Thinking Through the Ethics of New Tech...Before There's a Problem

We all want the technology in our lives to fulfill its promise $-$ to delight us more than it scares us$,$ to help much more than it harms. We also know that every new technology needs to earn our trust. Too often the pattern goes like this: A technology is introduced, grows rapidly, comes to permeate our lives, and only then does society begin to see and address any problems it might create.

This is not exclusively a modern phenomenon. Consider the early days of the mass$-$produced automobile. As drivers embraced an exciting new mode of transport, accidents and fatalities were many times more likely than they are today. Imagine if the growth of the automobile had gone differently, with seatbelts developed, safer roadways built, and better traffic laws implemented much earlier, right along with the engine innovations that gave us more power and greater speed. Many risks could have been mitigated and many tragedies avoided.

Companies have to learn to be responsible stewards of the artificial intelligence $($Al$)$ they deploy, the $5$G networks they have begun to build, and so much more that's coming toward us$,$ from quantum computing to virtual reality $($VR$)$ to blockchain. Technologies that are driving sweeping change, and are central to the growth of the economy, should be trustworthy. Companies that deliver technological advances need to act ethically. The stakes are high. And yet, knowing what needs to be done is not the same as knowing how.

Organizations should try to anticipate and address the potential effects of the technologies they deploy. While they can't predict the future, they can adopt a sound framework that will help them prepare for and respond to unexpected impacts.

Such a framework would need to fundamentally shift how we develop and deploy new technologies. It would have to revamp existing processes. Any framework should reflect that this is a team effort,

not just the job of engineers and managers: It should cut across disciplines. It should open doors to new ways of thinking about the challenges. The goal here is to describe a framework that can do these things.

Involve Specialists

Those who are immersed in the world of software engineering $-$ and I count myself in this group are often inclined to see, first and foremost, the promise of a technology and the opportunity to create value. As questions about the impacts of a technology become more common, the engineers still have far to go in understanding the potential harms. Engineers and software developers do not necessarily have all the expertise they need to understand and address the ethical risks their work might raise.

In other words, there could be a role for specialists from other disciplines here. We need to change our priorities to help technology development teams think with more foresight and nuance about these issues $$ guided by those with the most relevant knowledge.

Consider, for instance, the development of a VR training tool that immerses the user in a difficult or dramatic emergency response situation. As the technology evolves, VR simulations are becoming so realistic that the possibility of actual trauma from a virtual experience might need to be addressed. The team would want to have a psychologist involved, working side by side with the software engineers, to tap into the body of knowledge about what can cause trauma or how it might be identified and addressed.

Take cloud manufacturing and $3-$D printing as another example. As companies pursue these technologies, which have the potential to dramatically change the skillset needed on the factory floor, they might talk to labor economists who can shed light on larger workforce issues. As $5$G connectivity brings factories online that can be managed entirely remotely, companies may want to consult with specialists in plant security, cybersecurity, and perhaps even philosophy to understand the potential pitfalls created by factories that don't employ people.

Pause and Plan

During the strategic planning stage, a team will naturally focus its attention on what's possible. That's where the excitement and enthusiasm lie. But there also has to be attention paid to understanding what can go wrong. It's vital to pause and brainstorm potential risks, consider negative outcomes, and imagine unintended consequences.

This might mean that, as businesses rush toward a $5G$ future with a giant leap in data speeds and ubiquitous connectivity, they should pause to consider and address new privacy concerns $-$ perhaps

well beyond those we are already grappling with. Or they could consider how this leap in data speeds may exacerbate inequity in our society and widen the digital divide.

This step in the planning process, in which risks are brainstormed and analyzed, should be documented just as clearly as the value proposition or the expected return on investment. The mandate to document this work can help ensure