Search

The application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in healthcare and epidemiology undoubtedly has many benefits for the population. However, due to its environmental impact, the use of AI can produce social inequalities and long-term environmental damages that may not be thoroughly contemplated. In this paper, we propose to consider the impacts of AI applications in medical care from the One Health paradigm and long-term global health. From health and environmental justice, rather than settling for a short and fleeting green honeymoon between health and sustainability caused by AI, it should aim for a lasting marriage. To this end, we conclude by proposing that, in the upcoming years, it could be valuable and necessary to promote more interconnected health, call for environmental cost transparency, and increase green responsibility.

The main aim of this article is to reflect on the impact of biases related to artificial intelligence (AI) systems developed to tackle issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, with special focus on those developed for triage and risk prediction. A secondary aim is to review assessment tools that have been developed to prevent biases in AI systems. In addition, we provide a conceptual clarification for some terms related to biases in this particular context. We focus mainly on non-racial biases that may be less considered when addressing biases in AI systems in the existing literature. In the manuscript, we found that the existence of bias in AI systems used for COVID-19 can result in algorithmic justice and that the legal frameworks and strategies developed to prevent the apparition of bias have failed to adequately consider social determinants of health. Finally, we make some recommendations on how to include more diverse professional profiles in order to develop AI systems that increase the epistemic diversity needed to tackle AI biases during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

[EN] This work aims to show, by the one hand, the basic need of care to maintain life and society; by the other, the unequal distribution of care between those who provide it and those who receive it, mostly based on the sex-gender system. To achieve this goal, the theoretical framework of care ethics is applied, as well as arguments and empirical data on the consequences that some circumstances —such as motherhood, upbringing or caring of dependent people— have on women., [ES] Este trabajo pretende mostrar, por un lado, la necesidad de priorizar los cuidados como necesidad básica para el sostenimiento de la vida y la sociedad; por otro lado, el desigual reparto entre quienes proporcionan y quienes reciben esos cuidados, basado, fundamentalmente, en el sistema sexo-género. Para ello, se aplica el marco teórico de la ética del cuidado y se proporcionan argumentos y datos empíricos acerca de las consecuencias que tienen sobre las mujeres circunstancias como la maternidad, la crianza o el cuidado de personas en situación de dependencia.

There is a growing debate on how to regulate and make responsible use of digital technologies, particularly artificial intelligence (AI). In an increasingly globalized scenario, power relations and inequalities between different countries and regions need to be addressed. While developed countries are leading the building of an ethical governance architecture for AI, in the so-called global south (e.g., countries with a post-colonial history, also called non-developing countries), their situation of vulnerability and dependence on northern domination leads them to import digital technology, capital and modes of organization from these developed countries. This imbalance, in the absence of an ethical reflection, can have a significantly negative impact on their already excluded, oppressed and discriminated populations. In this paper, we want to explore to what extent countries from the global south that import digital technology from developed countries may be affected if we do not take into account the need for multi-level and ethical global governance of AI from a human rights/democratic perspective. In particular, we want to address two problems that may arise: (a) Lack of governance capacity in southern populations resulting from their dependence from northern leadership on technological innovations and regulations, and (b) material and workforce extractivism inflicted by the northern countries on southern ones.

Developments in AI and robotics in recent years have opened new possibilities for the introduction of these technological devices in areas such as care, education, and entertainment, with important implications for children. The rise of interactive robotics in these fields requires that technological designs involve the impact that such interaction may have on children, considering the special needs for the protection of dignity and the growth of autonomy that characterises this stage of life. In this paper we argue that this valuing perspective on childhood introduces the requirement that robotic designs and their uses must normatively conform to the human rights of children.

