Society For Risk Analysis Annual Meeting 2017
Session Schedule & Abstracts
* Disclaimer: All presentations represent the views of the authors, and not the organizations that support their research. Please apply the standard disclaimer that any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations in abstracts, posters, and presentations at the meeting are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other organization or agency. Meeting attendees and authors should be aware that this disclaimer is intended to apply to all abstracts contained in this document. Authors who wish to emphasize this disclaimer should do so in their presentation or poster. In an effort to make the abstracts as concise as possible and easy for meeting participants to read, the abstracts have been formatted such that they exclude references to papers, affiliations, and/or funding sources. Authors who wish to provide attendees with this information should do so in their presentation or poster.
|Chair(s): Gary Marchant, Jonathan Wiener firstname.lastname@example.org
Sponsored by Risk Policy and Law Specialty Group
|This symposium will focus on new forms of governance and risk analysis for emerging technologies. New forms of governance are increasingly needed and utilized due to the increasing speed of science, the globalization of commerce, science and technology, and the frequent but not absolute need for some set of rules to provide legitimacy to an emerging technology. The presenters will identify characteristics of the new governance models and how they are similar or different due to risk related variables between technologies. Case studies will be presented ranging from 1) autonomous systems (e.g. AI and self-driving vehicles) to 2) cyber security to 3) best practices considerations for use of genetic information in civil litigation.|
W3-K.1 1:30 pm Instrument Choice for Adaptive Regulation of Emerging Technologies. Wiener JB*, Bennear LS; Duke University email@example.com
Abstract: Regulation is often viewed as a one-time, go/no-go decision, attempting to balance prospective benefits, costs and risks; such decisions could be optimal, but they could also yield suboptimal errors by either overregulating a net beneficial technology or underregulating a net harmful technology. Emerging technologies imply that understanding of benefits, costs and risks will improve over time. A better approach may therefore be â€śadaptive regulationâ€ť that replaces the one-time yes/no decision with a series of multiple partial sequential decisions informed by monitoring and review â€“ i.e., designing regulation to incorporate learning over time. Meanwhile, regulation does not come in just one type, but actually offers a variety of instrument choices. This presentation identifies and compares instruments for adaptive regulation of emerging technologies, including: retrospective review; prospective-retrospective review; adaptive RIA; periodic reviews (e.g. every X years); sunset and reauthorization clauses; monitoring indicators with triggers for automatic policy adjustment; discretionary policy adjustment by an oversight body; accident investigation bodies; ex post liability; experimental deployments; adaptive licensing to targeted subpopulations; and others. Comparing and choosing instruments for planned adaptive regulatory learning will be crucial to sound regulation of emerging technologies.
W3-K.2 1:50 pm Codes of Conduct and Private Standards for Governing Autonomous Systems. Marchant GE*; Arizona State University firstname.lastname@example.org
Abstract: The rapid growth of artificial intelligence is spawning a rapid increase of autonomous systems. These include highly publicized cases such as driverless cars and autonomous weapon systems, but which are also expanding to include industrial robots, technology control systems, financial and legal services programs, personal assistants, medical robotics, and home and care robots. These autonomous systems can present a variety of risks including accident and safety hazards, privacy invasions, fraudulent or unethical business practices, financial disruption, technological unemployment, and social dislocation. With limited exceptions, few of these autonomous systems are directly governed by regulatory agencies, and as a result a plethora of â€śsoft lawâ€ť initiatives and private standards have been adopted and proposed. This presentation reviews these alternative risk management tools and their effectiveness for governing the risks from autonomous systems.
W3-K.4 2:30 pm Towards best practices governing use of â€śgenomicsâ€ť in civil litigation . Marchant GE, Hartley KT*, Stevens YA; LSP Group LLC email@example.com
Abstract: The use of DNA and other â€śgenomicâ€ť evidence revolutionized identification practices in criminal law, and the uses are increasingly sophisticated. Today, the use of genomic evidence is increasing in civil litigation regarding the â€śwhy and howâ€ť of the occurrence of diseases, injuries or conditions. Over the past three years, judges and jurors received increasing submissions of genomic analyses in civil lawsuits involving, for example, drugs, vaccines, benzene, and asbestos. Similar submissions are expected in litigation regarding access to medical care. Therefore, multidisciplinary collaborations and other efforts are needed to accelerate development of best practices and standards related to use of genomics in litigation. At a minimum, three broad needs are evident. For one, best practices are needed to ensure the legitimacy of the science when presented and applied in cases. A second need is to create best practices so that information collected in litigation is preserved for and ultimately shared with scientists for research purposes. A third need is for best practices related to translating genomic information into thoughtful legal rules and principles, including a subfocus on increasing multidisciplinary participation in the framing of pertinent medical-legal discussions.
[back to schedule]