The rapid implementation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in health raises profound policy challenges. While AI can save lives and improve healthcare outcomes, it also carries the risk of causing harm if not properly regulated. It is becoming increasingly challenging for policymakers - and those responsible for informing policy - to keep up with ever-evolving technological developments, implementation for various use cases, and the bioethics research meant to inform wise and responsible regulation. This project will seek to use the experience and expertise of Dr. Ravitsky, Dr. Bélisle-Pipon (bioethics researchers) and Erin Williams, JD (a “congressional bioethicist”) to translate bioethics for policymakers, focusing on two-way engagement, as policymakers try to understand different perspectives that should be considered to develop responsible regulation.
Hastings on the Hill: Informing Policy on AI in Health
The Hastings Center
Grantee Q&A
We ask Bridging Bioethics Research & Policymaking grantees about lessons learned for increasing bioethics’ impact on policymaking.
Who was the intended audience for your project?
This project sought to reach federal legislators, legislative staff, and committees with interest in artificial intelligence (AI).
What message did you seek to deliver and how?
We sought to analyze themes relevant to policymaking in health AI by conducting a landscape scan of related federal and state legislative materials. Using this information, we created and disseminated materials outlining key findings from the team’s AI scholarship with explicit connections to policy. In addition, the team initiated a “Hastings on the Hill” feature for The Hastings Center’s newsletter to disseminate their work product and invite inquiries from policymakers seeking bioethics information.
How did you involve collaborators outside of bioethics research in your project?
We worked with a former Specialist in Bioethics at the Congressional Research Service who helped to identify the desired audiences to engage, including particular federal legislators, staff, and committees with interest in AI. In addition, we shared a ‘confidential advance draft’ of our AI ethics materials with legislative offices and staff to invite their feedback before finalizing them for dissemination.
What lessons did you learn about translating bioethics research to policymaking?
Some key takeaways that future teams might find helpful as they translate bioethics research into public policy include the following: Use external reviewers to “test” whether content and approach are effective; policy resources should feature a concise, accessible, jargon-free executive summary with highlights and a mechanism for interested readers to learn more; and in the current political climate, it may be most strategic to focus policy-related efforts at the state or local level rather than the federal one. Ideally researchers would tailor their topics to the themes of hearings and other subcommittee and committee meetings. Such responsiveness might require strategies to rapidly translate existing policy-relevant research and bioethics guidance to meet the moment rather than choosing a topic to address and then “shopping” for a committee or caucus from which to garner interest. Finally, relationships really matter in efforts to penetrate the policymaking process; if researchers don’t bring those relationships to the table, they should strategically network with folks willing to share such connections and serve as ambassadors for the work’s uptake in the policy space.