In recent years, technological change has been very significant, including the field of assistive technologies for disability, aimed at promoting the autonomy of people with disabilities. This technological change (in which we mainly consider interactive robotics devices incorporating artificial intelligence tools) may bring with it an equally notable change in the exercise of personal autonomy, putting at risk the regulatory protection that underpins it. We refer to the repercussions that emerging technologies may have on privacy, data integrity and data protection. In this paper we will address these issues, taking as a reference the normative framework of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

[EN] During the COVID-19 pandemic, technology has been used to carry out numerous activities. These uses have often been poorly planned, as the urgency of the situation did not allow for careful considerations. Technology has helped us to maintain many aspects of life that the pandemic had done difficult; however, it has also brought some new problems, especially when it comes to situations of vulnerability and care settings. In this article we analyse the nature and use of technology in assistive and care settings during the pandemic, its basis, its scope, and its limitations. To do so, we study the specific case of the use of digital video-calling platforms during the forced isolations caused by the pandemic., [ES] Durante la pandemia de la COVID-19 se ha hecho uso de la tecnología para llevar a cabo numerosas actividades. Estos usos han sido a menudo poco meditados, puesto que la urgencia de la situación no permitía una reflexión sostenida al respecto. La tecnología nos ha ayudado a mantener muchos aspectos de la vida que la pandemia había dificultado; sin embargo, también ha supuesto algunos nuevos problemas, especialmente cuando hablamos de situaciones de vulnerabilidad y entornos de cuidado. En este artículo evaluamos el carácter y uso de la tecnología en entornos asistenciales y de cuidados durante la pandemia, sus presupuestos, su alcance y sus limitaciones. Para ello analizamos el caso concreto del uso de plataformas digitales de videollamadas durante los aislamientos forzosos provocados por la pandemia.

To assess—from a qualitative perspective—the perceptions and attitudes of Spanish rehabilitation professionals (e.g. rehabilitation doctors, speech therapists, physical therapists) about Brain–Computer Interface (BCI) technology. A qualitative, exploratory and descriptive study was carried out by means of interviews and analysis of textual content with mixed generation of categories and segmentation into frequency of topics. We present the results of three in-depth interviews that were conducted with Spanish speaking individuals who had previously completed a survey as part of a larger, 3-country/language, survey on BCI perceptions. 11 out of 15 of these Spanish respondents (survey) either strongly or somewhat accept the use of BCI in rehabilitation therapy. However, the results of our three in-depth interviews show how, due to a strong inertia of attitudes and perceptions about BCI technology, most professionals feel reluctant to use BCI technology in their daily practice (interview).

Our unsustainable use of nature is bringing the Earth system and its capacity to recover from global changes beyond the environmental boundaries that supported us as a society. Here, we discuss some urgent challenges that should be addressed for the human species to live with undesirable products resulting from its development : sustainable use of nitrogen, watersheds management for preserving water resources and their quality, environmental impact of plastics, increase of the resilience of marine ecosystems, restoration of the deteriorated marine coastal ecosystems, or the early detection of emergence of diseases. We advocate for the use of Nature based solutions to mitigate environmental problems, and also consider subjective wellbeing issues in the governance of societies for a future healthy planet.

La soledad ha sido definida como una pandemia silenciosa que afecta ya a una de cada cuatro personas en los países industrializados y que tiene un impacto negativo sobre la salud física y psíquica, y sobre la calidad de vida de las personas que la padecen. Se entiende por soledad impuesta o no deseada aquella sensación subjetiva de discrepancia entre las relaciones sociales que tiene una persona y las que querría tener. Esta soledad no deseada se compone de la experiencia de carencia en la cantidad y calidad de los vínculos con otras personas (desconexión emocional) y del aislamiento social y la carencia de redes sociales en el entorno próximo, y produce dolor, miedo, angustia o tristeza. Si bien el sentimiento de soledad está muy determinado por episodios biográficos como la pérdida de un ser querido, la salida del mercado laboral, la ruptura de una relación de pareja, etc., acontecimientos vitales que llevan al precipicio de la soledad, esta no es un simple problema individual, sino que obedece a factores estructurales de organización de la convivencia. Por ello, planteamos un análisis de este fenómeno sobre tres ejes: (1) el auge del individualismo y el declive de las redes de apoyo social y familiar (desafiliación); (2) la crisis de los cuidados en un contexto de desigualdad y precariedad crecientes; y (3) la ambivalente relación del individuo con las tecnologías digitales. Exploramos si el acceso a relaciones sociales significativas es una cuestión de justicia política dado que la soledad no deseada está fuertemente condicionada por una serie de determinantes sociales, de modo que las desigualdades con relación a la soledad están directamente relacionadas con patrones de (des)ventaja social que analizamos en los siguientes ámbitos: pobreza, género, cultura, espacio, institucionalización y diversidad funcional.

