Search

Automated decision-making gains traction, prompting discussions on regulation with calls for human oversight. Understanding how human involvement affects the acceptance of algorithmic recommendations and the accuracy of resulting decisions is vital. In an online experiment (N = 292), for a prediction task, participants choose a recommendation stemming either from an algorithm or another participant. In a between-subject design, we varied if the prediction was delegated completely or if the recommendation could be adjusted. 66% of times, participants preferred to delegate the decision to an algorithm over an equally accurate human. The preference for an algorithm increased by 7 percentage points if participants could monitor and adjust the recommendations. Participants followed algorithmic recommendations more closely. Importantly, they were less likely to intervene with the least accurate recommendations. Hence, in our experiment the human-in-the-loop design increases the uptake but decreases the accuracy of the decisions., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Sele, Chugunova. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

This paper analyzes user interactions on the public-access online forum of the Human Brain Project (HBP), a major European Union-funded neuroscience research initiative, to understand the utility of the Forum for collaborative problem solving. We construct novel data using discussion forum posts and detailed user profiles on the HBP Forum. We find that HBP Forum utilization is comparable to that of a leading general-interest coding platform, and that online usage metrics quickly recovered after an initial Covid-19-related dip. Regression results show that user interactions on the Forum are more active for questions on programming and in HBP core areas. Further, Cox proportional hazard analyses show that such problems are solved faster. Forum posts with users from different countries tend to be discussed more actively but solved slower. Higher shares of administrator support tend to solve problems faster. There are no clear patterns regarding gender and seniority. Our results suggest that building novel collaborative forums can support researchers working on complex topics in challenging times., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2022 Kreyer, Wang. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Currently, parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are negotiating a strategic plan to save biodiversity. One crucial element of an agreement is the question of whether and how digital sequence information (DSI) is subject to access and benefit-sharing from the utilization of genetic resources, one main instrument of the CBD. In the EU, the Open Data Directive (ODD) of 2019 and the recently adopted Data Governance Act (DGA) already cover research data and to some extent DSI. An analysis of the ODD and the DGA throws a spotlight on the legal uncertainty of utilizing DSI and reveals systemic tensions between open data principles and benefit-sharing restrictions on non-commercial use. It also suggests that a future benefit-sharing mechanism for DSI should avoid distinguishing between commercial and non-commercial use upstream, but should instead favor a solution, which imposes benefit-sharing obligations further downstream or outside of the DSI life cycle., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Duke University School of Law, Harvard Law School, Oxford University Press, and Stanford Law School.)

The problem of wasteful clinical trials has been debated relentlessly in the medical community. To a significant extent, it is attributed to redundant trials - studies that are carried out to address questions, which can be answered satisfactorily on the basis of existing knowledge and accessible evidence from prior research. This article presents the first evaluation of the potential of the EU Clinical Trials Regulation 536/2014, which entered into force in 2014 but is expected to become applicable at the end of 2021, to prevent such trials. Having reviewed provisions related to the trial authorisation, we propose how certain regulatory requirements for the assessment of trial applications can and should be interpreted and applied by national research ethics committees and other relevant authorities in order to avoid redundant trials and, most importantly, preclude the unnecessary recruitment of trial participants and their unjustified exposure to health risks.

The digitalization of financial services opened a window for new players in the financial industry. These start-ups take on tasks and functions previously reserved for banks, such as financing, asset management, and payments. In this article, we trace the transformation of the industry after digitalization. By using data on FinTech formations in Germany, we provide first evidence that entrepreneurial dynamics in the FinTech sector are not so much driven by technology as by the educational and business background of the founders. Furthermore, we investigate the reactions of traditional banks to the emergence of these start-ups. In contrast with other emerging industries such as biotechnology, a network analysis shows that FinTechs have mostly engaged in strategic partnerships and only a few banks have acquired or obtained a financial interest in a FinTech. We explain the restraint of traditional banks to fully endorse the new possibilities of digitalized financial services with the characteristics of the technology itself and with the postponed fundamental decisions of banks to modernize their IT infrastructure., (Copyright © 2020 Brandl and Hornuf.)

In addition to the prices they negotiate with private health insurers, most providers also have a cash price schedule for patients who have the wherewithal to ask and are willing to pay in full when they receive a service. This is the first study that estimates the potential cost saving of allowing privately-insured consumers to observe both in-network negotiated prices and cash prices, which is of particular interest given the growing importance of high-deductible health plans and a recent executive order mandating greater price transparency. Using data from five private health insurers and 142 imaging facilities in the San Francisco Bay Area, we estimate that patients could save between 10% and 22% of their insurer's in-network price by paying cash. Potential savings are much larger (between 45% and 64% of their insurer's in-network price) if consumers observe both cash and in-network prices and select the facility in the region offering the lowest price for a particular service.

Despite decades of research, the relationship between the quality of science and the value of inventions has remained unclear. We present the result of a large-scale matching exercise between 4.8 million patent families and 43 million publication records. We find a strong positive relationship between the quality of the scientific contributions referenced in patents and the value of the respective inventions. We rank patents by the quality of the science to which they are linked. Strikingly, high-ranking patents are twice as valuable as low-ranking patents, which, in turn, are about as valuable as patents without a direct science link. We show this core result for various science quality and patent value measures. The effect of science quality on patent value remains relevant even when science is linked indirectly through other patents. Our findings imply that what is considered excellent within the science sector also leads to outstanding outcomes in the technological and commercial realms., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC BY).)