Browsing by Department "Bioethics and Science Policy"

As part of the technological growth in HR, companies are developing and adopting AI-enabled solutions for recruitment of qualified talent for a job opening. AI-enabled recruiting tools provide a variety of potential benefits to an organization: from improving overall efficiency and lowering hiring costs, to automating repetitive tasks and removing human biases. AI-enabled tools in recruiting also introduce concerns about dehumanization of the hiring process, increased discrimination, and accidental exclusion of qualified candidates. These benefits and concerns are discussed at the HR executive level in industry and in academic contexts; however, the data on the perspectives of HR practitioners is much more limited. Studies show that only 32 percent of companies include individual practitioners within the talent acquisition technology discussions. HR practitioners leverage AI-enabled tools in hiring and, therefore, should be aware of and able to mitigate potential risks of leveraging AI-enabled tools. Lack of consideration of perspectives of HR practitioners on the benefits and risks of AI-enabled tools increases the possibility of ethical concerns and legal liability for the individual companies (Nankervis, 2021). HR executives need take into consideration the perspectives of HR practitioners who work with AI-enabled tools as this awareness is likely to help the businesses successfully realize their talent management goals. This paper is based on the hypothesis that the perspectives of HR practitioners on the use of AI-enabled tools in hiring differ from the perspectives of HR executives and need to be addressed to ensure that organizations can successfully and ethically implement AI-enabled tools within organizations. Robinson 2019, states that “examination of the practitioners’ perspective [is] a valuable part of AI technology adoption, if organizations hope to have employees support and embrace the accompanying changes." This paper contributes to the examination of practitioner’s perspectives by identifying an information gap that may influence attitudes of individual HR practitioners on the use of AI-enabled recruiting tools. The paper provides additional insights into the attitudes of individual HR practitioners in the United States (U.S.) through a new small-sample survey finding. The survey findings highlight the different attitudes that individual HR practitioners have towards the use of AI-enabled recruiting tools, especially when compared with those of HR executives. This survey is an initial step for more robust research and lays the foundation for follow up research topics. Finally, the paper provides recommendations that can help organizations ethically implement AI-enabled tools by ensuring the attitudes of individual HR practitioners are taken into consideration.

A moral dilemma confronts criminal justice in unjust states. If the state punishes marginalized citizens whose crimes are connected to conditions of systemic injustice the state has failed to alleviate, it perpetuates a further injustice to those citizens. If the state does not punish, it perpetuates an injustice to victims of crime whose protection is the duty of the criminal justice system. Thus, no reaction to crime by the unjust state appears to avoid perpetuating further injustice. Tommie Shelby proposes a new solution to this old dilemma, suggesting that certain theoretical and practical qualifications can save the unjust state from perpetuating injustice. He argues that punishment can be just even as society remains unjust if it is: (a) administered through a fair criminal justice apparatus; (b) only directed at mala in se crimes; and (c) not expressive of moral judgment. In the first part of this thesis, I explore Shelby’s solution to show that certain aspects of his framework are superior to alternative ones, but that it nonetheless fails to resolve the dilemma. In Part 2, I use a novel technological reform that promises to make criminal justice fairer, the AI risk assessment, as a case study to show why even punishment that meets Shelby’s criteria will continue to perpetuate injustice as long as it operates under systemic social injustice. Punishment can only be just if society is.

Nearly 60% of the US population experiencing posttraumatic stress disorder have not received a meaningful clinical response from traditional interventions (Akiki & Abdallah, 2018). Early research using psychedelics in tandem with psychotherapy may offer a more effective option (Feduccia et al., 2019) and has been shown to provide or contribute to long-term relief or remission from PTSD symptoms (in small samples). Funding for psychedelic-assisted therapy (PAT) clinical-trials has increased to nearly billions (Phelps et al., 2022) and while the research is propitious, it is far from complete. Concerns about safety and generalizability have begun to surface (Love, 2022), including recent allegations of abuse. Though abuse is an issue within all clinical practice, risk is amplified by the non-ordinary state of consciousness experienced in high-dose PAT trials. In the US, treatment models using mind-altering substances are shaped by FDA-approved clinical research trials, which in turn define ethical practices and standards of care. By examining how existing regulations recommend governance for the informed consent process and reviewing publicly available documents from PAT trials, I aim to: 1) illuminate how risk and accountability are currently communicated to PAT participants; and 2) suggest how existing research policy might be updated to make working with trauma patients under non-ordinary states of consciousness safer and more ethically robust.

