Article Text

Download PDFPDF
AI, doping and ethics: On why increasing the effectiveness of detecting doping fraud in sport may be morally wrong
  1. Thomas Søbirk Petersen,
  2. Sebastian Jon Holmen,
  3. Jesper Ryberg
  1. Philosophy and Science Studies, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark
  1. Correspondence to Professor Thomas Søbirk Petersen, Philosophy and Science Studies, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Sj, Denmark; thomassp{at}ruc.dk

Abstract

In this article, our aim is to show why increasing the effectiveness of detecting doping fraud in sport by the use of artificial intelligence (AI) may be morally wrong. The first argument in favour of this conclusion is that using AI to make a non-ideal antidoping policy even more effective can be morally wrong. Whether the increased effectiveness is morally wrong depends on whether you believe that the current antidoping system administrated by the World Anti-Doping Agency is already morally wrong. The second argument is based on the possibility of scenarios in which a more effective AI system may be morally worse than a less effective but non-AI system. We cannot, of course, conclude that the increased effectiveness of doping detection is always morally wrong. But our point is that whether the introduction of AI to increase detection of doping fraud is a moral improvement depends on the moral plausibility of the current system and the distribution of harm that will follow from false positive and false negative errors.

  • Ethics
  • Decision Making
  • Enhancement
  • Policy
  • Fraud

Data availability statement

Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analysed for this study.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analysed for this study.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Twitter @EthicsThSoebirk, @SebastianJonHo1

  • Contributors All authors have followed the Vancouver reommendations. TSP is the guarantor of the study.

  • Funding This research is supported by the Independent Reserach Fund Denmark - grant number 7023-00018B

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Other content recommended for you