The general public and scientific community alike are abuzz over the release of ChatGPT and GPT-4. Among many concerns being raised about the emergence and widespread use of tools based on large language models (LLMs) is the potential for them to propagate biases and inequities. We hope to open a conversation within the environmental data science community to encourage the circumspect and responsible use of LLMs. Here, we pose a series of questions aimed at fostering discussion and initiating a larger dialogue. To improve literacy on these tools, we provide background information on the LLMs that underpin tools like ChatGPT. We identify key areas in research and teaching in environmental data science where these tools may be applied, and discuss limitations to their use and points of concern. We also discuss ethical considerations surrounding the use of LLMs to ensure that as environmental data scientists, researchers, and instructors, we can make well-considered and informed choices about engagement with these tools. Our goal is to spark forward-looking discussion and research on how as a community we can responsibly integrate generative AI technologies into our work.

This article examines how openly sharing data online can continue the dehumanizing work of 19th century “collectors” who stole the bodies of colonized peoples. It addresses the ongoing controversies at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (“Penn Museum“), regarding the interlinked weaponization of over one thousand crania used by racial scientist Samuel George Morton, and the remains of two Black children murdered by the police in the 1985 MOVE bombing, and asks, how can descendant communities regain their kin and take control of the data the museum has extracted from them? And how can scholars and other heritage workers within colonial institutions support them?

Depuis l'annonce du rachat de Twitter par Elon Musk, les risques quant à l'avenir du réseau social laissent entrevoir l'avènement d'un « Frankenstein 2.0 » – une notion qui fait référence aux grandes entreprises de technologie dont le contrôle échappe à leurs créateurs. Derrière cet événement se pose la question des dérives technologiques et de leurs impacts sur la société. C'est une occasion pour les gouvernements et en particulier celui du Canada, qui encourage l'ouverture des données et les politiques en faveur des technologies, de redéfinir les règles du jeu. En ce sens, quelques recommandations sont proposées en vue de consolider l'encadrement normatif des technologies au Canada. La loi sur l'intelligence artificielle et les données (LIAD), actuellement en discussion au sein du Parlement, devrait en effet aller plus loin concernant la transparence des systèmes automatisés et renforcer ses exigences en matière de gouvernance des données « algorithmiques ».

While many Latin American countries have a tradition of receiving migrants, including the countries selected as case studies, there are no institutionalized mechanisms for the integration and settlement of migrants. The objective of this article is to explore how to improve migration data collection and management in a region that does not have many migration integration policies in place. I assess the state of migration data collection and management in three case studies: the city of Cucuta in Colombia, the North Huetar Region in Costa Rica, and the city of Monterrey in Mexico. The three countries publish data exclusively at the national level, rather than the local or municipal. Despite all case studies having a variety of administrative data, mainly in the form of entries and exits by nationality, these data are not enough to properly identify the sociodemographic characteristics of migrant populations in a country, and much less in specific cities. I make recommendations divided into three main themes to improve migration data in Latin America.

Morality bears on what we should forget. Some aspects of our identity are meant to be forgotten and there is a distinctive harm that accompanies the permanence of some content about us, content that prompts a duty to forget. To make the case that forgetting is an integral part of our moral duties to others, the paper proceeds as follows. In §1, I make the case that forgetting is morally evaluable and I survey three kinds of forgetting: no-trace forgetting, archival forgetting, and siloing. In §2, I turn to how we practice these forms of forgetting in our everyday lives and the goods these practices facilitate by drawing on examples ranging from the expunging of juvenile arrest records to the right to privacy. In §3, I turn to how my account can help us both recognize and address a heretofore neglected source of harm caused by technology and big data. In §4, I end by addressing the concern that we lack control over forgetting and thus can't be required to forget. I argue this challenge can be answered, but there's a harder challenge that can't. Forgetting is under threat. To address this challenge and preserve forgetting, we must change the world.

With the outbreak of COVID-19 across Europe, anonymized telecommunications data provides a key insight into population level mobility and assessing the impact and effectiveness of containment measures. Vodafone’s response across its global footprint was fast and delivered key new metrics for the pandemic that have proven to be useful for a number of external entities. Cooperation with national governments and supra-national entities to help fight the COVID-19 pandemic was a key part of Vodafone’s response, and in this article the different methodologies developed are analyzed, as well as the key collaborations established in this context. In this article we also analyze the regulatory challenges found, and how these can pose a risk of the full benefits of these insights not being harnessed, despite clear and efficient Privacy and Ethics assessments to ensure individual safety and data privacy.

Law-enforcement agencies are increasingly able to leverage crime statistics to make risk predictions for particular individuals, employing a form of inference that some condemn as violating the right to be “treated as an individual.” I suggest that the right encodes agents’ entitlement to a fair distribution of the burdens and benefits of the rule of law. Rather than precluding statistical prediction, it requires that citizens be able to anticipate which variables will be used as predictors and act intentionally to avoid them. Furthermore, it condemns reliance on various indexes of distributive injustice, or unchosen properties, as evidence of law-breaking.

The emerging paradigm in contemporary healthcare, precision medicine, is widely seen as a revolutionary approach to both clinical treatment and overall health promotion. Precision models are making use of the most up-to-date technological advancements – such as genomics and ‘big data’ processing – in an effort to tailor healthcare to each individual. Yet the list of hurdles to successful implementation of precision medicine is no secret. Among the challenges, it was recently suggested in this journal that we must change the ‘mindset’ of patients, practitioners and the wider public (McGonigle, 2016). And while precision medicine indeed demands a significant shift, we must not understate the extent of the overhaul required. In particular, I argue, against McGonigle's suggestion, that the ethical challenges regarding participant contributions cannot be tackled by relying upon existing models of incentivized blood banking or organ donation. Instead, the success of precision medicine requires a wholescale change in mindset.