We are very pleased to welcome you to the 2021 AAAI / ACM Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Ethics, and Society - AIES 2021. This is the fourth edition of this conference, and it is being held virtually on 19 - 21 May 2021, because of the Covid-19 pandemic. Over the last few years, the world has awoken to the power that we have vested-often without thought or care-in the people and systems that collect, aggregate, analyze, and act on our data. At the same time, AI systems promise new ways to empower individuals and collectives to change society from the bottom up. International organizations, governments, universities, corporations, and philanthropists have recognized the urgent need to bring all of our intellectual tools to bear on charting a course through this uncertain new territory. Earlier iterations of this conference and others have seen the first fruits of these calls to action, as programs for research have been set out in many fields relevant to AI, Ethics, and Society. The early days of shaking us awake are done: we now know, well, that we are increasingly reliant on AI systems that are radically changing the world around us, for better and worse. The next step is to chart a course forward, both by deepening our diagnosis of where we are now, and by developing new goals, models, and technical and regulatory systems to shape the future of AI and society toward how we collectively intend our societies to look. The AIES-2021 Call for Papers attracted submissions from Asia, Canada, Australia, Europe, Africa, and the United States. The Main Track of AIES-2021 received 278 submissions, of which 106 (38%) were accepted, with full papers included the Proceedings and posters in the poster sessions for discussion. A subset of 27 of the accepted papers (9.7% of submissions) were selected for oral presentation as well. Plus, we have eight talented participants in our Student Track. Three keynote speakers are scheduled. Ifeoma Ajunwa, Associate Professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law, will speak on "A Veil of Ignorance for Automated Decision- Making". Timnit Gebru, co-founder of Black in AI, will speak on "Moving beyond the Fairness Rhetoric in AI." Arvind Narayanan, Associate Professor of Computer Science at Princeton University, will speak on "The Ethics of Datasets: Moving Forward Requires Stepping Back". An interesting aspect of running an interdisciplinary conference on AI, Ethics & Society is that ethical issues come up in the design of the conference. We certainly can't claim to have found good answers to every ethical issue, but we have tried to address two of them. First, we felt that making the conference accessible to people with disabilities must be a priority. In a virtual environment, sight and hearing disabilities are more limiting than, say, mobility. We chose Hopin to provide our virtual environment because it did a better job of accommodating these disabilities than the alternatives. Second, our authors and attendees come from all over the world. In normal times, they have different distances to travel; in these days of virtual meetings, they attend the conference sessions while living in different time-zones. For AIES-2021, we scheduled the conference, not by utilitarian maximization of convenience for the greatest number, but by a somewhat more Rawlsian effort to improve the situation of those worst off. In both of these cases, majorities pay a small cost for significant improvements for those worst off. These are small issues in conference design, but they illustrate much larger ethical questions faced by our society (and addressed by our research). Our choices are not presented as solutions, but as starting points for discussion. Nonetheless, in these small ways, we have skin in the game.
Part I: BUSINESS, SOCIETY, AND STAKEHOLDERS. 1. The Business and Society Relationship. 2. Corporate Citizenship: Social Responsibility, Performance and Sustainability. 3. The Stakeholder Approach to Business, Society, and Ethics. Part II: CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT ISSUES. 4. Corporate Governance: Foundational Issues. 5. Strategic Management and Corporate Public Affairs. 6. Issue, Risk, and Crisis Management. Part III: BUSINESS ETHICS AND MANAGEMENT. 7. Business Ethics Fundamentals. 8. Personal and Organizational Ethics. 9. Business Ethics and Technology. 10. Ethical Issues in the Global Arena. Part IV: EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDER ISSUES. 11. Business, Government, and Regulation. 12. Business Influence on Government and Public Policy. 13. Consumer Stakeholders: Information Issues and Responses. 14. Consumer Stakeholders: Product and Service Issues. 15. Sustainability and the Natural Environment. 16. Business and Community Stakeholders. Part V: INTERNAL STAKEHOLDER ISSUES. 17. Employee Stakeholders and Workplace Issues. 18. Employee Stakeholders: Privacy, Safety, and Health. 19. Employment Discrimination and Affirmative Action. Cases.
