Zusammenfassung
Digital Twins are discussed as the new frontier of precision medicine. Using Artificial Intelligence (AI)-technologies, a virtual model of a patient’s organ, physiological structure, or whole body is built from individual health data. This virtual model can be used for drug testing, predictive analysis and risk assessment, disease modelling, or lifestyle improvement. The digital twin can feedback information and thus contribute to regulating physical processes or behavior. Most of the ethical research on digital twins is based on the assumption that they are simulations, representing structures, systems, functions, or behaviors of a given person. I suggest framing digital twins as a simulacrum, i.e. a projection of a construct, which is in itself artificial. By using simulacrum theory as introduced by Baudrillard, I investigate the connection between the epistemological and ethical implications of digital twins. The results of this analysis may be of high relevance for clinical practice, since they allow to assess the epistemological limits of digital twins, which in turn helps to evaluate the ethical risks as well as the appropriate areas of application in the light of best practice.
Schlüsselwörter
- Artificial intelligence
- Baudrillard
- Big data
- Clinical heuristics
- Digital technologies
- Machine learning
- Medical ethics
- Personalized medicine
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buying options
Notes
- 1.
It should be noted that the conceptual disctinction between “virtual/digital” and “physical” entities that is prevalent in the literature suggests that the digital sphere is non-physical. This is highly problematic and deserves a deeper philosophical investigation, which cannot be attempted in this paper. For the sake of the argument, I will therefore follow the literature and use this distinction as well.
References
Abbinnett, Ross. 2008. The spectre and the simulacrum: History after Baudrillard. Theory, Culture & Society 25(6):69–87.
Barricelli, Barbara Rita, Elena Casiraghi, und Daniela Fogli. 2019. A survey on digital twin: Definitions, characteristics, applications, and design implications. IEEE Access 7:167653–167671.
Batty, Michael. 2018. Digital twins. Environment and planning B: Urban analytics and city science 45(5):817–820.
Baudrillard, Jean. 1995. The virtual illusion: Or the automatic writing of the world. Theory, Culture & Society 12(4):97–107.
Baudrillard, Jean. 1981. For a critique of the political economy of the sign. Translated by C. Levin. St Louis: Telos Press.
Baudrillard, Jean. 1994. The precession of simulacra. In Simulacra and simulation. Jean Baudrillard, 1–42. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan press.
Björnsson, Bergthor, Carl Borrebaeck, Niels Elander, Thomas Gasslander, Danuta R. Gawel, Mika Gustafsson, et al. 2019. Digital twins to personalize medicine. Genome Medicine 12(1):4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13073-019-0701-3.
Braun, Matthias. 2021. Represent me: please! Towards an ethics of digital twins in medicine. Journal of Medical Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106134.
Bruynseels, Koen, Filippo Santoni de Sio, und Jeroen van den Hoven. 2018. Digital twins in health care: Ethical implications of an emerging engineering paradigm. Frontiers in Genetics 9: 31. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2018.00031
Challen, Roberts, Joshua Denny, Martin Pitt, Luke Gompels, Tom Edwards, und Krasimira Tsaneva-Atanasova. 2019. Artificial intelligence, bias and clinical safety. BMJ Quality & Safety 28(3):231–237.
Coorey, Genevieve, Gemma A. Figtree, David F. Fletcher, und Julie Redfern. 2021. The health digital twin: Advancing precision cardiovascular medicine. Nature Reviews Cardiology 18(12):803–804.
Corral-Acero, J., F. Margara, M. Marciniak, C. Rodero, F. Loncaric, Y. Feng, et al. 2020. The ‘Digital Twin’ to enable the vision of precision cardiology. European Heart Journal 41(48):4556–4564. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa159.
De Maeyer, Christel, and Panos Markopoulos. 2020. Are digital twins becoming or personal (predictive) advisors? In Human aspects of IT for the aged population. Healthy and active aging. HCII 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 12208. Qin Gao and Jia Zhou. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50249-2_19.(6).
Duran, Juan Manuel, and Karin Jolanda Jongsma. 2021. Who is afraid of black box algorithms? On the epistemological and ethical basis of trust in medical AI. Journal of Medical Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106820.
Eneanya, Nwamaka D., Sophia Kostelanetz, und Mallika L. Mendu. 2021. Race-free biomarkers to quantify kidney function: Health equity lessons learned from population-based research. American Journal of Kidney Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2020.12.001.
Evans, Jonathan, und St.B.T. 2003. In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7:454–459.
Fuller, Aidan, Zhong Fan, Charles Day, und Chris Barlow. 2020. Digital twin: Enabling technologies, challenges and open research. IEEE Access 8:108952–108971.
Gigerenzer, Gerd, und Wolfgang Gaissmaier. 2011. Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology 62:451–482.
