Digital technologies evolve too rapidly for scientists to effectively evaluate their potential harms, threatening public safety and accountability, according to a new report published in the journal Science.
Dr. Amy Orben from the University of Cambridge and Dr. J. Nathan Matias from Cornell University argue that the scientific infrastructure used to assess technology risks has become overwhelmed by the unprecedented pace of innovation. While tech products change “on a daily or weekly basis,” scientific research “can be out of date by the time it is completed, let alone published.”
“Scientists like ourselves are committed to the public good, but we are asked to hold to account a billion-dollar industry without appropriate support for our research or the basic tools to produce good quality evidence quickly,” said Orben, of Cambridge’s MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit.
The researchers describe a troubling cycle where tech companies effectively outsource safety research to independent scientists who lack adequate resources and data access. This allows companies to resist regulation by pointing to insufficient evidence of harm – evidence they themselves have made difficult to gather.
“Just as oil and chemical industries have leveraged the slow pace of science to deflect the evidence that informs responsibility, executives in technology companies have followed a similar pattern,” Matias explains. Some have allegedly “refused to commit substantial resources to safety research without certain kinds of causal evidence, which they also decline to fund.”
The problem extends beyond social media to artificial intelligence systems now being deployed to millions of users without adequate safety testing. The researchers cite the tragic case of 14-year-old Molly Russell, whose 2017 suicide was attributed by a coroner to “depression and the negative effects of online content,” as highlighting the urgent need for better scientific assessment of digital technology impacts.
To break this “negative feedback cycle,” Orben and Matias propose several innovative solutions. These include creating public registries where people can report technology-related harms, implementing a “minimum viable evidence” approach that adjusts evidence thresholds based on companies’ transparency, and developing a prioritization system modeled after successful environmental toxicology programs.
“The scientific methods and resources we have for evidence creation at the moment simply cannot deal with the pace of digital technology development,” Orben said. “Scientists and policymakers must acknowledge the failures of this system and help craft a better one before the age of AI further exposes society to the risks of unchecked technological change.”
The researchers emphasize that everyone loses when science moves too slowly to assess technological impacts – from individuals who may be harmed to companies facing unfounded panics or ineffective regulations.
“We must urgently fix this science and policy ecosystem so we can better understand and manage the potential risks posed by our evolving digital society,” concludes Orben.
If our reporting has informed or inspired you, please consider making a donation. Every contribution, no matter the size, empowers us to continue delivering accurate, engaging, and trustworthy science and medical news. Independent journalism requires time, effort, and resources—your support ensures we can keep uncovering the stories that matter most to you.
Join us in making knowledge accessible and impactful. Thank you for standing with us!
