The distributed power of smartphones for medical research

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Adi Gaskell: “One of the more significant areas of promise in health technology is the ability for data to be generated by us as individuals, and for AI to provide insights based upon this live stream of lifestyle data.  An example of what’s possible comes via a project researchers at Imperial College London have undertaken with the Vodafone Foundation.

The project aims to tap into the power of users smartphones to crunch cancer related data whilst they sleep.  Such distributed computing projects have been popular for some time, but this is one of the first to utilize the power in our smartphones.

The rationale for the project is identical to that of the early distributed computing ventures, such as SETI@Home, which utilized spare computing resources to process data from space.  The average smartphone contains a huge amount of computing power that generally lies dormant over night.

Dream Lab

Users participate by downloading the DreamLab app onto their phone and run it for six hours overnight as the phone charges.  The sleep downloads a small packet of data overnight, with the processors in the phone then running millions of calculations, uploading the results to a central server, and clearing the data from the phone.

The app has already been used in Australia, with researchers using it to crunch data for pancreatic cancer, and is now ready to be used for the first time in Europe.  If they can secure 100,000 users running the app each night, the team can process as much data as a single desktop computer could process in 100 years.

“Through harnessing distributed computing power, DreamLab is helping to make personalised medicine a reality,” the researchers say.  “This project demonstrates how Imperial’s innovative research partnerships with corporate partners and members of the public are working together to tackle some of the biggest problems we face today, generating real societal impact.”…(More)”.

Livestreaming Pollution: A New Form of Public Disclosure and a Catalyst for Citizen Engagement?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

NBER Working Paper by Emiliano Huet-Vaughn, Nicholas Muller, and Yen-Chia Hsu: “Most environmental policy assumes the form of standards and enforcement. Scarce public budgets motivate the use of disclosure laws. This study explores a new form of pollution disclosure: real-time visual evidence of emissions provided on a free, public website. The paper tests whether the disclosure of visual evidence of emissions affects the nature and frequency of phone calls to the local air quality regulator. First, we test whether the presence of the camera affects the frequency of calls to the local air quality regulator about the facility monitored by the camera. Second, we test the relationship between the camera being active and the number of complaints about facilities other than the plant recorded by the camera. Our empirical results suggest that the camera did not affect the frequency of calls to the regulator about the monitored facility. However, the count of complaints pertaining to another prominent industrial polluter in the area, steel manufacturing plants, is positively associated with the camera being active. We propose two behavioral reasons for this finding: the prior knowledge hypothesis and affect heuristics. This study argues that visual evidence is a feasible approach to environmental oversight even during periods with diminished regulatory capacity….(More)”.

Charting a course to government by the crowd, for the crowd

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Nils Röper at The Conversation: “It is a bitter irony that politicians lament the threat to democracy posed by the internet, instead of exploiting its potential to enhance the existing system. Hackers and bots may help to sway elections, but modern technology has allowed the power of the multitude to positively disrupt the world of business and beyond. Now, crowdsourcing should be allowed to shake up the lawmaking process to make democracies more participatory and efficient.

The crowd clearly can be harnessed, whether it is Apple outsourcing the creation of apps, Wikipedia amassing an encyclopedia of unprecedented magnitude, or National Geographic searching for the Tomb of Genghis Khan. If we can agree that the most important factor of a responsive democracy is participation, then there must be a way to capitalise on this collective intelligence.

In fact, political participation hasn’t been this easy since the first days of democracy in Athens 2,500 years ago. Modern social media can turn into a reality the utopian vision of direct civic engagement on a massive scale. Lawmaking can now be married to public consent through technology. The crowd can be unleashed.

Sharing a platform

Governments haven’t completely missed out. Iceland used crowdsourcing to include citizens in its constitutional reform beginning in 2010, while petition websites are increasingly common and have forced parliamentary debates in the UK. US federal agencies have initiated “national dialogues” on topics of public concern and, in many US municipalities, citizens can provide input on budget decisions online and follow instantaneously whether items make it into the budget.

These initiatives show promise in improving what goes into and what comes out of the process of government. However, they are on too small a scale to counter what many believe to be a period of fundamental democratic disenchantment. That is why government needs to throw its weight behind a full online system through which citizens can easily access all ongoing legislative initiatives and provide input during periods of public consultation. That is a challenge, but not mission impossible. Over 2016/2017 a little over 200 bills were introduced in the UK’s parliament.

