Paper by Mark Ryan, Can Atik, Kelly Rijswijk, Marc-Jeroen Bogaardt, Eva Maes & Ella Deroo: “n 2018, the EU Code of Conduct of Agricultural Data Sharing by Contractual Agreement (EUCC) was published. This voluntary initiative is considered a basis for rights and responsibilities for data sharing in the agri-food sector, with a specific farmer orientation. While the involved industry associations agreed on its content, there are limited insights into how and to what extent the EUCC has been received and implemented within the sector. In 2024, the Data Act was introduced, a horizontal legal framework that aims to enforce specific legal requirements for data sharing across sectors. Yet, it remains to be seen if it will be the ultimate solution for the agricultural sector, as some significant agricultural data access issues remain. It is thus essential to determine if the EUCC may still play a significant role to address sector-specific issues in line with the horizontal rules of the Data Act. During six workshops across Europe with 89 stakeholders, we identified how the EUCC has been (1) received by stakeholders, (2) implemented, and (3) its future use (particularly in response to the Data Act). Based on the workshop results and continued engagements with researchers and stakeholders, we conclude that the EUCC is still an important document for the agricultural sector but should be updated in response to the content of the Data Act. Hence we propose the following improvements to the EUCC: 1. Provide clear, practical examples for applying the EUCC combined with the Data Act; 2. Generate model contractual terms based on the EUCC provisions; 3. Clarify GDPR-centric concepts like anonymisation and pseudonymisation in the agricultural data-sharing setting; 4. Develop a functional enforcement and implementation framework; and 5. Play a role in increasing interoperability and trust among stakeholders…(More)”
Toward a citizen science framework for public policy evaluation
Paper by Giovanni Esposito et al: “This study pioneers the use of citizen science in evaluating Freedom of Information laws, with a focus on Belgium, where since its 1994 enactment, Freedom of Information’s effectiveness has remained largely unexamined. Utilizing participatory methods, it engages citizens in assessing transparency policies, significantly contributing to public policy evaluation methodology. The research identifies regional differences in Freedom of Information implementation across Belgian municipalities, highlighting that larger municipalities handle requests more effectively, while administrations generally show reluctance to respond to requests from perceived knowledgeable individuals. This phenomenon reflects a broader European caution toward well-informed requesters. By integrating citizen science, this study not only advances our understanding of Freedom of Information law effectiveness in Belgium but also advocates for a more inclusive, collaborative approach to policy evaluation. It addresses the gap in researchers’ experience with citizen science, showcasing its vast potential to enhance participatory governance and policy evaluation…(More)”.
Collaboration in Healthcare: Implications of Data Sharing for Secondary Use in the European Union
Paper by Fanni Kertesz: “The European healthcare sector is transforming toward patient-centred and value-based healthcare delivery. The European Health Data Space (EHDS) Regulation aims to unlock the potential of health data by establishing a single market for its primary and secondary use. This paper examines the legal challenges associated with the secondary use of health data within the EHDS and offers recommendations for improvement. Key issues include the compatibility between the EHDS and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), barriers to cross-border data sharing, and intellectual property concerns. Resolving these challenges is essential for realising the full potential of health data and advancing healthcare research and innovation within the EU…(More)”.
Definitions, digital, and distance: on AI and policymaking
Article by Gavin Freeguard: “Our first question is less, ‘to what extent can AI improve public policymaking?’, but ‘what is currently wrong with policymaking?’, and then, ‘is AI able to help?’.
Ask those in and around policymaking about the problems and you’ll get a list likely to include:
- the practice not having changed in decades (or centuries)
- it being an opaque ‘dark art’ with little transparency
- defaulting to easily accessible stakeholders and evidence
- a separation between policy and delivery (and digital and other disciplines), and failure to recognise the need for agility and feedback as opposed to distinct stages
- the challenges in measuring or evaluating the impact of policy interventions and understanding what works, with a lack of awareness, let alone sharing, of case studies elsewhere
- difficulties in sharing data
- the siloed nature of government complicating cross-departmental working
- policy asks often being dictated by politics, with electoral cycles leading to short-termism, ministerial churn changing priorities and personal style, events prompting rushed reactions, or political priorities dictating ‘policy-based evidence making’
- a rush to answers before understanding the problem
- definitional issues about what policy actually is making it hard to get a hold of or develop professional expertise.
