̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit

Harmful effects of digital tech – the science ‘needs fixing’, experts argue

fpjl2 — Thu, 10 Apr 2025 18:01:05 +0000

Scientific research on the harms of digital technology is stuck in a ‘failing cycle’ that moves too slowly to allow governments and society to hold tech companies to account, according to two leading researchers in a new report published in the journal Science.

Dr Amy Orben from the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and Dr J Nathan Matias from Cornell ̽��ֱ�� say the pace at which new technology is deployed to billions of people has put unbearable strain on the scientific systems trying to evaluate its effects.

They argue that big tech companies effectively outsource research on the safety of their products to independent scientists at universities and charities who work with a fraction of the resources – while firms also obstruct access to essential data and information. This is in contrast to other industries where safety testing is largely done ‘in house’.

Orben and Matias call for an overhaul of ‘evidence production’ assessing the impact of technology on everything from mental health to discrimination.

Their recommendations include accelerating the research process, so that policy interventions and safer designs are tested in parallel with initial evidence gathering, and creating registries of tech-related harms informed by the public.

“Big technology companies increasingly act with perceived impunity, while trust in their regard for public safety is fading,” said Orben, of Cambridge’s MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit. “Policymakers and the public are turning to independent scientists as arbiters of technology safety.”

“Scientists like ourselves are committed to the public good, but we are asked to hold to account a billion-dollar industry without appropriate support for our research or the basic tools to produce good quality evidence quickly.”

“We must urgently fix this science and policy ecosystem so we can better understand and manage the potential risks posed by our evolving digital society,” said Orben.

'Negative feedback cycle'

In the latest Science paper, the researchers point out that technology companies often follow policies of rapidly deploying products first and then looking to ‘debug’ potential harms afterwards. This includes distributing generative AI products to millions before completing basic safety tests, for example.

When tasked with understanding potential harms of new technologies, researchers rely on ‘routine science’ which – having driven societal progress for decades – now lags the rate of technological change to the extent that it is becoming at times ‘unusable’.

With many citizens pressuring politicians to act on digital safety, Orben and Matias argue that technology companies use the slow pace of science and lack of hard evidence to resist policy interventions and “minimize their own responsibility”.

Even if research gets appropriately resourced, they note that researchers will be faced with understanding products that evolve at an unprecedented rate.

“Technology products change on a daily or weekly basis, and adapt to individuals. Even company staff may not fully understand the product at any one time, and scientific research can be out of date by the time it is completed, let alone published,” said Matias, who leads Cornell’s Citizens and Technology (CAT) Lab.

“At the same time, claims about the inadequacy of science can become a source of delay in technology safety when science plays the role of gatekeeper to policy interventions,” Matias said.

“Just as oil and chemical industries have leveraged the slow pace of science to deflect the evidence that informs responsibility, executives in technology companies have followed a similar pattern. Some have even allegedly refused to commit substantial resources to safety research without certain kinds of causal evidence, which they also decline to fund.”

̽��ֱ��researchers lay out the current ‘negative feedback cycle’:

Tech companies do not adequately resource safety research, shifting the burden to independent scientists who lack data and funding. This means high-quality causal evidence is not produced in required timeframes, which weakens government’s ability to regulate – further disincentivising safety research, as companies are let off the hook.

Orben and Matias argue that this cycle must be redesigned, and offer ways to do it.

Reporting digital harms

To speed up the identification of harms caused by online technologies, policymakers or civil society could construct registries for incident reporting, and encourage the public to contribute evidence when they experience harms.

Similar methods are already used in fields such as environmental toxicology where the public reports on polluted waterways, or vehicle crash reporting programs that inform automotive safety, for example.

“We gain nothing when people are told to mistrust their lived experience due to an absence of evidence when that evidence is not being compiled,” said Matias.

Existing registries, from mortality records to domestic violence databases, could also be augmented to include information on the involvement of digital technologies such as AI.

̽��ֱ��paper’s authors also outline a ‘minimum viable evidence’ system, in which policymakers and researchers adjust the ‘evidence threshold’ required to show potential technological harms before starting to test interventions.

These evidence thresholds could be set by panels made up of affected communities, the public, or ‘science courts’: expert groups assembled to make rapid assessments.

“Causal evidence of technological harms is often required before designers and scientists are allowed to test interventions to build a safer digital society,” said Orben.

“Yet intervention testing can be used to scope ways to help individuals and society, and pinpoint potential harms in the process. We need to move from a sequential system to an agile, parallelised one.”

Under a minimum viable evidence system, if a company obstructs or fails to support independent research, and is not transparent about their own internal safety testing, the amount of evidence needed to start testing potential interventions would be decreased.