It could put the power of participation in the hands of the people, and grant greater legitimacy to government. Through websites and apps, the public would be given an intuitive, one-stop shop for democracy, accessible from any device, and which allowed them to engage no matter where they were – on the beach or on the bus. Registered users would get notifications when new legislation was up for consultation. If the legislation were of interest, it could be bookmarked in order to stay updated.

Users would be able to comment on each paragraph of a draft. Moderators would curate the debate by removing irrelevant and inappropriate content and by continuously summarising the most important and common comments to head off an overflow of information. At the end of the consultation period, the moderators could summarise suggestions, concerns and praise in a memo available to policymakers and the public….(More)”.

The Participation Gap: Social Status and Political Inequality

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Russell Dalton: “The dilemma of democracy arises from two contrasting trends. More people in the established democracies are participating in civil society activity, contacting government officials, protesting, and using online activism and other creative forms of participation. At the same time, the importance of social status as an influence on political activity is increasing. The democratic principle of the equality of voice is eroding. The politically rich are getting richer-and the politically needy have less voice.

This book assembles an unprecedented set of international public opinion surveys to identify the individual, institutional, and political factors that produce these trends. New forms of activity place greater demands on participants, raising the importance of social status skills and resources. Civil society activity further widens the participation gap. New norms of citizenship shift how people participate. And generational change and new online forms of activism accentuate this process. Effective and representative government requires a participatory citizenry and equal voice, and participation trends are undermining these outcomes.

The Participation Gap both documents the growing participation gap in contemporary democracies and suggests ways that we can better achieve their theoretical ideal of a participatory citizenry and equal voice….(More)”.

Artificial intelligence in non-profit organizations

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Darrell M. West and Theron Kelso at Brookings: “Artificial intelligence provides a way to use automated software to perform a number of different tasks. Private industry, government, and universities have deployed it to manage routine requests and common administrative processes. Fields from finance and healthcare to retail and defense are witnessing a dramatic expansion in the use of these tools.

Yet non-profits often lack the financial resources or organizational capabilities to innovate through technology. Most non-profits struggle with small budgets and inadequate staffing, and they fall behind the cutting edge of new technologies. This limits their group’s efficiency and effectiveness, and makes it difficult to have the kind of impact they would like.

However, there is growing interest in artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), and data analytics in non-profit organizations. Below are some of the many examples of non-profits using emerging technologies to handle finance, human resources, communications, internal operations, and sustainability.

FINANCE

Fraud and corruption are major challenges for any kind of organization as it is hard to monitor every financial transaction and business contract. AI tools can help managers automatically detect actions that warrant additional investigation. Businesses long have used AI and ML to create early warning systems, spot abnormalities, and thereby minimize financial misconduct. These tools offer ways to combat fraud and detect unusual transactions.

HUMAN RESOURCES

Advanced software helps organizations advertise, screen, and hire promising staff members. Once managers have decided what qualities they are seeking, AI can match applicants with employers. Automated systems can pre-screen resumes, check for relevant experience and skills, and identify applicants who are best suited for particular organizations. They also can weed out those who lack the required skills or do not pass basic screening criteria.

COMMUNICATIONS

Every non-profit faces challenges in terms of communications. In a rapidly-changing world, it is hard to keep in touch with outside donors, internal staff, and interested individuals. Chatbots automate conversations for commonly asked questions through text messaging. These tools can help with customer service and routine requests such as how to contribute money, address a budget question, or learn about upcoming programs. They represent an efficient and effective way to communicate with internal and external audiences….(More)”.

Six or Seven Things Social Media Can Do For Democracy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Ethan Zuckerman: “I am concerned that we’ve not had a robust conversation about what we want social media to do for us.

We know what social media does for platform companies like Facebook and Twitter: it generates enormous masses of user-generated content that can be monetized with advertising, and reams of behavioral data that make that advertising more valuable. Perhaps we have a sense for what social media does for us as individuals, connecting us to distant friends, helping us maintain a lightweight awareness of each other’s lives even when we are not co-present. Or perhaps it’s a machine for disappointment and envy, a window into lives better lived than our own. It’s likely that what social media does for us personally is a deeply idiosyncratic question, dependent on our own lives, psyches and decisions, better discussed with our therapists than spoken about in generalities.

