butterfly/kb
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Scrape wikipedia-science: 1096 new, 964 updated, 2113 total (kb-cron)

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
turtle89431 2026-05-04 21:23:25 -07:00
parent 4f3c0809a1
commit c70e0804bd
16 changed files with 572 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

BIN
_index.db
View File

Binary file not shown.

41
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_German_Scientists-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
---
title: "Federation of German Scientists"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_German_Scientists"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:14.836299+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
The Federation of German Scientists - VDW (Vereinigung Deutscher Wissenschaftler e. V.) is a German non-governmental organization.
== History ==
Since its founding 1959 by Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, Otto Hahn, Max Born and further prominent nuclear scientists, known as Göttinger 18, who had previously publicly declared their position against the nuclear armament of the West German Bundeswehr, the Federation has been committed to the ideal of responsible Wissenschaft. The founders were almost identical to the "Göttinger 18" (compare the historical Göttingen Seven). Both the "Göttingen Manifesto" and the formation of the VDW were an expression of the new sense of responsibility felt by Otto Hahn and some scientists after the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The VDW tried to mirror the American Federation of Atomic Scientists. VDW has been identified as West Germany's Pugwash group.
Members of VDW feel committed to taking into consideration the possible military, political and economical implications and possibilities of atomic misuse when carrying out their scientific research and teaching. The Federation of German Scientists comprises around 400 scholars of different fields. The Federation of German Scientists addresses both interested members of the public and decision-makers on all levels of politics and society with its work. The politician Egon Bahr was a longstanding member. Georg Picht presented a radio series about the Limits of growth on behalf of the VDW in the 1970s. In 2005/2006, the VDW was the patron and main contributor to the Potsdam Manifesto‚ 'We have to learn to think in a new way’ and the Potsdam Denkschrift under co-authorship of Hans Peter Duerr and Daniel Dahm, together with Rudolf zur Lippe. Since 2022 Ulrike Beisiegel and Götz Neuneck are co-chairs of the VDW.
VDW was closely connected with the German Friedensbewegung (peace movement) in the 1980s. After 1999 VDW tried to regain public interest with the establishment of the Whistleblower Prize, awarded together with the German branch of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA).
== Whistleblower Prize ==
The Whistleblower Prize worth 3,000 euro, is given biannually and was established in 1999. In 2015, the selection of Gilles-Éric Séralini generated some controversy. Ulrich Bahnsen in Die Zeit described VDW and IALANA as consisting of busybodies with best wills - and worst possible outcome in the case of this award. The opinion piece, featured in Zeit Online, described the awarding of Séralini as a failure, and viewed his status as a "whistleblower" as questionable, in light of his use of "junk science" to support anti-GMO activism.
=== Recipients ===
1999 Alexander Nikitin
2001 Margrit Herbst
2003 Daniel Ellsberg
2005 Theodore A. Postol and Arpad Puztai
2007 Brigitte Heinisch and Liv Bode, in relation with the alleged Bornavirus
2009 Rudolf Schmenger and Frank Wehrheim, taxation experts in the state of Hessen
2011 Chelsea Manning and Rainer Moormann
2013 Edward Snowden
2015 Gilles-Éric Séralini and Brandon Bryant
== References ==
== External links ==
Website of the Federation of German Scientists - VDW
Website Goettinger 18

43
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesca_Ferrando-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
---
title: "Francesca Ferrando"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesca_Ferrando"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:16.077499+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
Francesca Ferrando (they/them) is a contemporary philosopher known for their contributions to the fields of posthumanism, transhumanism and gender.
Ferrando is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at NYU Liberal Studies, Faculty of Arts and Science at the New York University in New York City, US. Their work analyses the existential implications of being human in the 21st century, exploring emerging technologies, ecology and plurality as integral parts of the global human condition. Their work has been translated into a dozen languages.
== Biography and education ==
Born in Italy, Ferrando holds a B.A. in Literature and Philosophy (summa cum laude) from the University of Turin, and an M.A. in Gender Studies from Utrecht University (Netherlands) under the supervision of Rosi Braidotti. They earned a PhD in Philosophy from the University of Roma Tre (Italy). One of their examiners was Stefan Lorenz Sorgner. Their doctoral dissertation was awarded the prize in philosophy "Vittorio Sainati" with recognition from the President of Italy Giorgio Napolitano. It was later published in Italian.
As part of their graduate studies, Ferrando conducted research on Cyborg anthropology at the University of Reading (England) under the supervision of Kevin Warwick, exploring the intersections of human enhancement and diversity, equity and inclusion. Ferrando relocated to the United States during their postgraduate studies, serving as a Visiting Scholar at Columbia University under the mentorship of Achille Varzi (philosopher).
== Posthuman philosophy ==
In the field of Posthuman Studies, Ferrando's article "Posthumanism, Transhumanism, Antihumanism, and New Materialism" (2013) was instrumental in conceptualizing the posthuman as an umbrella term that encompasses a plurality of intellectual frameworks. The article distinguishes between transhumanism and posthumanism, arguing that while transhumanism advocates for human enhancement through science and emerging technologies, posthumanism critically repositions the human within a broader planetary context in the era of the anthropocene, emphasizing a non-hierarchical perspective. Furthermore, posthumanism extends the concept of technology beyond its conventional definition, drawing from Martin Heidegger's interpretation of technology as a mode of poiesis and framing evolution itself as a transformative process that operates as a form of existential technology. This article has been translated into Chinese, Italian, Hungarian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Spanish and Turkish.
Ferrando's book Philosophical Posthumanism(Bloomsbury, 2019), with a preface by Rosi Braidotti, offers a radical rethinking of what it means to be human, challenging anthropocentrism and defining philosophical posthumanism in three key layers: as a post-humanism, a post-anthropocentrism, and a post-dualism. Their work synthesizes continental philosophy, critical posthumanism, Eastern philosophies, Native epistemologies, and new materialism, engaging with thinkers such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Donna Haraway and Vandana Shiva. The book has been translated into Spanish, Russian and Korean, among other languages.
Their latest book The Art of Being Posthuman: Who Are We in the 21st Century? (Polity, 2024) focusses on self-knowledge, calling for a shift from theory to praxis. It explores the ethical, existential, and ontological dimensions of posthumanism, developing the concept of existential posthumanism—a perspective that examines the nature of existence beyond traditional humanist frameworks. The book explores the existential condition of the 21st century, drawing on sources ranging from the Paleolithic era to the potential futures of radical life extension. It incorporates insights from mystical traditions, world religions, and recent advances in science and technology, ultimately conveying the message that all beings are interconnected. It emphases unity in diversity and advocates for multispecies co-existence. It has been translated into Arabic.
Their work combines philosophical insights with a lyrical tone, leading Robin Kelley to characterize Ferrando as the 'philosopher poet of our time'. Their scholarship further explores intersections between transhumanism, posthumanism, and spirituality, addressing topics such as the future of religions, mindfulness, and technological enlightenment.
== Career and activism ==
Ferrando has been teaching Global Philosophy at NYU Liberal Studies since 2014. They have delivered over one hundred keynotes and lectures globally. In the United States, they have lectured at Ivy League universities such as Harvard University, Princeton University, and other institutions. Their lectures, conducted in English, Spanish, and Italian, have also been featured at international conferences in Asia, Europe, and Latin America.
They are co-founders of the Global Posthuman Network, a platform that promotes global discussions on posthumanism through horizontal collaborations, with board members including Katherine Hayles, Dipesh Chakrabarty, and Debashish Banerji. They are affiliated with regional posthuman networks in India, Italy, Latin America, and Pakistan. They serve on several editorial and advisory boards, including the Journal of Posthuman Studies and the Lifeboat Foundation.
Beyond academia, Ferrando engages in public discourse through media appearances, with the aim of democratizing access to posthuman thought. In 2012, Ferrando became the first TED speaker to address the topic of the posthuman. They are an open-access advocate, providing the first crash course on the posthuman under a Creative Commons license on YouTube. Ferrando has contributed to bridging the fields of posthumanism and transhumanism by organizing conferences, and producing vlogs and podcasts. They have engaged in dialogues with scholars such as Aubrey de Grey, Anders Sandberg, and Natasha Vita-More. Their work has been featured internationally on platforms such as Vice Media, the Singularity Weblog, the Kathmandu Post (Nepal), El Nacional (Venezuela), and ARN Media (Australia), where they were interviewed by Kristina Borjesson. Ferrando was named among the 100 top creatives making change in the world by "Origin" magazine in the United States.
Before relocating to New York City, Ferrando was a researcher at the Research Center for Women's and Gender Studies at the University of Turin, Italy. During this time, they collaborated with theorists such as Luisa Passerini and Gianni Vattimo. In addition to their academic work, Ferrando contributed as a journalist and author, publishing with the Italian publisher Feltrinelli. During the 2008 season, they served as a television commentator on Iride, a program directed by Irene Pivetti on Odeon 24.
== Publications ==
Ferrando's academic work has been published by publishers such as Oxford University Press, Columbia University Press, MIT Press, Bloomsbury Press, Routledge, Springer, Taylor & Francis, and the European Commission, among others.
== References ==
== External links ==
NYU Faculty Directory
Ferrando's Website

