In March 2024, the 4th IBDS Cafe took place at CBS. About 100 participants, including municipalities, provinces and ministries, discussed the topic of data ethics. In particular, the ethical aspects of all kinds of data issues were discussed. For Statistics Netherlands, this is a topical subject that comes up daily in practice. In view of its great importance, in December 2020 the statistics office established an ethics committee, which meets every 2 weeks on external requests for new statistical research.
Chairman of the ethics committee at CBS is Director of Strategy and Management Consultancy Erik Bruinsma. 'The reason for setting up an ethics committee at CBS is the question: we can do more and more with data, but do we have to want to do everything we are technically able to do? You see that this question of data ethics is not only an issue at CBS, but also at other governments and agencies. After the optimism about all that is possible with data nowadays, we are sometimes in need of a moment of reflection.'
The CBS Ethics Committee consists of eight CBS employees who operate from different disciplines: policy, legal, methodology, communications, economic and social statistics. 'From these perspectives, we assess dozens of requests for new statistical research each year. We work on the basis of our core values: reliable, objective and society-oriented. Questions that come into play, for example, are: is there an ethical dilemma, do we see risks of stigmatization or is harm being done to certain groups? In short: what values are at stake? The topics on which these questions focus are diverse. They range from migration to health and from police and justice to youth care.'
Until now, the ethics committee has consisted of CBS staff, but every six months the committee, together with two external experts, looks back at the cases that have been handled: what went well and what could be improved? Bruinsma: 'Starting this year, an external professor has also been added to our ethics committee on a more structural basis. That is Mariette van den Hoven, professor of Ethics, Law & Medical Humanities at the UMC Amsterdam. She has 30 years of experience with ethical issues and joins our committee when dealing with complicated case histories.' The ethics committee meets at a high frequency: once every two weeks. 'This is necessary because the turnaround time must be short. If an opinion from us is negative, it is important to communicate that quickly with the applicant of new statistical research.'
Bruinsma cites 2 examples of issues the ethics committee has dealt with. 'Everyone probably remembers the curfew riots during the corona pandemic. It involved a small and very recognizable group in a clearly identifiable place. We received a request from the police to map the background characteristics of this group. On that request we gave a negative opinion. First, because it was a small group of suspects whose risk of identifiability was too high. In addition, the purpose of the police request was unclear to us.'
Another example related to the possible consequences of the benefits affair. 'We have received questions about this from various ministries, for example about out-of-home placements. Because the benefits affair is a large phenomenon with various aspects, we advised not to always answer a single question from the ministries, but to give an overall picture. Based on that advice, the Director General of the CBS recently decided to conduct a feasibility study into the possibilities of conducting statistical research on this phenomenon.'
An ethics committee is great, but how does CBS ensure that data ethics is also properly addressed within the organization? 'We do that, for example, by visiting the various teams and explaining what we do. We organize an annual meeting for staff that highlights data ethics and the work of our committee. This is also done through all kinds of internal communication channels. After all, data ethics is not just a matter for the ethics committee, but for all of us.'
It is not only within CBS that people frequently consider data issues with an ethical component. Also at Rijkswaterstaat (RWS). Nelleke Groen is a lawyer there in the field of data and artificial intelligence (AI). Previously, she had the topic of privacy in her portfolio. She was also a member of the Provincial Council from 2019. In that position, she participated in the ethics committee of the Inter Provincial Consultation (IPO) for five years. 'The subject of data and ethics is definitely on the agenda at RWS. What is important here is to have a good ambassador, because it takes a long breath to keep this subject under constant attention.'
The task of RWS is to manage and develop national highways, waterways and waterways. In doing so, the organization is committed to a sustainable living environment. Groen: 'What RWS does often relates to the public domain and its layout. The interventions we make - for example, by making certain design choices - have consequences. They leave their mark on certain areas and affect the environment and the freedom of movement of the people who live there and use our infrastructure. Important questions then are: where does the data come from? Who do we share it with? How long do we store it, etc.?
RWS does not have an ethics committee, but developed an AI Impact Assessment (AIIA), which makes a connection to the ethical tool moral deliberation. 'The moral deliberation instrument was introduced within RWS several years ago, but we have only made the connection with data and AI since the AIIA. The impact assessment itself fleshes out at various points practical dealings with common ethical dilemmas of AI, such as bias and questions around climate impact. But also what the plan is when AI unexpectedly develops in an undesirable direction. Yet we find that this is not quite enough to cover all the difficult questions. In the coming months, we will evaluate the AIIA and develop an AI strategy. In doing so, we must also consider whether there should be a more comprehensive place for moral deliberation or whether we might need to establish an ethics committee.'
According to Green, what are the potential pitfalls for an ethics committee or moral deliberation? 'We often ask the question too late: is this the way it should be done? Or does what we are developing meet what we want? We find it difficult to pull the plug on a project if it's not going well. Actually, we should check at several moments whether we are still in the right direction, so that we are not faced with unexpected issues.' According to Groen, we also need to look closely at whether the right areas of expertise are involved at the right times. 'We are working within RWS toward interdisciplinary teams for AI applications to ensure that all the different perspectives are included at an early stage. This is still difficult, because developers, policy makers and lawyers do not speak the same language and assess risks differently. But practice makes perfect, in time this will probably improve.
