According to a new report published in Science, digital technologies are developing too fast to effectively assess their potential harms, threatening public safety and accountability.
Dr. Amy Orben of Cambridge University and Dr. J. Nathan Matias of Cornell University believe that the scientific infrastructure used to assess technological risks has been overwhelmed by unprecedented speeds of innovation. Although technology products change daily or weekly, scientific research “may be outdated by the time of completion, let alone release.”
“Scientists like us are committed to the public good, but we are asked to stick to thinking about a billion dollar industry without the basic tools that properly support our research or quickly generate high-quality evidence,” said Orben, a unit of cognitive and brain science at the Cambridge MRC.
The researchers describe a disturbing cycle in which technology companies effectively outsource secure research to independent scientists who lack sufficient resources and data access. This allows companies to resist regulation by pointing out insufficient evidence of harm – evidence they themselves are difficult to collect.
“Just as the petroleum and chemical industry has used the slow pace of science to deflect evidence of proof of proof expression, technology company executives have followed a similar pattern,” Matias explained. Some allegedly “refuse to invest a lot of resources in security research without some causal evidence, and they also refuse to fund it.”
The problem extends to social media beyond artificial intelligence systems and has now been deployed to millions of users without sufficient security testing. The researchers cite the tragic case of 14-year-old Molly Russell, who the coroner attributed 2017 suicide to “depression and the negative effects of online content,” highlighting the urgent need for a better scientific assessment of the impact of digital technology.
To break this “negative feedback cycle”, Orben and Matias have proposed several innovative solutions. This includes creating a public registry where people can report on technology-related hazards, implementing a “minimum viable evidence” approach, which adjusts evidence thresholds based on company transparency, and developing a prioritized system modeled with successful environmental toxicology programs.
“At present, our scientific methods and resources for creating evidence simply cannot address the speed of digital technology development,” Orben said. “Scientists and policy makers must acknowledge the failure of the system and help make better technologies before the age of AI, further putting society at risk of unchecked technological change.”
Researchers stress that when science moves too slowly to assess the impact of technology, everyone loses it — from individuals who may be hurt to companies facing unfounded panic or ineffective regulations.
“We must urgently repair this scientific and policy ecosystem so that we can better understand and manage the potential risks posed by an evolving digital society,” Orben concluded.
If our report has been informed or inspired, please consider donating. No matter how big or small, every contribution allows us to continue to provide accurate, engaging and trustworthy scientific and medical news. Independent news takes time, energy and resources – your support ensures that we can continue to reveal the stories that matter most to you.
Join us to make knowledge accessible and impactful. Thank you for standing with us!