55
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Worlds_Center-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
---
title: "Future Worlds Center"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Worlds_Center"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:17.288344+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
Future Worlds Center (FWC) is a non-profit, non-Governmental independent organization active in programs with future orientation in areas related to positive social change, social entrepreneurship and transformation.
== Founding history ==
Future Worlds Center was founded in 1991 as Cyprus Neuroscience and Technology Institute. In the late 1990s, it expanded its operations pioneering in a number of humanitarian, multicultural and peace related projects. At the end of 2005, with a new Constitution, it evolved into a larger organization with a pure international orientation integrating all humanitarian, peace, and multicultural activities under one umbrella.
== Notable Operations ==
According to its new Constitution, Future Worlds Center is an incubator of ideas, projects, social entrepreneurs and organizations committed to socio-technical reforms. Since its inception it has envisioned, designed and implemented more than 100 projects, employed more than 200 young scientists, and founded several organizations, including CYBER KIDS, Technology for peace, the Cyprus Safer Internet Center along with the Cyprus Safer Internet Hotline and Helpline, the Cyprus Community Media Centre funded by the United Nations, Youth Power, Cyprus NGO Platform "Development", the Cyprus Refugee Council.
== Innovations in Education ==
The organization has developed the curriculum for CYBER KIDS, a chain of computer learning centers, that started in Cyprus and expanded in 7 countries in the early 90s. CYBER KIDS was a mass-scale experiment to achieve massive social change in a whole country.
Future Worlds Center also implements many EC-funded projects that conduct research and inform societies about the safer use of the Internet; Cyberethics, Cyprus’ Safer Internet Center, which includes a Hotline and a Helpline.
== Promoting regional peace ==
Future Worlds Center pioneers in envisioning, designing and implementing projects that promote the culture of peace and reconciliation in Cyprus, the region and the globe. The Technology for peace, initiative in 1997, founded by Yiannis Laouris and Harry Anastasiou members of the Cyprus Conflict Resolution Trainers Group aimed to capitalize on the proliferation of the Internet as a means to break the communication barriers between the northern and the southern parts of divided Cyprus. Other notable peace projects include the Youth promoting Peace, Civil Society Dialogue, the Act Beyond Borders, Everybody's song, and many projects funded by HasNa Inc.
== Active promoter of the MDGs ==
Future Worlds Center is leading a number of pan-European efforts, which aim to promote the Millennium Development Goals within Europe and in Sub-Saharan countries. It was a founding member of the Cyprus Islandwide Development NGO Platform and the Cyprus Community Media Centre. The Accessing Development Education project has collected teaching materials or guidance books on topics like Development Education, Global citizenship, Human Rights, Millennium Development Goals and many others from across Europe into one central depository. The Teach MDGs project focuses on increasing awareness and public support for the Millennium Development Goals by actively engaging teacher training institutes, teachers and pupils in developing local oriented teaching resources promoting the MDGs with a particular focus on Sub-Saharan Africa and integrate these into the educational systems of countries across Europe.
== Leading Research and Applications in Structured Dialogic Design ==
The organization has implemented more than 120 Structured Democratic Dialogues in diverse contexts, including, peace and conflict resolution, government and societal challenges (e.g., reforming the local authorities or the Wine Villages of Cyprus), supporting pan-European groups of experts discover obstacles and design actions to improve access to broadband technologies for all but also for people facing accessibility challenges; discovering and collectively agreeing on research agenda priorities, thus influencing European Commission funding; reinventing democracy. Its scientists advanced the underlying science enabling virtual dialogues.
=== Supporting vulnerable groups ===
Future Worlds Center is the implementing organization of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Representation in Cyprus. Its Humanitarian Affairs Unit implements projects that aim strengthening asylum for refugees and asylum seekers on the island. This Unit has founded the Unit of Rehabilitation of Victims of Torture. As of January 2018, a spin-off was created and the Cyprus Refugee Council was created.
== Notable Awards ==
The Hellenic Society for Systemic Studies Medal in 2007 to Aleco Christakis for his role in founding the science of Structured dialogic design.
The Hellenic Society for Systemic Studies Award in 2008 to Yiannis Laouris for his peace work within Future Worlds Center.
Cyprus civil society award in the category of social inclusion in 2008.
The 2011 Euro-Med Award for the Dialogue between Cultures Honorable Mention -ranked 2nd- for Future Worlds Center and Aleco Christakis, Yiannis Laouris, Harry Anastasiou, Kerstin Wittig and Romina Laouri.
== References ==
== External links ==
Future Worlds Center official website
Future Worlds Center official wiki

