Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38770187›Full record

ArticleAI and ethics2024

A precautionary approach to autonomous vehicles.

David B Resnik, Suzanne L Andrews

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AI and ethics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

David B ResnikNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 111 TW Alexander Drive, Mail Drop E1-06, PO Box 12233, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5139-9555
Suzanne L AndrewsMaster of Science in Bioethics Student, Columbia University, 203 Lewisohn Hall, 2970 Broadway, Mail Code 4119, New York, NY 10027-6902, USA.

Funding

Ethical, social, and legal issues in environmental health researchZIAES102646 · NIEHS · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES · PI RESNIK, DAVID · 2009 to 2025
$1.8M
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA ES102646
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this article, we defend an approach to autonomous vehicle ethics and policy based on the precautionary principle. We argue that a precautionary approach is warranted, given the significant scientific and moral uncertainties related to autonomous vehicles, especially higher-level ones. While higher-level autonomous vehicles may offer many important benefits to society, they also pose significant risks, which are not fully understood at this juncture. Risk management strategies traditionally used by government officials to make decisions about new technologies cannot be applied to higher-level autonomous vehicles because these strategies require accurate and reliable probability estimates concerning the outcomes of different policy options and extensive agreement about values, which are not currently available for autonomous vehicles. Although we describe our approach as precautionary, that does not mean that we are opposed to autonomous vehicle development and deployment, because autonomous vehicles offer benefits that should be pursued. The optimal approach to managing the risks of autonomous vehicles is to take reasonable precautions; that is, to adopt policies that attempt to deal with serious risks in a responsible way without depriving society of important benefits.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceAutonomous vehiclesBenefitsEnvironmentEthicsPolicyPrecautionary principlePublic healthRisks

Identifiers

PMID38770187
PMCPMC11105117

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.