Cited by 143Bioethics and Human Rights IssuesEthics and bioethics in healthcareEthics and Social Impacts of AI

An Ethical Framework for Evaluating Experimental Technology

Open access
van de Poel, Ibo·2016·Science and Engineering Ethics

Abstract

How are we to appraise new technological developments that may bring revolutionary social changes? Currently this is often done by trying to predict or anticipate social consequences and to use these as a basis for moral and regulatory appraisal. Such an approach can, however, not deal with the uncertainties and unknowns that are inherent in social changes induced by technological development. An alternative approach is proposed that conceives of the introduction of new technologies into society as a social experiment. An ethical framework for the acceptability of such experiments is developed based on the bioethical principles for experiments with human subjects: non-maleficence, beneficence, respect for autonomy, and justice. This provides a handle for the moral and regulatory assessment of new technologies and their impact on society.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11948-015-9724-3

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • According to van der Poel, the full benefits, risks, and ethical issues of a technology become evident only after its widespread adoption.

    “We employ this concept in a descriptive sense to denote a situation in which – according to van der Poel – the full benefits, risks, and ethical issues of a technology become evident only after its widespread adoption95.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Martin MW Schinzinger R Ethics in engineering 1996 3 New York McGraw-Hill
  2. Nordmann A Harrison Carol Johnson Ann European experiments National identity: The role of science and technology, Osiris 24 2009 Chicago University of Chicago Press 278 302

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van de Poel, I.
Venue
Science and Engineering Ethics
Published
2015-11-14
Volume
22
Issue
3
Pages
667-686
ISSN
  • 1353-3452 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-5546
OpenAlex
W2173820309
Cited by
143
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 1
FWCI
14.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Science and Engineering Ethics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Repository (Delft University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
NWO (277-20-003)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Bioethics and Human Rights Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
experimental technology, social experiment, ethics of technology, bioethical principles, non-maleficence, beneficence, respect for autonomy, justice, uncertainty, social change, technology regulation, moral judgment
MeSH terms
Industrial Development, Humans, Social Change, Social Justice, Beneficence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review