We are delighted to welcome the Fifth AAAI/ACM Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Ethics, and Society (AIES 2022) and all its participants to Oxford and to bring the community back together in person. The pandemic prevented last year's conference from taking place in person, but it did not slow down the rise in urgency to address the issues considered by this community. Indeed, the pandemic introduced new issues, including, for example, important exams being conducted online while participants were monitored automatically through their camera; perhaps predictably, the software did not work well for darker-skinned test-takers, putting them at a disadvantage as they had to add lights behind the screen to shine on their faces, to compensate for the software's limitations. Fortunately, the AIES community has not been sitting still during the pandemic. One of the manifestations of that is the new Institute for Ethics in AI at Oxford, which is hosting the conference. We are happy to hold the conference at the lovely Keble College, thereby also providing an Oxford-style residential experience. That said, this iteration of AIES will be a hybrid conference, allowing those who are unable to attend in person, whether because of the pandemic or for other reasons, to still participate. It is easy to underestimate the work that goes into putting together a conference like this, and it would not have been possible without the intense effort of many people. First and foremost, there would not be a conference without a program, and the program chairs - Matthias Scheutz, Ryan Calo, Martina Mara, and Annette Zimmermann - have worked very hard to put together a wonderful program. Of course, the program chairs in turn relied on many others, as you can read in their own welcome to these proceedings. We also have a great student program, organized by student-program chairs Brent Venable, Emanuelle Burton, and Theodore Lechterman. Marie Watson of the Institute for Ethics in AI and Senan Simmons of Keble College have been very helpful with local arrangements. To allow those who cannot travel to Oxford to still participate, Wenbin Zhang is managing the virtual component of the conference. Francisco "Tito" Cruz has been extremely helpful putting together the conference's website. AAAI, led by Meredith Ellison and with Chesley Grove as conference manager, has provided invaluable organizational support, and ACM is helping us put together these proceedings. Our sponsors, listed with their logos elsewhere in these proceedings, have provided a budget that enabled us to bring in amazing invited speakers, provide students with scholarships, and generally keep registration fees low. We thank the steering committee of the conference series for their guidance, and more generally everyone who has helped establish the conference series in prior years. Finally, all the organizational talent in the world cannot run a good conference if there is nobody to do the research, participate in the conference, and read the proceedings as you are doing right now. Thanks to all of you for making this conference the wonderful event that it is.
As AI technology is rapidly progressing in capability and being adopted more widely across society, it is more important than ever to understand the potential risks AI may pose and how AI can be developed and deployed safely. Introduction to AI Safety, Ethics, and Society offers a comprehensive and accessible guide to this topic. This book explores a range of ways in which societies could fail to harness AI safely in coming years, such as malicious use, accidental failures, erosion of safety standards due to competition between AI developers or nation-states, and potential loss of control over autonomous systems. Grounded in the latest technical advances, this book offers a timely perspective on the challenges involved in making current AI systems safer. Ensuring that AI systems are safe is not just a problem for researchers in machine learning – it is a societal challenge that cuts across traditional disciplinary boundaries. Integrating insights from safety engineering, economics, and other relevant fields, this book provides readers with fundamental concepts to understand and manage AI risks more effectively. This is an invaluable resource for upper-level undergraduate and postgraduate students taking courses relating to AI Safety & Alignment, AI Ethics, AI Policy, and the Societal Impacts of AI, as well as anyone trying to better navigate the rapidly evolving landscape of AI safety.
