Jason Chung

Globally, concussions in sport now attract far greater concern than several decades ago. Yet, no international scientific consensus exists for defining ‘concussion,’ or for determining how many brain injuries caused by a contact sport constitute a sufficient public health threat to warrant improving policies. How can policymakers help coaches, players, and parents work with public health authorities and clinicians to identify concussions, and prevent and treat head injuries? Doing so will… Show more

Globally, concussions in sport now attract far greater concern than several decades ago. Yet, no international scientific consensus exists for defining ‘concussion,’ or for determining how many brain injuries caused by a contact sport constitute a sufficient public health threat to warrant improving policies. How can policymakers help coaches, players, and parents work with public health authorities and clinicians to identify concussions, and prevent and treat head injuries? Doing so will require language that helps distinguish among the multitude of conditions related to Head Impact-Related Trauma in Sport (HIRTS), including sport-related concussion, post-concussion syndrome, second impact syndrome, and neurodegenerative diseases such as chronic traumatic encephalopathy. We propose a ‘HIRTS framework’ to advance public policy pertaining to head impacts and their effects. Given the scientific ambiguities regarding the definition, diagnosis, and markers of concussion and resulting complications, we encourage international policymakers, clinicians, and public health officials to adopt the following working definitions and concomitant policy recommendations to safeguard athletes’ health and optimize tracking efforts, public education, funding, and government services. Show less

There appears to be a general understanding among stakeholders in the sports industry that its organizations have a distinct responsibility to engage in socially responsible behavior and works. This has resulted in a plethora of types of activities undertaken as part of this social responsibility of sports (SRS). However, efforts to measure and systematize SRS activities to gauge effectiveness and impact have proven to be a challenge. Much as with corporate social responsibility efforts in… Show more

There appears to be a general understanding among stakeholders in the sports industry that its organizations have a distinct responsibility to engage in socially responsible behavior and works. This has resulted in a plethora of types of activities undertaken as part of this social responsibility of sports (SRS). However, efforts to measure and systematize SRS activities to gauge effectiveness and impact have proven to be a challenge. Much as with corporate social responsibility efforts in other industries, the sheer breadth and diversity of motives and modes of engagement for SRS activities often obfuscate goals and metrics for success. This paper outlines such challenges and provides a framework for engaging in SRS in a manner that advances both organizational and societal goals. It also argues that the desire to “do good” among sports organizations must be complemented by a systematic approach and consistent program evaluation using mixed methodological methods to maximize the impact of SRS dollars. Should the sports industry be able to agree and commit to such an approach, it can serve as an example for responsible and effective social engagement to other industries. Show less

IBM’s Watson achieved celebrity on the quiz show Jeopardy! but it is now weighing in on matters of life and death as an expert system in the healthcare setting. Increasing automation in areas such as oncological research and diagnostics promises signi cant reductions in morbidity and mortality, but several barriers stand in the way of such technology’s widespread implementation and acceptance. As Watson achieves greater accuracy and is increasingly relied upon by doctors, one key question will… Show more

IBM’s Watson achieved celebrity on the quiz show Jeopardy! but it is now weighing in on matters of life and death as an expert system in the healthcare setting. Increasing automation in areas such as oncological research and diagnostics promises signi cant reductions in morbidity and mortality, but several barriers stand in the way of such technology’s widespread implementation and acceptance. As Watson achieves greater accuracy and is increasingly relied upon by doctors, one key question will become: how should liability be assigned where medical errors can be traced to an “arti cial” intelligence (AI)? Using philosophical and legal concepts, this article classi es Watson’s current capabilities and examines how humans make “good” decisions in order to better characterize Watson’s role and potential faults. The authors conclude that Watson warrants a unique legal status akin to personhood and is analogous to a medical resident, in that both require “oversight” by an attending physician. We therefore argue that liability for wrongful diagnoses by medical AI should attach on a medical malpractice basis rather than through a products liability or vicarious liability scheme, and can thus be addressed contractually between the AI provider and medical institutions rather than constituting an open question for legislatures. Show less

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become an important driver of growth and investment in the health care industry. In perhaps the most eye-catching example, industry heavyweights such as IBM are leveraging the promise of AI to market diagnostic systems such as Watson for Oncology that offer personalized treatment advice.

But can machines really perform the services promised by IBM? What legal principles should underpin decisions made by AI systems? This paper examines these questions and… Show more

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become an important driver of growth and investment in the health care industry. In perhaps the most eye-catching example, industry heavyweights such as IBM are leveraging the promise of AI to market diagnostic systems such as Watson for Oncology that offer personalized treatment advice.

But can machines really perform the services promised by IBM? What legal principles should underpin decisions made by AI systems? This paper examines these questions and posits that assigning legal personhood to AI may provide necessary predictability and stability to an uncertain legal and regulatory landscape. Show less