28
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath_for_scientists-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
---
title: "Hippocratic Oath for scientists"
chunk: 1/2
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath_for_scientists"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:20.973444+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
A Hippocratic Oath for scientists is an oath similar to the Hippocratic Oath for medical professionals, adapted for scientists. Multiple varieties of such an oath have been proposed. Joseph Rotblat has suggested that an oath would help make new scientists aware of their social and moral responsibilities; opponents, however, have pointed to the "very serious risks for the scientific community" posed by an oath, particularly the possibility that it might be used to shut down certain avenues of research, such as stem cells.
== Development ==
The idea of an oath has been proposed by various prominent members of the scientific community, including Karl Popper, Joseph Rotblat and John Sulston. Research by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) identified sixteen different oaths for scientists or engineers proposed during the 20th century, most after 1970.
Popper, Rotblat and Sulston were all primarily concerned with the ethical implications of scientific advances, in particular for Popper and Rotblat the development of the atomic bomb, and believed that scientist, like medics, should have an oath that compelled them to "first do no harm". Popper said: "Formerly the pure scientist or the pure scholar had only one responsibility beyond those which everybody has; that is, to search for the truth. … This happy situation belongs to the past." Rotblat similarly stated: "Scientists can no longer claim that their work has nothing to do with the welfare of the individual or with state policies." He also attacked the attitude that the only obligation of a scientist is to make their results known, the use made of these results being the public's business, saying: "This amoral attitude is in my opinion actually immoral, because it eschews personal responsibility for the likely consequences of one's actions." Sulston was more concerned with rising public distrust of scientists and conflicts of interest brought about by the exploitation of research for profit. The stated intention of his oath was "both to require qualified scientists to cause no harm and to be wholly truthful in their public pronouncements, and also to protect them from discrimination by employers who might prefer them to be economical with the truth."
The concept of an oath, rather than a more detailed code of conduct, has been opposed by Ray Spier, Professor of Science and Engineering Ethics at the University of Surrey, UK, who stated that "Oaths are not the way ahead". Other objections raised at a AAAS meeting on the topic in 2000 included that an oath would simply make scientists look good without changing behaviour, that an oath could be used to suppress research, that some scientists would refuse to swear any oath as a matter of principle, that an oath would be ineffective, that creation of knowledge is separate from how it is used, and that the scientific community could never agree on the content of an oath. The meeting concluded that: "There was a broadly shared consensus that a tolerant (but not patronizing) attitude should be taken towards those developing oaths, but that an oath posed very serious risks for the scientific community which could not be ignored." Nobel laureate Jean-Marie Lehn has said "The first aim of scientific research is to increase knowledge for understanding. Knowledge is then available to mankind for use, namely to progress as well as to help prevent disease and suffering. Any knowledge can be misused. I do not see the need for an oath".
Some of the propositions are outlined below.
=== Karl Popper ===
In 1968, the philosopher Karl Popper gave a talk on "The Moral Responsibility of the Scientist" at the International Congress on Philosophy in Vienna, in which he suggested "an undertaking analogous to the Hippocratic oath". In his analysis he noted that the original oath had three sections: the apprentice's obligation to their teacher; the obligation to carry on the high tradition of their art, preserve its high standards, and pass these standards on to their own students; and the obligation to help the suffering and preserve their confidentiality. He also noted that it was an apprentice's oath, as distinct from a graduation oath. Based on this, he proposed a three-section oath for students, rearranged from the Hippocratic oath to give professional responsibility to further the growth of knowledge; the student, who owes respect to others engaged in science and loyalty to teachers; and the overriding loyalty owed to humanity as a whole.
=== Joseph Rotblat ===
The idea of a Hippocratic Oath for scientists was raised again by Joseph Rotblat in his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995, who later expanded on the idea, endorsing the formulation of the Student Pugwash Group:
I promise to work for a better world, where science and technology are used in socially responsible ways. I will not use my education for any purpose intended to harm human beings or the environment. Throughout my career, I will consider the ethical implications of my work before I take action. While the demands placed upon me may be great, I sign this declaration because I recognize that individual responsibility is the first step on the path to peace.
=== John Sulston ===
In 2001, in the scientific journal Biochemical Journal, Nobel laureate John Sulston proposed that "For individual scientists, it may be helpful to have a clear professional code of conduct – a Hippocratic oath as it were". This path would enable scientists to declare their intention "to cause no harm and to be wholly truthful in their public pronouncements", and would also serve to protect them from unethical employers. The concept of an oath was opposed by Ray Spiers of the University of Surrey, an expert on scientific ethics who was preparing a 20-point code of conduct at the time.

38
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath_for_scientists-1.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
---
title: "Hippocratic Oath for scientists"
chunk: 2/2
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath_for_scientists"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:20.973444+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
=== David King ===
In 2007, the UK government's chief scientific advisor, David King, presented a "Universal Ethical Code for Scientists" at the British Association's Festival of Science in York. Despite being a code rather than an oath, this was widely reported as a Hippocratic oath for scientists. In contrast to the earlier oaths, King's code was not only intended to meet the public demand that "scientific developments are ethical and serve the wider public good" but also to address public confidence in the integrity of science, which had been shaken by the disgrace of cloning pioneer Hwang Woo-suk and by other research-fraud scandals.
Work on the code started in 2005, following a meeting of G8 science ministers and advisors. It was supported by the Royal Society in its response to a public consultation on the draft code in 2006, where they said it would help whistleblowers and the promotion of science in schools.
The code has seven principles, divided into three sections:
Rigour
Act with skill and care in all scientific work. Maintain up to date skills and assist their development in others.
Take steps to prevent corrupt practices and professional misconduct. Declare conflicts of interest.
Be alert to the ways in which research derives from and affects the work of other people, and respect the rights and reputations of others.
Respect
Ensure that your work is lawful and justified.
Minimize and justify any adverse effect your work may have on people, animals and the natural environment.
Responsibility
Seek to discuss the issues that science raises for society. Listen to the aspirations and concerns of others.
Do not knowingly mislead, or allow others to be misled, about scientific matters. Present and review scientific evidence, theory or interpretation honestly and accurately.
== See also ==
Code of conduct
Code of ethics
Universal code (ethics)
== References ==
== External links ==
Transcript of a Conversation with Sir David King, 2007;
Institute of Medical Science, Toronto, 2008 Archived 15 June 2008 at the Wayback Machine;

