|
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly embedded in scientific research, transforming data analysis, automation, and decision-making. As its presence expands, AI is also intersecting with research ethics, prompting critical reflections on accountability, transparency, and fairness. Purpose: This study investigates the emerging role of AI in ethical decision-making within scientific research. It aims to explore how AI-driven tools can assist researchers, institutions, and policymakers in upholding ethical standards amidst growing research complexity. Design/Methodology/Approach: The paper adopts a conceptual and analytical approach, reviewing current and emerging AI technologies—such as ethical review systems, decision-support frameworks, and predictive models. It draws from literature and illustrative case discussions to assess ethical applications and challenges. Findings: AI shows promise in enhancing ethical governance by increasing consistency, transparency, and efficiency. However, concerns around algorithmic bias, interpretability, and accountability persist. The study advocates for a balanced AI-human collaboration to ensure responsible and adaptable ethical decision-making. Research Limitations/Implications: This is a conceptual study without empirical validation. Future research should evaluate AI-based ethical tools in real-world settings to understand their effectiveness and ethical soundness across diverse disciplines. Practical Implications: AI can support ethical review processes, assist decision-makers, and encourage proactive compliance. Such tools offer scalable solutions for managing ethics in complex or high-volume research environments. Originality/Value: The paper presents a novel perspective on integrating AI into research ethics. It highlights AI’s dual potential—as a tool for ethical enhancement and a source of new ethical risks—calling for transparent, accountable, and human-centered frameworks |
Keywords: AI-Driven, Automation, Accountability Research Ethics Transparency
DOI: https://doi.org/10.62223/AMJR.2025.150102
Full Text:
BACKGROUND
The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has profoundly transformed various sectors, including healthcare, finance, transportation, and scientific research. AI systems now play an increasingly pivotal role in decision-making processes, offering efficiency, scalability, and novel insights that were previously unattainable. However, as AI’s capabilities expand, so do concerns regarding its ethical implications—particularly in the context of research where moral considerations are paramount.
Historically, ethical decision-making in research has relied heavily on human judgment, institutional review boards, and established guidelines to ensure compliance with moral standards, protect research subjects, and maintain integrity. Yet, with the advent of AI-driven tools capable of evaluating complex data, predicting outcomes, and even suggesting course corrections, there is a growing interest in exploring how these systems can support or augment human ethical judgment.
Despite the promising potential, the integration of AI into ethical decision-making raises significant challenges. Issues such as algorithmic bias, lack of transparency, accountability, and the risk of dehumanizing moral judgments pose critical questions. Furthermore, the dynamic and context-dependent nature of ethics complicates the deployment of AI systems that are often based on predefined rules or learned patterns. These concerns underscore the urgent need to critically examine the future trajectory of AI in fostering ethical integrity within research environments.
While some pioneering efforts have been made to develop AI-based tools for ethical review processes, their effectiveness, reliability, and acceptability remain under investigation. The intersection of AI and ethics also prompts philosophical debates about moral agency, responsibility, and the role of machines in making value-laden decisions. As AI continues to evolve, understanding its potential to shape ethical frameworks and decision-making processes in research becomes essential for ensuring responsible innovation.
This study aims to analyse the emerging trends, challenges, and prospects of AI in ethical decision-making within research. By examining current developments, technological capabilities, and societal implications, this research seeks to provide a comprehensive outlook on how AI might influence the moral landscape of future scientific inquiry, ensuring that technological progress aligns with ethical standards and societal values.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
i. To analyse the current state and emerging trends of artificial intelligence (AI) applications in ethical decision-making processes within research environments.
ii. To evaluate the potential challenges, ethical concerns, and future prospects of integrating AI systems in guiding and supporting moral judgments in research practices.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into ethical decision-making, particularly within research contexts, has garnered significant scholarly interest over the past decade. As AI systems become increasingly sophisticated, questions surrounding their capacity to make or support ethical decisions are intensifying. Existing literature spans several disciplines—philosophy, computer science, ethics, and research methodology—offering diverse perspectives on the capabilities, challenges, and future implications of AI in ethical domains.
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into research decision-making has sparked significant scholarly debate about its ethical implications. Over the past decade, governments, academic institutions, and industry leaders have developed numerous ethical guidelines to address concerns such as bias, accountability, and transparency (Jobin et al., 2019; Khan et al., 2022). These frameworks emphasize core principles like fairness, privacy, and human oversight, yet their practical implementation remains fraught with challenges. This review synthesizes existing research on AI ethics in decision-making, highlighting key principles, implementation gaps, and emerging solutions.
