Privacy, bias and the clinical use of facial recognition technology: A survey of genetics professionals

Abstract

AbstractFacial recognition technology (FRT) has been adopted as a precision medicine tool. The medical genetics field highlights both the clinical potential and privacy risks of this technology, putting the discipline at the forefront of a new digital privacy debate. Investigating how geneticists perceive the privacy concerns surrounding FRT can help shape the evolution and regulation of the field, and provide lessons for medicine and research more broadly. Five hundred and sixty‐two genetics clinicians and researchers were approached to fill out a survey, 105 responded, and 80% of these completed. The survey consisted of 48 questions covering demographics, relationship to new technologies, views on privacy, views on FRT, and views on regulation. Genetics professionals generally placed a high value on privacy, although specific views differed, were context‐specific, and covaried with demographic factors. Most respondents (88%) agreed that privacy is a basic human right, but only 37% placed greater weight on it than other values such as freedom of speech. Most respondents (80%) supported FRT use in genetics, but not necessarily for broader clinical use. A sizeable percentage (39%) were unaware of FRT's lower accuracy rates in marginalized communities and of the mental health effects of privacy violations (62%), but most (76% and 75%, respectively) expressed concern when informed. Overall, women and those who self‐identified as politically progressive were more concerned about the lower accuracy rates in marginalized groups (88% vs. 64% and 83% vs. 63%, respectively). Younger geneticists were more wary than older geneticists about using FRT in genetics (28% compared to 56% “strongly” supported such use). There was an overall preference for more regulation, but respondents had low confidence in governments' or technology companies' ability to accomplish this. Privacy views are nuanced and context‐dependent. Support for privacy was high but not absolute, and clear deficits existed in awareness of crucial FRT‐related discrimination potential and mental health impacts. Education and professional guidelines may help to evolve views and practices within the field.