If we’re defining ‘policy’ and the problem, we also need to define ‘AI’, or at least acknowledge that we are not only talking about new, shiny generative AI, but a world of other techniques for automating processes and analysing data that have been used in government for years.
So is ‘AI’ able to help? It could support us to make better use of a wider range of data more quickly; but it could privilege that which is easier to measure, strip data of vital context, and embed biases and historical assumptions. It could ‘make decisions more transparent (perhaps through capturing digital records of the process behind them, or by visualising the data that underpins a decision)’; or make them more opaque with ‘black-box’ algorithms, and distract from overcoming the very human cultural problems around greater openness. It could help synthesise submissions or generate ideas to brainstorm; or fail to compensate for deficiencies in underlying government knowledge infrastructure, and generate gibberish. It could be a tempting silver bullet for better policy; or it could paper over the cracks, while underlying technical, organisational and cultural plumbing goes unfixed. It could have real value in some areas, or cause harms in others…(More)”.
Using internet search data as part of medical research
Blog by Susan Thomas and Matthew Thompson: “…In the UK, almost 50 million health-related searches are made using Google per year. Globally there are 100s of millions of health-related searches every day. And, of course, people are doing these searches in real-time, looking for answers to their concerns in the moment. It’s also possible that, even if people aren’t noticing and searching about changes to their health, their behaviour is changing. Maybe they are searching more at night because they are having difficulty sleeping or maybe they are spending more (or less) time online. Maybe an individual’s search history could actually be really useful for researchers. This realisation has led medical researchers to start to explore whether individuals’ online search activity could help provide those subtle, almost unnoticeable signals that point to the beginning of a serious illness.
Our recent review found 23 studies have been published so far that have done exactly this. These studies suggest that online search activity among people later diagnosed with a variety of conditions ranging from pancreatic cancer and stroke to mood disorders, was different to people who did not have one of these conditions.
One of these studies was published by researchers at Imperial College London, who used online search activity to identify signals of women with gynaecological malignancies. They found that women with malignant (e.g. ovarian cancer) and benign conditions had different search patterns, up to two months prior to a GP referral.
Pause for a moment, and think about what this could mean. Ovarian cancer is one of the most devastating cancers women get. It’s desperately hard to detect early – and yet there are signals of this cancer visible in women’s internet searches months before diagnosis?…(More)”.
Policies must be justified by their wellbeing-to-cost ratio
Article by Richard Layard: “…What is its value for money — that is, how much wellbeing does it deliver per (net) pound it costs the government? This benefit/cost ratio (or BCR) should be central to every discussion.
The science exists to produce these numbers and, if the British government were to require them of the spending departments, it would be setting an example of rational government to the whole world.
Such a move would, of course, lead to major changes in priorities. At the London School of Economics we have been calculating the benefits and costs of policies across a whole range of government departments.
In our latest report on value for money, the best policies are those that save the government more money than they cost — for example by getting people back to work. Classic examples of this are treatments for mental health. The NHS Talking Therapies programme now treats 750,000 people a year for anxiety disorders and depression. Half of them recover and the service demonstrably pays for itself. It needs to expand.
But we also need a parallel service for those addicted to alcohol, drugs and gambling. These individuals are more difficult to treat — but the savings if they recover are greater. Again, it will pay for itself. And so will the improved therapy service for children and young people that Labour has promised.
However, most spending policies do cost more than they save. For these it is crucial to measure the benefit/cost ratio, converting the wellbeing benefit into its monetary equivalent. For example, we can evaluate the wellbeing gain to a community of having more police and subsequently less crime. Once this is converted into money, we calculate that the benefit/cost ratio is 12:1 — very high…(More)”.
