Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40510248›Full record

ArticleAI & society2025

AI through the looking glass: an empirical study of structural social and ethical challenges in AI.

Mark Ryan, Nina de Roo, Hao Wang, Vincent Blok, Can Atik

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AI & society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Mark RyanWageningen Economic Research, Wageningen University and Research, Droevendaalsesteeg 4, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4850-0111
Nina de RooWageningen Economic Research, Wageningen University and Research, Droevendaalsesteeg 4, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Hao WangPhilosophy Group, Wageningen University and Research, P.O. Box 8130, 6700 EW Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Vincent BlokPhilosophy Group, Wageningen University and Research, P.O. Box 8130, 6700 EW Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Can AtikWageningen Economic Research, Wageningen University and Research, Droevendaalsesteeg 4, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper examines how professionals (N = 32) working on artificial intelligence (AI) view structural AI ethics challenges like injustices and inequalities beyond individual agents' direct intention and control. This paper answers the research question: What are professionals' perceptions of the structural challenges of AI (in the agri-food sector)? This empirical paper shows that it is essential to broaden the scope of ethics of AI beyond micro- and meso-levels. While ethics guidelines and AI ethics often focus on the responsibility of designers and the competencies and skills of designers to take this responsibility, our results show that many structural challenges are beyond their reach. This result means that while ethics guidelines and AI ethics frameworks are helpful, there is a risk that they overlook more complicated, nuanced, and intersected structural challenges. In addition, it highlights the need to include diverse stakeholders, such as quadruple helix (QH) participants, in discussions around AI ethics rather than solely focusing on the obligations of AI developers and companies. Overall, this paper demonstrates that addressing structural challenges in AI is challenging and requires an approach that considers four requirements: (1) multi-level, (2) multi-faceted, (3) interdisciplinary, and (4) polycentric governance.

Indexed as

AgricultureAgri-foodAI ethicsArtificial intelligenceData policyStructural challenges

Identifiers

PMID40510248
PMCPMC12152039

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.