62
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-in-the-loop-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
---
title: "Human-in-the-loop"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-in-the-loop"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:22.196649+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
Human-in-the-loop (HITL) is used in multiple contexts. It can be defined as a model requiring human interaction. HITL is associated with modeling and simulation (M&S) in the live, virtual, and constructive taxonomy. HITL, along with the related human-on-the-loop are also used in relation to lethal autonomous weapons. Further, HITL is used in the context of machine learning.
== Machine learning ==
In machine learning, HITL is used in the sense of humans aiding the computer in making the correct decisions in building a model. HITL improves machine learning over random sampling by selecting the most critical data needed to refine the model.
== Simulation ==
In simulation, HITL models may conform to human factors requirements as in the case of a mockup. In this type of simulation, a human is always part of the simulation and consequently influences the outcome in such a way that is difficult if not impossible to reproduce exactly. HITL also readily allows for the identification of problems and requirements that may not be easily identified by other means of simulation.
HITL is often referred to as an interactive simulation, which is a special kind of physical simulation in which physical simulations include human operators, such as in a flight or a driving simulator.
=== Benefits ===
Human-in-the-loop allows the user to change the outcome of an event or process. The immersion effectively contributes to a positive transfer of acquired skills into the real world. This can be demonstrated by trainees utilizing flight simulators in preparation to become pilots.
HITL also allows for the acquisition of knowledge regarding how a new process may affect a particular event. Utilizing HITL allows participants to interact with realistic models and attempt to perform as they would in an actual scenario. HITL simulations bring to the surface issues that would not otherwise be apparent until after a new process has been deployed. A real-world example of HITL simulation as an evaluation tool is its usage by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to allow air traffic controllers to test new automation procedures by directing the activities of simulated air traffic while monitoring the effect of the newly implemented procedures.
As with most processes, there is always the possibility of human error, which can only be reproduced using HITL simulation. Although much can be done to automate systems, humans typically still need to take the information provided by a system to determine the next course of action based on their judgment and experience. Intelligent systems can only go so far in certain circumstances to automate a process; only humans in the simulation can accurately judge the final design. Tabletop simulation may be useful in the very early stages of project development for the purpose of collecting data to set broad parameters, but the important decisions require human-in-the-loop simulation. HITL reflects scenarios where human input remains essential despite advances in automation.
=== Within the virtual simulation taxonomy ===
Virtual simulations inject HITL in a central role by exercising motor control skills (e.g. flying an airplane), decision making skills (e.g. committing fire control resources to action), or communication skills (e.g. as members of a C4I team).
=== Examples ===
Flight simulators
Driving simulators
Marine simulators
Video games
Supply chain management simulators
Digital puppetry
=== Misconceptions ===
Although human-in-the-loop simulation can include a computer simulation in the form of a synthetic environment, computer simulation is not necessarily a form of human-in-the-loop simulation, and is often considered as human-out-of-the loop simulation. In this particular case, a computer model’s behavior is modified according to a set of initial parameters. The results of the model differ from the results stemming from a true human-in-the-loop simulation because the results can easily be replicated time and time again, by simply providing identical parameters.
== Weapons ==
Three classifications of the degree of human control of autonomous weapon systems were laid out by Bonnie Docherty in a 2012 Human Rights Watch report.
human-in-the-loop: a human must instigate the action of the weapon (in other words not fully autonomous)
human-on-the-loop: a human may abort an action
human-out-of-the-loop: no human action is involved
== See also ==
Humanistic intelligence, which is intelligence that arises by having the human in the feedback loop of the computational process
Reinforcement learning from human feedback
MIM-104 Patriot - Examples of a human-on-the-loop lethal autonomous weapon system posing a threat to friendly forces.
== References ==

34
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_nanotechnology-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
---
title: "Impact of nanotechnology"
chunk: 1/3
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_nanotechnology"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:23.499696+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
The impact of nanotechnology extends from its medical, ethical, mental, legal and environmental applications, to fields such as engineering, biology, chemistry, computing, materials science, and communications.
Major benefits of nanotechnology include improved manufacturing methods, water purification systems, energy systems, physical enhancement, nanomedicine, better food production methods, nutrition and large-scale infrastructure auto-fabrication. Nanotechnology's reduced size may allow for automation of tasks which were previously inaccessible due to physical restrictions, which in turn may reduce labor, land, or maintenance requirements placed on humans.
Potential risks include environmental, health, and safety issues; transitional effects such as displacement of traditional industries as the products of nanotechnology become dominant, which are of concern to privacy rights advocates. These may be particularly important if potential negative effects of nanoparticles are overlooked.
Whether nanotechnology merits special government regulation is a controversial issue. Regulatory bodies such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate of the European Commission have started dealing with the potential risks of nanoparticles. The organic food sector has been the first to act with the regulated exclusion of engineered nanoparticles from certified organic produce, firstly in Australia and the UK, and more recently in Canada, as well as for all food certified to Demeter International standards
== Overview ==
The presence of nanomaterials (materials that contain nanoparticles) is not in itself a threat. It is only certain aspects that can make them risky, in particular their mobility and their increased reactivity. Only if certain properties of certain nanoparticles were harmful to living beings or the environment would we be faced with a genuine hazard. In this case it can be called nanopollution.
In addressing the health and environmental impact of nanomaterials we need to differentiate between two types of nanostructures: (1) Nanocomposites, nanostructured surfaces and nanocomponents (electronic, optical, sensors etc.), where nanoscale particles are incorporated into a substance, material or device ("fixed" nano-particles); and (2) "free" nanoparticles, where at some stage in production or use individual nanoparticles of a substance are present. These free nanoparticles could be nanoscale species of elements, or simple compounds, but also complex compounds where for instance a nanoparticle of a particular element is coated with another substance ("coated" nanoparticle or "core-shell" nanoparticle).
There seems to be consensus that, although one should be aware of materials containing fixed nanoparticles, the immediate concern is with free nanoparticles.
Nanoparticles are very different from their everyday counterparts, so their adverse effects cannot be derived from the known toxicity of the macro-sized material. This poses significant issues for addressing the health and environmental impact of free nanoparticles.
To complicate things further, in talking about nanoparticles it is important that a powder or liquid containing nanoparticles almost never be monodisperse, but contain instead a range of particle sizes. This complicates the experimental analysis as larger nanoparticles might have different properties from smaller ones. Also, nanoparticles show a tendency to aggregate, and such aggregates often behave differently from individual nanoparticles.
== Health impact ==
The health impacts of nanotechnology are the possible effects that the use of nanotechnological materials and devices will have on human health. As nanotechnology is an emerging field, there is great debate regarding to what extent nanotechnology will benefit or pose risks for human health. Nanotechnology's health impacts can be split into two aspects: the potential for nanotechnological innovations to have medical applications to cure disease, and the potential health hazards posed by exposure to nanomaterials.
In regards to the current global pandemic, researchers, engineers and medical professionals are using an extremely developed collection of nano science and nanotechnology approaches to explore the ways it could potentially help the medical, technical, and scientific communities to help fight the pandemic.
=== Medical applications ===
Nanomedicine is the medical application of nanotechnology. The approaches to nanomedicine range from the medical use of nanomaterials, to nanoelectronic biosensors, and even possible future applications of molecular nanotechnology. Nanomedicine seeks to deliver a valuable set of research tools and clinically helpful devices in the near future. The National Nanotechnology Initiative expects new commercial applications in the pharmaceutical industry that may include advanced drug delivery systems, new therapies, and in vivo imaging. Neuro-electronic interfaces and other nanoelectronics-based sensors are another active goal of research. Further down the line, the speculative field of molecular nanotechnology believes that cell repair machines could revolutionize medicine and the medical field.
Nanomedicine research is directly funded, with the US National Institutes of Health in 2005 funding a five-year plan to set up four nanomedicine centers. In April 2006, the journal Nature Materials estimated that 130 nanotech-based drugs and delivery systems were being developed worldwide. Nanomedicine is a large industry, with nanomedicine sales reaching $6.8 billion in 2004. With over 200 companies and 38 products worldwide, a minimum of $3.8 billion in nanotechnology R&D is being invested every year. As the nanomedicine industry continues to grow, it is expected to have a significant impact on the economy.
=== Health hazards ===

