How ethics operationalization breaks down in practice: expert perspectives from healthcare AI

Riana Minocher, Isabel Velarde, Valerie Buerger, Gabriele Pluktaite, Vince I. Madai
{"title":"How ethics operationalization breaks down in practice: expert perspectives from healthcare AI","authors":"Riana Minocher,&nbsp;Isabel Velarde,&nbsp;Valerie Buerger,&nbsp;Gabriele Pluktaite,&nbsp;Vince I. Madai","doi":"10.1007/s43681-026-01381-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Efforts to promote “Trustworthy AI” have focused on operationalizing high-level ethical principles through tools, standards, and governance mechanisms. Yet a persistent gap remains between ethical guidance and day-to-day development practice. We conducted semi-structured interviews with ten experts in AI ethics, healthcare AI, and socio-technical research to examine how ethical principles are operationalized in real-world AI development. Participants described several ways in which efforts to operationalize ethical principles break down in practice. While existing operationalization approaches were viewed as useful, participants discussed conceptual, epistemic, institutional, and socio-technical conditions that constrain their effectiveness. Our findings suggest that the operationalization gap cannot be understood independently of the broader contexts in which AI systems are designed, developed, and governed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72137,"journal":{"name":"AI and ethics","volume":"6 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s43681-026-01381-z.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AI and ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43681-026-01381-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Efforts to promote “Trustworthy AI” have focused on operationalizing high-level ethical principles through tools, standards, and governance mechanisms. Yet a persistent gap remains between ethical guidance and day-to-day development practice. We conducted semi-structured interviews with ten experts in AI ethics, healthcare AI, and socio-technical research to examine how ethical principles are operationalized in real-world AI development. Participants described several ways in which efforts to operationalize ethical principles break down in practice. While existing operationalization approaches were viewed as useful, participants discussed conceptual, epistemic, institutional, and socio-technical conditions that constrain their effectiveness. Our findings suggest that the operationalization gap cannot be understood independently of the broader contexts in which AI systems are designed, developed, and governed.

伦理操作化如何在实践中崩溃:来自医疗保健人工智能的专家观点
推动“可信赖的人工智能”的努力侧重于通过工具、标准和治理机制实施高水平的道德原则。然而,在道德指导和日常发展实践之间仍然存在着持续的差距。我们对10位人工智能伦理、医疗人工智能和社会技术研究领域的专家进行了半结构化访谈,以研究道德原则在现实世界的人工智能开发中是如何运作的。与会者描述了实施道德原则的努力在实践中失败的几种方式。虽然现有的操作化方法被认为是有用的,但与会者讨论了限制其有效性的概念、认识、体制和社会技术条件。我们的研究结果表明,操作化差距不能独立于人工智能系统设计、开发和治理的更广泛背景来理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书