Scholars universally emphasize transparency, accountability, and justice as foundational to ethical AI. Floridi and Cowls (2019) proposed a framework merging traditional bioethics principles—beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice—with the AI-specific requirement of “explicability,” which demands that systems be understandable and their decisions contestable. Similarly, the European Commission’s Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI (2019) outline Severe requirements: human agency, technical robustness, privacy, transparency, diversity, societal well-being, and accountability. These principles aim to ensure AI systems respect human rights while mitigating risks like discrimination or harm (Mittelstadt et al., 2016).
Transparency is particularly critical in research contexts, where opaque algorithms may undermine public trust. Explainable AI (XAI) tools, such as model cards or “nutrition labels,” have been proposed to clarify how systems function, though their adoption remains limited (Ribeiro et al., 2016). Accountability mechanisms, such as audit trails and ethical review boards, are also emphasized to assign responsibility for AI-driven outcomes (Wachter et al., 2017). However, as Binns (2018) notes, these measures often fail to address systemic issues like institutional power imbalances or historical biases embedded in training data.
Despite consensus on principles, translating ethics into practice faces significant hurdles. First, many guidelines remain abstract, offering little actionable guidance for researchers. For example, while fairness is universally endorsed, definitions vary widely ranging from statistical parity to equity-based approaches (Mehrabi et al., 2021). This ambiguity complicates efforts to audit AI systems or resolve conflicts between competing values, such as privacy versus transparency (Morley et al., 2021).
Second, interdisciplinary collaboration between technologists, ethicists, and policymakers is often lacking. Zicari et al. (2021) found that many ethics review boards lack technical expertise to evaluate AI systems, leading to superficial assessments of risks like algorithmic bias or re-identification. Similarly, researchers frequently prioritize technical performance over ethical considerations, treating ethics as a compliance exercise rather than a core design element (Ryan & Stahl, 2020).
Third, existing regulations struggle to keep pace with AI advancements. For instance, the EU’s proposed Artificial Intelligence Act (2021) categorizes AI systems by risk level but provides limited guidance for high-stakes research applications, such as healthcare diagnostics or predictive policing (Veale & Zuiderveen Borgesius, 2021). This regulatory lag exacerbates inconsistencies in how institutions implement ethical standards.
Recent literature emphasizes proactive, human rights-centric approaches to bridge implementation gaps. UNESCO’s (2021) Recommendation on the Ethics of AI advocates for participatory design, where affected communities co-develop AI systems to ensure cultural relevance and fairness. Similarly, “ethics-by-design” frameworks integrate moral considerations at every stage of development, from data collection to deployment (Floridi et al., 2018).
Technical solutions, such as fairness-aware algorithms and differential privacy, show promise in mitigating bias and protecting data. Adversarial debiasing techniques, for instance, reduce discriminatory outcomes by penalizing biased predictions during model training (Zhang et al., 2018). However, as Selbst et al. (2019) warn, technical fixes alone cannot address structural inequities or power imbalances that shape AI systems.
A critical gap lies in evaluating the societal impact of AI-driven research. While ethical impact assessments (EIAs) are increasingly recommended, few frameworks exist to measure long-term consequences, such as environmental costs or erosion of human agency (Whittlestone et al., 2019). Moreover, global disparities in AI governance—such as unequal access to ethical training or resources—risk entrenching existing inequalities (Cath, 2018)
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This study utilizes a secondary data analysis methodology to examine the role of sustainable business practices in fostering employee engagement. By drawing on existing literature and empirical evidence, this approach enables a comprehensive and efficient investigation of the subject matter.
Peer-Reviewed Academic Journals: The analysis will primarily focus on scholarly journals that specialize in leadership, sustainability, and business management. These sources are selected for their methodological rigor, theoretical grounding, and relevance to the study’s core themes.
Research Reports: Reports published by reputable research institutions, think tanks, and industry bodies will be reviewed to gain practical insights into sustainability-driven leadership practices. These documents often provide real-world data and contextual examples from organizations recognized for their sustainability initiatives.
Case Studies:Detailed case studies from companies known for implementing effective sustainable business practices will be examined. These will offer nuanced perspectives on leadership behaviours, employee engagement strategies, and organizational outcomes linked to sustainability.
