South American Expert Roundtable : increasing adaptive governance capacity for coping with unintended side effects of digital transformation

This paper presents the main messages of a South American expert roundtable (ERT) on the unintended side effects (unseens) of digital transformation. The input of the ERT comprised 39 propositions from 20 experts representing 11 different perspectives. The two-day ERT discussed the main drivers and challenges as well as vulnerabilities or unseens and provided suggestions for: (i) the mechanisms underlying major unseens; (ii) understanding possible ways in which rebound effects of digital transformation may become the subject of overarching research in three main categories of impact: development factors, society, and individuals; and (iii) a set of potential action domains for transdisciplinary follow-up processes, including a case study in Brazil. A content analysis of the propositions and related mechanisms provided insights in the genesis of unseens by identifying 15 interrelated causal mechanisms related to critical issues/concerns. Additionally, a cluster analysis (CLA) was applied to structure the challenges and critical developments in South America. The discussion elaborated the genesis, dynamics, and impacts of (groups of) unseens such as the digital divide (that affects most countries that are not included in the development of digital business, management, production, etc. tools) or the challenge of restructuring small- and medium-sized enterprises (whose service is digitally substituted by digital devices). We identify specific issues and effects (for most South American countries) such as lack of governmental structure, challenging geographical structures (e.g., inclusion in high-performance transmission power), or the digital readiness of (wide parts) of society. One scientific contribution of the paper is related to the presented methodology that provides insights into the phenomena, the causal chains underlying “wanted/positive” and “unwanted/negative” effects, and the processes and mechanisms of societal changes caused by digitalization

Reviving Reliance

This Article explores the misalignment between the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws and the private causes of action available to investors to enforce those requirements. Historically, federally mandated disclosures were designed to allow investors to set an appropriate price for publicly traded securities. Today’s disclosures, however, also enable stockholders to participate in corporate governance and act as a check on managerial misbehavior. To enforce these requirements, investors’ chief option is a claim under the general antifraud statute, section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. But courts are deeply suspicious of investors’ attempts to use the Act to hold corporations liable for false statements related to governance. As this Article demonstrates, judicial skepticism can be traced to the functional elimination of the element of reliance from private investors’ claims. Without the element of reliance, courts cannot discriminate between deception, which section 10(b) prohibits, and poor managerial decisionmaking, to which section 10(b) does not speak. Doctrines that courts developed to distinguish between the two now have the perverse effect of devaluing disclosures intended to facilitate shareholder participation in corporate governance. More troublingly, they enforce a normative viewpoint that shareholders do not, or should not, have interests beyond the short-term maximization of a firm’s stock price. This interpretation of shareholder preferences undermines modern regulatory initiatives that employ shareholders as a restraining force on antisocial corporate conduct. This Article proposes that courts adopt new interpretations of section 10(b) that reestablish the centrality of reliance. By doing so, courts can facilitate shareholders’ participation in the corporate governance structure and reward investors who inhabit the role of corporate monitor

The AI cycle of health inequity and digital ageism:Mitigating biases through the EU regulatory framework on medical devices

The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) medical devices is rapidly growing. Although AI may benefit the quality and safety of healthcare for older adults, it simultaneously introduces new ethical and legal issues. Many AI medical devices exhibit age-related biases. The first part of this paper explains how ‘digital ageism’ is produced throughout the entire lifecycle of medical AI and may lead to health inequity for older people: systemic, avoidable differences in the health status of different population groups. This paper takes digital ageism as a use case to show the potential inequitable effects of AI, conceptualized as the ‘AI cycle of health inequity’. The second part of this paper explores how the European Union (EU) regulatory framework addresses the issue of digital ageism. It argues that the negative effects of age-related bias in AI medical devices are insufficiently recognized within the regulatory framework of the EU Medical Devices Regulation and the new AI Act. It concludes that while the EU framework does address some of the key issues related to technical biases in AI medical devices by stipulating rules for performance and data quality, it does not account for contextual biases, therefore neglecting part of the AI cycle of health inequity

Policy advice and best practices on bias and fairness in AI

The literature addressing bias and fairness in AI models (fair-AI) is growing at a fast pace, making it difficult for novel researchers and practitioners to have a bird’s-eye view picture of the field. In particular, many policy initiatives, standards, and best practices in fair-AI have been proposed for setting principles, procedures, and knowledge bases to guide and operationalize the management of bias and fairness. The first objective of this paper is to concisely survey the state-of-the-art of fair-AI methods and resources, and the main policies on bias in AI, with the aim of providing such a bird’s-eye guidance for both researchers and practitioners. The second objective of the paper is to contribute to the policy advice and best practices state-of-the-art by leveraging from the results of the NoBIAS research project. We present and discuss a few relevant topics organized around the NoBIAS architecture, which is made up of a Legal Layer, focusing on the European Union context, and a Bias Management Layer, focusing on understanding, mitigating, and accounting for bias

