Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34720418›Full record

ArticleMinds and machines2021

Ethics as a Service: A Pragmatic Operationalisation of AI Ethics.

Jessica Morley, Anat Elhalal, Francesca Garcia, Libby Kinsey, Jakob Mökander, Luciano Floridi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Minds and machines, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. AI Ethics Guidelines: Time to Include Animals.Science and engineering ethics · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Ethical Considerations and Equipoise in Cancer Surgery.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jessica MorleyOxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, 1 St Giles', Oxford, OX1 3JS UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5221-4770
Anat ElhalalDigital Catapult, 101 Euston Rd, London, NW1 2RA UK.
Francesca GarciaDigital Catapult, 101 Euston Rd, London, NW1 2RA UK.
Libby KinseyDigital Catapult, 101 Euston Rd, London, NW1 2RA UK.
Jakob MökanderOxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, 1 St Giles', Oxford, OX1 3JS UK.
Luciano FloridiOxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, 1 St Giles', Oxford, OX1 3JS UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As the range of potential uses for Artificial Intelligence (AI), in particular machine learning (ML), has increased, so has awareness of the associated ethical issues. This increased awareness has led to the realisation that existing legislation and regulation provides insufficient protection to individuals, groups, society, and the environment from AI harms. In response to this realisation, there has been a proliferation of principle-based ethics codes, guidelines and frameworks. However, it has become increasingly clear that a significant gap exists between the theory of AI ethics principles and the practical design of AI systems. In previous work, we analysed whether it is possible to close this gap between the 'what' and the 'how' of AI ethics through the use of tools and methods designed to help AI developers, engineers, and designers translate principles into practice. We concluded that this method of closure is currently ineffective as almost all existing translational tools and methods are either too flexible (and thus vulnerable to ethics washing) or too strict (unresponsive to context). This raised the question: if, even with technical guidance, AI ethics is challenging to embed in the process of algorithmic design, is the entire pro-ethical design endeavour rendered futile? And, if no, then how can AI ethics be made useful for AI practitioners? This is the question we seek to address here by exploring why principles and technical translational tools are still needed even if they are limited, and how these limitations can be potentially overcome by providing theoretical grounding of a concept that has been termed 'Ethics as a Service.'

Indexed as

Applied ethicsArtificial IntelligenceBusiness ethicsData ethicsMachine learning

Identifiers

PMID34720418
PMCPMC8550007

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.