2021-ethics-and-society-review-arxiv-preprint
The paper presents the Ethics and Society Review (ESR) board, an institutional mechanism created at Stanford to embed ethical and societal reflection into AI research by making ESR completion a prerequisite for receiving grant funding. The authors describe the motivation behind ESR—AI research often falls outside the scope of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) which focus on human subjects, leaving societal harms unaddressed. The ESR process requires researchers to submit a brief ESR statement outlining potential societal risks, affected groups, and mitigation principles, which is then reviewed by an interdisciplinary panel of faculty from humanities, social sciences, engineering, and medicine. Panelists assign a concern level, provide open‑ended feedback, and engage in iterative dialogue with researchers; the ESR ultimately recommends funding or requests further iteration. Over one year, ESR reviewed 41 proposals (6 large, 35 seed), with 29% of seed grants asked to iterate and all large grants approved. The authors coded the ethical issues raised by researchers and panelists, finding common themes such as representativeness, harms to minority subgroups, dual‑use, and IRB‑type concerns. Surveys and semi‑structured interviews with 23 respondents (66% response rate) showed that 58% felt ESR influenced their project design and all participants were willing to submit future proposals, though many requested more scaffolding, clearer guidelines, and stronger authority for the board. The paper discusses tensions around the board’s power to reject proposals, comparisons to IRBs, and the need to balance formalization with flexibility. Finally, the authors outline future directions for scaling the ESR (triage layers, broader institutional adoption, industry interest) and reflect on potential negative outcomes such as missed risks or threats to academic freedom.
Topics
Motivation: AI research lies beyond traditional IRB oversight
Explains why existing Institutional Review Boards do not cover societal harms of AI, creating a gap for ethical oversight.