aceAnticipating the unpredictable: A qualitative study on ethics experts' perspectives on review challenges related to AI
Background Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into research across disciplines, raising various ethical concerns related to bias, privacy, transparency, and accountability. However, less is known about how these challenges are addressed within research ethics review practices. This paper examines how ethics experts perceive and manage AI-related challenges in ethics review. Methods Drawing on a qualitative study of 13 focus groups with 67 European ethics experts, we applied thematic analysis…
Ethics experts reported that AI is hard to define, evolves quickly, and raises ethical issues after initial review, so one-time ex-ante ethics review fits it poorly.
The evidence comes from a qualitative study of European ethics experts' perceptions, so it reflects their views and does not measure whether the proposed governance changes improve review outcomes.
Evidence
- Peer-reviewedAccountability in Research2026-10-08
How should this claim be treated?
Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-1727, v1: “Anticipating the unpredictable: A qualitative study on ethics experts' perspectives on review challenges related to AI.” Truvace, 2026-10-17. /record/TRV-2026-1727 (accessed at citation time). sha256 5cb3c1c569cc4710…
Calibration history
Every change to this record since certification, in the open. None yet — the reading has held since it entered the record.
Certified into the record
How to verify without trusting this page
Fetch the canonical text of any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-1727 and hash it yourself — for example shasum -a 256 on the saved canonical field. The result must equal content_hash, and each version’s text ends with prev:followed by the prior version’s hash (version 1 chains to 64 zeros). If a single character of any version had been altered since certification, the chain would not reproduce.