Orben and Matias also suggest learning from the success of ‘Green Chemistry’, which sees an independent body hold lists of chemical products ranked by potential for harm, to help incentivise markets to develop safer alternatives.

“ ̽��ֱ��scientific methods and resources we have for evidence creation at the moment simply cannot deal with the pace of digital technology development,” Orben said.

“Scientists and policymakers must acknowledge the failures of this system and help craft a better one before the age of AI further exposes society to the risks of unchecked technological change.”

Added Matias: “When science about the impacts of new technologies is too slow, everyone loses.”

From social media to AI, online technologies are changing too fast for the scientific infrastructure used to gauge their public health harms, say two leaders in the field.

̽��ֱ��scientific methods and resources we have for evidence creation at the moment simply cannot deal with the pace of digital technology development

Dr Amy Orben

Nuthawut Somsuk via Getty

Illustration representing potential online harms

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

Cambridge Festival Speaker Spotlight: Estherina Trachtenberg

zs332 — Mon, 24 Feb 2025 09:26:42 +0000

Estherina Trachtenberg is a Blavatnik Postdoctoral Fellow in the Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and is currently working in the lab of Prof. Duncan Astle. She studies social connectedness and its impact on health, cognition, and the underlying brain networks.

Cambridge leads governmental project to understand impact of smartphones and social media on young people

cjb250 — Thu, 16 Jan 2025 00:01:37 +0000

̽��ֱ��work has been commissioned by the UK government’s Department for Science, Innovation and Technology after a review by the UK Chief Medical Officer in 2019 found the evidence base around the links to children’s mental health were insufficient to provide strong conclusions suitable to inform policy.

̽��ֱ��project – led by a team at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, in collaboration with researchers at several leading UK universities – is aimed at improving policymakers’ understanding of the relationship between children’s wellbeing and smartphone use, including social media and messaging. It will help direct future government action in this area.

Project lead Dr Amy Orben from the Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (MRC CBU) at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge said: “There is huge concern about the impact of smartphone use on children's health, but the evidence base remains fairly limited. While the government is under substantial time pressure to make decisions, these will undoubtedly be better if based on improved evidence.

“This is a complex and rapidly evolving issue, with both potential harms and benefits associated with smartphone use. Technology is changing by the day, and scientific evidence creation needs to evolve and innovate to keep up.

“Our focus will be on deepening our causal understanding of the effects of new technologies, particularly over short timescales, to ensure that decisions are informed, timely and evidence-based.”

Dr Orben will lead a Project Delivery Team, with Consortium Members from the universities of Bath, Birmingham, Bristol, Glasgow, Manchester, Nottingham, Oxford and York and the London School of Economics. It will aim to identify which research methods and data sources will be most effective at identifying potential causal relationships between social media, smartphones, and the health and development of children and young people

Deputy project lead Dr Amrit Kaur Purba, also from the MRC CBU at Cambridge, said: “ ̽��ֱ��impact of social media on young people is a pressing issue, and our project will ensure the research community is in a strong position to provide policymakers with the causal and high-quality insights they need. While we don’t expect this to be straightforward, our research will leverage diverse expertise from across the UK to deliver a comprehensive and informed response to make recommendations for how research in this area should be supported in future.”

̽��ֱ��researchers will review and summarise existing research on the impact of smartphones and social media on children and young people’s mental health, wellbeing, physical health, lifestyle and health behaviours, and educational attainment. ̽��ֱ��review will recognise the diversity of perspectives that exist in this area and consider where further research could add valuable new insights to the evidence base.

They will assess the various methods and data available to understand the causal impacts, including recognising that online habits and emerging technologies are changing at a rapid pace, and considering how the experiences of vulnerable children and young people – for example, LGBTQ+ young people and those with special needs or mental health issues – can be captured in future research projects.

This will allow the team to recommend and outline how future research studies could deliver robust and causal evidence on the impact of smartphones and social media on child development factors in the next two to three years.

Technology Secretary Peter Kyle, said: " ̽��ֱ��online world offers immense opportunities for young people to connect and learn. Ensuring they can do so in an environment which puts their safety first is my priority and will guide this government’s action on online safety.

“That’s why we have launched new research, led by the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge with support from other top UK universities, to better understand the complex relationship between technology and young people's wellbeing.

“This vital research will build a trusted evidence base for future action, helping us to protect and empower the next generation towards a safer and more positive digital future."

Cambridge researchers are leading the first phase of a new research project that will lay the groundwork for future studies into the impact on children of smartphone and social media use.