What Were They Thinking? The Federal Reserve In The Run-Up To The 2008 Financial Crisis

The Federal Reserve (the Fed) is responsible for monitoring, analyzing and ultimately stabilizing US financial markets. It also has unrivalled access to economic data, high-level connections to financial institutions, and a large staff of professionally trained economists. Why then was it apparently unconcerned by the financial developments that are now widely recognized to have caused the 2008 financial crisis? Using a wide range of Fed documents from the pre-crisis period, particularly the transcripts of meetings of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), this paper shows that Fed policymakers and staff were aware of relevant developments in financial markets, but paid infrequent attention to them and disregarded significant systemic threats. Drawing on literatures in economics, political science and sociology, the paper then demonstrates that the Fed\u27s intellectual paradigm in the years before the crisis focused on ‘post hoc interventionism’ – the institution\u27s ability to limit the fallout should a systemic disturbance arise. Further, the paper argues that institutional routines played a crucial role in maintaining this paradigm and in contributing to the Fed\u27s inadequate attention to the warning signals in the pre-crisis period

The function of remote sensing in support of environmental policy

Limited awareness of environmental remote sensing’s potential ability to support environmental policy development constrains the technology’s utilization. This paper reviews the potential of earth observation from the perspective of environmental policy. A literature review of “remote sensing and policy” revealed that while the number of publications in this field increased almost twice as rapidly as that of remote sensing literature as a whole (15.3 versus 8.8% yr−1), there is apparently little academic interest in the societal contribution of environmental remote sensing. This is because none of the more than 300 peer reviewed papers described actual policy support. This paper describes and discusses the potential, actual support, and limitations of earth observation with respect to supporting the various stages of environmental policy development. Examples are given of the use of remote sensing in problem identification and policy formulation, policy implementation, and policy control and evaluation. While initially, remote sensing contributed primarily to the identification of environmental problems and policy implementation, more recently, interest expanded to applications in policy control and evaluation. The paper concludes that the potential of earth observation to control and evaluate, and thus assess the efficiency and effectiveness of policy, offers the possibility of strengthening governance

Water for People, Water for Life

This report documents the serious water crisis we are facing at the beginning of the 21st century. This crisis is one of water governance, essentially caused by the ways in which we mismanage water. But the real tragedy is the effect it has on the everyday lives of poor people, who are blighted by the burden of water-related disease, living in degraded and often dangerous environments, struggling to get an education for their children and to earn a living, and to get enough to eat. The executive summary offers an analysis of the problem as well as pilot case studies for water management and recommendations for future action