The 3Rs principle of replacing, reducing and refining the use of animals in science has been gaining widespread support in the international research community and appears in transnational legislation such as the European Directive 2010/63/EU, a number of national legislative frameworks like in Switzerland and the UK, and other rules and guidance in place in countries around the world. At the same time, progress in technical and biomedical research, along with the changing status of animals in many societies, challenges the view of the 3Rs principle as a sufficient and effective approach to the moral challenges set by animal use in research. Given this growing awareness of our moral responsibilities to animals, the aim of this paper is to address the question: Can the 3Rs, as a policy instrument for science and research, still guide the morally acceptable use of animals for scientific purposes, and if so, how? The fact that the increased availability of alternatives to animal models has not correlated inversely with a decrease in the number of animals used in research has led to public and political calls for more radical action. However, a focus on the simple measure of total animal numbers distracts from the need for a more nuanced understanding of how the 3Rs principle can have a genuine influence as a guiding instrument in research and testing. Hence, we focus on three core dimensions of the 3Rs in contemporary research: (1) What scientific innovations are needed to advance the goals of the 3Rs? (2) What can be done to facilitate the implementation of existing and new 3R methods? (3) Do the 3Rs still offer an adequate ethical framework given the increasing social awareness of animal needs and human moral responsibilities? By answering these questions, we will identify core perspectives in the debate over the advancement of the 3Rs.
Business & Society, 12e PART ONE The Corporation in Society 1. The Corporation and Its Stakeholders 2. Managing Public Issues PART TWO Business and the Social Environment 3. Corporate Social Responsibility 4. Global Corporate Citizenship PART THREE Business and the Ethical Environment 5. Ethics & Ethical Reasoning 6. Organizational Ethics & the Law PART FOUR Business and Government in a Global Society 7. The Challenges of Globalization 8. Business--Government Relations 9. Influencing the Political Environment 10. Antitrust, Mergers, and Competition Policy PART FIVE The Corporation and the Natural Environment 11. Ecology and Sustainable Development in Global Business 12. Managing Environmental Issues PART SIX Business and Technological Change 13. Technology: A Global Economic & Social Force 14. Managing Technological Challenges PART SEVEN Building Relationships with Stakeholders 15. Stockholder Rights and Corporate Governance 16. Consumer Protection 17. The Community and the Corporation 18. Employees and the Corporation 19. Managing a Diverse Workforce 20. Business and the Media CASE STUDIES The Collapse of Enron Odwalla, Inc. and the E. Coli Outbreak Merck, the FDA, and Vioxx Kimpton Hotels' EarthCare Program Johnson & Johnson and the Human Life International Shareholder Proposal GlaxoSmithKline and AIDS Drugs for Africa Nike's Dispute with the University of Oregon Shell Oil in Nigeria The Transformation of Shell
It is our great pleasure to welcome you to the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society - AIES 2018. As AI is becoming more pervasive in our life, its impact on society is more significant and concerns and issues are raised regarding aspects such as value alignment, data handling and bias, regulations, and workforce displacement. Only a multi-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder effort can find the best ways to address these concerns, including experts of various disciplines, such as ethics, philosophy, economics, sociology, psychology, law, history, and politics. In order to address these issues in a scientific context, AAAI and ACM have joined forces to start a new conference, the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. The first edition of this conference was co-located with AAAI-18 on February 2-3, 2018 in New Orleans, USA. The program of the conference included peer-reviewed paper presentations, invited talks, panels, and working sessions. The conference program included contributions on a broad set of topics, including the following ones: building ethical AI systems, value alignment, moral machine decision making, impact of AI on workforce, societal impact of AI, the future of AI, human-level AI, controlling AI, trust and explanations in AI systems, ethical design and development of AI systems, AI and law.
Journalism, Ethics and Society provides a comprehensive overview and critical analysis of debates within media ethics in relation to the purpose of news and journalism for society. It assesses how the meaning of news and journalism is central to a discourse in ethics and further evaluates the continuing role of liberalism in helping to define both theory and practice. Its timely and topical analysis focuses on two of the most central concepts within media ethics and journalistic practice: the US based Public Journalism 'movement' and European Union media policies. It provides new ways of thinking about media ethics and will be of interest to students and researchers working within the field of media, cultural studies and journalism, as well as scholars of philosophy.
