Introduction

by Elin Palm

Contributions

How can Swedish Universities get ready for Generative AI use in research?

Emma Rörby and Karin Axelsson 

pp. 12-13

Ethical considerations for research on sensitive personal data

Sara Belfrage

pp. 15-28

Machine learning, genetic privacy and health research

Kalle Grill

pp. 31-36

AI and sensitive personal data in research

Lars Lindblom

pp. 37-46

Large Language Models (LLMs) and research ethics

Davide Vega d’Aurelio

pp. 49-54 

How should scarce healthcare resources be distributed? This is a contentious issue that became especially pressing during the pandemic. It is often emphasised that studies exploring public views about this question provide valuable input to the issue of healthcare priority setting. While there has been a vast number of such studies it is rarely articulated, more specifically, what the results from these studies would mean for the justification of principles for priority setting. On the one hand, it seems unreasonable that public values would straightforwardly decide the ethical question of how resources should be distributed. On the other hand, in a democratic society, it seems equally unreasonable that they would be considered irrelevant for this question. In this paper we draw on the notion of reflective equilibrium and discuss the relevance and roles that empirical studies may plausibly have for justification in priority setting ethics. We develop a framework for analysing how different kinds of empirical results may have different kinds of implications for justification.

This chapter discusses the justification of Bitcoin from the perspective of political philosophy. Bitcoin is a form of digital money that is not tied to a central bank or government and that primarily facilitates anonymous economic transactions on the internet. The chapter suggests that the Bitcoin movement to a large extent has been driven by a libertarian framework, stressing the right of individuals to choose their own means of transaction without government interference or oversight. However, it argues that the libertarian case ultimately is unconvincing. A better case for Bitcoin can be formulated by using an egalitarian framework, more specifically, concerns about unequal distribution of power and resources. In the end, however, the chapter makes the claim that the justification also must depend on the political and economic context, and that this seems to speak against the use of Bitcoin in reasonably well-ordered societies.

It is widely known that criminal punishment, especially imprisonment, has negative effects for innocent persons, most notably the families of prisoners. This is an issue attracting increasing attention from penal theorists and philosophers. Adding to this literature, this article examines the extent to which incarceration of a parent is consistent with fundamental rights that are often ascribed to children. In particular, we focus on children's rights against being separated from their parents. To this end, we begin with a discussion of the philosophical basis for children's rights against being separated from their parents against their will. Drawing from recent work by Kimberley Brownlee and Matthew Liao, we argue that children have such a right and that it is grounded in children's welfare interest and the importance of parent-child relationships for children to develop adequately into autonomous agents. We then examine three arguments why imprisoning a parent is justified despite the fact that children have a right against being separated from their parents. For each of these arguments, we argue that while they may show the imprisonment of a particular parent to be sometimes compatible with respecting the right against parent-child separation, an extensive use of imprisonment as punishment of the sort that persists in many states is not.

Science is a collective endeavor highly dependent on public acceptance and trust. Research findings must be reliable to serve the surrounding society as well as the research community itself. Evidence-based practice and policy recommendations may become ineffective or even dangerous if based on fraudulent research findings. Research persons directly involved in research projects and stakeholders affected by the research outcome should be able to trust in researchers´ integrity and rest assured that their rights and interests are duly respected within academic research. As David B Resnik notes, those who produce knowledge bear responsibility for the effects of the knowledge that they produce (Resnik, 1998:147). However, good research practice is not only about individual responsibility-taking and compliance. It is also a matter of conditions for good research practice within the organizations where academic research is conducted. Being the entities responsible for research, universities and higher education institutions are obligated to foster and maintain scientific integrity (Högskolelagen 1992:1434) and good research practice (Higher education ordinance/Högskoleförordningen (1993:100) chapter 1, 3 a §). They must also ensure that co-workers can get advice and support in questions regarding good research practice and deviations from such conduct (Chapter 1, 16 §).