Response to DeepMind

Abstract

We thank DeepMind's staff and advisors for responding to our article, Google DeepMind and Healthcare in an Age of Algorithms, 1 on the public record.The response criticizes our work, and defends DeepMind's.We are grateful to the journal's editorial board for inviting us to reply.A point at the outset.Our investigation and criticism of DeepMind is not motivated by any desire to see public health institutions bereft of advanced digital services.Quite the opposite.We are technology optimists, and truly believe that new technology can help humans solve real problems.We share the collective goal of saving lives and ensuring the right care reaches patients.At the same time, we are concerned that if long held principles are ignored or discarded in the process, the technology's promise will turn sour.There is a pressing need for open, fact-based, public discussion of technology companies entering into the provision of public services.The case study at the heart of our article is a particularly illuminating example.Google DeepMind's first deal with the British National Health Service, involving a gift of at least 1.6 million detailed, non-anonymized health records from every patient in London's Royal Free hospital trust in order for DeepMind to offer a smartphone app for kidney injury alerts, has been and remains troubling.We think this assessment extends to DeepMind's response.We must give a number of clarifications.DeepMind's letter addresses arguments that we never make, and its continual assertions of Bfactual inaccuracies^and Bunevidenced statements^are nothing of the kind.For example, readers will

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 15 citations exist upstream.