The EU-funded Human Brain Project (HBP) aimed to deliver advances in brain science, cognitive neuroscience and brain-inspired computing which would have broad-ranging implications and benefit European citizens. Achieving such outcomes is dependent, in part, upon the ability of large scale research projects to anticipate potential needs and concerns of user communities as well as other stakeholders and society in general and integrate these into their research programme. While the responsibility to anticipate such needs and to address them belongs to all those directing the research programme, the HBP has a specific Subproject dedicated to researching society and ethics issues. This seeks to enable research across the HBP to better incorporate societal concerns and ethical awareness into their research design and trajectory. This article describes the structure of the Ethics & Society Subproject, reflects on our experience three years in, and considers some of the challenges in formulating and implementing such a programme for responsible research and innovation.
SAGE Reference is proud to announce the Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society. The Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society spans the relationships among business, ethics and society, with an emphasis on business ethics and the role of business in society. The encyclopedia provides an essential reference tool for students, academics and practitioners interested in gaining knowledge on the role played by business with regard to the environment in which it exists. Key features include: - a broad coverage of corporate social responsibility; -the obligation of businesses to various stakeholder groups; - the contribution of business to society and culture; - the relationship of business to the quality of the environment, including the issue of environmental sustainability. This is an essential reference work for all those in the fields of management, psychology, sociology, communication and political science.
Researchers in areas as diverse as computer science and political science must increasingly navigate the possible risks of their research to society. However, the history of medical experiments on vulnerable individuals influenced many research ethics reviews to focus exclusively on risks to human subjects rather than risks to human society. We describe an Ethics and Society Review board (ESR), which fills this moral gap by facilitating ethical and societal reflection as a requirement to access grant funding: Researchers cannot receive grant funding from participating programs until the researchers complete the ESR process for their proposal. Researchers author an initial statement describing their proposed research's risks to society, subgroups within society, and globally and commit to mitigation strategies for these risks. An interdisciplinary faculty panel iterates with the researchers to refine these risks and mitigation strategies. We describe a mixed-method evaluation of the ESR over 1 y, in partnership with a large artificial intelligence grant program at our university. Surveys and interviews of researchers who interacted with the ESR found 100% (95% CI: 87 to 100%) were willing to continue submitting future projects to the ESR, and 58% (95% CI: 37 to 77%) felt that it had influenced the design of their research project. The ESR panel most commonly identified issues of harms to minority groups, inclusion of diverse stakeholders in the research plan, dual use, and representation in datasets. These principles, paired with possible mitigation strategies, offer scaffolding for future research designs.
Thoroughly revised, updated, and expanded, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society, Second Editionexplores current topics, such as mass social media, cookies, and cyber-attacks, as well as traditional issues including accounting, discrimination, environmental concerns, and management. The new edition also includes an in-depth examination of current and recent ethical affairs, such as the dangerous work environments of off-shore factories for Western retailers, the negligence resulting in the 2010 BP oil spill, Apples exploitation of outdated tax code, the gender wage gap, the minimum wage debate and increasing income disparity and the unparalleled level of debt in the U.S. and other countries with the challenges it presents to many societies and the considerable impact on the ethics of intergenerational wealth transfers. Key features include: seven volumes, with more than 1,200 signed entries by significant figures in the field cross-references and suggestions for further readings to guide students to in-depth resources Thematic Readers Guide groups related entries by general topics Index allows for thorough browse-and-search capabilities in the electronic edition
This study involved 46 recipients and donors in personal donor programmes interviewed anonymously by postal questionnaire and interview: 38% (30/80) of possible recipients responded. The total number of people told about the donor involvement ranged between two and 78, with no significant gender difference. Relationships had changed for half of the participants in the programmes with 75% reporting that they had developed a closer relationship and 25% reporting a deterioration. Contact between couples and donors was seen as being in the original role of family friend or relative rather than as donor. An equal proportion of recipients (63%) and donors (78%) agreed to the donor being identified to any offspring although this was qualified with regard to the age of the child. Reasons for identification were given as avoidance of family secrets and the rights of the child to have information concerning their conception. Those who did not agree said that the child was better off not knowing, or who wished to preserve donor anonymity. The donor group was more likely than the recipients to say that identification to the child was in the best interests of the social parents because it allowed all those involved to feel part of a single family group. It was found that for both recipients and donors, the advantages given for having a personal donor was openness within the relationship. For the recipients, this focused on knowledge of the donor background and, for related couples, having a common genetic relationship. For donors, the advantages given were: knowing the child's environment, having access to a child and the ability to choose recipients. A disadvantage for donors and recipients was the possibility of a change in the relationship and for donors an added disadvantage was having to share in the emotional stress of the treatment and negative outcomes. More men than women placed importance on having a donor with a similar genetic background.
