle:

'A woman down the mines?" Enid Mumford's classic sociological research for the National Coal Board had a strong impact on unbelieving miners. Later, as an active advocate for women's rights, Enid, who has died aged 82, enjoyed recounting her early experiences: "They were terribly nice to me whenever I turned up, but they were awfully embarrassed at what I might catch them doing." Enid would "drench herself with perfume", so that the ventilation system would give the miners a chance to prepare themselves for her arrival at the coalface. In such ways, Enid began her contributions to social theory, with its challenges to action researchers like herself.
The Guardian obituary

As posted previously this year sees a chapter published on Hodges' model and socio-technical structures in nursing informatics (See bibliography in the blog's side bar). I really latched on to Enid Mumford's approach and needless to say Professor Mumford's invaluable work figures in my overview:

Background: Existing socio-technical structures and methods

This section scratches the pages of the socio-technical literature by introducing two seminal contributions and briefly references other sources. The two authors discussed are Mumford (1983) in the socio-technical sense and Giddens (1984) who is more generic socially and organisational oriented. Enid Mumford created ETHICS, a systems design methodology: Effective Technical and Human Implementation of Computer-based Systems. The need for ETHICS is to help manage change with three objectives.

First, ETHICS stresses that the future users of computer systems, whether directly or indirectly involved should play a major part in designing these systems. User involvement is closely related to subsequent job satisfaction and efficiency gains and hence the realization of benefits. The users of systems are credited as experts; if this knowledge and experience is recognized and utilized then job satisfaction gains are likely as the users are active agents in the change process and not passive. There is an interesting correspondence here with the continuing emphasis on patients and carers being acknowledged as experts in their care assessment, management and evaluation.

The second objective focuses on the human – behavioural response to change. It is important that specific job satisfaction objectives are factored into the design from the outset and not left to chance, lost amid technical specifications and objectives. In this way potential negative change impacting the quality of work life can be anticipated and avoided or at least ameliorated. Technology has frequently been associated with de-skilling and of course the loss of traditional jobs. The prospect of technical, management led change can cause consternation in the user community. If alienated employees may be absent, seek alternate employment, and overall be less productive.

ETHICS is not restricted to the computer system; the third objective highlights the need for a new computer system to be ‘surrounded by a compatible, well functioning organizational system’ (Mumford, 1983). Design must be viewed globally as a whole. The technical design is just one part of a very complex design process that must also incorporate the details of human-machine interaction; what would be called gap analysis, the differences in existing processes and proposed new processes and procedures. In addition, as per objectives one and two, individual jobs and workgroup activities must be reviewed; how are existing roles and relationships altered and newly defined? What new management arrangements are needed, since (middle) management is rarely untouched?

<>

I wish I could spend more time on Hodges' model, socio-technical thought and its application. Women in ICT? This is not a new call.

Women must have role in IT - not just to ensure the social in SOCIO-technical.

Not just to ensure that the 'c' in ICT happens.

Whether in programming, instructional technology, internet infrastructure, semantic web, the games industry and a whole host of other areas - Ada Lovelace, Enid Mumford - and of course others past and present must not be lone pioneers. ...

Additional links:

BCS Women

Daphne Jackson Trust

The Register (2008) Women IT EU Job Shortage

For BR

H2cm - Beauchamp and Childress (1994) four principles of healthcare ethics

I'm clearing the decks of books at the moment, one of which is McGonigle and Mastrian's Nursing Informatics and the Foundation of Knowledge, Second Edition (2012). I notice a 3rd edition is in preparation.

A review will follow, but in chapter 5 on Ethical Applications of Informatics on page 73 (pb.) the four principles healthcare ethics of Beauchamp and Childress (1994) are mentioned in a very concise, informative discussion.

Although the exercise that follows involves 'putting concepts in boxes', doing so helps us to see beyond the boxes, to see the links between.

Although harm takes several forms it is physical harm (for nonmaleficence) that is most commonly thought of. This is the ethics concerning an individual so why have I placed beneficence in the sociology domain? Justice should be straight forward, but only if reinforced by law, and then only if that law is exercised. Autonomy should be straight forward. I must have the mental capacity, the insight to have choices. In the eyes of others these choices may be rationale or irrational. Although justice is place in the political (group / population) domain, rights are ascribed to individuals. This is useful property of Hodges' model the way that the individual and their mental life are diametrically placed (opposed?) and linked. It is others who are having determine the ethics of a given case, evaluating what is in the person's best interests; also having to take into account any advanced directives, or living wills.