31
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_nanotechnology-1.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
---
title: "Impact of nanotechnology"
chunk: 2/3
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_nanotechnology"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:23.499696+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
Nanotoxicology is the field which studies potential health risks of nanomaterials. The extremely small size of nanomaterials means that they are much more readily taken up by the human body than larger sized particles. How these nanoparticles behave inside the organism is one of the significant issues that needs to be resolved. The behavior of nanoparticles is a function of their size, shape and surface reactivity with the surrounding tissue. For example, they could cause overload on phagocytes, cells that ingest and destroy foreign matter, thereby triggering stress reactions that lead to inflammation and weaken the body's defense against other pathogens.
Apart from what happens if non-degradable or slowly degradable nanoparticles accumulate in organs, another concern is their potential interaction with biological processes inside the body: because of their large surface, nanoparticles on exposure to tissue and fluids will immediately adsorb onto their surface some of the macromolecules they encounter. This may, for instance, affect the regulatory mechanisms of enzymes and other proteins. The large number of variables influencing toxicity means that it is difficult to generalise about health risks associated with exposure to nanomaterials – each new nanomaterial must be assessed individually and all material properties must be taken into account. Health and environmental issues combine in the workplace of companies engaged in producing or using nanomaterials and in the laboratories engaged in nanoscience and nanotechnology research. It is safe to say that current workplace exposure standards for dusts cannot be applied directly to nanoparticle dusts.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has conducted initial research on how nanoparticles interact with the body's systems and how workers might be exposed to nano-sized particles in the manufacturing or industrial use of nanomaterials. NIOSH currently offers interim guidelines for working with nanomaterials consistent with the best scientific knowledge. At The National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory of NIOSH, studies investigating the filter penetration of nanoparticles on NIOSH-certified and EU marked respirators, as well as non-certified dust masks have been conducted. These studies found that the most penetrating particle size range was between 30 and 100 nanometers, and leak size was the largest factor in the number of nanoparticles found inside the respirators of the test dummies.
Other properties of nanomaterials that influence toxicity include: chemical composition, shape, surface structure, surface charge, aggregation and solubility,
and the presence or absence of functional groups of other chemicals.
The large number of variables influencing toxicity means that it is difficult to generalise about health risks associated with exposure to nanomaterials – each new nanomaterial must be assessed individually and all material properties must be taken into account.
Literature reviews have been showing that release of engineered nanoparticles and incurred personal exposure can happen during different work activities. The situation alerts regulatory bodies to necessitate prevention strategies and regulations at nanotechnology workplaces.
== Environmental impact ==
The environmental impact of nanotechnology is the possible effects that the use of nanotechnological materials and devices will have on the environment. As nanotechnology is an emerging field, there is debate regarding to what extent industrial and commercial use of nanomaterials will affect organisms and ecosystems.
Nanotechnology's environmental impact can be split into two aspects: the potential for nanotechnological innovations to help improve the environment, and the possibly novel type of pollution that nanotechnological materials might cause if released into the environment.
=== Environmental applications ===
Green nanotechnology refers to the use of nanotechnology to enhance the environmental sustainability of processes producing negative externalities. It also refers to the use of the products of nanotechnology to enhance sustainability. It includes making green nano-products and using nano-products in support of sustainability. Green nanotechnology has been described as the development of clean technologies, "to minimize potential environmental and human health risks associated with the manufacture and use of nanotechnology products, and to encourage replacement of existing products with new nano-products that are more environmentally friendly throughout their lifecycle."
Green nanotechnology has two goals: producing nanomaterials and products without harming the environment or human health, and producing nano-products that provide solutions to environmental problems. It uses existing principles of green chemistry and green engineering to make nanomaterials and nano-products without toxic ingredients, at low temperatures using less energy and renewable inputs wherever possible, and using lifecycle thinking in all design and engineering stages.
=== Pollution ===
Nanopollution is a generic name for all waste generated by nanodevices or during the nanomaterials manufacturing process. Nanowaste is mainly the group of particles that are released into the environment, or the particles that are thrown away when still on their products.
== Social impact ==

56
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_nanotechnology-2.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
---
title: "Impact of nanotechnology"
chunk: 3/3
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_nanotechnology"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:23.499696+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
Beyond the toxicity risks to human health and the environment which are associated with first-generation nanomaterials, nanotechnology has broader societal impact and poses broader social challenges. Social scientists have suggested that nanotechnology's social issues should be understood and assessed not simply as "downstream" risks or impacts. Rather, the challenges should be factored into "upstream" research and decision-making in order to ensure technology development that meets social objectives
Many social scientists and organizations in civil society suggest that technology assessment and governance should also involve public participation. The exploration of the stakeholder's perception is also an essential component in assessing the large amount of risk associated with nanotechnology and nano-related products.
Over 800 nano-related patents were granted in 2003, with numbers increasing to nearly 19,000 internationally by 2012. Corporations are already taking out broad-ranging patents on nanoscale discoveries and inventions. For example, two corporations, NEC and IBM, hold the basic patents on carbon nanotubes, one of the current cornerstones of nanotechnology. Carbon nanotubes have a wide range of uses, and look set to become crucial to several industries from electronics and computers, to strengthened materials to drug delivery and diagnostics. Carbon nanotubes are poised to become a major traded commodity with the potential to replace major conventional raw materials.
Nanotechnologies may provide new solutions for the millions of people in developing countries who lack access to basic services, such as safe water, reliable energy, health care, and education. The 2004 UN Task Force on Science, Technology and Innovation noted that some of the advantages of nanotechnology include production using little labor, land, or maintenance, high productivity, low cost, and modest requirements for materials and energy. However, concerns are frequently raised that the claimed benefits of nanotechnology will not be evenly distributed, and that any benefits (including technical and/or economic) associated with nanotechnology will only reach affluent nations.
Longer-term concerns center on the impact that new technologies will have for society at large, and whether these could possibly lead to either a post-scarcity economy, or alternatively exacerbate the wealth gap between developed and developing nations. The effects of nanotechnology on the society as a whole, on human health and the environment, on trade, on security, on food systems and even on the definition of "human", have not been characterized or politicized.
== Regulation ==
Significant debate exists relating to the question of whether nanotechnology or nanotechnology-based products merit special government regulation. This debate is related to the circumstances in which it is necessary and appropriate to assess new substances prior to their release into the market, community and environment.
Regulatory bodies such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration in the U.S. or the Health & Consumer Protection Directorate of the European Commission have started dealing with the potential risks posed by nanoparticles. So far, neither engineered nanoparticles nor the products and materials that contain them are subject to any special regulation regarding production, handling or labelling. The Material Safety Data Sheet that must be issued for some materials often does not differentiate between bulk and nanoscale size of the material in question and even when it does these MSDS are advisory only. The new advances and rapid growth within the field of nanotechnology have large implications, which in turn will lead to regulations, on the traditional food and agriculture sectors of the world, in particular the invention of smart and active packaging, nano sensors, nano pesticides, and nano fertilizers.
Limited nanotechnology labeling and regulation may exacerbate potential human and environmental health and safety issues associated with nanotechnology. It has been argued that the development of comprehensive regulation of nanotechnology will be vital to ensure that the potential risks associated with the research and commercial application of nanotechnology do not overshadow its potential benefits. Regulation may also be required to meet community expectations about responsible development of nanotechnology, as well as ensuring that public interests are included in shaping the development of nanotechnology.
In 2008, E. Marla Felcher "The Consumer Product Safety Commission and Nanotechnology," suggested that the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is charged with protecting the public against unreasonable risks of injury or death associated with consumer products, is ill-equipped to oversee the safety of complex, high-tech products made using nanotechnology.
== See also ==
International Center for Technology Assessment
== References ==
== Further reading ==
Fritz Allhoff, Patrick Lin, and Daniel Moore, What Is Nanotechnology and Why Does It Matter?: From Science to Ethics. (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010).
Fritz Allhoff and Patrick Lin (eds.), Nanotechnology & Society: Current and Emerging Ethical Issues (Dordrecht: Springer, 2008).
Fritz Allhoff, Patrick Lin, James Moor, and John Weckert (eds.), Nanoethics: The Ethical and Societal Implications of Nanotechnology Archived 2016-01-27 at the Wayback Machine (Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2007). Alternate link.
Kaldis, Byron. "Epistemology of Nanotechnology". Sage Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society. (Thousand Oaks: CA, Sage, 2010)
Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology: An Information Exchange with NIOSH, United States National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, June 2007, DHHS (NIOSH) publication no. 2007-123
Mehta, Michael; Geoffrey Hunt (2006). Nanotechnology: Risk, Ethics and Law. London: Earthscan. - provides a global overview of the state of nanotechnology and society in Europe, the US, Japan and Canada, and examines the ethics, the environmental and public health risks, and the governance and regulation of this technology.
Dónal P O'Mathúna, Nanoethics: Big Ethical Issues with Small Technology Archived 2012-02-25 at the Wayback Machine (London & New York: Continuum, 2009).
== External links ==
U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative, Societal Dimensions
Nanotechnology Now
USC's Nanoscience & Technology Studies
NELSI Global
ASU's Center on Nanotechnology and Society
UCSB's Center on Nanotechnology and Society
The Nanoethics Group
Nanotechnology
Foresight Nanotech Institute
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology
The Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology
The International Council on Nanotechnology
The NanoEthicsBank
NanoEthics: Ethics for Technologies that Converge at the Nanoscale
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Nanotechnology topic page
UnderstandingNano
European Center for the Sustainable Impact of Nanotechnology
Center for the Environmental Implications of NanoTechnology

