RightMesh project CTO, Dr. Jason Ernst joins in condemning ‘Serious and Embarrassing Intellectual Lapse’ in Computer Science Research
The Association for Computing Machinery’s Future of Computing Academy (FCA) post, co-authored by Ernst, proposes changes to the peer review process to mitigate potential negative side effects of computing
Disruptive; improved efficiency; time saving; words typically associated with the majority of tech advancements over the past 2 decades.
Recently however, the view of technology has started to shift.
Where tech innovations have been previously viewed as needed improvements to archaic institutions, popular culture and media coverage are now altering the dialogue. Television shows such as Black Mirror have captured mass audiences by highlighting the unanticipated impacts technology may have, sparking discourse and changing the public sentiment around tech. Although shows like this are fictitious, the overall message of the dangers of technology advancements rings true.
In a recent blog post, Dr. Jason Ernst, the RightMesh project CTO, alongside his colleagues at the Association for Computing Machinery’s Future of Computing Academy (FCA), addressed public concerns by proposing a more rigorous peer review process for research papers and proposals in computing. The group felt that it was their “moral imperative” to assess not only the positive impacts of their work but to highlight the downsides of their innovations.
“The current status quo in the computing community is to frame our research by extolling its anticipated benefits to society. In other words, rose-colored glasses are the normal lenses through which we tend to view our work.” the FCA stated in the blog post. “There clearly is a massive gap between the real-world impacts of computing research and the positivity with which we in the computing community tend to view our work. We believe that this gap represents a serious and embarrassing intellectual lapse.”
An example provided is that of a researcher who has a proposal for a new technology that would improve efficiency in seniors homes by automating daily tasks of staff. Under the proposed peer review process the paper would be assessed not only on potential cost savings, but also on greater social impacts such as large-scale job loss and the effects of decreased social interactions on residents.
Although the FCA recognizes that there will be some hurdles to cross to reach wide scale process reform, academic reviewers are able to implement their suggestions immediately when performing a peer review. A change in thinking needs to occur, and the first step in highlighting a deeply uncomfortable truth: “some research in computing does more harm than good.”
Authors and Contributors Include:
- Jason Ernst, RightMesh project and University of Guelph (Twitter: @compscidr)
- Brent Hecht, Northwestern University (Twitter: @bhecht)
- Lauren Wilcox, Georgia Tech (Twitter: @lgw_)
- Jeffrey P. Bigham, Carnegie Mellon University (Twitter: @jeffbigham)
- Johannes Schöning, University of Bremen (Twitter: @HCIBremen)
- Ehsan Hoque, University of Rochester (Twitter: @ehsan_hoque)
- Yonatan Bisk, University of Washington (Twitter: @ybisk)
- Luigi De Russis, Politecnico di Torino (Twitter: @luigidr)
- Lana Yarosh, University of Minnesota (Twitter: @lanayarosh)
- Bushra Anjam, Amazon, Inc.
- Danish Contractor, IBM Research & IIT New Delhi (Twitter: @danish_c)
- Cathy Wu, UC Berkeley (Twitter: @wucathy)
