Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
How would readers address a lack of informed participant consent, ethically questionable methodologies, or ends? By the time of publication, the damage is already done. “An experiment is ethical or not at its inception; it does not become ethical post hoc” - Beecher 1966
As your quote says, that is to be decided at inception time, not publication time.
Beecher actually dedicated a section of his report on the role of editorial responsibility, in addition to that of researcher responsibility, to ensure that works are ethically defensible. (1/2).
"It is not enough to ensure that all investigation is carried out in an ethical manner: it must be made unmistakably clear in the publications that the proprieties have been observed." E.g. valuable data improperly obtained should not be published. (2/2)
Then you seem to be asking for ethics review before the experiment begins? Biology and medicine does that. Any sort of experiments on humans involves an early ethics review. And certainly, any research that is used by large tech companies will have major impact on humans...
Then let’s have an IRB for machine learning that uses data about humans. You must agree with that?
I think this would go a long way in addressing the “ethics policing” argument.
Unlike med/bio, CS does not do these ethics reviews in advance. We think we are creating objective truths. In reality, we are almost the same as med. We create powerful and harmful drugs and theres no one stopping us. Neurips is trying to force a positive field change.
Encouraging is OK. Forcing is not.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
