Considering the ethics of large machine learning models in the chemical sciences
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Foundation models, including large language models, vision-language models, and similar large-scale machine learning tools, are quickly becoming ubiquitous in society and in the professional world. Chemical practitioners are not immune to the appeal of foundation models, nor are they immune to the many risks and harms that these models introduce. In this work, I present the first analysis of foundation models using the combined lens of scientific ethics and chemical professional ethics. I find that general-purpose generative foundation models are in many ways incompatible with the moral practice of chemistry, though there are fewer ethical problems with chemistry-specific foundation models. My discussion concludes with an examination of how the harm associated with foundation models can be minimized and further poses a set of serious lingering questions for chemical practitioners and scientific ethicists.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 178 · Cited by 6
- Authors
- Spotte-Smith, E. W. C.
- Venue
- Machine Learning: Science and Technology
- Publisher
- IOP Publishing
- Published
- 2025-07-17
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 035007
- ISSN
- 2632-2153 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4412024857
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 178
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3
- FWCI
- 6.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Machine Learning Science and Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- ChemRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Carnegie Bosch Institute
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Flooding and Environmental Impact
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Keywords
- foundation models, large language models, scientific ethics, AI harms, AI risk mitigation
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