Laurin B. Weissinger’s research while affiliated with Tufts University and other places

This handbook is currently in development, with individual articles publishing online in advance of print publication. At this time, we cannot add information about unpublished articles in this handbook, however the table of contents will continue to grow as additional articles pass through the review process and are added to the site. Please note that the online publication date for this handbook is the date that the first article in the title was published online. For more information, please read the site FAQs.

Regulating and governing AI will remain a challenge due to the inherent intricacy of how AI is deployed and used in practice. Regulation effectiveness and efficiency are inversely proportional to system complexity and the clarity of objectives: the more complicated an area is and the harder objectives are to operationalize, the more difficult it is to regulate and govern. Safety regulations, while often concerned with complex systems like airplanes, benefit from measurable, clear objectives and uniform subsystems. AI has emergent properties and is not just “a technology.” It is interwoven with organizations, people, and the wider social context. Furthermore, objectives like “fairness” are not only difficult to grasp and classify, but they will change their meaning case-by-case. The inherent complexity of AI systems will continue to complicate regulation and governance; however, with appropriate investment, monetary and otherwise, complexity can be tackled successfully. Due to the considerable power imbalance between users of AI in comparison to those AI systems are used on, successful regulation might be difficult to create and enforce. As such, AI regulation is more of a political and socio-economic problem than a technical one.

Widespread acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines is crucial for achieving sufficient immunization coverage to end the global pandemic, yet few studies have investigated COVID-19 vaccination attitudes in lower-income countries, where large-scale vaccination is just beginning. We analyze COVID-19 vaccine acceptance across 15 survey samples covering 10 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in Asia, Africa and South America, Russia (an upper-middle-income country) and the United States, including a total of 44,260 individuals. We find considerably higher willingness to take a COVID-19 vaccine in our LMIC samples (mean 80.3%; median 78%; range 30.1 percentage points) compared with the United States (mean 64.6%) and Russia (mean 30.4%). Vaccine acceptance in LMICs is primarily explained by an interest in personal protection against COVID-19, while concern about side effects is the most common reason for hesitancy. Health workers are the most trusted sources of guidance about COVID-19 vaccines. Evidence from this sample of LMICs suggests that prioritizing vaccine distribution to the Global South should yield high returns in advancing global immunization coverage. Vaccination campaigns should focus on translating the high levels of stated acceptance into actual uptake. Messages highlighting vaccine efficacy and safety, delivered by healthcare workers, could be effective for addressing any remaining hesitancy in the analyzed LMICs. Survey data collected across ten low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) in Asia, Africa and South America compared with surveys from Russia and the United States reveal heterogeneity in vaccine confidence in LMICs, with healthcare providers being trusted sources of information, as well as greater levels of vaccine acceptance in these countries than in Russia and the United States.

Background As vaccination campaigns are deployed worldwide, addressing vaccine hesitancy is of critical importance to ensure sufficient immunization coverage. We analyzed COVID-19 vaccine acceptance across 15 samples covering ten low- and middle- income countries (LMICs) in Asia, Africa, and South America, and two higher income countries (Russia and the United States). Methods Standardized survey responses were collected from 45,928 individuals between June 2020 and January 2021. We estimate vaccine acceptance with robust standard errors clustered at the study level. We analyze stated reasons for vaccine acceptance and hesitancy, and the most trusted sources for advice on vaccination, and we disaggregate acceptance rates by gender, age, and education level. Findings We document willingness to take a COVID-19 vaccine across LMIC samples, ranging from 67% (Burkina Faso) to 97% (Nepal). Willingness was considerably higher in LMICs (80%) than in the United States (65%) and Russia (30%). Vaccine acceptance was primarily explained by an interest in personal protection against the disease (91%). Concern about side effects (40%) was the most common reason for reluctance. Health workers were considered the most trusted sources of information about COVID-19 vaccines. Interpretation Given high levels of stated willingness to accept a COVID-19 vaccine across LMIC samples, our study suggests that prioritizing efficient and equitable vaccine distribution to LMICs will yield high returns in promoting immunization on a global scale. Messaging and other community-level interventions in these contexts should be designed to help translate intentions into uptake, and emphasize safety and efficacy. Trusted health workers are ideally positioned to deliver these messages.

As countries begin to vaccinate their populations against COVID-19, creating systems to verify vaccine records will be vital to reopening businesses, educational institutions, and travel. We consider the challenges of building vaccine record verification (VRV) systems that involve data sharing by health care providers, methods for verifying vaccine records, and regulation of how entities (e.g., workplaces, schools, businesses, and airlines) may request proof of vaccination. In particular, we focus on the opportunities and risks associated with digital vaccine passport apps. We propose three ethical principles to guide the building of VRV systems: 1) aligning systems with vaccine prioritization, 2) upholding fairness and equity, and 3) building trustworthy technology that protects the public's health data.