I’m interested in what social media should do for us as citizens in a democracy. We talk about social media as a digital public sphere, invoking Habermas and coffeehouses frequented by the bourgeoisie. Before we ask whether the internet succeeds as a public sphere, we ought to ask whether that’s actually what we want it to be.

I take my lead here from journalism scholar Michael Schudson, who took issue with a hyperbolic statement made by media critic James Carey: “journalism as a practice is unthinkable except in the context of democracy; in fact, journalism is usefully understood as another name for democracy.” For Schudson, this was a step too far. Journalism may be necessary for democracy to function well, but journalism by itself is not democracy and cannot produce democracy. Instead, we should work to understand the “Six or Seven Things News Can Do for Democracy”, the title of an incisive essay Schudson wrote to anchor his book, Why Democracies Need an Unloveable Press….

In this same spirit, I’d like to suggest six or seven things social media can do for democracy. I am neither as learned or as wise as Schudson, so I fully expect readers to offer half a dozen functions that I’ve missed. In the spirit of Schudson’s public forum and Benkler’s digital public sphere, I offer these in the hopes of starting, not ending, a conversation.

Social media can inform us…

Social media can amplify important voices and issues…

Social media can be a tool for connection and solidarity…

Social media can be a space for mobilization…

Social media can be a space for deliberation and debate…

Social media can be a tool for showing us a diversity of views and perspectives…

Social media can be a model for democratically governed spaces…(More).

NZ to perform urgent algorithm ‘stocktake’ fearing data misuse within government

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Asha McLean at ZDNet: “The New Zealand government has announced it will be assessing how government agencies are using algorithms to analyse data, hoping to ensure transparency and fairness in decisions that affect citizens.

A joint statement from Minister for Government Digital Services Clare Curran and Minister of Statistics James Shaw said the algorithm “stocktake” will be conducted with urgency, but cites only the growing interest in data analytics as the reason for the probe.

“The government is acutely aware of the need to ensure transparency and accountability as interest grows regarding the challenges and opportunities associated with emerging technology such as artificial intelligence,” Curran said.

It was revealed in April that Immigration New Zealand may have been using citizen data for less than desirable purposes, with claims that data collected through the country’s visa application process that was being used to determine those in breach of their visa conditions was in fact filtering people based on their age, gender, and ethnicity.

Rejecting the idea the data-collection project was racial profiling, Immigration Minister Iain Lees-Galloway told Radio New Zealand that Immigration looks at a range of issues, including at those who have made — and have had rejected — multiple visa applications.

“It looks at people who place the greatest burden on the health system, people who place the greatest burden on the criminal justice system, and uses that data to prioritise those people,” he said.

“It is important that we protect the integrity of our immigration system and that we use the resources that immigration has as effectively as we can — I do support them using good data to make good decisions about where best to deploy their resources.”

In the statement on Wednesday, Shaw pointed to two further data-modelling projects the government had embarked on, with one from the Ministry of Health looking into the probability of five-year post-transplant survival in New Zealand.

“Using existing data to help model possible outcomes is an important part of modern government decision-making,” Shaw said….(More)”.

Technology and satellite companies open up a world of data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Gabriel Popkin at Nature: “In the past few years, technology and satellite companies’ offerings to scientists have increased dramatically. Thousands of researchers now use high-resolution data from commercial satellites for their work. Thousands more use cloud-computing resources provided by big Internet companies to crunch data sets that would overwhelm most university computing clusters. Researchers use the new capabilities to track and visualize forest and coral-reef loss; monitor farm crops to boost yields; and predict glacier melt and disease outbreaks. Often, they are analysing much larger areas than has ever been possible — sometimes even encompassing the entire globe. Such studies are landing in leading journals and grabbing media attention.

Commercial data and cloud computing are not panaceas for all research questions. NASA and the European Space Agency carefully calibrate the spectral quality of their imagers and test them with particular types of scientific analysis in mind, whereas the aim of many commercial satellites is to take good-quality, high-resolution pictures for governments and private customers. And no company can compete with Landsat’s free, publicly available, 46-year archive of images of Earth’s surface. For commercial data, scientists must often request images of specific regions taken at specific times, and agree not to publish raw data. Some companies reserve cloud-computing assets for researchers with aligned interests such as artificial intelligence or geospatial-data analysis. And although companies publicly make some funding and other resources available for scientists, getting access to commercial data and resources often requires personal connections. Still, by choosing the right data sources and partners, scientists can explore new approaches to research problems.