Effective Strategies to Counter Science Denialism in Public

Die vorliegende Dissertation beschreibt die Konzeption und empirische Evaluation von Strategien im Umgang mit Wissenschaftsleugnern in öffentlichen Diskussionen. Ziel der Wissenschaftsleugnung (science denialism; Diethelm & McKee, 2009; Hansson, 2017; Lewandowsky, Mann, Brown, & Friedman, 2016) ist die Ablehnung eines wissenschaftlichen Konsens um finanzielle, politische oder psychologische Eigeninteressen durchzusetzen (Collomb, 2014; Hornsey & Fielding, 2017; Lewandowsky & Oberauer, 2016; Oreskes & Conway, 2011). So verbreitete beispielsweise die Tabakindustrie systematisch Falschinformationen, um den wissenschaftlichen Konsens über die tödlichen Folgen des Rauchens in Frage zu stellen und um den Zigarettenkonsum in der Bevölkerung zu sichern (Bates & Rowell, 2004; Bero, 2005; Brandt, 2012; Landman & Glantz, 2009; Ong & Glantz, 2000; Ong & Glantz, 2001; Oreskes & Conway, 2011; Proctor, 2012a, 2012b). Die historische Aufarbeitung des Vorgehens der Tabakindustrie gewährt wesentliche Einblicke über Motivationen, Strukturen und Strategien von Wissenschaftsleugnern im Allgemeinen (Proctor, 2012a; Hansson, 2017). Doch diese Einblicke allein können den Schutz der breiten Öffentlichkeit vor Wissenschaftsleugnern und ihren Falschinformationen nicht sicherstellen. Es bedarf Kommunikationsstrategien, die Fachwissen laienverständlich aufarbeiten und die menschliche Informationssuche, -verarbeitung und -integration berücksichtigen, um die Verbreitung von Falschinformationen zu mindern (Betsch, 2017; Iyengar & Massey, 2019; Lewandowsky, Ecker, & Cook, 2017). In einer Zeit in der die Gesellschaft für deutsche Sprache „postfaktisch“ zum Wort des Jahres 2016 gewählt hat (GfdS, 2016), in einer Zeit in der der amtierende US Präsident die Sinnhaftigkeit von Impfungen und die Notwendigkeit von Maßnahmen zur Klimawandelbekämpfung in Frage stellt (Dyer, 2016; Mann, 2019; Tollefson, 2016), und in einer Zeit in der Wissenschaft in Medien zu bloßen Meinung degradiert wird (Dixon & Clarke, 2013; Petersen, Vincent, & Westerling, 2019), wird die Notwendigkeit solcher Kommunikationsstrategien immer deutlicher (Betsch, 2017; Iyengar & Massey, 2019; Lewandowsky, Ecker, & Cook, 2017; van der Linden, Maibach, Cook, Leiserowitz, & Lewandowsky, 2017). Eine Wissenschaft, die solche Kommunikationsstrategien gestaltet und empirisch evaluiert ist die Psychologie. Bisherige psychologische Strategien zielen darauf ab, entweder die Öffentlichkeit vor Falschinformation zu warnen und Individuen mit Gegenargumenten auszurüsten bevor die Falschinformation Schaden anrichten kann (inoculation: McGuire, 1961a, 1961b; van der Linden et al., 2017), oder die Falschinformation zu korrigieren nachdem sie sich bereits als Überzeugung in den Köpfen der Öffentlichkeit manifestiert hat (debunking: Chan, Jones, Hall Jamieson, & Albarracín, 2017; Cook & Lewandowsky, 2011; Lewandowsky, Ecker, Seifert, Schwarz, & Cook, 2012). Debunking-Strategien sind effektive Interventionen zur Bekämpfung von Falschinformationen (Chan et al., 2017), die jedoch aufwendig konzipierte Informationsmaterialien benötigen, denn Individuen neigen dazu ihre Überzeugungen nicht leichtfertig aufzugeben, selbst wenn diese sich als fehlerhaft erweisen (Cook & Lewandowsky, 2011). Zudem können unbedachte Debunking-Strategien im schlimmsten Fall die Falschinformation sogar verstärken, anstatt sie zu eliminieren (Nyhan & Reifler, 2010; Schwarz, Sanna, Skurnik, & Yoon, 2007). Inoculation Strategien sind effektive Präventionsmaßnahmen zur Bekämpfung von Falschinformationen (Banas & Rains, 2010), die jedoch an zwei praktische Bedingungen gebunden sind. Erstens, die sogenannten Impfungen gegen fake-news können nur effektiv gestaltet werden, wenn vorab bekannt ist, gegen welche Falschinformation geimpft werden soll, das heißt, welche Falschinformation zukünftig eine Bedrohung für die Bevölkerung darstellt (Roozenbeek & van der Linden, 2019). Fehlt dieses Wissen, dann bergen Inoculation-Strategien das Risiko mehr Schaden anzurichten als abzuwenden, denn im schlimmsten Fall ist die Impfung selbst der einzige Berührungspunkt der Bevölkerung mit der Falschinformation. Zweitens, Präventionsmaßnahmen müssen die Öffentlichkeit vor dem Virus, das heißt, vor der Falschinformation, erreichen, um ihre Schutzfunktion zu entfalten. Um dies sicherzustellen wurden Inoculation-Strategien bereits in Schulprogramme integriert (Nsangi et al., 2017) oder ansprechend gestaltete Spiele konzipiert, die die Öffentlichkeit anregen soll sich mit den Inhalten von Inoculation-Strategien zu beschäftigen (Roozenbeek & van der Linden, 2019). Dennoch, der flächendeckende Zugang zu Impfungen gegen fake-news bleibt eine Herausforderung für die effektive Implementierung von Inoculation. Die vorliegende Dissertation beschreibt die Konzipierung und Evaluation einer dritten Möglichkeit dem Problem der Wissenschaftsleugnung zu begegnen. Die dritte Möglichkeit, das sogenannte rebuttal (Schmid & Betsch, 2019), basiert auf der Idee Falschinformationen genau in dem Moment als irreführend zu entlarven in dem sie im Begriff sind eine breite Öffentlichkeit zu erreichen. Rebuttal bedeutet, dass Fürsprecher von Wissenschaft den Wissenschaftsleugnern in öffentlichen Diskussionsformaten entgegentreten und im optimalen Fall von Journalisten durch flankierende Strategien (weight-of-evidence strategies; Schmid, Schwarzer & Betsch, 2019) unterstützt werden. Im Gegensatz zu Debunking-Strategien widerlegen Fürsprecher von Wissenschaft mit Rebuttal-Strategien Falschinformationen bevor diese sich als Überzeugung manifestieren. Im Gegensatz zu Inoculation-Strategien, erreicht ein Fürsprecher von Wissenschaft mit Rebuttal-Strategien die Öffentlichkeit immer dann, wenn sie auch mit der Falschinformation konfrontiert wird und risikobehaftete Spekulationen über den nächsten möglichen Mythos entfallen. Während zahlreiche empirische Evaluationsstudien und Handreichungen zum Einsatz von Debunking- und Inoculation-Strategien publiziert wurden (Chan et al., 2017; Cook & Lewandowsky, 2011; Cook, Maibach, van der Linden, & Lewandowsky, 2018; Lewandowsky et al., 2012; van der Linden et al., 2017), waren evidenzbasierte Ansätze zu Rebuttal-Strategien, bisher rar (Betsch, 2017; WHO, 2016). Folglich befasst sich diese Dissertation mit der Konzeption und empirischen Evaluation von Strategien zum Umgang mit Wissenschaftsleugnern in öffentlichen Diskussionen. Dies beinhaltet sowohl die Konzeption und Evaluation des Rebuttal-Ansatzes als auch möglicher flankierender Strategien (weight-of-evidence strategies; Schmid, Schwarzer & Betsch, 2019). Rebuttal und Weight-of-Evidence Strategien sind dabei kein Ersatz für Debunking und Inoculation Strategien, sondern vielmehr ein ergänzendes Element, oder eine „second-order line of defense“ (van der Linden, 2019, p. 890) im Kampf gegen Falschinformation. Die Dissertation ist in drei Forschungsartikel unterteilt. Die Artikel geben die Entwicklung und Evaluation von Strategien im Umgang mit Wissenschaftsleugnern in öffentlichen Diskussionen wie folgt wieder: Artikel 1: Strategiekonzeption zum Umgang mit Wissenschaftsleugnern in öffentlichen Diskussionen. Artikel 2: Empirische Evaluation der Rebuttal-Strategien aus Artikel 1. Artikel 3: Konzeption und empirische Evaluation von flankierenden Strategien für Rebuttal