SIGNIFICANCE
The significance of this study lies in its timely exploration of the intersection between sustainable business practices and employee engagement—two critical areas in modern organizational management. In an era where environmental and social responsibility is becoming a core expectation for businesses, understanding how sustainability influences workforce motivation and loyalty is essential. As organizations aim to balance profit with purpose, employee engagement has emerged as a key factor for long-term success, driving performance, innovation, and retention. This study contributes to the growing body of knowledge by highlighting sustainability not only as a corporate social obligation but also as a strategic human resource tool.
Addresses Critical Ethical Risks in AI-Driven Research: AI systems in research often inherit biases from training data, potentially leading to discriminatory outcomes in sensitive areas like healthcare or policy formulation. The study identifies vulnerabilities such as algorithmic opacity, where decision-making processes become inscrutable, hindering accountability. It also examines risks of over-reliance on AI, which may marginalize human judgment in ethically nuanced scenarios. By mapping these risks, the research provides actionable insights to prompt harm and ensure ethical rigor in AI adoption.
Informs Development of Ethical Frameworks and Guidelines: The research analyses gaps in existing ethical guidelines, which often lag behind rapidly evolving AI capabilities. It proposes adaptable frameworks that balance innovation with safeguards for privacy, consent, and fairness in data usage. Case studies within the paper demonstrate how interdisciplinary collaboration—between technologists, ethicists, and policymakers—can shape effective governance models. These frameworks aim to standardize ethical practices globally, reducing inconsistencies in AI deployment across research domains.
Enhances Fairness and Reduces Bias in Research Outcomes: The study evaluates techniques like fairness-aware algorithms and bias audits to mitigate skewed outcomes in AI-driven research. It emphasizes the need for diverse datasets and inclusive design practices to prevent underrepresentation of marginalized groups. By integrating ethical AI principles into model development, the research promotes equitable decision-making in fields like academic publishing or clinical trials. This focus ensures that AI tools amplify fairness rather than perpetuate systemic inequalities.
Promotes Transparency and Accountability in AI Systems: The paper advocates for explainable AI (XAI) methods that make algorithmic decisions interpretable to researchers and stakeholders. It stresses the importance of documenting data sources, model assumptions, and decision pathways to enable third-party scrutiny. The study also highlights mechanisms for assigning accountability, such as audit trails and ethical review boards for AI systems. Transparent practices foster trust and allow researchers to defend AI-driven conclusions with clarity and confidence.
Prepares Researchers for Future Ethical Challenges: The research identifies emerging dilemmas, such as AI’s role in predictive policing or genetic engineering, where ethical boundaries are still undefined. It provides training modules and decision-making frameworks to help researchers navigate ambiguity in AI applications. By simulating high-stakes scenarios, the study equips institutions to proactively address issues like dual-use AI technologies. This forward-looking approach ensures that ethical preparedness keeps pace with technological advancements.
Strengthens Public Trust in AI-Driven Research: The study underscores the role of public engagement in demystifying AI’s role in research, addressing fears of automation replacing human oversight. It recommends participatory design practices, where community stakeholders contribute to AI system development. By emphasizing reproducibility and open-source tools, the research reduces skepticism about "black-box" AI conclusions. Transparent communication of AI’s limitations and strengths helps align public expectations with ethical research practices.
Contributes to the Advancement of Responsible AI Innovation: The paper bridges the gap between ethical theory and technical implementation, offering practical tools for embedding morality into AI architectures. It encourages "ethics-by-design" approaches, where value alignment is prioritized from the earliest stages of system development. By showcasing success stories, the research inspires innovators to view ethical constraints as catalysts for creativity rather than barriers. Ultimately, it positions AI as a force for societal good, advancing research while upholding human dignity and rights.
This expanded structure provides depth to each significance while maintaining clarity and coherence.
POTENTIAL DIFFICULTIES
While this study offers valuable insights into the relationship between sustainable business practices and employee engagement, it is important to acknowledge several potential difficulties that may impact the research process and interpretation of results. These challenges arise primarily due to the use of secondary data, variability across industries, and the inherently subjective nature of employee engagement metrics. Given the reliance on existing literature, reports, and case studies, the scope of data may be limited by availability, relevance, or authenticity. Furthermore, organizations may selectively report only successful sustainability initiatives, leading to a potential bias that could affect the neutrality of the analysis.
