This chapter explores the potential for gamesmanship in technology-assisted discovery. Attorneys have long embraced gamesmanship strategies in analog discovery, producing reams of irrelevant documents, delaying depositions, or interpreting requests in a hyper-technical manner. The new question, however, is whether machine learning technologies can transform gaming strategies. By now it is well known that technologies have reinvented the practice of civil litigation and, specifically, the extensive search for relevant documents in complex cases. Many sophisticated litigants use machine learning algorithms – under the umbrella of “Technology Assisted Review” (TAR) – to simplify the identification and production of relevant documents in discovery. Litigants employ TAR in cases ranging from antitrust to environmental law, civil rights, and employment disputes. But as the field becomes increasingly influenced by engineers and technologists, a string of commentators has raised questions about TAR, including lawyers’ professional role, underlying incentive structures, and the dangers of new forms of gamesmanship and abuse.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine has heavily affected country’s research and development (R&D) sector. In particular, it has caused considerable damage to research infrastructure and forced researchers to leave their homes, ruined many research teams and paralysed their work, and stopped funding and implementation of many research projects. All these devastating consequences of the full-scale war have piled on top of the existing problems and challenges of Ukrainian science and deepened its long-term crisis.

Recognition and analysis of these systemic challenges implies that the reconstruction of the Ukrainian R&D sector cannot be seen simply as physical rebuilding of the damaged research infrastructure. It is essential to transform the R&D sphere itself and build ways for science to benefit the economy and society. To enable the ‘build back better’ principle of Ukraine’s reconstruction, science, technology and innovation should be the cornerstone of the national reconstruction strategy, and their transformation should be seen as an essential part of the EU accession. This implies that, first, the agency responsible for Ukraine’s reconstruction should have a dedicated unit supervising the R&D sector. And second, Ukraine’s R&D sector should be reformed as early as possible. At the same time, its reforms need to be systemic, accurately designed and appropriately supported. If supported by appropriate resources, the National Council on Science and Technology can start designing these reforms right away.

A crucial and urgent task is helping researchers (who have mostly stayed in Ukraine) remain researchers, that is, ensuring that they do not leave for other sectors. To this end, we suggest that the government, together with international donors, provides stipends to researchers selected on merit-based principles. Furthermore, it is important to support the development of networks and partnerships at different levels - among Ukrainian researchers; among Ukrainian and foreign researchers; among researchers, businesses and local governments. These networks and partnerships will be essential for the future reconstruction of Ukraine.

For the long-term transformation of the science sphere, we suggest the introduction of performance-based funding; the gradual transition of the most capable research teams under the new research societies (created in parallel with existing academies of sciences) with a simultaneous increase in their funding; intensifying European integration of Ukrainian science, including integration of research infrastructure; and data-driven R&D policy development, the foundation for which has been already laid. Closing the gap between education and research is also one of our key recommendations.

ABOUT THE BOOK

Image

This book offers a comprehensive analysis of what Ukraine should become after the war and what tools policymakers can use to fulfill these goals. It provides perspectives from leading scholars and practitioners. While each chapter of the book covers a specific sector, there is a natural overlap across the chapters because Ukraine’s reconstruction should involve a comprehensive transformation of the country. The leitmotif of this book is clear: reconstruction is not about rebuilding Ukraine to the pre-war state; it is about a deep modernisation of the country on its path to European Union accession. All critical elements of the economy and society will have to leapfrog and undergo reforms to help Ukraine escape its post-Soviet legacy and become a full-fledged democracy with a modern economy, strong institutions and a powerful defence sector. Ukraine’s ownership of the reconstruction will be key to its success.

What has happened to digital activism in the 10 years since the Arab Spring? Writer, activist, and 2016 Draper Hills Summer Fellow Abdelrahman Mansour divides the answer to this question into four sections. First, he provides a short history of digital activism before and during the Arab Spring in 2011. Second, he outlines three major changes to the political environment that have affected online activism since 2013. Third, he provides seven observations about how digital activism has changed between 2013 and 2021. Finally, he provides some hopeful predictions about the way forward.

The emergence of a global digital ecosystem has been a boon for global communication and the democratization of the means of distributing information. The internet, and the social media platforms and web applications running on it, have been used to mobilize pro-democracy protests and give members of marginalized communities a chance to share their voices with the world. However, more recently, we have also seen this technology used to spread propaganda and misinformation, interfere in election campaigns, expose individuals to harassment and abuse, and stir up confusion, animosity and sometimes violence in societies. Even seemingly innocuous digital technologies, such as ranking algorithms on entertainment websites, can have the effect of stifling diversity by failing to reliably promote content from underrepresented groups. At times, it can seem as if technologies that were intended to help people learn and communicate have been irreparably corrupted. It is easy to say that governments should step in to control this space and prevent further harms, but part of what helped the internet grow and thrive was its lack of heavy regulation, which encouraged openness and innovation. However, the absence of oversight has allowed dysfunction to spread, as malign actors manipulate digital technology for their own ends without fear of the consequences. It has also allowed unprecedented power to be concentrated in the hands of private technology companies, and these giants to act as de facto regulators with little meaningful accountability. So, who should be in charge of reversing the troubling developments in our global digital spaces? And what, if anything, can be done to let society keep reaping the benefits of these technologies, while protecting it against the risks?