Skip to content

Research Ethics

Public syllabus for 2025-2026

Academic overview

Programme
AIDC
Period
Year 1, Semester 1
Credits
2
Weeks
14

Curriculum placement

Appears in study plans

Teaching team

Course coordinator
(none)
Seminar coordinators
(none)

Learning time distribution

Total
Curriculum Lecture Practice Total Weekly Lecture Practice
14 14 0 1 1 0
Exam hours
2
Individual Study Bibliography study Field study Homework Tutoring Others
36 12 11 11 0 0
Overall
50

Learning outcomes

Knowledge

  • Students should obtain basic knowledge of the theoretical and historical foundations of ethics.
  • They should learn to identify and explain key ethical challenges in computational design with special emphasis on AI development and deployment and data usage, identify ethical risks, and critically evaluate AI’s impact on society, autonomy and decision-making.
  • They should gain knowledge and understanding of the applicability of ethical principles, values, and rules to situations in the field of informatics by identifying, analyzing and solving problems at the confluence of these fields.

Skills

  • The ability to transfer acquired knowledge and apply it in a creative-innovative way to solve complex problems raised by the activity of creating and/or managing AI.
  • The ability to design computational systems with ethical and regulatory compliance in mind.
  • The ability to apply the principles and values of ethics and integrity in the area of data management, and in a wider research context.

Responsibility

  • An attitude of solidarity with the beneficiaries of specific products and colleagues in teamwork
  • Respect for national as well as European/international values and ethical standards
  • Tolerance and respect for diversity.

Online platform

(none)

Course content

Content Methods Obs
What Is Ethics? Moral principles and values. Ethical and legal challenges in computer science and AI Presentation, dialogue, debate, questions and answers. Various fragments from the reference list will be given as readings for the following meeting
Bias and Fairness. Identifying and reducing algorithmic bias; identifying and reducing bias in research; what does fairness mean in theory and practice Presentation, dialogue, debate, questions and answers. Various fragments from the reference list will be given as readings for the following meeting
Privacy, Intellectual Property, and Data Ethics. Informed consent and data use; GDPR obligations and ethical data handling. Presentation, dialogue, debate, questions and answers. Various fragments from the reference list will be given as readings for the following meeting
Responsibility and Accountability. Who’s liable when AI causes harm? Can we ensure traceable accountability? Presentation, dialogue, debate, questions and answers. Various fragments from the reference list will be given as readings for the following meeting
Intelligence and agency. Can machines be (moral) agents? Should they bear ethical responsibility? Presentation, dialogue, debate, questions and answers. Various fragments from the reference list will be given as readings for the following meeting
AI and Work. Ethical use of generative AI; Society, automation and job loss Presentation, dialogue, debate, questions and answers. Various fragments from the reference list will be given as readings for the following meeting
Ethics, Law & Future AI. Should we regulate powerful AI now or wait for AGI? Presentation, dialogue, debate, questions and answers. Wrapping-up discussions about the topics covered

Course bibliography

Aristotle (2009). Nicomachean ethics (W. D. Ross, Trans.; Revised ed.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published ca. 4th century BCE) Barocas, S., Hardt, M., & Narayanan, A. (2023). Fairness and machine learning: Limitations and opportunities. MIT Press. Binns, R. (2018). Fairness in machine learning: Lessons from political philosophy. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 149–159). Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford University Press. Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Press. Floridi, L. (2016). The Fourth Revolution: How the Infosphere is Reshaping Human Reality. Oxford University Press. Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2019). A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harvard Data Science Review Jonas, H. (1984). The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age. University of Chicago Press. Kant, I. (2012). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals (M. Gregor & J. Timmermann, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1785) Mill, J. S. (2002). Utilitarianism (G. Sher, Ed.). Hackett. (Original work published 1861) O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown. Russell, S. (2019). Human compatible: Artificial intelligence and the problem of control. Viking. Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. PublicAffairs IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems. (2019). Ethically aligned design: A vision for prioritizing human well-being with autonomous and intelligent systems (1st ed.). IEEE. https://ethicsinaction.ieee.org European Commission. (2019). Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137

Seminar content

Content Methods Obs
n/a n/a n/a
Bibliography:

Seminar bibliography

As specified in the curriculum

Corroboration

(none)

AI tools guidance

(none)

Evaluation and delivery

Activity Criteria Methods Percentage
C
  • 10: excellent (outstanding performance with only minor errors),
  • 8-9: very good (above the average standard but with some errors),
  • 6-7: satisfactory (fair, but with
  • significant shortcomings),
  • 5: sufficient (performance meets minimum criteria),
  • 0-4: fail (significant work has to be done)
  • Participation
  • Essay
  • Group presentation
  • 20.0%
  • 40.0%
  • 40.0%
S
  • n/a
  • n/a

Performance standards

Achieving 50% of the maximum number of points.

Additional info

(none)