This is a complex and rapidly evolving issue, with both potential harms and benefits associated with smartphone use. Technology is changing by the day, and scientific evidence creation needs to evolve and innovate to keep up

Amy Orben

Owen Franken

Teenager holding a smartphone

Yes

Boost your life in 2025: Top tips for a healthier body and mind from Cambridge experts

jg533 — Thu, 02 Jan 2025 09:16:07 +0000

Five Cambridge experts share their top tips on ways to boost your body and mind, backed up by their own research

̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge alumnus awarded 2024 Nobel Prize in Physics

Anonymous — Tue, 08 Oct 2024 10:11:25 +0000

Hinton (King’s 1967) and Hopfield were awarded the prize ‘for foundational discoveries and inventions that enable machine learning with artificial neural networks.’ Hinton, who is known as the ‘Godfather of AI’ is Emeritus Professor of Computer Science at the ̽��ֱ�� of Toronto.

This year’s two Nobel Laureates in Physics have used tools from physics to develop methods that are the foundation of today’s powerful machine learning. John Hopfield, a Guggenheim Fellow at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge in 1968-1969, created an associative memory that can store and reconstruct images and other types of patterns in data. Geoffrey Hinton invented a method that can autonomously find properties in data, and perform tasks such as identifying specific elements in pictures.

When we talk about artificial intelligence, we often mean machine learning using artificial neural networks. This technology was originally inspired by the structure of the brain. In an artificial neural network, the brain’s neurons are represented by nodes that have different values. These nodes influence each other through connections that can be likened to synapses and which can be made stronger or weaker. ̽��ֱ��network is trained, for example by developing stronger connections between nodes with simultaneously high values. This year’s laureates have conducted important work with artificial neural networks from the 1980s onward.

Geoffrey Hinton used a network invented by John Hopfield as the foundation for a new network: the Boltzmann machine. This can learn to recognise characteristic elements in a given type of data. Hinton used tools from statistical physics, the science of systems built from many similar components. ̽��ֱ��machine is trained by feeding it examples that are very likely to arise when the machine is run. ̽��ֱ��Boltzmann machine can be used to classify images or create new examples of the type of pattern on which it was trained. Hinton has built upon this work, helping initiate the current explosive development of machine learning.

Vice-Chancellor Professor Deborah Prentice said:

“Many congratulations to Professor Hinton on receiving the Nobel Prize. Our alumni are a vital part of the Cambridge community, and many of them, like Professor Hinton, have made discoveries and advances that have genuinely changed our world. On behalf of the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, I congratulate him on this enormous accomplishment.”

“ ̽��ֱ��laureates’ work has already been of the greatest benefit. In physics we use artificial neural networks in a vast range of areas, such as developing new materials with specific properties,” says Ellen Moons, Chair of the Nobel Committee for Physics. Hinton and Hopfield are the 122nd and 123rd Members of the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge to be awarded the Nobel Prize.

From 1980 to 1982, Hinton was a Scientific Officer at the MRC Applied Psychology Unit (as the MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit was then known), before taking up a position at Carnegie Mellon ̽��ֱ�� in Pittsburgh.

In May 2023, Hinton gave a public lecture at the ̽��ֱ��'s Centre for the Study of Existential Risk entitled 'Two Paths to Intelligence', in which he argued that "large scale digital computation is probably far better at acquiring knowledge than biological computation and may soon be much more intelligent than us".

Geoffrey Hinton, an alumnus of the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, was awarded the 2024 Nobel Prize in Physics, jointly with John Hopfield of Princeton ̽��ֱ��.

Left: King's College Cambridge Right: Ill. Niklas Elmehed © Nobel Prize Outreach

Right: Geoffrey Hinton (circled) at his Matriculation at King's College. Right: Illustration of Geoffrey Hinton

Yes

British Academy elects Cambridge researchers to Fellowship

ta385 — Thu, 18 Jul 2024 10:59:00 +0000

They are among 86 distinguished scholars to be elected to the fellowship in recognition of their work in fields ranging from medieval history to international relations.

̽��ֱ��Cambridge academics made Fellows of the Academy this year are:

Professor Elisabeth van Houts (History Faculty; Emmanuel College)

Professor Tim Harper (History Faculty; Magdalene College)

Professor Rosalind Love (Department of ASNC; Robinson College)

Professor James Montgomery (FAMES; Trinity Hall)

Professor Ayşe Zarakol (POLIS; Emmanuel College)

Professor Tim Dalgleish (MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit)

Founded in 1902, the British Academy is the UK’s national academy for the humanities and social sciences. It is a Fellowship consisting of over 1700 of the leading minds in these subjects from the UK and overseas.