Several genes associated with Alzheimer disease (AD) have been localized and cloned; two genetic tests are already commercially available, and new tests are being developed. Genetic testing for AD--either for disease prediction or for diagnosis--raises critical ethical concerns. The multidisciplinary Alzheimer Disease Working Group of the Stanford Program in Genomics, Ethics, and Society (PGES) presents comprehensive recommendations on genetic testing for AD. The Group concludes that under current conditions, genetic testing for AD prediction or diagnosis is only rarely appropriate. Criteria for judging the readiness of a test for introduction into routine clinical practice typically rely heavily on evaluation of technical efficacy. PGES recommends a broader and more comprehensive approach, considering: 1) the unique social and historical meanings of AD; 2) the availability of procedures to promote good surrogate decision making for incompetent patients and to safeguard confidentiality; 3) access to sophisticated genetic counselors able to communicate complex risk information and effectively convey the social costs and psychological burdens of testing, such as unintentional disclosure of predictive genetic information to family members; 4) protection from inappropriate advertising and marketing of genetic tests; and 5) recognition of the need for public education about the meaning and usefulness of predictive and diagnostic tests for AD. In this special issue of Genetic Testing, the PGES recommendations are published along with comprehensive background papers authored by Working Group members.
Recent widespread concern has led to legislation in the UK preventing the use of fetal ovarian tissue for the treatment of infertile women. This questionnaire-based study aimed to assess the attitudes of both fertile and infertile men and women as well as egg donors and recipients towards the use of donated eggs for treatment, diagnosis and research. Fertile individuals were significantly less aware of egg donation but the majority in both the fertile and the infertile groups approved the use of eggs for research (89 and 95% of women and 88 and 92% of men respectively) and treatment (similar percentages). However, fetal sources of oocytes were acceptable to only 15% of women in the fertile, 21% in the infertile, 35% in the recipient and 19% in the donor groups. Cadaveric sources of oocytes were slightly more acceptable (28% fertile, 28% infertile, 50% recipient and 42% donors). Both these sources of oocytes were slightly more acceptable to men. Education had little influence on attitudes, although men and women of tertiary education level said they would be less likely to have gamete donation themselves. Thus there would appear to be widespread approval for the use of donor eggs in research and treatment but not if the source of eggs is fetal or cadaveric.