Mapping poverty

Joshua Blumenstock, an information scientist at the University of California, Berkeley (UCB), is always on the hunt for data he can use to map wealth and poverty, especially in countries that do not conduct regular censuses. “If you’re trying to design policy or do anything to improve living conditions, you generally need data to figure out where to go, to figure out who to help, even to figure out if the things you’re doing are making a difference.”

In a 2015 study, he used records from mobile-phone companies to map Rwanda’s wealth distribution (J. Blumenstock et al. Science 350, 1073–1076; 2015). But to track wealth distribution worldwide, patching together data-sharing agreements with hundreds of these companies would have been impractical. Another potential information source — high-resolution commercial satellite imagery — could have cost him upwards of US$10,000 for data from just one country….

Use of commercial images can also be restricted. Scientists are free to share or publish most government data or data they have collected themselves. But they are typically limited to publishing only the results of studies of commercial data, and at most a limited number of illustrative images.

Many researchers are moving towards a hybrid approach, combining public and commercial data, and running analyses locally or in the cloud, depending on need. Weiss still uses his tried-and-tested ArcGIS software from Esri for studies of small regions, and jumps to Earth Engine for global analyses.

The new offerings herald a shift from an era when scientists had to spend much of their time gathering and preparing data to one in which they’re thinking about how to use them. “Data isn’t an issue any more,” says Roy. “The next generation is going to be about what kinds of questions are we going to be able to ask?”…(More)”.

To Lose (But your Chains): Using Blockchain To Better Humanity

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Key findings of report by Asheem Singh:

  1. “Like the internet before it, blockchain has the potential to revolutionise the charity sector. It offers huge but as yet untapped benefits to charities – from ensuring the right recipients receive what they are due, to modernising charitable giving and offering donors real-time visibility of where their funds are being spent and what impact it’s having.
  2. Despite the potential benefits, the charity sector is currently behind the curve on blockchain technology. There are currently too few examples of blockchain use in the charity sector. The sector urgently needs to engage with the technology, given that it is revolutionising sectors – like banking – that charities already rely on.
  3. Blockchain is no silver bullet for all of the problems facing the charity sector. True, blockchain offers new perspectives on the challenges facing the sector, from transparency and efficiency to governance and accountability. But it does not hold all the answers. For example, although the technology can improve the efficiency and transparency of payment-byresults, it does nothing to address the wellknown issues with that model.
  4. Blockchain cannot replace the key role of ‘charity leader’, who has to define what is “right” and where money should be spent. Day to day, charity leaders are responsible for making tough decisions about resource allocation. They often possess knowledge that donors do not. Remove charities as the intermediaries between donor and recipient – which blockchain threatens – and the issues around securing core cost funding would only be exacerbated.
  5. The technology also presents new pitfalls that need to be considered before charities jump on the bandwagon. Most notably, initiatives that have sought to bridge the charity sector with blockchain have been vulnerable to hackers. Charities should be well aware of the challenges of new technologies and make sure they are working with technologists to overcome them.
  6. On its current trajectory, the future of charitable action is developing without the input of charities. Technologists are leading the conversation, yet they do not have the in depth understanding of the problems facing the charity sector or those they help. Some even see charities as the problem to be solved….(More)”.

Bonding with Your Algorithm

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Conversation with Nicolas Berggruen at the Edge: “The relationship between parents and children is the most important relationship. It gets more complicated in this case because, beyond the children being our natural children, we can influence them even beyond. We can influence them biologically, and we can use artificial intelligence as a new tool. I’m not a scientist or a technologist whatsoever, but the tools of artificial intelligence, in theory, are algorithm- or computer-based. In reality, I would argue that even an algorithm is biological because it comes from somewhere. It doesn’t come from itself. If it’s related to us as creators or as the ones who are, let’s say, enabling the algorithms, well, we’re the parents.

Who are those children that we are creating? What do we want them to be like as part of the earth, compared to us as a species and, frankly, compared to us as parents? They are our children. We are the parents. How will they treat us as parents? How do we treat our own parents? How do we treat our children? We have to think of these in the exact same way. Separating technology and humans the way we often think about these issues is almost wrong. If it comes from us, it’s the same thing. We have a responsibility. We have the power and the imagination to shape this future generation. It’s exciting, but let’s just make sure that they view us as their parents. If they view us as their parents, we will have a connection….(More)”