Children who appear as the main characters or primary consumers of YouTube content have been the focus of emerging academic literature and public debate (Feller & Burroughs, 2022; Ferguson, 2018; Kumar, 2021). Sharenting, or posting information, photos, or videos about one's children on social media, has also been a discussion and concern among researchers, legal scholars, and parents (Kumar, 2021). Sharenting has online and offline consequences. It exposes personal information, such as a child’s name and whereabouts, which may lead to unwanted attention or safety risks (Brosch, 2016; Blum-Ross, 2015). However, there is a significant subsection of YouTube media where children appear as integral supporting characters of an adult’s content that has yet to be meaningfully researched.The normalization of sharenting has coincided with an upsurge of influencers and influencer marketing (Abidin, 2018). The influencer marketing industry was estimated to be worth 16 billion dollars in 2022, projected to increase to 21 billion dollars in 2023 (Geyser, 2023). Influencers who involve their children in content position them, at times, as unintentional microcelebrities or brand assets (Abidin, 2015). When this happens, their appearance in user-generated content contributes to the premise and profitability of their parent’s brand. However, children who consistently contribute to their parent’s brand have no rights to the money their names, images, and likenesses generate. They have no working hours to abide by and no access to representation by a third party acting without a personal stake in their profitability (Geider, 2021). Children are unaware of the long-term consequences of exposure to a digital audience, including potential privacy violations, online harassment, or reputational harm. They may also not fully understand the implications of having a digital identity established for them before they can make decisions for themselves. While existing literature demonstrates that social media platforms, laws, and policies do not adequately regulate or protect the children of influencers, there has been no effort first to define the child of an influencer and, second, to identify at what point that regulation becomes necessary. In other words, when do influencer parents go beyond mere sharenting? This research project examines the complex interplay between the potential long-term impacts of children's involvement in influencer content and the gaps in regulations related to children’s work on social media. I aim to analyze the regulatory gray area children of influencers inhabit on YouTube and to identify salient features of influencer content which place children at disproportionate risk of undesirable exposure online. The present study scopes the value children provide to user-generated monetized content. It constructs a typology to describe the unique privacy and psychological risks they are exposed to when their parents' income involves their presence. It outlines common arguments influencer parents use to justify their children's use in content production and discusses the impossibility of informed consent for children in this context.

Technological advancements and developments in public and private sector medical research capacities have ushered an era of novel therapies and hopes against illness and disease at an unprecedented rate. However, not all diseases have fared similarly in this era of progress. Neglected diseases, those that afflict large numbers of the impoverished, continue to impart significant morbidity, mortality, and economic damage, largely unchecked, due to persistent deficiencies in treatment options. Inadequacies in pharmaceutical development comprise a major component of the problem, due to exorbitant costs associated with the drug approval process, combined with financial inabilities of the target clientele. Despite this market failure, in certain cases, drugs have in fact been developed and approved for use against neglected diseases. However, given the unique economic circumstances, such developments have often been funded, supported, and catalyzed through nontraditional means. The innovation and development policy mechanisms that yielded such progress against difficult odds can serve as models upon which to build and promote future pharmaceutical development for neglected diseases, if these mechanisms are explicitly characterized and common trends associated with successful drug production are identified. This thesis performs exactly such an analysis, by identifying relevant instances of approvals of drugs for neglected diseases, exploring their development histories, characterizing such histories into broad categories, and evaluating those broad categories against one another. In an examination of eighteen such approvals that occurred between 1989 and 2014, this thesis finds that six broad categories of development incentive policies were employed: (1) product development partnerships, (2) private pharmaceutical industry development, (3) corporate philanthropy, (4) military development, (5) priority review voucher issuance, and (6) intellectual property transfer. Of these policies, the product development partnership mechanism accounted for the most drug approvals, across a diverse array of diseases and jurisdictions, which suggests a particular robustness of this policy mechanism. As such, this thesis will contend that this particular policy mechanism theoretically, as well as empirically, represents the most propitious policy option for future endeavors to reduce the societally detrimental effects of the persistence of neglected diseases.