[EN] Human beings are essentially vulnerable and interdependent and care is therefore the responsible ethical response to the needs of others. It is therefore urgent to place care at the heart of the political sphere in order to transform the meaning of contemporary democracy. In short, care is political., [ES] Los seres humanos somos esencialmente vulnerables e interdependientes y, por tanto, los cuidados configuran la respuesta ética responsable ante las necesidades del otro. En consecuencia, urge resituar los cuidados en el centro de la esfera política para transformar el sentido de la democracia contemporánea. En definitiva, los cuidados son políticos.

[EN] Our reality, our life, is already configured as a socio-technical system in which we interact with people, devices, data, algorithms, robots. Artificial intelligence, data science and robotics are disruptive technologies that are reconfiguring life. And we already know that technological artifacts incorporate values and have politics. That is why an ethical analysis of these technologies is essential, identifying the hazards we want to avoid and introducing from the very design the values we wish to promote. Not as an end in itself, but to generate citizen trust in the technologies and in the institutions that promote them, to foster their social acceptance and appropriation. Ethics constitutes a powerful tool for the technological empowerment of citizens, preventing algorithmic injustices (discrimination, profiling, biases) and promoting a necessary new “techno-social” contract., [ES] Nuestra realidad y nuestra vida se configuran ya como un sistema sociotécnico en el que interactuamos personas, dispositivos, datos, algoritmos, robots. La inteligencia artificial, la ciencia de datos y la robótica constituyen tecnologías disruptivas que están reconfigurando la vida. Y ya sabemos que los artefactos tecnológicos incorporan valores y tienen política. Por ello se hace indispensable un análisis ético de dichas tecnologías, identificando los peligros que queremos evitar e introduciendo desde el diseño mismo los valores que queremos promover. No como un fin en sí mismo, sino para generar confianza ciudadana en las tecnologías y en las instituciones que las impulsan, para favorecer su aceptación y apropiación social. La ética constituye una poderosa herramienta para el empoderamiento tecnológico de la ciudadanía, previniendo las injusticias algorítmicas (discriminación, perfilamiento, sesgos) e impulsando un necesario nuevo contrato “tecno-social”.

The United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda and other movements toward setting global goals such as the Paris Agreement and the European Green Deal/U.S. Green New Deal are laying the groundwork for a transformation beyond purely market-based economics toward sustainability and inclusiveness [1], in which technological innovation and, in particular, artificial intelligence (AI) can play a central role. The European Union (EU) is committed to the 2030 Agenda and the sustainable development goals (SDGs), which the UN itself has recognized cannot be achieved without a people-focused, science-based, digital revolution [2]. This commitment to the 2030 Agenda should entail promoting an inclusive and sustainable AI strategy, rather than a strategy with a narrow focus on competitiveness [3], [4]. In order for AI to contribute to achieving the SDGs, a systemic approach to the development of AI solutions is required [5]-[9]. Conversely, the SDGs provide an ideal framework to test the desirability of AI solutions [10]. Europe's multicultural character and its framework of international collaboration give it a head start toward becoming a global reference in the promotion of an inclusive and sustainable AI. Sharing the experiences and practices of such a European AI could make a significant contribution to achieving the SDGs.

Our reality, our life, is already configured as a socio-technical system in which we interact with people, devices, data, algorithms, robots. Artificial intelligence, data science and robotics are disruptive technologies that are reconfiguring life. And we already know that technological artifacts incorporate values and have politics. That is why an ethical analysis of these technologies is essential, identifying the hazards we want to avoid and introducing from the very design the values we wish to promote. Not as an end in itself, but to generate citizen trust in the technologies and in the institutions that promote them, to foster their social acceptance and appropriation. Ethics constitutes a powerful tool for the technological empowerment of citizens, preventing algorithmic injustices (discrimination, profiling, biases) and promoting a necessary new “techno-social” contract.