Identifying market risk for substandard and falsified medicines

__Introduction:__ Substandard and falsified medicines undermine health systems. We sought to unravel the political and economic factors which drive the production of these products, and to explain how they reach patients. __Methods:__ We conducted in-depth case studies in China, Indonesia, Turkey and Romania. We reviewed academic papers and press reports (n = 840), developing semi-structured questionnaires. We interviewed regulators, policy-makers, pharmaceutical manufacturers, physicians, pharmacists, patients and academics (n=88). We coded data using NVivo software, and developed an analytic framework to assess national risks for substandard and falsified medicines. We tested the framework against cases reported to the World Health Organization, from countries at all income levels. __Results:__ We found that increasing political commitment to provision of universal health coverage has led to public procurement policies aimed at lowering prices of medical products. In response, legitimate, profit-driven pharmaceutical companies protect their margins by cutting costs, or withdrawing from less profitable markets, while distributors engage in arbitrage. Meanwhile, health providers sometimes protect profits by 'upselling' patients to medicines not covered by insurers. Cost-cutting can undermine quality assurance, leading to substandard or degraded medicines. Other responses contribute to shortages, irrational demand and high prices. All of these provide market opportunities for producers of falsified products; they also push consumers outside of the regular supply chain, providing falsifiers with easy access to customers. The analytic framework capturing these interactions explained cases in most high and middle-income settings; additional factors operate in the poorest countries. __Conclusions:__ Most efforts to secure medicine quality currently focus on product regulation. However, our research suggests market mechanisms are key drivers for poor quality medicines, including where political commitments to universal health coverage are under-resourced. We have developed a framework to guide country-specific, system-wide analysis. This can flag risks and pinpoint specific actions to protect medicine quality, and thus health