|
The ideas and innovators shaping health care | | | | |  | | By Ruth Reader, Ben Leonard, Erin Schumaker and Carmen Paun | | | | |  Instagram is in the crosshairs of a new lawsuit. | AP | A California court could soon decide whether algorithms that promote and recommend content on Facebook, Instagram and other social media sites are defective products. If the case — a consolidation of lawsuits across multiple districts that plaintiffs’ lawyers plan to file next month — is allowed to proceed, it will test a novel legal theory. If the plaintiffs win, it will have far-reaching consequences for how software is developed and regulated, and how the next generation of users experiences social media. The plaintiffs’ case: Social media users who developed eating disorders, anxiety, and depression say the tech giants knew that their algorithms encourage users to view posts that might lead them into mental illness, and that the companies had a duty to warn them of the dangers. They cite as evidence documents released in 2021 by former Facebook Product Manager Frances Haugen that revealed that her onetime employer knew users of Instagram were suffering ill health effects. “Haugen’s revelations suggest that Meta has long known about the negative effects Instagram has on our kids,” Previn Warren, an attorney for Motley Rice and one of the leads on the case, told Ruth. “It’s similar to what we saw in the 1990s, when whistleblowers leaked evidence that tobacco companies knew nicotine was addictive.” Even so: In traditional product liability jurisprudence, the chain of causality is usually straightforward: a ladder with a third rung that always breaks. But for an algorithm, it is more difficult to prove that it directly caused harm. Legal experts even debate whether an algorithm can be considered a product at all. Product liability laws have traditionally covered flaws in tangible items: a hair dryer or a car. Facebook’s response: The company hasn’t addressed the lawsuit’s claims, but it has added new tools to its social media sites to help users curate their feeds, and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has said he's open to new regulation from Congress. “We don’t allow content that promotes suicide, self-harm or eating disorders, and of the content we remove or take action on, we identify over 99 percent of it before it’s reported to us. We’ll continue to work closely with experts, policymakers and parents on these important issues,” said Antigone Davis, global head of safety at Meta.
| | | | JOIN POLITICO ON 2/9 TO HEAR FROM AMERICA’S GOVERNORS: In a divided Congress, more legislative and policy enforcement will shift to the states, meaning governors will take a leading role in setting the agenda for the nation. Join POLITICO on Thursday, Feb. 9 at World Wide Technology's D.C. Innovation Center for The Fifty: America's Governors, where we will examine where innovations are taking shape and new regulatory red lines, the future of reproductive health, and how climate change is being addressed across a series of one-on-one interviews. REGISTER HERE. | | | | | | | | | 
Honeymoon Beach, St. John, U.S.V.I | Shawn Zeller | This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care. We still have the genes that once gave humans a full coat of body hair, but they’re muted, one study found. Still, if scientists can figure out how to revive them, it could offer new hope for balding people, the Washington Post reports. How much hair would we really like back? Share any other thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Ben Leonard at bleonard@politico.com, Ruth Reader at rreader@politico.com, Carmen Paun at cpaun@politico.com or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@politico.com. Send tips securely through SecureDrop, Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp. Today on our Pulse Check podcast, Ruth talks with Carmen, diving deeper into the legal argument in the suit against social media companies. Plus, Krista breaks down what we know about the newly named members of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.
| | | | | | |  House Energy and Commerce Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) says tech firms aren't doing enough to stop drug dealing on their platforms. | Getty Images | Meanwhile on Capitol Hill: GOP oversight will not be friendly to America’s tech giants, if Wednesday’s House Energy and Commerce roundtable is indicative. The panel’s Republicans accused social media and technology firms of facilitating the deadly trafficking of fentanyl. The lawmakers, some of whom are looking at removing longstanding legal protections the tech firms enjoy for user-generated content, also raised the possibility of broadening the scope of their inquiry into the firms’ algorithms for promoting content. GOP broadsides: – “Big tech companies have failed to be good stewards,” said Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), accusing them of failing “to protect their users from malicious actors on their platform like drug dealers targeting vulnerable populations with counterfeit drugs laced with fentanyl.” – “The power that comes from these apps centers around algorithms and their ability to present data,” said Rep. John Curtis (R-Utah), referring to how social media platforms use technology to target users with content and ads that they think they’re more likely to engage with. McMorris Rodgers said the committee will continue examining the tech firms’ role in allegedly contributing to the fentanyl crisis, which took 80,000 lives in the U.S. in 2021, according to the most recent CDC data. Democrats’ take: Though they didn’t attend the roundtable, many share the GOP lawmakers’ concerns. Earlier this month, President Joe Biden called for a bipartisan push to rein in the tech firms. He mentioned specifically the sale of “dangerous drugs” on their platforms.
| | | | LISTEN TO POLITICO'S ENERGY PODCAST: Check out our daily five-minute brief on the latest energy and environmental politics and policy news. Don't miss out on the must-know stories, candid insights, and analysis from POLITICO's energy team. Listen today. | | | | | | | | |  A new inspector general report says the NIH should have more carefully scrutinized EcoHealth Alliance's work with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. | AP | Incoming GOP House chairs got more fodder for their investigations in a new report from the HHS inspector general calling out the National Institutes of Health’s oversight of the research group EcoHealth Alliance. Why it matters: The alliance’s work with the Wuhan Institute of Virology on bat coronaviruses is at the heart of the “lab leak theory” of the pandemic that challenges prominent scientists’ view that the coronavirus spilled over from animals to humans. The inspector general’s audit examined three NIH grants, worth about $8 million, including $1.8 million that went to subrecipients, including the Wuhan Institute in the Chinese city where the coronavirus emerged. "Despite identifying potential risks associated with research being performed under the EcoHealth awards, we found that NIH did not effectively monitor or take timely action to address EcoHealth’s compliance with some requirements," the report said. The IG report found that EcoHealth improperly used $89,171 in grant funds and failed to obtain scientific documentation from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Guthrie speaks: The new chair of the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), told Ben that investigating the lab leak theory is among his priorities. And 17 House Republicans, led by Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R-Pa.), introduced a bill on Wednesday to ban federal funding for EcoHealth Alliance. What’s next: The National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity plans to release a report on Friday examining U.S. government oversight of research on dangerous pathogens, and meet later that day to discuss it. The board advises the NIH. On Feb. 1, the House Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee will hold a hearing to discuss a Government Accountability Office report scrutinizing government efforts to investigate the pandemic’s origins. | | | | Follow us on Twitter | | | | Follow us | | | | |  |