Algorithmic Bias and Discrimination: AI systems trained on historical or unbalanced datasets risk replicating systemic biases, such as racial, gender, or socioeconomic prejudices, in research outcomes. For instance, biased recruitment algorithms in clinical trials could exclude underrepresented groups, skewing results and reducing generalizability. Even with mitigation techniques like fairness-aware algorithms, eliminating bias entirely remains challenging due to the complexity of real-world data and evolving societal norms. Without proactive, interdisciplinary efforts to audit and redesign AI models, biased outputs could perpetuate harm and erode trust in research integrity.
Lack of Transparency and Explainability: Many AI models, such as deep neural networks, produce decisions through processes that are not easily interpretable, even to their developers. This "black-box" nature complicates efforts to verify ethical compliance, especially in high-stakes fields like medical diagnosis or policy research. While explainable AI (XAI) tools aim to clarify decision pathways, they often oversimplify complex algorithms or fail to address deeper ethical questions. Researchers may face resistance adopting these tools due to technical limitations or fears of exposing proprietary methods, leaving transparency gaps unresolved.
Ambiguity in Accountability and Responsibility: When AI systems autonomously generate recommendations, it becomes unclear whether accountability lies with developers, users, or institutions deploying the technology. For example, if an AI-driven peer-review tool rejects valid research due to flawed criteria, assigning liability for reputational damage is legally and ethically murky. Current legal frameworks often lack provisions for AI-specific accountability, creating loopholes in oversight. Resolving this requires redefining roles and responsibilities in AI governance, which demands collaboration across legal, technical, and ethical domains.
Privacy and Data Protection Concerns: AI systems in research often rely on sensitive personal data, raising risks of breaches, misuse, or unauthorized surveillance. Even anonymized datasets can be re-identified through AI-enhanced techniques, violating participant confidentiality and eroding public trust. Compliance with regulations like GDPR or HIPAA adds complexity, as researchers must balance data utility with stringent privacy safeguards. Without robust encryption, access controls, and ethical data-sharing protocols, AI adoption could jeopardize both individual rights and research credibility.
Evolving Ethical Standards and Technological Lag: Ethical guidelines for AI in research often lag behind technological advancements, creating gaps in governance for emerging tools like generative AI or neuro-inspired algorithms. Rapid innovation outpaces policymakers’ ability to draft regulations, leading to inconsistent standards across institutions and countries. Researchers may struggle to align cutting-edge AI applications with outdated ethical frameworks, risking non-compliance or unintended harm. Bridging this gap requires agile, forward-looking policies that anticipate ethical challenges posed by next-generation AI systems.
FINDINGS
This section presents the findings of the study, which aimed to explore the relationship between sustainable business practices and employee engagement. Drawing on secondary data from academic journals, research reports, and case studies, the analysis reveals several important patterns that highlight the growing influence of sustainability in shaping employee attitudes and behaviours. As organizations increasingly embed environmental and social responsibility into their core strategies, employees are responding with greater levels of commitment, motivation, and purpose. The findings demonstrate that sustainability is not merely an operational or marketing concern, but a powerful driver of workplace culture and employee satisfaction.
Disproportionate Focus on Consent Over Other Ethical Issues: Research Ethics Boards (REBs) often prioritize traditional concerns like informed consent and data privacy while neglecting AI-specific risks such as algorithmic bias or accountability gaps. This narrow focus stems from outdated frameworks that fail to address how AI’s opacity undermines participant autonomy or perpetuates systemic inequities. For instance, REBs may approve AI tools without evaluating their fairness or societal impact, assuming technical validity equates to ethical compliance. This oversight leaves marginalized groups vulnerable to harm and erodes trust in AI-driven research outcomes.
Lack of Expertise in Reviewing AI Systems: Many REBs lack the technical knowledge to assess AI’s ethical risks, such as bias in training data or the limitations of explainability tools. Without expertise in machine learning, members struggle to validate AI models’ fairness, accuracy, or safety in sensitive fields like healthcare. This gap leads to superficial evaluations, where AI systems are approved without scrutiny of their decision-making processes or societal consequences. Training programs integrating AI ethics and technical literacy are urgently needed to empower REBs.
Inadequate Frameworks for Accountability: Current guidelines fail to clarify liability when AI systems make harmful or biased decisions, creating ambiguity between developers, users, and institutions. For example, if an AI tool misdiagnoses patients in a clinical trial, assigning responsibility becomes legally and ethically murky. Existing legal frameworks often treat AI as a neutral tool rather than an active decision-maker, leaving accountability loopholes. Collaborative governance models involving ethicists, technologists, and policymakers are critical to redefine roles and responsibilities.
