Should computer science researchers disclose negative social consequences?
I see multiple top level comments spouting righteous indignation about this being patronizing to engineers&#x2F;programmers, expecting too much of them, 1st order -vs- 2nd order effects, etc.<p>Firstly, this is for <i>researchers&#x2F;academics</i> who are <i>publishing</i> in journals, disseminating ideas for new technology.<p>Secondly, the suggestion also clearly states that the work will be reviewed NOT by judging the utility in the possible consequences, but for the thoroughness of the analysis. In practice, that means that the paper&#x27;s authors can not be more sloppy than the reviewer (a peer in the field who can be assumed to have a roughly similar understanding of the technology). Reviewer feedback can point out any blind spots of the paper. That strikes me as a reasonable and concrete setup unlike the FUD in these discussions.<p><i>Nobody is being asked to balance the positives against the negatives. They are simply requested to initiate a conversation about the possible negatives so that other researchers building on the  idea can work towards improving those aspects!</i><p>(EDIT: Most papers&#x2F;presentations already talk about the possible positive impacts -- nobody holds back on that for lack of expertise. It is only fair to ask authors to be less partisan and more thorough, as responsible researchers.)<p>Whether all engineers&#x2F;programmers should take analogous responsibility in trying to anticipate the consequences of their work is a related, but different question, with different trade-offs involved -- because engineers are concerned more with building things and delivering practical benefits, while research (and academic scholarship) is typically more interested in a longer term view of things. Both are important but distinct questions. Please don&#x27;t conflate the two points in this discussion.