Pushing the Limits: A Framework to Reform Institutional Ethics Review of Environmentally-Impactful Computing Research

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.03547v1
• Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2026 12:10:23 GMT
• Title: Pushing the Limits: A Framework to Reform Institutional Ethics Review of Environmentally-Impactful Computing Research
• Abstract summary: Computationally-intensive research (CIR) takes place on a wide variety of topics including AI.<n>It does not always fall clearly within the scope of organisational ethics review policy on its own merits.<n>This paper proposes scoping criteria for institutional ethics policy to bring CIR within the scope of ethics review on its own merits.
• Score: 0.6722527419746921
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Computationally-intensive research (CIR) takes place on a wide variety of topics including AI. Its environmental impact is potentially significant yet it does not always fall clearly within the scope of organisational ethics review policy on its own merits. Many academic institutions have ethics oversight bodies (e.g. Research Ethics Committees or Institutional Review Boards) that occupy a potentially powerful position to encourage recognition of these issues and seek reflexive practice in researchers. However, policies are often poorly-defined in respect of environmental issues and thus research is not reviewed, reviewers have little guidance for legitimate critique, and researchers are not challenged to consider planetary limits on computing resources and the interaction of these with their research. This paper aims to address these problems by proposing scoping criteria for institutional ethics policy to bring CIR within the scope of ethics review on its own merits, framing evidential criteria for reviewers to apply in ethics review, and presenting a method by which CIR researchers can reflect on their proposed research in relation to environmental factors, and assess its potential value in the light of planetary limits.

Related papers

• Mirror: A Multi-Agent System for AI-Assisted Ethics Review [104.3684024153469]
  Mirror is an agentic framework for AI-assisted ethical review.<n>It integrates ethical reasoning, structured rule interpretation, and multi-agent deliberation within a unified architecture.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-09T03:38:55Z)
• The Story is Not the Science: Execution-Grounded Evaluation of Mechanistic Interpretability Research [56.80927148740585]
  We address the challenges of scalability and rigor by flipping the dynamic and developing AI agents as research evaluators.<n>We use mechanistic interpretability research as a testbed, build standardized research output, and develop MechEvalAgent.<n>Our work demonstrates the potential of AI agents to transform research evaluation and pave the way for rigorous scientific practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-05T19:00:02Z)
• The AI Imperative: Scaling High-Quality Peer Review in Machine Learning [49.87236114682497]
  We argue that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority.<n>We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T18:37:14Z)
• Bridging the Gap: Integrating Ethics and Environmental Sustainability in AI Research and Practice [57.94036023167952]
  We argue that the efforts aiming to study AI's ethical ramifications should be made in tandem with those evaluating its impacts on the environment.<n>We propose best practices to better integrate AI ethics and sustainability in AI research and practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-01T13:53:11Z)
• The overlooked need for Ethics in Complexity Science: Why it matters [0.0]
  We highlight the critical absence of formal guidelines, dedicated ethical committees, and widespread discussions on ethics within the complexity science community. Our recommendations include (i) initiating supportive mechanisms to develop ethical guidelines specific to complex systems research, (ii) creating open-access resources, and (iii) fostering inclusive dialogues. By initiating this dialogue, we aim to encourage a necessary shift in how ethics is integrated into complexity research, positioning the field to address contemporary challenges more effectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-03T15:48:24Z)
• Responsible AI Considerations in Text Summarization Research: A Review of Current Practices [89.85174013619883]
  We focus on text summarization, a common NLP task largely overlooked by the responsible AI community. We conduct a multi-round qualitative analysis of 333 summarization papers from the ACL Anthology published between 2020-2022. We focus on how, which, and when responsible AI issues are covered, which relevant stakeholders are considered, and mismatches between stated and realized research goals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-18T15:35:36Z)
• A Critical Examination of the Ethics of AI-Mediated Peer Review [0.0]
  Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) systems offer promise and peril for scholarly peer review. Human peer review systems are also fraught with related problems, such as biases, abuses, and a lack of transparency. The legitimacy of AI-driven peer review hinges on the alignment with the scientific ethos.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T18:14:10Z)
• Fairness in Recommender Systems: Research Landscape and Future Directions [119.67643184567623]
  We review the concepts and notions of fairness that were put forward in the area in the recent past. We present an overview of how research in this field is currently operationalized. Overall, our analysis of recent works points to certain research gaps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-23T08:34:25Z)
• ESR: Ethics and Society Review of Artificial Intelligence Research [11.4503292891152]
  We have developed the Ethics and Society Review board (ESR), a feedback panel that works with researchers to mitigate negative ethical and societal aspects of AI research. This article describes the ESR as we have designed and run it over its first year across 41 proposals. We analyze aggregate ESR feedback on these proposals, finding that the panel most commonly identifies issues of harms to minority groups, inclusion of diverse stakeholders in the research plan, dual use, and representation in data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-22T03:23:42Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.