Data sovereignty for local governments. Considerations and enablers
Report by JRC Data sovereignty for local governments refers to a capacity to control and/or access data, and to foster a digital transformation aligned with societal values and EU Commission political priorities. Data sovereignty clauses are an instrument that local governments may use to compel companies to share data of public interest. Albeit promising, little is known about the peculiarities of this instrument and how it has been implemented so far. This policy brief aims at filling the gap by systematising existing knowledge and providing policy-relevant recommendations for its wider implementation…(More)”.
Citizens should be asked to do more
Article by Martin Wolf: “In an excellent “Citizens’ White Paper”, in partnership with participation charity Involve, Demos describes the needed revolution as follows, “We don’t just need new policies for these challenging times. We need new ways to tackle the policy challenges we face — from national missions to everyday policymaking. We need new ways to understand and negotiate what the public will tolerate. We need new ways to build back trust in politicians”. In sum, it states, “if government wants to be trusted by the people, it must itself start to trust the people.”
The fundamental aim is to change the perception of government from something that politicians and bureaucrats do to us into an activity that involves not everyone, which is impossible, but ordinary people selected by lot. This, as I have noted, would be the principle of the jury imported into public life.
How might this work? The idea is to select representative groups of ordinary people affected by policies into official discussion on problems and solutions. This could be at the level of central, devolved or local government. The participants would not just be asked for opinions, but be actively engaged in considering issues and shaping (though not making) decisions upon them. The paper details a number of different approaches — panels, assemblies, juries, workshops and wider community conversations. Which would be appropriate would depend on the task…(More)”.
Automating public services
Report by Anna Dent: “…Public bodies, under financial stress and looking for effective solutions, are at risk of jumping on the automation bandwagon without critically assessing whether it’s actually appropriate for their needs, and whether the potential benefits outweigh the risks. To realise the benefits of automation and minimise problems for communities and public bodies themselves, a clear-eyed approach which really gets to grips with the risks is needed.
The temptation to introduce automation to tackle complex social challenges is strong; they are often deep-rooted and expensive to deal with, and can have life-long implications for individuals and communities. But precisely because of their complex nature they are not the best fit for rules-based automated processes, which may fail to deliver what they set out to achieve.
Bias is increasingly recognised as a critical challenge with automation in the public sector. Bias can be introduced through training data, and can occur when automated tools are disproportionately used on a particular community. In either case, the effectiveness of the tool or process is undermined, and citizens are at risk of discrimination, unfair targeting and exclusion from services.
Automated tools and processes rely on huge amounts of data; in public services this will often mean personal information and data about us and our lives which we may or may not feel comfortable being used. Balancing everyone’s right to privacy with the desire for efficiency and better outcomes is rarely straightforward, and if done badly can lead to a breakdown in trust…(More)”.
AI mass surveillance at Paris Olympics
Article by Anne Toomey McKenna: “The 2024 Paris Olympics is drawing the eyes of the world as thousands of athletes and support personnel and hundreds of thousands of visitors from around the globe converge in France. It’s not just the eyes of the world that will be watching. Artificial intelligence systems will be watching, too.
Government and private companies will be using advanced AI tools and other surveillance tech to conduct pervasive and persistent surveillance before, during and after the Games. The Olympic world stage and international crowds pose increased security risks so significant that in recent years authorities and critics have described the Olympics as the “world’s largest security operations outside of war.”
The French government, hand in hand with the private tech sector, has harnessed that legitimate need for increased security as grounds to deploy technologically advanced surveillance and data gathering tools. Its surveillance plans to meet those risks, including controversial use of experimental AI video surveillance, are so extensive that the country had to change its laws to make the planned surveillance legal.
The plan goes beyond new AI video surveillance systems. According to news reports, the prime minister’s office has negotiated a provisional decree that is classified to permit the government to significantly ramp up traditional, surreptitious surveillance and information gathering tools for the duration of the Games. These include wiretapping; collecting geolocation, communications and computer data; and capturing greater amounts of visual and audio data…(More)”.