Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2023 Jul 6:6:1149082.
doi: 10.3389/frai.2023.1149082. eCollection 2023.

Specific challenges posed by artificial intelligence in research ethics

Sarah Bouhouita-Guermech  1 , Patrick Gogognon  2 , Jean-Christophe Bélisle-Pipon  1   3
Affiliations
Review

Specific challenges posed by artificial intelligence in research ethics

Sarah Bouhouita-Guermech et al. Front Artif Intell. .

Abstract

Background: The twenty first century is often defined as the era of Artificial Intelligence (AI), which raises many questions regarding its impact on society. It is already significantly changing many practices in different fields. Research ethics (RE) is no exception. Many challenges, including responsibility, privacy, and transparency, are encountered. Research ethics boards (REB) have been established to ensure that ethical practices are adequately followed during research projects. This scoping review aims to bring out the challenges of AI in research ethics and to investigate if REBs are equipped to evaluate them.

Methods: Three electronic databases were selected to collect peer-reviewed articles that fit the inclusion criteria (English or French, published between 2016 and 2021, containing AI, RE, and REB). Two instigators independently reviewed each piece by screening with Covidence and then coding with NVivo.

Results: From having a total of 657 articles to review, we were left with a final sample of 28 relevant papers for our scoping review. The selected literature described AI in research ethics (i.e., views on current guidelines, key ethical concept and approaches, key issues of the current state of AI-specific RE guidelines) and REBs regarding AI (i.e., their roles, scope and approaches, key practices and processes, limitations and challenges, stakeholder perceptions). However, the literature often described REBs ethical assessment practices of projects in AI research as lacking knowledge and tools.

Conclusion: Ethical reflections are taking a step forward while normative guidelines adaptation to AI's reality is still dawdling. This impacts REBs and most stakeholders involved with AI. Indeed, REBs are not equipped enough to adequately evaluate AI research ethics and require standard guidelines to help them do so.

Keywords: AI ethics; artificial intelligence; normative guidance; research ethics; research ethics board.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA Flowchart. AI, Artificial intelligence; REB, Review ethics board; REC, Research ethics committees; IRB, Institutional review boards; RE, Research ethics.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Architecture that illustrates the article's results structure starting with the two main domains: (A) AI and research ethics and (B) research ethics boards.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Overview of the stakeholders involved in regulation regarding AI in research ethics: the main active stakeholders (dark blue) and the main passive stakeholders (light blue).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Line of progression on AI ethics resolution in research.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Ahuja A. S. (2019). The impact of artificial intelligence in medicine on the future role of the physician. PeerJ 7, e7702. 10.7717/peerj.7702 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Aicardi C., Akintoye S., Fothergill B. T., Guerrero M., Klinker G., Knight W., et al. . (2020). Ethical and social aspects of neurorobotics. Sci. Eng. Ethics 26, 2533–2546. 10.1007/s11948-020-00248-8 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Aicardi C., Fothergill B. T., Rainey S., Stahl B. C., Harris E. (2018). Accompanying technology development in the human brain project: from foresight to ethics management. Futures 102, 114–124. 10.1016/j.futures.2018.01.005 - DOI
    1. Aita M., Marie-Claire R. (2005). Essentials of research ethics for healthcare professionals. Nurs. Health Sci. 7, 119–125. 10.1111/j.1442-2018.2005.00216.x - DOI - PubMed
    1. Andreotta A. J., Kirkham N., Rizzi M. (2021). AI, big data, and the future of consent. AI Soc. 17, 1–14. 10.1007/s00146-021-01262-5 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources