arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2409.02002physics.soc-phcs.CY

复杂性科学中被忽视的伦理需求:为何重要

The overlooked need for Ethics in Complexity Science: Why it matters

Olumide Adisa, Enio Alterman Blay, Yasaman Asgari, Gabriele Di Bona, Samantha Dies, Ana Maria Jaramillo, Paulo H. Resende, Ana Maria de Sousa Leitao

AI总结:

本文指出复杂性科学缺乏系统的伦理框架,借鉴人工智能等领域的经验,提出制定伦理指南、开放资源和包容对话的路线图,以推动该领域负责任地应对社会挑战。

摘要:

复杂性科学尽管具有广泛的研究范围和潜在影响,但在应对伦理问题方面,尚未跟上人工智能、生物技术和社会科学等领域的步伐。该领域缺乏一个全面的伦理框架,使我们作为一个共同体容易受到伦理挑战和困境的影响。其他领域经历过类似的历程,并通过讨论和工作组制定了各自的指南、政策和建议。因此,本文强调复杂性科学共同体中正式指南、专门伦理委员会以及广泛伦理讨论的严重缺失。借鉴上述学科的经验,我们提出了一条增强伦理意识和行动的路线图。我们的建议包括:(i) 启动支持性机制,以制定针对复杂系统研究的伦理指南;(ii) 创建开放获取资源;(iii) 促进包容性对话,以确保复杂性科学能够负责任地应对社会挑战并实现更具包容性的环境。通过发起这一对话,我们旨在推动伦理融入复杂性研究方式的必要转变,使该领域能够更有效地应对当代挑战。

英文摘要:

Complexity science, despite its broad scope and potential impact, has not kept pace with fields like artificial intelligence, biotechnology and social sciences in addressing ethical concerns. The field lacks a comprehensive ethical framework, leaving us, as a community, vulnerable to ethical challenges and dilemmas. Other areas have gone through similar experiences and created, with discussions and working groups, their guides, policies and recommendations. Therefore, here we highlight the critical absence of formal guidelines, dedicated ethical committees, and widespread discussions on ethics within the complexity science community. Drawing on insights from the disciplines mentioned earlier, we propose a roadmap to enhance ethical awareness and action. Our recommendations include (i) initiating supportive mechanisms to develop ethical guidelines specific to complex systems research, (ii) creating open-access resources, and (iii) fostering inclusive dialogues to ensure that complexity science can responsibly tackle societal challenges and achieve a more inclusive environment. By initiating this dialogue, we aim to encourage a necessary shift in how ethics is integrated into complexity research, positioning the field to address contemporary challenges more effectively.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