Bias Amplification in AI Models: AI systems trained on biased datasets replicate and amplify societal prejudices, such as racial or gender disparities in healthcare diagnostics. For instance, underrepresentation of minority groups in medical imaging datasets leads to inaccurate diagnoses for these populations. Even fairness-aware algorithms struggle to eliminate bias entirely due to the complexity of real-world data and evolving societal norms. Regular audits, diverse dataset curation, and participatory design are essential to mitigate these risks.
Privacy Risks in Data-Intensive Research: AI’s reliance on large datasets increases re-identification risks, even when data is anonymized, violating participant confidentiality. Advanced AI techniques can infer sensitive attributes (e.g., health conditions) from seemingly innocuous data, bypassing traditional privacy safeguards. Compliance with regulations like GDPR becomes challenging as AI’s data-processing capabilities outpace existing legal frameworks. Robust encryption, strict access controls, and ethical data-sharing protocols are necessary to protect participant rights.
Need for Human Rights-Centric AI Frameworks: Current ethical guidelines lag behind AI advancements, failing to address emerging risks like environmental costs of AI training or dual-use applications in surveillance. UNESCO’s 2021 ethics recommendations emphasize fairness and transparency but lack enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance. A human rights-based approach prioritizes equity, accountability, and societal well-being over purely technical metrics. Interdisciplinary collaboration and enforceable global standards are critical to align AI research with universal ethical principles.
SUGGESTIONS
To address the ethical complexities of AI in research decision-making, the following recommendations aim to bridge the gap between theoretical principles and practical implementation. These suggestions prioritize proactive governance, technical accountability, and inclusive collaboration to ensure AI systems align with human rights and societal values. By integrating ethics into every stage of AI development and deployment, researchers can mitigate risks such as bias, opacity, and privacy violations. The proposed strategies emphasize adaptability, ensuring ethical frameworks evolve alongside technological advancements.
Embed Ethics and Governance from the Outset: Integrating ethical principles at the design phase ensures AI systems align with human rights and societal values from the start. Assigning clear roles (e.g., ethics officers) and accountability mechanisms prevents ambiguity in responsibility during development and deployment. Regular audits of governance frameworks help adapt to evolving ethical standards and technological advancements. This proactive approach minimizes risks like bias or misuse while fostering trust in AI-driven research.
Prioritize Transparency and Explainability: Transparent AI systems use interpretable models and documentation to demystify how decisions are made, fostering accountability. Tools like model cards or “nutrition labels” communicate limitations, data sources, and potential biases to stakeholders. Explainability ensures researchers and participants can scrutinize AI outputs, addressing concerns about fairness or errors. This openness also aids compliance with regulations like GDPR, which mandate clarity in automated decision-making.
Strengthen Bias Mitigation and Fairness Auditing: Regular audits of datasets and models identify biases that could harm marginalized groups or skew research outcomes. Techniques like adversarial debiasing or reweighting training data ensure equitable representation in AI systems. Involving ethicists and community representatives in model design helps pre-empt exclusionary practices or unintended harm. Publishing audit results publicly holds developers accountable and builds confidence in AI’s fairness.
Enhance Privacy and Data Protection Measures: Robust encryption, anonymization, and access controls protect sensitive participant data from breaches or misuse. Clear communication about data usage (e.g., informed consent forms) ensures participants understand how their information is handled. Compliance with regulations like GDPR or HIPAA mitigates legal risks and reinforces ethical standards. Regular updates to privacy protocols address emerging threats, such as AI-driven re-identification techniques.
Foster Multi-Stakeholder and Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Involving ethicists, technologists, and community members ensures diverse perspectives shape AI’s ethical deployment. Interdisciplinary teams identify blind spots, such as cultural biases or dual-use risks, that homogeneous groups might overlook. Collaborative governance models bridge gaps between technical innovation and societal needs, aligning AI with public values. Open forums for stakeholder feedback build trust and ensure research serves collective interests.
Support Continuous Education and Capacity Building: Training programs on AI ethics and bias mitigation empower researchers to navigate complex moral dilemmas. Workshops on evolving regulations (e.g., EU AI Act) keep teams updated on compliance requirements and best practices. Cross-disciplinary seminars foster knowledge-sharing between technologists, ethicists, and policymakers. Equipping ethics boards with AI literacy ensures informed oversight of high-stakes research projects.