What do you think? If you have some comments, can improve this or feel there is a correspondence here please let me know.

INTERPERSONAL : SCIENCES
SOCIOLOGY : POLITICAL

individual

autonomy	nonmaleficence
beneficence	justice

group - population

• Respect for autonomy - the patient has the right to refuse or choose their treatment. (Voluntas aegroti suprema lex.)
• Beneficence - a practitioner should act in the best interest of the patient. (Salus aegroti suprema lex.)
• Non-maleficence - "first, do no harm" (primum non nocere).
• Justice - concerns the distribution of scarce health resources, and the decision of who gets what treatment (fairness and equality).

Above text:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_ethics

Call for Papers: Ethics, Health Data, and Bio-Citizenship

CFP: PhilosophicalNews, vol. 22, 2021

Ethics, Health Data, and Bio-Citizenship

http://www.moralphilosophy.eu/cfp/cfp-no-22/

Submission Deadline

Full paper: January 1st, 2021

Aims and Background

Adriana Petryna first introduced the term “biological citizenship” in her ethnography of the aftermath of the Chernobyl post-disaster emergency, Life Exposed [Petryna A. 2002. Life Exposed: Biological Citizens after Chernobyl. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.]. As stated by Rose and Novas, biological citizenship can be defined as an active form of citizenship that produces new forms of belonging, claims to acknowledgement of experiences, and access to resources revolving around biological and medical claims. Within this frame, the “emergency” refers to those “emerging forms of life” and introduces a new element into the philosophical, ethical, and sociological reflection: something which arises from the intertwining of modes of theoretical thinking and moral agency pertinent to different areas – medical, legal, economic, political, moral – and is not directly postulated by any of them; something whose characteristics can be identifiable, but whose result cannot be predicted. Several factors have contributed to defining the concept of biological citizenship. These include:

1.         A gnoseological expansion leading to a proliferation of disease categories in the biomedical field;

2.          New forms of bio-sociality emerging in connection with the increase in rare diseases;

3.         The consolidation of new biopolitical systems and new forms of governance;

4.          The rise of new political and moral economies of hope;

5.          An increased relevance of patient associations in decision making.

However, biological citizenship should not be constructed merely as a resurgence of the medicalization of life (Foucault), or a form of liberalization and privatization of eugenics (Habermas). In this context, this special issue aims at investigating the multidisciplinary background of the expanding moral claim to bio-sociality and bio-citizenship. As a matter of fact, being a bio-citizen carries an underlying demand for more suitable public policies and socio-economic rights to shape the universalization of fragility and vulnerability as human conditions in contemporary society. On the one hand, bio-citizenship may therefore be viewed as a proactive proposition for patient-centred healthcare within an enlarged framework of cultural and political meanings: the patient is no longer a subject, who happens to suffer from a specific impairment at a specific moment in time; rather, being a patient is a universal condition, shared by all human beings. The idea is to move from a generally negative perception of the term “patient” to a neutral or positive perception of the same concept. On the other hand, however, biological citizenship also implies an underlying and constant connection between the patient status and the involvement of health data in order for patient-centred technologies to run efficiently. This entails new (cyber) risks and vulnerabilities that might not only impoverish the empathic and emotional quality of the care relationship, but also favour a concept of democratic citizenship based on Big-data-oriented sovereignty, thus paving the way from bio-citizenship to bio-data-citizenship. This idiosyncrasy is very evident in the ongoing global experience of the COVID-19 pandemic. We are learning how contingent the necessity is to rethink the link between ethics, Big data, patient empowerment, and healthcare technology.

Original contributions discussing issues such as gender, big data, biocitizenship, or any other relevant topic will be considered, subject to approval by the Editorial Board.

Submission Details

•             8000 words (spaces included)

•             Each text has to include an abstract written in English, 300 words max.

•             All material should be submitted via e-mail to the special issue’s editors Antonio Carnevale (a.carnevale AT cyberethicslab.com) and Emanuela Tangari (e.tangari AT cyberethicslab.com).

The volume will be published in June 2021.

For further information as well as the submission of the paper, please refer to the guidelines or visit http://www.moralphilosophy.eu/cfp/cfp-no-22/