Abstract
At the invitation of the Editorial Board, this editorial is a point-by-point response to the DeepMind's response to the article, Powles J and Hal Hodson, ‘Google DeepMind and Healthcare in an Age of Algorithms’ (2017) 7 Health and Technology 351.
As we state, the journal's decision to publish this back-and-forth “has value for one overriding reason: it is public and transparent. DeepMind’s response is an exemplar of a particular mode of engagement to which we have both become accustomed in investigating technology companies, and which predictably follows whenever a critical independent article receives any traction. No new facts are presented—instead, accusations of inaccuracy are used to reassert and recast differences of interpretation, which are then escalated in the strongest terms to the highest editorial tier. This practice, though familiar, is usually invisible. We appreciate the forbearance of readers in assessing it for themselves.”
As we state, the journal's decision to publish this back-and-forth “has value for one overriding reason: it is public and transparent. DeepMind’s response is an exemplar of a particular mode of engagement to which we have both become accustomed in investigating technology companies, and which predictably follows whenever a critical independent article receives any traction. No new facts are presented—instead, accusations of inaccuracy are used to reassert and recast differences of interpretation, which are then escalated in the strongest terms to the highest editorial tier. This practice, though familiar, is usually invisible. We appreciate the forbearance of readers in assessing it for themselves.”
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 15-29 |
| Number of pages | 15 |
| Journal | Health And Technology |
| Volume | 8 |
| Issue number | 1-2 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 May 2018 |
| Externally published | Yes |