Electroencephalography (EEG), a neuroscience method which requires sustained access to the scalp and hair, has many clinical and research applications. It is an essential feature of the rapidly growing consumer neurotechnology market. Neuroethicists have criticized EEG for being unaccommodating to phenotypic differences in hair type - a flaw which contributes to the systematic exclusion of minority groups from research. This exclusion legitimizes concerns about the generalizability of EEG research and effectiveness of EEG-based technologies. The following report employs a review of the most current literature across neuroscience, ethics, and technology publication sources to demonstrate how exclusion EEG research creates gaps in theoretical knowledge that disproportionately impact minorities and have profound implications for medical and consumer products. This paper summarizes the many applications of EEG and examines the impact of exclusion on EEG-based research and technology development. It outlines the risks of maintaining exclusion and provides policy recommendations for how to mitigate those risks by prioritizing inclusion in research methods.

The presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial lie at the core of the United

States justice system. While existing rules and practices serve to uphold these principles,

the administration of justice is significantly compromised by a covert but influential

factor: namely, implicit racial biases. These biases can lead to automatic associations

between race and guilt, as well as impact the way in which judges and jurors interpret

information throughout a trial. Despite the well-documented presence of implicit racial

biases, few steps have been taken to ameliorate the problem in the courtroom setting.

This paper suggests that neurointerventions, such as computerized brain-training tasks

and noninvasive brain stimulation techniques, have the potential to provide promising

mitigation strategies in the near future. Through analyzing the various ethical and legal

considerations, this paper contends that the use of neurointerventions with judges would

be both justifiable and morally obligatory should safe and effective means become

available. A similar argument is put forth for jurors, albeit in a more theoretical light due

to practical and logistical barriers. Given that implicit racial biases can seriously

undermine the fairness of the justice system, this paper ultimately asserts that

unconventional de-biasing methods warrant legitimate attention and consideration.

Risk communication is critical to the patient-provider relationship that informs the health outcomes of patients. Healthcare providers (HCPs) often employ this form of communication when informing patients about their treatment choices. This collaborative process often informs the process of shared decision-making in which patients and HCPs work together to preserve the interests of the patient and attempt to maximize the benefit for the patient. Both parties consider both the patients values and preferences as well as scientific evidence during the decision-making process. Much of the existing literature identifies the roles risk perception and risk communication theory play in how people disseminate, process, and use information.

This paper explores the intersection of the disciplines of risk perception theory, risk communication theory, and the ethical principles central to medicine (i.e. beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy and justice), specifically as they relate to measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccinations. HCPs often find that their obligation to uphold these principles may be difficult as they often conflict during healthcare delivery. Furthermore, these principles may conflict when communicating the risks and benefits of vaccines. Using the MMR vaccine as a case study, this paper is an ethical analysis based on bioethics principles of HCPs and their communication of the MMR vaccination, with recommendations for future communication that could result in improved clinical decisions and health outcomes. Included in this paper is an inspection of the risk perceptions of parents who are responsible for their children’s health decisions, varying attitudes and behaviors toward the vaccinations as well as the meaning of the bioethical principles in the context of risk communication guidelines.

The novel contribution of the paper is a proposed resolution for minimizing the conflict between the aforementioned principles during communication. Communication templates were developed based on different parental positions about the MMR vaccine. These templates will ideally facilitate communication between HCPs and patients and inform the shared decision-making process. HCPs will become more aware of the role ethical principles play during communication and ideally strive to uphold them while treating patients. Most importantly, the research, analysis, and recommendations will enhance the clinical decision-makers’ understanding, experience, and level of confidence. Additionally, information provided in this paper support clinical decisions that have direct impact on patient health and public health.