3.8 Article

The use of digital twins in healthcare: socio-ethical benefits and socio-ethical risks

期刊

LIFE SCIENCES SOCIETY AND POLICY
卷 17, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s40504-021-00113-x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Digital twins, as an emerging technology, present both socio-ethical benefits such as disease prevention and treatment, cost reduction, patient autonomy and freedom, and equal treatment in healthcare, as well as important socio-ethical risks including data privacy and property, disruption of existing societal structures, inequality, and injustice.
Anticipating the ethical impact of emerging technologies is an essential part of responsible innovation. One such emergent technology is the digital twin which we define here as a living replica of a physical system (human or non-human). A digital twin combines various emerging technologies such as AI, Internet of Things, big data and robotics, each component bringing its own socio-ethical issues to the resulting artefacts. The question thus arises which of these socio-ethical themes surface in the process and how they are perceived by stakeholders in the field. In this report we present the results of a qualitative study into the socio-ethical benefits and socio-ethical risks of using digital twins in healthcare. Employing insights from ethics of technology and the Quadruple Helix theory of innovation, we conducted desk research of white literature and 23 interviews with representatives from the four helixes: industry, research, policy and civil society. The ethical scan revealed several important areas where the digital twin can produce socio-ethical value (e.g., prevention and treatment of disease, cost reduction, patient autonomy and freedom, equal treatment) but also several important areas of socio-ethical risks (e.g., privacy and property of data, disruption of existing societal structures, inequality and injustice). We conclude with a reflection on the employed analytical tool and suggestions for further research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据