Ethics: What is the Research Scenario in the Brazilian Conference BRACIS?

  • Luiz Paulo Carvalho UFRJ
  • Lucas Murakami UFRJ
  • José Antonio Suzano UFRJ
  • Jonice Oliveira UFRJ
  • Kate Revoredo Humboldt University of Berlin
  • Flávia Maria Santoro UERJ


Artificial Intelligence (AI) presents many ethical dilemmas, such as explainability, bias, military uses, surveillance capitalism, employment, and jobs. In the scientific context, AI can lead us to a crisis of reproducibility spread across several areas of knowledge and guide mathematicians to solve high complexity problems. Both companies and government forward their guidelines, recommendations, and materials combining Ethics and AI. In this paper, we investigate the involvement of the Brazilian academic-scientific community with moral or ethical aspects through its publications, covering the Brazilian Conference on Intelligent Systems (BRACIS) as the most prominent Brazilian AI conference. Through a Literature Systematic Review method, we answer the main research question: what is the panorama of the explicit occurrence of ethical aspects in the BRACIS, ENIAC, and STIL conference papers? The results indicate a low occurrence of ethical aspects and increasing behavior over the years. Ethical deliberation was fruitful, constructive, and critical among these few occurrences. Whether in the Brazilian or international context, there are spaces to be filled and open opportunities for exploration along this path.


Barger, R. (2008). Computer Ethics: A Case-Based Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, RU.

Bock, A., España, S., Gulden, J., Jahn, K., Nweke, L. O., and Richter, A. (2021). The ethics of information systems: The present state of the discussion and avenues for future work. Number 51 in ECIS 2021 Research-in-Progress Papers.

Brasil (2018). LEI Nº 13.709, DE 14 DE AGOSTO DE 2018. Available at: [accessed 15-august-2022].

Broder, R. and Berton, L. (2021). Performance analysis of machine learning algorithms trained on biased data. In Anais do XVIII ENIAC, pages 548-558, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil. SBC.

Bynum, T. (2018). Computer and Information Ethics. In Zalta, E. N., editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. [accessed 15-august-2022].

Carvalho, L. P., Suzano, J. A., Pereira, R., Santoro, F. M., and Oliveira, J. (2021). Ethics: What is the Research Scenario in the Brazilian Symposium IHC? Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA.

Carvalho, L. P., Suzano, J. A., Santoro, F. M., and Oliveira, J. (2022). A meta-scientific broad panorama of ethical aspects in the Brazilian IHC. Journal on Interactive Systems, 13(1):105-126.

Carvalho, R., Carvalho, R., Ladeira, M., Monteiro, F. M., and Mendes, G. L. d. O. (2014). Using political party affiliation data to measure civil servants' risk of corruption. In 2014 BRACIS, pages 166-171.

Checco, A., Bracciale, L., Loreti, P., Pinfield, S., and Bianchi, G. (2021). AI-assisted peer review. Nature, 8(25).

Chirigati, F. (2022). Machine learning to guide mathematicians. Nat Comput Sci, 2(2).

CNS (2012). Conselho Nacional da Saúde. RESOLUÇÃO Nº 466, DE 12 DE DEZEMBRO DE 2012. Available at: [accessed 15-august-2022].

CNS (2016). Conselho Nacional da Saúde. RESOLUÇÃO Nº 510, DE 07 DE ABRIL DE 2016. Available at: [accessed 15-august-2022].

Coeckelbergh, M. (2020). AI Ethics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Dal Pont, T. R., Sabo, I. C., Hübner, J. F., and Rover, A. J. (2020). Impact of text specificity and size on word embeddings performance: An empirical evaluation in brazilian legal domain. In Proceedings of IX BRACIS, Rio Grande, Brazil. Springer.

Denning, P. J. and Denning, D. E. (2020). Dilemmas of artificial intelligence. Commun. ACM, 63(3):22-24.

dos Santos, W. and Paraboni, I. (2019). Reconhecimento de posicionamentos de natureza moral em textos. In Proceedings of A STIL, pages 362-366, Salvador, BA, Brasil.

Feenberg, A. (2017). Technosystem: The Social Life of Reason. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Ferraz, C. A. (2014). Ética Elementos Básicos. NEPFIL online, Pelotas, RS.

Ferreira, M., Almeida, A., Canario, J., Souza, M., Nogueira, T., and Rios, R. (2021). Ethics of AI: Do the Face Detection Models Act with Prejudice? In Anais da X BRACIS, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil. SBC.

Floridi, L. (2021). Ethics, Governance, and Policies in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Heidelberg, NY.