Current Fellows include the classicist Professor Dame Mary Beard, the historian Professor Sir Simon Schama and philosopher Professor Baroness Onora O’Neill, while previous Fellows include Dame Frances Yates, Sir Winston Churchill, Seamus Heaney and Beatrice Webb. ̽��ֱ��Academy is also a funder of both national and international research, as well as a forum for debate and public engagement.

In 2024, a total of 52 UK Fellows, 30 International Fellows and 4 Honorary Fellows have been elected to the British Academy Fellowship.

Professor Ayse Zarakol said: “I am absolutely delighted to be elected a Fellow of the British Academy in recognition of my interdisciplinary work at the intersection of international relations, global history and historical sociology. It is an honour to join such a long line of distinguished scholars. I very much look forward to working with the Academy to advance research on the big questions of our day and to ensure that UK remains a hospitable environment for social sciences and humanities research that attracts the best talent from around the world.”

Professor Rosalind Love said: “As a grateful recipient of one its Postdoctoral Fellowships, I have always revered the British Academy and am deeply humbled by this honour. It shows that the Academy values the teaching of Medieval Latin, and research in that area, at a time when the subject faces cuts elsewhere. I’d like to express sincerest gratitude to the teachers who gave me a solid grounding and to all who have supported me over the years: they made this possible. I look forward to working with other FBAs to shape the future of the Humanities.”

Professor Tim Harper, Head of Cambridge’s School of the Humanities and Social Sciences, said: “It is an honour to be elected a fellow of the British Academy. As a historian, I am very aware of the challenges and opportunities for the humanities and social sciences that we collectively face. I look forward to continuing to strive to strengthen their position.”

Welcoming the Fellows, President of the British Academy Professor Julia Black said: “We are delighted to welcome this year’s cohort of Fellows, and I offer my warmest congratulations to each and every one. From the Academy’s earliest days, our Fellows are the lifeblood of the organisation, representing the very best of our disciplines – and we could not do all that we do without their expertise, time and energy. I very much look forward to working closely with our new Fellows – the breadth and depth of their expertise adds so much to the Academy.”

Six academics from the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge have been made Fellows of the prestigious British Academy for the humanities and social sciences.

It is an honour to join such a long line of distinguished scholars.

Ayşe Zarakol

̽��ֱ��British Academy

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution

Getting to grips with an extra thumb

cjb250 — Wed, 29 May 2024 18:00:58 +0000

Cambridge researchers have shown that members of the public have little trouble in learning very quickly how to use a third thumb – a controllable, prosthetic extra thumb – to pick up and manipulate objects.

Cambridge experts awarded 2024 Academy of Medical Sciences Fellowships

cjb250 — Mon, 20 May 2024 23:01:02 +0000

Professor Nita Forouhi from the Medical Research Council (MRC) Epidemiology Unit and Professor Susan Gathercole from the Department of Psychiatry and MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit join an esteemed Fellowship of over 1,400 researchers who have been recognised for their remarkable contributions to advancing biomedical and health sciences, ground-breaking research discoveries and translating developments into benefits for patients and wider society.

Professor Nita Forouhi is a clinical scientist whose research is focused on the link between diet, nutrition and the risk of diabetes, obesity and related disorders. She is Professor of Population Health and Nutrition and leads the Nutritional Epidemiology programme, which was awarded the Vice-Chancellor’s Best Impact Award in 2016. She frequently engages with the media to promote knowledge in the area of diet and health.

Professor Susan Gathercole is a cognitive psychologist with interests in memory and learning, including the causes of specific learning difficulties in children and how they might be overcome. Susan became a Fellow of the British Academy in 2014 and was awarded an OBE for services to psychology and education in 2016.

Professor Andrew Morris PMedSci, President of the Academy of Medical Sciences, said: “It is an honour to welcome these brilliant minds to our Fellowship. Our new Fellows lead pioneering work in biomedical research and are driving remarkable improvements in healthcare. We look forward to working with them, and learning from them, in our quest to foster an open and progressive research environment that improves the health of people everywhere through excellence in medical science.

“It is also welcoming to note that this year's cohort is our most diverse yet, in terms of gender, ethnicity and geography. While this progress is encouraging, we recognise that there is still much work to be done to truly diversify our Fellowship. We remain committed to our EDI goals and will continue to take meaningful steps to ensure our Fellowship reflects the rich diversity of the society we serve."

̽��ֱ��new Fellows will be formally admitted to the Academy at a ceremony on Wednesday 18 September 2024.

Two Cambridge Fellows are among the new Academy of Medical Sciences Fellows announced today.

Academy of Medical Sciences

Academy of Medical Sciences logo

Yes