Response to DeepMind

Julia Powles, Hal Hodson

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorial

2 Downloads (Pure)

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.”
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)15-29
Number of pages15
JournalHealth And Technology
Volume8
Issue number1-2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2018
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Biomedical Technology
Traction
Technology
Delivery of Health Care
Health
Industry

Cite this

Powles, Julia ; Hodson, Hal. / Response to DeepMind. In: Health And Technology. 2018 ; Vol. 8, No. 1-2. pp. 15-29.
@article{c4afcc6891614b3da5a03d5c62b0d73d,
title = "Response to DeepMind",
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.”",
author = "Julia Powles and Hal Hodson",
year = "2018",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1007/s12553-018-0226-6",
language = "English",
volume = "8",
pages = "15--29",
journal = "Health And Technology",
issn = "2190-7188",
publisher = "Springer-Verlag London Ltd.",
number = "1-2",

}

Response to DeepMind. / Powles, Julia; Hodson, Hal.

In: Health And Technology, Vol. 8, No. 1-2, 05.2018, p. 15-29.

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorial

TY - JOUR

T1 - Response to DeepMind

AU - Powles, Julia

AU - Hodson, Hal

PY - 2018/5

Y1 - 2018/5

N2 - 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.”

AB - 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.”

U2 - 10.1007/s12553-018-0226-6

DO - 10.1007/s12553-018-0226-6

M3 - Editorial

VL - 8

SP - 15

EP - 29

JO - Health And Technology

JF - Health And Technology

SN - 2190-7188

IS - 1-2

ER -