Gibney, E. (2022). Could machine learning fuel a reproducibility crisis in science? Nature. [accessed 15-august-2022].

Gonçalves, B. and Cozman, F. (2021). The future of ai: Neat or scruffy? In Anais da X BRACIS, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil. SBC.

Gordon, J.-S. and Pasvenskiene, A. (2021). Human rights for robots? a literature review. AI and Ethics, 1:579 - 591.

Goul, M., Henderson, J. C., and Tonge, F. M. (1992). The emergence of artificial intelligence as a reference discipline for decision support systems research. Decision Sciences, 23(6):1263-1276.

Gu, J., Wang, X., Li, C., Zhao, J., Fu, W., Liang, G., and Qiu, J. (2022). AI-enabled image fraud in scientific publications. Patterns, 3(7):100511.

Harris, J. and Anthis, J. (2021). The moral consideration of artificial entities: A literature review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 27.

Harris, M. (2017). Inside the First Church of Artificial Intelligence. [link]. [accessed 15-august-2022].

Hyrynsalmi, S., Hyrynsalmi, S., and Kimppa, K. (2020). Blockchain Ethics: A Systematic Literature Review of Blockchain Research, pages 145-155.

Ioannidis, J., Fanelli, D., Dunne, D., and Goodman, S. (2015). Meta-research: Evaluation and improvement of research methods and practices. PLOS Biology, 13.

Khan, A. A., Badshah, S., Liang, P., Waseem, M., Khan, B., Ahmad, A., Fahmideh, M., Niazi, M., and Akbar, M. A. (2022). Ethics of AI: A Systematic Literature Review of Principles and Challenges. In ICEASE' 2022, EASE 2022, page 383-392, New York, NY, USA. ACM.

Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele, UK, Keele Univ., 33.

Kumeno, F. (2020). Sofware engneering challenges for machine learning applications: A literature review. Intelligent Decision Technologies, 13:463-476.

Moor, J. H. (2005). Why we need better ethics for emerging technologies. Ethics Inf Technol, 7:111-119.

Moura, N., Gondim, J., Claro, D., Souza, M., and Figueiredo, R. (2021). Detection of weapon possession and fire in public safety surveillance cameras. In Anais do XVIII ENIAC, pages 290-301, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil. SBC.

Nunes, A., Wanderley, G., Paraiso, E., and Freitas, C. (2013). Assédio moral em mensagens eletrônicas no ambiente de trabalho: Identificação e emoções associadas. In Anais do X ENIAC, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil. SBC.

Pascual, M. G. (2022). LaMDA, the machine that is like 'a seven-year-old kid': can a computer have consciousness? [accessed 15-august2022].

Pavan, M. C., dos Santos, W. R., and Paraboni, I. (2020). Twitter moral stance classification using long short-term memory networks. In Proceedings of IX BRACIS, Rio Grande, Brazil. Springer.

Petersen, K., Vakkalanka, S., and Kuzniarz, L. (2015). Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology, 64:1-18.

Recker, J. (2021). Scientific research in information systems: a beginner's guide. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2 edition.

Saheb, T., Saheb, T., and Carpenter, D. O. (2021). Mapping research strands of ethics of artificial intelligence in healthcare: A bibliometric and content analysis. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 135:104660.

Sá, A. (2022). Computação Brasil, volume 47. [accessed 15-august-2022].

Vesa, M. and Tienari, J. (2020). Artificial intelligence and rationalized unaccountability: Ideology of the elites? Organization.

Viana, H. and Alcântara, J. a. (2020). Aggregation with weak, axiological and strong sufficientarian functions. In Proceedings of IX BRACIS, Rio Grande, Brazil. Springer.

Vázquez, A. S. (2018). Ética. Civilização Brasileira, 39th edition.

Wieringa, R. (2014). Design Science Methodology for Information Systems and Software Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg, NY.

Wohlin, C. (2014). Writing for synthesis of evidence in empirical software engineering. In Proceedings of the VIII ISESEM, ESEM '14, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
CARVALHO, Luiz Paulo; MURAKAMI, Lucas; SUZANO, José Antonio; OLIVEIRA, Jonice; REVOREDO, Kate; SANTORO, Flávia Maria. Ethics: What is the Research Scenario in the Brazilian Conference BRACIS?. In: ENCONTRO NACIONAL DE INTELIGÊNCIA ARTIFICIAL E COMPUTACIONAL (ENIAC), 19. , 2022, Campinas/SP. Anais [...]. Porto Alegre: Sociedade Brasileira de Computação, 2022 . p. 624-635. ISSN 2763-9061. DOI:


<< < 1 2 3 4 5 > >>