21
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_ethics-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
---
title: "Information ethics"
chunk: 1/3
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_ethics"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:24.851455+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
Information ethics has been defined as "the branch of ethics that focuses on the relationship between the creation, organization, dissemination, and use of information, and the ethical standards and moral codes governing human conduct in society". It examines the morality that comes from information as a resource, a product, or as a target. It provides a critical framework for considering moral issues concerning informational privacy, moral agency (e.g. whether artificial agents may be moral), new environmental issues (especially how agents should behave in the infosphere), problems arising from the life-cycle (creation, collection, recording, distribution, processing, etc.) of information (especially ownership and copyright, digital divide, and digital rights). It is very vital to understand that librarians, archivists, information professionals among others, really understand the importance of knowing how to disseminate proper information as well as being responsible with their actions when addressing information.
Information ethics has evolved to relate to a range of fields such as computer ethics, medical ethics, journalism and the philosophy of information. As the use and creation of information and data form the foundation of machine learning, artificial intelligence and many areas of mathematics, information ethics also plays a central role in the ethics of artificial intelligence, big data ethics and ethics in mathematics.
== History ==
The term information ethics was first coined by Robert Hauptman and used in the book Ethical Challenges in Librarianship.
The field of information ethics has a relatively short but progressive history having been recognized in the United States for nearly 20 years. The origins of the field are in librarianship though it has now expanded to the consideration of ethical issues in other domains including computer science, the internet, media, journalism, management information systems, and business.
Evidence of scholarly work on this subject can be traced to the 1980s, when an article authored by Barbara J. Kostrewski and Charles Oppenheim and published in the Journal of Information Science, discussed issues relating to the field including confidentiality, information biases, and quality control. Another scholar, Robert Hauptman, has also written extensively about information ethics in the library field and founded the Journal of Information Ethics in 1992.
One of the first schools to introduce an Information Ethics course was the University of Pittsburgh in 1990. The course was a master's level course on the concept of Information Ethics. Soon after, Kent State University also introduced a master's level course called "Ethical Concerns For Library and Information Professionals." Eventually, the term "Information Ethics" became more associated with the computer science and information technology disciplines in university. Still however, it is uncommon for universities to devote entire courses to the subject. Due to the nature of technology, the concept of information ethics has spread to other realms in the industry. Thus, concepts such as "cyberethics," a concept which discusses topics such as the ethics of artificial intelligence and its ability to reason, and media ethics which applies to concepts such as lies, censorship, and violence in the press. Therefore, due to the advent of the internet, the concept of information ethics has been spread to other fields other than librarianship now that information has become so readily available. Information has become more relevant now than ever now that the credibility of information online is more blurry than print articles due to the ease of publishing online articles. All of these different concepts have been embraced by the International Center for Information Ethics (ICIE), established by Rafael Capurro in 1999.
Dilemmas regarding the life of information are becoming increasingly important in a society that is defined as "the information society". The explosion of so much technology has brought information ethics to a forefront in ethical considerations. Information transmission and literacy are essential concerns in establishing an ethical foundation that promotes fair, equitable, and responsible practices. Information ethics broadly examines issues related to ownership, access, privacy, security, and community. It is also concerned with relational issues such as "the relationship between information and the good of society, the relationship between information providers and the consumers of information".
Information technology affects common issues such as copyright protection, intellectual freedom, accountability, privacy, and security. Many of these issues are difficult or impossible to resolve due to fundamental tensions between Western moral philosophies (based on rules, democracy, individual rights, and personal freedoms) and the traditional Eastern cultures (based on relationships, hierarchy, collective responsibilities, and social harmony). The multi-faceted dispute between Google and the government of the People's Republic of China reflects some of these fundamental tensions.
Professional codes offer a basis for making ethical decisions and applying ethical solutions to situations involving information provision and use which reflect an organization's commitment to responsible information service. Evolving information formats and needs require continual reconsideration of ethical principles and how these codes are applied. Considerations regarding information ethics influence "personal decisions, professional practice, and public policy". Therefore, ethical analysis must provide a framework to take into consideration "many, diverse domains" (ibid.) regarding how information is distributed.

