Julian Savulescu

Yilin Ning, Salinelat Teixayavong, Yuqing Shang et al.

The widespread use of ChatGPT and other emerging technology powered by generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has drawn much attention to potential ethical issues, especially in high-stakes applications such as healthcare, but ethical discussions are yet to translate into operationalisable solutions. Furthermore, ongoing ethical discussions often neglect other types of GenAI that have been used to synthesise data (e.g., images) for research and practical purposes, which resolved some ethical issues and exposed others. We conduct a scoping review of ethical discussions on GenAI in healthcare to comprehensively analyse gaps in the current research, and further propose to reduce the gaps by developing a checklist for comprehensive assessment and transparent documentation of ethical discussions in GenAI research. The checklist can be readily integrated into the current peer review and publication system to enhance GenAI research, and may be used for ethics-related disclosures for GenAI-powered products, healthcare applications of such products and beyond.

Sebastian Porsdam Mann, Mateo Aboy, Joel Jiehao Seah et al.

Peer review remains the central quality-control mechanism of science, yet its ability to fulfill this role is increasingly strained. Empirical studies document serious shortcomings: long publication delays, escalating reviewer burden concentrated on a small minority of scholars, inconsistent quality and low inter-reviewer agreement, and systematic biases by gender, language, and institutional prestige. Decades of human-centered reforms have yielded only marginal improvements. Meanwhile, artificial intelligence, especially large language models (LLMs), is being piloted across the peer-review pipeline by journals, funders, and individual reviewers. Early studies suggest that AI assistance can produce reviews comparable in quality to humans, accelerate reviewer selection and feedback, and reduce certain biases, but also raise distinctive concerns about hallucination, confidentiality, gaming, novelty recognition, and loss of trust. In this paper, we map the aims and persistent failure modes of peer review to specific LLM applications and systematically analyze the objections they raise alongside safeguards that could make their use acceptable. Drawing on emerging evidence, we show that targeted, supervised LLM assistance can plausibly improve error detection, timeliness, and reviewer workload without displacing human judgment. We highlight advanced architectures, including fine-tuned, retrieval-augmented, and multi-agent systems, that may enable more reliable, auditable, and interdisciplinary review. We argue that ethical and practical considerations are not peripheral but constitutive: the legitimacy of AI-assisted peer review depends on governance choices as much as technical capacity. The path forward is neither uncritical adoption nor reflexive rejection, but carefully scoped pilots with explicit evaluation metrics, transparency, and accountability.

Brian D. Earp, Sebastian Porsdam Mann, Mateo Aboy et al. · oxford

How we should design and interact with social artificial intelligence depends on the socio-relational role the AI is meant to emulate or occupy. In human society, relationships such as teacher-student, parent-child, neighbors, siblings, or employer-employee are governed by specific norms that prescribe or proscribe cooperative functions including hierarchy, care, transaction, and mating. These norms shape our judgments of what is appropriate for each partner. For example, workplace norms may allow a boss to give orders to an employee, but not vice versa, reflecting hierarchical and transactional expectations. As AI agents and chatbots powered by large language models are increasingly designed to serve roles analogous to human positions - such as assistant, mental health provider, tutor, or romantic partner - it is imperative to examine whether and how human relational norms should extend to human-AI interactions. Our analysis explores how differences between AI systems and humans, such as the absence of conscious experience and immunity to fatigue, may affect an AI's capacity to fulfill relationship-specific functions and adhere to corresponding norms. This analysis, which is a collaborative effort by philosophers, psychologists, relationship scientists, ethicists, legal experts, and AI researchers, carries important implications for AI systems design, user behavior, and regulation. While we accept that AI systems can offer significant benefits such as increased availability and consistency in certain socio-relational roles, they also risk fostering unhealthy dependencies or unrealistic expectations that could spill over into human-human relationships. We propose that understanding and thoughtfully shaping (or implementing) suitable human-AI relational norms will be crucial for ensuring that human-AI interactions are ethical, trustworthy, and favorable to human well-being.

Sebastian Porsdam Mann, Joel Seah Jiehao, Stephen R. Latham et al.

Institutional review boards (IRBs) play a crucial role in ensuring the ethical conduct of human subjects research, but face challenges including inconsistency, delays, and inefficiencies. We propose the development and implementation of application-specific large language models (LLMs) to facilitate IRB review processes. These IRB-specific LLMs would be fine-tuned on IRB-specific literature and institutional datasets, and equipped with retrieval capabilities to access up-to-date, context-relevant information. We outline potential applications, including pre-review screening, preliminary analysis, consistency checking, and decision support. While addressing concerns about accuracy, context sensitivity, and human oversight, we acknowledge remaining challenges such as over-reliance on AI and the need for transparency. By enhancing the efficiency and quality of ethical review while maintaining human judgment in critical decisions, IRB-specific LLMs offer a promising tool to improve research oversight. We call for pilot studies to evaluate the feasibility and impact of this approach.

Clint Hurshman, Sebastian Porsdam Mann, Julian Savulescu et al.

The use of large language models (LLMs) in bioethical, scientific, and medical writing remains controversial. While there is broad agreement in some circles that LLMs cannot count as authors, there is no consensus about whether and how humans using LLMs can count as authors. In many fields, authorship is distributed among large teams of researchers, some of whom, including paradigmatic senior authors who guide and determine the scope of a project and ultimately vouch for its integrity, may not write a single word. In this paper, we argue that LLM use (under specific conditions) is analogous to a form of senior authorship. On this view, the use of LLMs, even to generate complete drafts of research papers, can be considered a legitimate form of authorship according to the accepted criteria in many fields. We conclude that either such use should be recognized as legitimate, or current criteria for authorship require fundamental revision. AI use declaration: GPT-5 was used to help format Box 1. AI was not used for any other part of the preparation or writing of this manuscript.