Exploring bias risks in artificial intelligence and targeted medicines manufacturing.

Abstract

Background: Though artificial intelligence holds great value for healthcare, it may also amplify health inequalities through risks of bias. In this paper, we explore bias risks in targeted medicines manufacturing. Targeted medicines manufacturing refers to the act of making medicines targeted to individual patients or to subpopulations of patients within a general group, which can be achieved, for example, by means of cell and gene therapies. These manufacturing processes are increasingly reliant on digitalised systems which can be controlled by artificial intelligence algorithms. Whether and how bias might turn up in the process, however, is uncertain due to the novelty of the development.

Methods: Examining stakeholder views across bioethics, precision medicine, and artificial intelligence, we document a range of opinions from eleven semi-structured interviews about the possibility of bias in AI-driven targeted therapies manufacturing.

Result: Findings show that bias can emerge in upstream (research and development) and downstream (medicine production) processes when manufacturing targeted medicines. However, interviewees emphasized that downstream processes, particularly those not relying on patient or population data, may have lower bias risks. The study also identified a spectrum of bias meanings ranging from negative and ambivalent to positive and productive. Notably, some participants highlighted the potential for certain biases to have productive moral value in correcting health inequalities. This idea of "corrective bias" problematizes the conventional understanding of bias as primarily a negative concept defined by systematic error or unfair outcomes and suggests potential value in capitalizing on biases to help address health inequalities. Our analysis also indicates, however, that the concept of "corrective bias" requires further critical reflection before they can be used to this end.