19
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_ethics-1.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
---
title: "Information ethics"
chunk: 2/3
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_ethics"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:24.851455+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
== Censorship ==
Censorship is an issue commonly involved in the discussion of information ethics because it describes the inability to access or express opinions or information based on the belief it is bad for others to view this opinion or information. Sources that are commonly censored include books, articles, speeches, art work, data, music and photos. Censorship can be perceived both as ethical and non-ethical in the field of information ethics.
Those who believe censorship is ethical say the practice prevents readers from being exposed to offensive and objectionable material. Topics such as sexism, racism, homophobia, and anti-semitism are present in public works and are widely seen as unethical in the public eye. There is concern regarding the exposure of these topics to the world, especially the young generation. The Australian Library Journal states proponents for censorship in libraries, the practice of librarians deciphering which books/ resources to keep in their libraries, argue the act of censorship is an ethical way to provide information to the public that is considered morally sound, allowing positive ethics instead of negative ethics to be dispersed. According to the same journal, librarians have an "ethical duty" to protect the minds, particularly young people, of those who read their books through the lens of censorship to prevent the readers from adopting the unethical ideas and behaviors portrayed in the books.
However, others in the field of information ethics argue the practice of censorship is unethical because it fails to provide all available information to the community of readers. British philosopher John Stuart Mill argued censorship is unethical because it goes directly against the moral concept of utilitarianism. Mill believes humans are unable to have true beliefs when information is withheld from the population via censorship and acquiring true beliefs without censorship leads to greater happiness. According to this argument, true beliefs and happiness (of which both concepts are considered ethical) cannot be obtained through the practice of censorship. Librarians and others who disperse information to the public also face the dilemma of the ethics of censorship through the argument that censorship harms students and is morally wrong because they are unable to know the full extent of knowledge available to the world. The debate of information ethics in censorship was highly contested when schools removed information about evolution from libraries and curriculums due to the topic conflicting with religious beliefs. In this case, advocates against ethics in censorship argue it is more ethical to include multiple sources information on a subject, such as creation, to allow the reader to learn and decipher their beliefs.
== Ethics of downloading ==
Illegal downloading has also caused some ethical concerns and raised the question whether digital piracy is equivalent to stealing or not. When asked the question "Is it ethical to download copyrighted music for free?" in a survey, 44 percent of a group of primarily college-aged students responded "Yes."
Christian Barry believes that understanding illegal downloading as equivalent to common theft is problematic, because clear and morally relevant differences can be shown "between stealing someone’s handbag and illegally downloading a television series". On the other hand, he thinks consumers should try to respect intellectual property unless doing so imposes unreasonable cost on them.
In an article titled "Download This Essay: A Defence of Stealing Ebooks", Andrew Forcehimes argues that the way we think about copyrights is inconsistent, because every argument for (physical) public libraries is also an argument for illegally downloading ebooks and every argument against downloading ebooks would also be an argument against libraries. In a reply, Sadulla Karjiker argues that "economically, there is a material difference between permitting public libraries making physical books available and allowing such online distribution of ebooks." Ali Pirhayati has proposed a thought experiment based on a high-tech library to neutralize the magnitude problem (suggested by Karjiker), and justify Forcehimes’ main idea.

51
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_ethics-2.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
---
title: "Information ethics"
chunk: 3/3
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_ethics"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:24.851455+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
== Security and privacy ==
Ethical concerns regarding international security, surveillance, and the right to privacy are on the rise. The issues of security and privacy commonly overlap in the field of information, due to the interconnectedness of online research and the development of Information Technology (IT). Some of the areas surrounding security and privacy are identity theft, online economic transfers, medical records, and state security. Companies, organizations, and institutions use databases to store, organize, and distribute user's information—with or without their knowledge.
Individuals are far more likely to part with personal information when it seems that they will have some sort of control over the use of the information or if the information is given to an entity that they already have an established relationship with. In these specific circumstances, subjects will be much inclined to believe that their information has been collected for pure collection's sake. An entity may also be offering goods or services in exchange for the client's personal information. This type of collection method may seem valuable to a user due to the fact that the transaction appears to be free in the monetary sense. This forms a type of social contract between the entity offering the goods or services and the client. The client may continue to uphold their side of the contract as long as the company continues to provide them with a good or service that they deem worthy. The concept of procedural fairness indicates an individual's perception of fairness in a given scenario. Circumstances that contribute to procedural fairness are providing the customer with the ability to voice their concerns or input, and control over the outcome of the contract.
Best practice for any company collecting information from customers is to consider procedural fairness. This concept is a key proponent of ethical consumer marketing and is the basis of United States Privacy Laws, the European Union's privacy directive from 1995, and the Clinton Administration's June 1995 guidelines for personal information use by all National Information Infrastructure participants. An individual being allowed to remove their name from a mailing list is considered a best information collecting practice. In a few Equifax surveys conducted in the years 1994–1996, it was found that a substantial amount of the American public was concerned about business practices using private consumer information, and that is causes more harm than good. Throughout the course of a customer-company relationship, the company can likely accumulate a plethora of information from its customer. With data processing technology flourishing, it allows for the company to make specific marketing campaigns for each of their individual customers. Data collection and surveillance infrastructure has allowed companies to micro-target specific groups and tailor advertisements for certain populations.
=== Medical records ===
A recent trend of medical records is to digitize them. The sensitive information secured within medical records makes security measures vitally important. The ethical concern of medical record security is great within the context of emergency wards, where any patient records can be accessed at all times. Within an emergency ward, patient medical records need to be available for quick access; however, this means that all medical records can be accessed at any moment within emergency wards with or without the patient present.
Ironically, the donation of one's body organs "to science" is easier in most Western jurisdictions than donating one's medical records for research.
=== International security ===
Warfare has also changed the security of countries within the 21st Century. After the events of 9-11 and other terrorism attacks on civilians, surveillance by states raises ethical concerns of the individual privacy of citizens. The USA PATRIOT Act 2001 is a prime example of such concerns. Many other countries, especially European nations within the current climate of terrorism, is looking for a balancing between stricter security and surveillance, and not committing the same ethical concerns associated with the USA Patriot Act. International security is moving to towards the trends of cybersecurity and unmanned systems, which involve the military application of IT. Ethical concerns of political entities regarding information warfare include the unpredictability of response, difficulty differentiating civilian and military targets, and conflict between state and non-state actors.
== Journals ==
The main, peer-reviewed, academic journals reporting on information ethics are the Journal of the Association for Information Systems, the flagship publication of the Association for Information Systems, and Ethics and Information Technology, published by Springer.
== Branches ==
Bioinformatics
Business ethics
Computer ethics
Cyberethics
Information ecology
Library Bill of Rights
Media ethics
== Notes ==
== Further reading ==
Floridi, Luciano (2013). The Ethics of Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Froehlich, Thomas (2017). "A Not-So-Brief Account of Current Information Ethics: The Ethics of Ignorance, Missing Information, Misinformation, Disinformation and Other Forms of Deception or Incompetence". BiD: textos universitaris de biblioteconomia i documentacio. Num. 39.
Himma, Kenneth E.; and Tavani, Herman T. (eds.) (2008). The Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc..
Moore, Adam D. ed (2005). "Information Ethics: Privacy, Property, and Power", University of Washington Press.
Spinello, Richard A.; and Herman T. Tavani (eds.) (2004). Readings in Cyberethics, second ed. Mass.: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Tavani, Herman T. (2004). Ethics & Technology: Ethical Issues in an Age of Information and Communication Technology. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc..
== External links ==
IRIE, The International Review of Information Ethics
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
IEG, the Information Ethics research Group at Oxford University
Information Ethicist
International Center for Information Ethics

