Anticipating the unpredictable: A qualitative study on ethics experts' perspectives on review challenges related to AI.

IF 4.4 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS
Marija Franka Žuljević, Antonija Mijatović, Luciano D'andrea, Andrada Istrate, Nevien Kerk, Constantin Vică, Alexandra Zorilă, Hella von Unger, Ana Marušić
{"title":"Anticipating the unpredictable: A qualitative study on ethics experts' perspectives on review challenges related to AI.","authors":"Marija Franka Žuljević, Antonija Mijatović, Luciano D'andrea, Andrada Istrate, Nevien Kerk, Constantin Vică, Alexandra Zorilă, Hella von Unger, Ana Marušić","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2026.2744222","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into research across disciplines, raising various ethical concerns related to bias, privacy, transparency, and accountability. However, less is known about how these challenges are addressed within research ethics review practices. This paper examines how ethics experts perceive and manage AI-related challenges in ethics review.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Drawing on a qualitative study of 13 focus groups with 67 European ethics experts, we applied thematic analysis to identify key tensions shaping current review processes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our findings show that AI challenges basic assumptions of ethics review. Participants described AI as difficult to define, rapidly evolving, and not readily accommodated by ex-ante regulatory frameworks. Ethical issues were seen as emerging across the research lifecycle, often after initial review. This creates tensions between rule-based approaches, focused on compliance and risk minimization, and more trust-based models emphasizing researcher reflexivity and ongoing ethical judgment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We argue that AI highlights epistemic, temporal, and procedural limitations of existing ethics review systems. These findings suggest that ethics review of AI research may benefit from more anticipatory and flexible ethical governance, including iterative review mechanisms, interdisciplinary expertise, and continuous ethical engagement throughout the research process.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"2744222"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2026.2744222","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into research across disciplines, raising various ethical concerns related to bias, privacy, transparency, and accountability. However, less is known about how these challenges are addressed within research ethics review practices. This paper examines how ethics experts perceive and manage AI-related challenges in ethics review.

Methods: Drawing on a qualitative study of 13 focus groups with 67 European ethics experts, we applied thematic analysis to identify key tensions shaping current review processes.

Results: Our findings show that AI challenges basic assumptions of ethics review. Participants described AI as difficult to define, rapidly evolving, and not readily accommodated by ex-ante regulatory frameworks. Ethical issues were seen as emerging across the research lifecycle, often after initial review. This creates tensions between rule-based approaches, focused on compliance and risk minimization, and more trust-based models emphasizing researcher reflexivity and ongoing ethical judgment.

Conclusions: We argue that AI highlights epistemic, temporal, and procedural limitations of existing ethics review systems. These findings suggest that ethics review of AI research may benefit from more anticipatory and flexible ethical governance, including iterative review mechanisms, interdisciplinary expertise, and continuous ethical engagement throughout the research process.

预测不可预测:伦理专家对与人工智能相关的审查挑战的看法的定性研究。
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
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
14.70%
发文量
49
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.
×
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