OBJECTIVES: The Society of Critical Care Medicine and four other major critical care organizations have endorsed a seven-step process to resolve disagreements about potentially inappropriate treatments. The multiorganization statement (entitled: An official ATS/AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM Policy Statement: Responding to Requests for Potentially Inappropriate Treatments in Intensive Care Units) provides examples of potentially inappropriate treatments; however, no clear definition is provided. This statement was developed to provide a clear definition of inappropriate interventions in the ICU environment. DESIGN: A subcommittee of the Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee performed a systematic review of empirical research published in peer-reviewed journals as well as professional organization position statements to generate recommendations. Recommendations approved by consensus of the full Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committees and the Society of Critical Care Medicine Council were included in the statement. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: ICU interventions should generally be considered inappropriate when there is no reasonable expectation that the patient will improve sufficiently to survive outside the acute care setting, or when there is no reasonable expectation that the patient's neurologic function will improve sufficiently to allow the patient to perceive the benefits of treatment. This definition should not be considered exhaustive; there will be cases in which life-prolonging interventions may reasonably be considered inappropriate even when the patient would survive outside the acute care setting with sufficient cognitive ability to perceive the benefits of treatment. When patients or surrogate decision makers demand interventions that the clinician believes are potentially inappropriate, the seven-step process presented in the multiorganization statement should be followed. Clinicians should recognize the limits of prognostication when evaluating potential neurologic outcome and terminal cases. At times, it may be appropriate to provide time-limited ICU interventions to patients if doing so furthers the patient's reasonable goals of care. If the patient is experiencing pain or suffering, treatment to relieve pain and suffering is always appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: The Society of Critical Care Medicine supports the seven-step process presented in the multiorganization statement. This statement provides added guidance to clinicians in the ICU environment.
Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management, 5th edition employs a stakeholder management framework, emphasizing business' social and ethical responsibilities to both external and internal stakeholder groups. A twin theme of business ethics illustrates how ethical or moral considerations are included the public issues facing organizations and the decision making process of managers. The text is written from a managerial perspective that along with the two themes shows how to identify stakeholders, incorporate their concerns into the organization's strategy and operations, and also integrate ethical wisdom into their decision making process. In addition, 35 case histories are included to help connect theory and practice through timely and interesting examples.
Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971) was one of America's foremost twentieth-century religious thinkers and social critics. As pastor of Bethel Evangelical Church in Detroit, he became deeply interested in social problems. He was Professor of Applied Christianity at Union Theological Seminary, remaining there until his retirement. Ultimately, he abandoned his liberal Protestant hopes for the church's moral rule of society and became a Socialist activist. Moral Man and Immoral Society is Niebuhr's eloquent argument for the church's involvement in social reforms as well as a platform for his beliefs that men are sinners, that society is ruled by self-interest, and that history is characterized by irony, not progress.
This paper examines how AI ethics has been developed at the national level in Japan, and what this process reveals about broader Japanese state imaginaries of how advanced technology should be developed and used, and what a future with these technologies should look like. Key developments in the Japanese government’s approach to AI ethics and governance between 2014 and 2023 are laid out, based on an analysis of official reports and policy documents supplemented by data collected via semi-structured interviews with three expert members of the committees that formulated several key sets of ethical principles. The paper considers Japan’s positioning in the global race to develop AI ethics principles over this period, as well as the imaginary of AI within the wider historical context of imaginaries about the knowledge society in Japan. I suggest three ways in which AI ethics has been understood and instrumentalized in the Japanese context, and argue that the main methodology used to date—ELSI—complements the government’s utopian and techno-determinist imaginaries of the future while concealing a deeply conservative approach that serves to reproduce structural inequalities and discrimination despite the apparent internationalism and progressive values that are repeatedly expressed in state-promoted ethical principles.
Recent years have seen a growing interest in the questions of ethics and aging. Advances in medical technology have created dilemmas for physicians, nurses, and other health care professionals over such questions as the allocation of resources and a patient's right to die. At the same time, the aging of the American population raises concerns about social policies that involve the role of government. In Ethics in an Aging Society Harry R. Moody examines both the clinical and the policy issues that center around aging. Moody pays special attention to the ethical problems associated with two particularly timely concerns--Alzheimer's disease and the increasingly controversial issue of rational suicide for reasons of age. He also focuses on the rights of patients in long-term care and on the question of justice between generations (Are older patients using more than their fair share of scarce health care dollars?).These ethical questions, Moody emphasizes, are not abstract ones. They arise in the specific historical and political context of America in the closing decade of the twentieth century... This book can best be understood as a meditation on two compelling liberal ideas--autonomy and justice--that have inspired our thinking about ethics and the aging society. The story which unfolds in the book is a story both about the power of those ideals and also about inescapable facts of old age that make those ideals problematic.