40
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Falk-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
---
title: "Jim Falk"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Falk"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:13.673188+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
Jim Falk (born 26 October 1946) is an Australian physicist and academic researcher on science and technology studies.
== Background ==
Falk was born in Oxford, England. His father was the philosopher Werner D. Falk (latterly professor at the University of North Carolina), and his mother an Australian, Dr. Barbara Cohen. Werner Falk had fled Germany prior to World War II and was studying and lecturing at the University of Oxford. The family moved to Australia when Jim Falk was young, when his father worked at the University of Melbourne. Falk attended Scotch College from 1952 to 1964, graduated with first class honours in physics at Monash University in 1968, and received his PhD from Monash in theoretical quantum physics in 1974. His late partner for 47 years was Emeritus Professor Sue Rowley (1948-2016), with whom he had two children. Jim Falk lives in Melbourne.
In December 2010 he retired, but remained an honorary professorial fellow in the Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, at the University of Melbourne. He was the founding director of Climate Change research for the Association of Pacific Rim Universities World Institute, and holds appointments also of visiting professor to the Institute of Advanced Studies of Sustainability at the United Nations University (in Yokohama, Japan), and emeritus professor at the University of Wollongong.
== Scholarly contributions ==
For over 35 years Falk has studied science and technology in their social contexts. He has worked towards advancing understanding of the political, economic and cultural factors which constrain or facilitate the exercise of social control over technological change, latterly in relation to climate change and information technology but particularly nuclear technology, arms races and militarisation. Most recently he has focused on the broad issues of human governance (including what needs to be done to respond to challenges faced by humanity from climate change, to energy policy, and to issues associated with information flows and military threats).
One of Falk's books, co-authored with Joseph Camilleri, was launched by UNDP head, the Hon Helen Clark, in Sydney, Australia in February 2010. The book "Worlds in Transition: Evolving Governance Across a Stressed Planet", Edward Elgar, UK, is a synoptic overview of the way in which humans have come to collectively seek to shape their futures, and the challenges posed to that in a time of rapid transition.
Falk has made a number of media appearances in relation to the nuclear accidents at Fukushima and the implications for future energy policy. Jim Falk has recently authored a short e-book "Things that Count: the rise and fall of calculators" on the social history of calculation technology. It can be downloaded from a website he maintains on the subject. His current scholarly work is on the proposals associated with geoengineering, which were the subject of a seminar he presented at the United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies in Yokohama, Japan, in October 2013.
== Publications ==
J. Camilleri and J. Falk. 2010. Worlds in Transition: Evolving governance across a stressed planet, Edward Elgar, UK. 670 pp.
J. Camilleri and J. Falk. 1992. The End of Sovereignty?: The future shaping of world politics, Edward Elgar, London. 312 pp.
J. Falk and A. Brownlow. 1989. The Greenhouse Challenge: What’s to be done?, Penguin, Melbourne. 340 pp.
J. Falk. 1983. Taking Australia Off the Map: Facing the Threat of Nuclear War. Penguin and Heinemann Publishers, Melbourne.310 pp.
J. Falk (ed.). 1983. Preventing Nuclear War: Australia’s Role, edited proceedings of a Symposium held at the University of Wollongong on 10 September 1982, Uniadvice, the University of Wollongong, Wollongong. 80 pp.
J. Falk. 1982. Global Fission: The Battle Over Nuclear Power, Oxford University Press, Melbourne. 410 pp.
D. Hayes, J. Falk, and N. Barrett. 1976. Red Light for Yellow Cake: the case against uranium mining, FOE, Melbourne. 96 pp.
"Things that Count: the rise and fall of calculators", eBook things-that-count.net, Melbourne, 2014. 187 pp.
== References ==
== External links ==
Official website

39
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Hao-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
---
title: "Karen Hao"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Hao"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:19.547374+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
Karen Hao (born in the United States c. 1993) is an American journalist and author. Currently a freelancer for publications like The Atlantic and previously a foreign correspondent based in Hong Kong for The Wall Street Journal and senior artificial intelligence editor at the MIT Technology Review, she is best known for her coverage on AI research, technology ethics and the social impact of AI. Hao also co-produced the podcast In Machines We Trust and wrote the newsletter The Algorithm.
Previously, she worked at Quartz as a tech reporter and data scientist and was an application engineer at the first startup to spin out of X Development. Hao's writing has also appeared in Mother Jones, Sierra Magazine, The New Republic, and other publications.
== Early life and education ==
Hao is the daughter of Chinese immigrant parents, and grew up in New Jersey. She is a native speaker of both English and Mandarin Chinese. She graduated from The Lawrenceville School in 2011. She then studied at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), graduating with a B.S. in mechanical engineering and a minor in energy studies in 2015.
== Career ==
Hao is known in the technology world for her coverage of new AI research findings and their societal and ethical impacts. Her writing has spanned research and issues regarding big tech data privacy, misinformation, deepfakes, facial recognition, and AI healthcare tools.
In March 2021, Hao published a piece that uncovered previously unknown information about how attempts to combat misinformation by different teams at Facebook using machine learning were impeded and constantly at odds with Facebook's drive to grow user engagement. Upon its release, leaders at Facebook including Mike Schroepfer and Yann LeCun immediately criticized the piece through Twitter responses. AI researchers and AI ethics experts Timnit Gebru and Margaret Mitchell responded in support of Hao's writing and advocated for more change and improvement for all.
Hao also co-produced the podcast In Machines We Trust, which discusses the rise of AI with people developing, researching, and using AI technologies. The podcast won the 2020 Front Page Award in investigative reporting.
Hao has occasionally created data visualizations that have been featured in her work at the MIT Technology Review and elsewhere. In 2018, her "What is AI?" flowchart visualization was exhibited as an installation at the Museum of Applied Arts in Vienna.
She has been an invited speaker at TEDxGateway, the United Nations Foundation, EmTech, WNPR, and many other conferences and podcasts. Her TEDx talk discussed the importance of democratizing how AI is built.
In March 2022, she was hired by The Wall Street Journal to cover China technology and society, while being based in Hong Kong. She left the WSJ in 2023.
In May 2025, Hao released the book Empire of AI: Dreams and Nightmares in Sam Altman's OpenAI. The book became a New York Times Bestseller and was named a Book of the Year by the Financial Times. In December 2025, after criticism from readers, Hao issued a correction to her book where she had previously overestimated the water consumption of a data center in Chile compared to the community's water consumption by factor of 1,000, due to an error in a government document. In April 2026 the book won the New York Public Library’s Helen Bernstein Book Award for Excellence in Journalism.
=== Selected awards and honors ===
2019 Webby Award nominee for best newsletter, as a writer of The Algorithm
2021 Front Page Award in investigative reporting, as a co-producer for In Machines We Trust
2021 Ambies Award nominee for best knowledge and science podcast, as a co-producer for In Machines We Trust
2021 Webby Award nominee for best technology podcast, as a co-producer for In Machines We Trust
2024 American Humanist Media Award
2025 TIME100 AI, named by TIME magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in artificial intelligence
2026 New York Public Library’s Helen Bernstein Book Award for Excellence in Journalism
== References ==

14
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hague_Ethical_Guidelines-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
---
title: "The Hague Ethical Guidelines"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hague_Ethical_Guidelines"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:18.381571+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
The Hague Ethical Guidelines is a set of ethical principles regarding responsible conduct in the chemical sciences and to guard against the misuse of chemistry. The guidelines were developed by a group of chemical practitioners from around the world together with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and are endorsed by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry.
== References ==