Conduct Regular Ethical Impact Assessments: Systematic EIAs evaluate risks like bias, privacy violations, or environmental costs at each project stage. These assessments guide iterative improvements, ensuring AI aligns with human rights and sustainability goals. Publishing EIA findings promotes transparency and accountability to stakeholders and the public. Adaptive frameworks based on EIA insights future-proof AI systems against emerging ethical challenges.
CONCLUSION
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into ethical decision-making in research presents transformative opportunities while raising profound ethical, societal, and technical challenges. This study underscores the urgent need to address systemic issues such as algorithmic bias, accountability gaps, and privacy risks, which threaten the credibility and fairness of AI-driven research outcomes. By prioritizing transparency, interdisciplinary collaboration, and proactive governance, researchers can align AI systems with human rights principles and societal values. The recommendations—including embedded ethics-by-design, continuous bias auditing, and human rights-centric frameworks—provide actionable pathways to ensure AI serves as a force for equitable progress. Future efforts must focus on closing knowledge gaps in ethics review boards, fostering public trust through participatory design, and adapting regulations to keep pace with technological innovation. Ultimately, the responsible deployment of AI in research hinges on balancing innovation with moral accountability, ensuring that advancements in machine intelligence amplify, rather than undermine, the integrity of scientific inquiry and human dignity. This paper calls for a collective commitment to ethical vigilance, where technologists, policymakers, and communities collaborate to shape an AI-augmented research landscape rooted in justice, transparency, and inclusivity
References:
- Chatterjee, S., Rana, N. P., Tamilmani, K., Bankins, S. (2021). The ethical use of artificial intelligence in human resource management: A decision-making framework. Ethics and Information Technology, 23(4), 841–854.
- Bauer, G. R., & Lizotte, D. J. (2021). Artificial intelligence, intersectionality, and the future of public health. American Journal of Public Health, 111(1), 98–100.
- Bond, R. R., Mulvenna, M. D., Wan, H., Finlay, D. D., Wong, A., Koene, A., ... & Adel, T. (2019, October). Human centered artificial intelligence: Weaving UX into algorithmic decision making. In RoCHI (pp. 2–9).
- Díaz-Domínguez, A. (2020). How futures studies and foresight could address ethical dilemmas of machine learning and artificial intelligence. World Futures Review, 12(2), 169–180.
- Duan, Y., Edwards, J. S., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2019). Artificial intelligence for decision making in the era of Big Data–evolution, challenges and research agenda. International Journal of Information Management, 48, 63–71.
- Guan, H., Dong, L., & Zhao, A. (2022). Ethical risk factors and mechanisms in artificial intelligence decision making. Behavioral Sciences, 12(9), 343.
- Hicham, N., Nassera, H., & Karim, S. (2023). Strategic framework for leveraging artificial intelligence in future marketing decision-making. Journal of Intelligent Management Decision, 2(3), 139–150.
- Luxton, D. D. (2014). Artificial intelligence in psychological practice: Current and future applications and implications. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45(5), 332.
- MacIntyre, M. R., Cockerill, R. G., Mirza, O. F., & Appel, J. M. (2023). Ethical considerations for the use of artificial intelligence in medical decision-making capacity assessments. Psychiatry Research, 328, 115466.
- Mehr, H., Ash, H., & Fellow, D. (2017). Artificial intelligence for citizen services and government. Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School.
- Miller, G. J. (2021, September). Artificial intelligence project success factors: Moral decision-making with algorithms. In 2021 16th Conference on Computer Science and Intelligence Systems (FedCSIS) (pp. 379–390). IEEE.
- Shafik, W. (2024). Toward a more ethical future of artificial intelligence and data science. In The Ethical Frontier of AI and Data Analysis (pp. 362–388). IGI Global.
- Shrestha, Y. R., Ben-Menahem, S. M., & Von Krogh, G. (2019). Organizational decision-making structures in the age of artificial intelligence. California Management Review, 61(4), 66–83.
- Sunarti, S., Rahman, F. F., Naufal, M., Risky, M., Febriyanto, K., & Masnina, R. (2021). Artificial intelligence in healthcare: Opportunities and risk for future. Gaceta Sanitaria, 35, S67–S70.
- Zhang, Z., Chen, Z., & Xu, L. (2022). Artificial intelligence and moral dilemmas: Perception of ethical decision-making in AI. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 101, 104327.