This article introduces seven ethical issues raised by the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) at work. Each ethical issue is presented in connection to broader and older philosophical topics as well as topics in the more specialised literature on applied ethics of technology. The seven issues are: (1) How to govern the impact of AI on job losses and other social issues raised by the reshaping of the job market? (2) AI may contribute to create new forms of oppression and (...) violation of rights of the workforce; (3) AI may negatively affect workers’ (moral) agency, autonomy or responsibility; (4) AI may create hidden labour, that is, economically valuable tasks are performed by human agents without their work being sufficiently recognised, rewarded or protected, with (technological) companies acquiring an unfair gain and an increasing socio-economic power over people; (5) To what extent can AI affect the opportunity for people to perform good or meaningful work, and how should meaningful work be defined in a pluralistic society? (6) The introduction of AI at work may have a broader impact on social values and norms; (7) Who is responsible for making AI have a positive rather than a negative impact on ethical and societal values? In addition to providing a critical introduction to the ethical debate on AI and the future of work, the article also positions on this broader ethical and philosophical map the five articles of The Journal of Ethics special issue ‘Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Work’. (shrink)

In this article, I will explore how the underlying research values of ‘openness’ and ‘mutual responsiveness’, which are central to open science practices, can be integrated into a new ethos of science. Firstly, I will revisit Robert Merton's early contribution to this issue, examining whether the ethos of science should be understood as a set of norms for scientists to practice ‘good’ science or as a set of research values as a functional requirement of the scientific system to produce knowledge, (...) irrespective of individual adherence to these norms. Secondly, I will analyse the recent codification of scientific practice in terms of ‘scientific integrity’, a framework that Merton did not pursue. Based on this analysis, and illustrated on the case of COVID-19 as a case in which the institution of science was challenged to deliver urgently on societal desirable outcomes, I will argue that promoting open science and its core norms of collaboration and openness requires broader governance of the institution of science in its relationship with society at large, rather than relying solely on self-governance within the scientific community through a new ethos of science. This conclusion has implications for re-evaluating research assessments, suggesting that the evaluation of the scientific system should take precedence over evaluating individual researchers, and that incentives should be provided to encourage specific research behaviour rather than solely focusing on individual research outputs. This article is followed up by Commentaries of Carl Mitcham, Alfred Nordmann, Sabina Leonelli, Lukas Fuchs, Monica Edwards-Schachter. (shrink)

Despite the widespread use of automated decision-making (ADM) systems, they are often developed without involving the public or those directly affected, leading to concerns about systematic biases that may perpetuate structural injustices. Existing formal fairness approaches primarily focus on statistical outcomes across demographic groups or individual fairness, yet these methods reveal ambiguities and limitations in addressing fairness comprehensively. This paper argues for a holistic approach to algorithmic fairness that integrates procedural fairness, considering both decision-making processes and their outcomes. Procedural fairness (...) emphasizes the importance of fair decision-making procedures, which aligns with theories of relational justice that stress the quality of social relations and power dynamics. We highlight the need for substantive procedural fairness to ensure better outcomes and address forward-looking responsibilities. Additionally, we propose leveraging Public Engagement, a core dimension within the well-established Responsible Research and Innovation framework, to enhance procedural fairness in ADM systems. Our contribution underscores the value of Public Engagement in fostering fairer ADM processes, thereby expanding the current focus beyond technical outcome-based approaches to encompass broader procedural considerations. (shrink)

Research Ethics is a key element of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). In spite of an increased interest in this topic there is little empirical evidence about scientists’ practice and perception of Research Ethics. Drawing on a large-scale survey among 4,180 European researchers we present unique insights into Research Ethics activities, researchers’ motivation for ethical behavior, the perceived barriers and benefits as well as the role of institutional support. According to the survey results, most researchers consider ethical issues in their (...) research projects and see it as part of good research practice or are convinced that research must be ethical. Perceived benefits of Research Ethics are higher quality of scientific outputs, higher social relevance of research, increased societal impact and a changed approach to risk. Barriers to ethics activities are particularly seen in the absence of institutional support and incentives. With regard to institutional support, we show that offers and infrastructures of Research Performing Organisations for Research Ethics are not well known among the employed researchers in general. Through a regression analysis about the influence of institutional support on Research Ethics we see at the same time that the provision of an Ethics team that researchers can address and the existence of a policy for designing ethical values and principles into research practice have a positive influence on researchers to engage in Research Ethics activities. The results underlines the importance of low-threshold services and personal contacts for researchers with ethical questions. (shrink)

Progress in Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) has proved to be a decisive step in many institutions, following the guidelines and encouragement of the European Union and academic proposals. One of the dimensions recent studies have considered central for making progress in the practical development of theoretical proposals for RRI is the institutionalisation of reflexivity at the core of the organisations that develop RRI. This is particularly the case with the promotion of processes that facilitate the establishment of ethical standards (...) throughout the research and innovation cycle. This study attempts to deal with discourses about the institutional reflexivity formulated in the past 15 years based on RRI from a critical-ethical point of view. It does so using the business ethics theory of discourse. This analysis shows that, for this institutional reflexivity to be possible, it is necessary to base the RRI model on a critical-ethical horizon and design an ethical governance system that allows its practical development. (shrink)

Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are one of the first examples of nanotechnology, with a history of promising uses and high expectations. This paper uses the recent debate over their future to explore both ethical and value-laden statements which unsettle the notion of CNTs as a value-free nanotechnology and their regulation as purely a technical affair. A point of departure is made with the inclusion of CNTs on the Substitute-It-Now list by the Swedish NGO ChemSec, an assessment process that anticipates and complements (...) the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation in Europe. An argument map is constructed to illustrate the core contention in the debate—should CNTs be substituted or not—which follows from a systematic literature review and content analysis of sampled journal articles. Nine arguments are articulated that bolster one of two camps: the pro-substitution camp or the contra-substitution camp. Beneath these arguments are a set of three implicit values that animate these two camps in prescribing competing interventions to resolve the dispute: (i) environmental protection and human safety, (ii) good science, and (iii) technological progress. This leads to a discussion around the regulatory problem of safeguarding conflicting values in decision-making under sustained scientific uncertainty. Finally, the study suggests further empirical work on specific nanomaterials in a pivot away from the abstract, promissory nature of nanotechnology and other emerging technologies in science, technology, and innovation policy. The examination of ethics and values is useful for mapping controversies in science and technology studies of regulation, even amongst experts in cognate research fields like nanomedicine and nanotoxicology. (shrink)