Researchers aim to develop polygenic risk scores as a tool to prevent and more effectively treat serious diseases, disorders and conditions such as breast cancer, type 1 diabetes mellitus and coronary heart disease. Recently, machine learning techniques, in particular deep neural networks, have been increasingly developed to create polygenic risk scores using electronic health records as well as genomic and other health data. While the use of artificial intelligence for polygenic risk scores may enable greater accuracy, performance and prediction, it also presents a range of increasingly complex ethical challenges. The ethical and social issues of many polygenic risk score applications in medicine have been widely discussed. However, in the literature and in practice, the ethical implications of their confluence with the use of artificial intelligence have not yet been sufficiently considered. Based on a comprehensive review of the existing literature, we argue that this stands in need of urgent consideration for research and subsequent translation into the clinical setting. Considering the many ethical layers involved, we will first give a brief overview of the development of artificial intelligence-driven polygenic risk scores, associated ethical and social implications, challenges in artificial intelligence ethics, and finally, explore potential complexities of polygenic risk scores driven by artificial intelligence. We point out emerging complexity regarding fairness, challenges in building trust, explaining and understanding artificial intelligence and polygenic risk scores as well as regulatory uncertainties and further challenges. We strongly advocate taking a proactive approach to embedding ethics in research and implementation processes for polygenic risk scores driven by artificial intelligence.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is being applied in medicine to improve healthcare and advance health equity. The application of AI-based technologies in radiology is expected to improve diagnostic performance by increasing accuracy and simplifying personalized decision-making. While this technology has the potential to improve health services, many ethical and societal implications need to be carefully considered to avoid harmful consequences for individuals and groups, especially for the most vulnerable populations. Therefore, several questions are raised, including (1) what types of ethical issues are raised by the use of AI in medicine and biomedical research, and (2) how are these issues being tackled in radiology, especially in the case of breast cancer? To answer these questions, a systematic review of the academic literature was conducted. Searches were performed in five electronic databases to identify peer-reviewed articles published since 2017 on the topic of the ethics of AI in radiology. The review results show that the discourse has mainly addressed expectations and challenges associated with medical AI, and in particular bias and black box issues, and that various guiding principles have been suggested to ensure ethical AI. We found that several ethical and societal implications of AI use remain underexplored, and more attention needs to be paid to addressing potential discriminatory effects and injustices. We conclude with a critical reflection on these issues and the identified gaps in the discourse from a philosophical and STS perspective, underlining the need to integrate a social science perspective in AI developments in radiology in the future.

This paper gives a theoretical-affective account of my experience of teaching the course “Vulnerability, Gender, and Justice.” Applied to pedagogy, the notion of vulnerability, diffractive methodologies, and rhizomatic thinking can potentially transform traditional ways of reading philosophy, of understanding ourselves, and of understanding how we are situated in practices within molar and molecular lines. This course aimed to activate potential lines of flight that may fly away from normativity.

Given our situatedness as political subjects of knowledgeas activists and scholars from Southern Europe -we have mapped out in this issue some feminist responses to populism. This issue discusses diverse transfeminist and feminist political groups and ideas, and talks about feminisms as a constellation of accounts of politics, practices, knowledges, and experiences. Although it is beyond the scope of this issue to discuss the idea of populism, the plurality of definitions and their political implications, this collection of essays reflects our need to analyse modes of self-determination that, within feminism, are taking place in the name of the people and for the people. This Introduction sketches the situatedness of the essays in Southern Europe, the antifeminist backlash and the feminist responses that we have been witnessing in the past few years, and the appropriation of feminism by certain conservative groups.

Resumen: La performatividad de la filosofía de Judith Butler posibilita acciones transformadoras que resignifican categorías que, a menudo, se nos presentan como coercitivas e hirientes. Es el caso del lenguaje de odio y del insulto, que puede ser resignificado como lo fue el término queer, que pasó a ser una forma de autodenominación orgullosa. Reproducir performativamente las normas sociales crea sensación de estabilidad y de coherencia, pero Butler recoge la idea de iterabilidad de Derrida: siempre se abren brechas en la repetición que posibilitan resultados inesperados. Al repetir siempre introduciendo diferencias, las normas de género se ven modificadas y nunca son reproducidas de forma perfecta y definitiva. Palabras-clave: Performatividad, resignificaciones positivas, iterabilidad, lenguaje de odio.Abstract: Judith Butler's philosophy allows the existance of transforming actions that resignificate categories that, often, are presented to us as coercive and hurtful. That is the case of the hate speech and the insult, that can be resignificated the same way the term queer was, becoming a proud way to name oneself. Performatively reproducing social norms creates a sense of stability and coherence, but Butler follows the derridean idea of iterability: breaches are always open through repetition and they allow unexpected outcomes. By always introducing differences when we repeat, gender norms are always modified and never reproduced in a perfect and definitive way.