Gkouskou, Kalliopi, Ioannis Vlastos, Petros Karkalousos, Dimitrios Chaniotis, Despina Sanoudou, und Aristides G. Eliopoulos. 2020. The “virtual digital twins” concept in precision nutrition. Advances in Nutrition 11(6):1405–1413.
Grieves, Michael. 2014. Digital twin: Manufacturing excellence through virtual factory replication. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275211047_Digital_Twin_Manufacturing_Excellence_through_Virtual_Factory_Replication. Accessed: 27. Jan. 2022.
Hughes, Tasha M., Lesly A. Dossett, Sarah T. Hawley, und Dana A. Telem. 2020. Recognizing heuristics and bias in clinical decision-making. Annals of Surgery 271(5):813–814.
Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Boulos, Kamel, N. Maged, und Peng Zhang. 2021. Digital twins: From personalised medicine to precision public health. Journal of Personalized Medicine 11(8):745. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11080745.
Krutzinna, Jenny. 2021. Simulating (some) individuals in a connected world. Journal of Medical Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2021-107447.
Lehrach, H., A. Ionescu, und Benhabiles, N. (2016). The future of health care: Deep data, smart sensors, virtual patients and the internet-of-humans (white paper). https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/content/future-health-care-deep-data-smart-sensors-virtual-patients-and-internet-humans.html. Accessed: 7 February 2022
Liu, Mengnan, Shuiliang Fang, Huiyue Dong, und Cunzhi Xu. 2021. Review of digital twin about concepts, technologies, and industrial applications. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 58:346–361.
Lukachko, Alicia, Mark L. Hatzenbuehler, und Katherine M. Keyes. 2014. Structural racism and myocardial infarction in the United States. Social Science & Medicine 103:42–50.
Marewski, Julian N., und Gerd Gigerenzer. 2012. Heuristic decision making in medicine. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience 14(1):77–89.
Martinez-Velazquez, Roberto, Rogelio Gamez, und Abdulmotaleb El Saddik. 2019. Cardio twin: A digital twin of the human heart running on the edge. IEEE International Symposium on Medical Measurements and Applications (MeMeA) 2019:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/MeMeA.2019.8802162.
Mayer-Schönberger, Viktor, und Kenneth Cukier. 2013. Big data: A revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. London: John Murray Publishers.
Mittelstadt, Brent. 2021. Near-term ethical challenges of digital twins. Journal of Medical Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2021-107449.
Mittelstadt, Brent D., Patrick Allo, Mariarosaria Taddeo, Sandra Wachter, und Luciano Floridi. 2016. The ethics of algorithms: mapping the debate. Big Data & Society 3(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716679679.
Morley, Jessica, Caio C.V.. Machado, Christopher Burr, Josh Cowls, Indra Joshi, Mariarosaria Taddeo, et al. 2020. The ethics of AI in health care: A mapping review. Social Science & Medicine 260:113172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113172.
Nyholm, Sven. 2021. Should a medical digital twin be viewed as an extension of the patient’s body? Journal of Medical Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2021-107448.
Smith, D.W. 2006. The concept of the simulacrum: Deleuze and the overturning of Platonism. Continental Philosophy Review 38:89–123.
Thomas, S. Justin., John N. Booth III, Chen Dai, Xuelin Li, Norrina Allen, David Calhoun, et al. 2018. Cumulative Incidence of Hypertension by 55 Years of Age in Blacks and Whites: The CARDIA Study. Journal of the American Heart Association. 7(14):e007988. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.117.007988.
Tretter, Max. 2021. Perspectives on digital twins and the (im)possibilities of control. Journal of Medical Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2021-107460.
Voigt, I., H. Inojosa, A. Dillenseger, R. Haase, K. Akgün, und T. Ziemssen. 2021. Digital twins for multiple sclerosis. Frontiers in Immunology 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.669811.
Whelehan, Dale F., Kevin C. Conlon, und Paul F. Ridgway. 2020. Medicine and heuristics: Cognitive biases and medical decision-making. Irish Journal of Medical Science 189(4):1477–1484.
Wolny, Ryszard W. 2017. Hyperreality and Simulacrum: Jean Baudrillard and European Postmodernism. European Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 8:76–80.
Wright, Louise W., and Stuart Davidson. 2020. How to tell the difference between a model and a digital twin. Advanced Modeling and Simulation in Engineering Sciences 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40323-020-00147-4.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 Der/die Autor(en), exklusiv lizenziert an Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE, ein Teil von Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rubeis, G. (2023). Hyperreal Patients. Digital Twins as Simulacra and their impact on clinical heuristics. In: Loh, J., Grote, T. (eds) Medizin – Technik – Ethik. Techno:Phil – Aktuelle Herausforderungen der Technikphilosophie , vol 5. J.B. Metzler, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-65868-0_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-65868-0_10
Published:
Publisher Name: J.B. Metzler, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-65867-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-65868-0
eBook Packages: J.B. Metzler Humanities (German Language)