A major review from the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation (CDEI), which draws on a detailed analysis of the use of algorithms in four sectors (financial services, local government, policing and recruitment), proposes significant measures for government, regulators and industry to act on to tackle the risks of algorithmic bias.

Key recommendations include:

• Government should place a mandatory transparency obligation on all public sector organisations using algorithms that have an impact on significant decisions affecting individuals.

*Organisations should be actively using data to identify and mitigate bias. They should make sure that they understand the capabilities and limitations of algorithmic tools, and carefully consider how they will ensure fair treatment of individuals.

• Government should issue guidance that clarifies the application of the Equality Act to algorithmic decision-making. This should include guidance on the collection of data to measure bias, as well as the lawfulness of bias mitigation techniques (some of which risk introducing positive discrimination, which is illegal under the Equality Act).

The CDEI, the UK government’s advisory body on the responsible use of AI and data-driven technology, has proposed a roadmap that government, regulators and industry can take to increase fairness and reduce bias, while also ensuring that the UK regulatory ecosystem is set up to support responsible innovation.

The measures are designed to produce a step change in the behaviour of all organisations making life-changing decisions on the basis of data, with a focus on improving accountability and transparency. The report emphasises that organisations are responsible for their decisions – whether they have been made by an algorithm or a team of humans – and offers guidance for organisational leaders and boards to enhance accountability.

The CDEI recommends that the government should place a transparency obligation on all public sector organisations using algorithms which support significant decisions. This would include information about how algorithms are used in the overall decision-making process, and steps taken to ensure fair treatment of individuals.

The CDEI argues that there is an opportunity here: effective use of data can enable organisations to shine a light on practices that may otherwise go unseen, and identify the drivers of bias. The report recommends that government and regulators provide clear guidance about how organisations can actively use data to tackle current and historic bias. This guidance should address the misconception that data protection law prevents the collection or usage of data for monitoring or addressing discrimination.

The review was informed by public engagement to gain a deeper understanding of attitudes towards algorithmic decision-making, drawing on methodologies including survey and behavioural science research. A large scale survey, conducted with Deltapoll, found that the majority of respondents were aware of the use of algorithms to support decision-making (around 6 out of 10). Of those respondents who were aware of the use of algorithms, respondents were most aware of their use in financial services (more than 5 in 10), in contrast to local government (around 3 in 10). The results suggest that the public are more concerned that the outcome of decision-making is fair, rather than whether algorithms are used to inform these judgements. There is public support for data – including age (net agreement of +59%), ethnicity (+59%) and sex (+39%) – to be used for tackling algorithmic bias in recruitment.

The review points to the need for an ecosystem of industry standards and professional services to help organisations address algorithmic bias in the UK and beyond. This presents an opportunity for the UK: leadership in this area can not only ensure fairness for British citizens, but can also unlock growth by incubating new industries in responsible technology.

To catalyse this, the CDEI has initiated a programme of work on AI assurance, in which it will identify what is needed to develop a strong AI accountability ecosystem in the UK. Other related CDEI work includes: working with the Government Digital Service (GDS) to pilot an approach to algorithmic transparency; supporting a police force and a local authority to apply lessons learnt and develop practical governance structures; and active public engagement to build understanding of the values that citizens want reflected in new models of data governance.

In its report, the CDEI calls for national leadership and coordination to drive the pace of change, and urges the government to be clear on where responsibilities sit for tracking progress.

Adrian Weller, Board Member for the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, said:

“It is vital that we work hard now to get this right as adoption of algorithmic decision-making increases. Government, regulators and industry need to work together with interdisciplinary experts, stakeholders and the public to ensure that algorithms are used to promote fairness, not undermine it. The Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation has today set out a range of measures to help the UK to achieve this, with a focus on enhancing transparency and accountability in decision-making processes that have a significant impact on individuals. Not only does the report propose a roadmap to tackle the risks, but it highlights the opportunity that good use of data presents to address historical unfairness and avoid new biases in key areas of life.”

Simon McDougall, Deputy Commissioner – Regulatory Innovation and Technology for the Information Commissioner’s Office, said:

“We welcome and support the findings of the report and want to echo the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation’s concerns around algorithmic bias. When developed and used responsibly, algorithms can transform society for the better. But there is also significant risk that algorithms can exacerbate issues of fairness and inequality. This often impacts the most vulnerable or marginalised people. Data protection law requires fair and transparent uses of data in algorithms, gives people rights in relation to automated decision-making, and demands that the outcome from the use of algorithms does not result in unfair or discriminatory impacts. The ICO has prioritised the data protection implications of AI for a long time and has produced guidance for organisations on the use of AI.”

• Government requests medicines regulator evaluate whether supply of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine can be authorised
• Vaccine must first meet the UK’s high standards of safety, efficacy and quality
• Move would mean potentially faster access to the vaccine for UK patients, if approved

The government has formally requested the UK’s independent medicines regulator assess the suitability of Oxford/AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine for temporary supply, as soon as the company submits the necessary safety, quality and efficacy data.

The move marks a significant first step in getting the vaccine approved for deployment, should it meet the regulator’s requirements.

The UK will be one of the first countries in the world to receive the vaccine, if authorised, with AstraZeneca expecting to have up to 4 million doses ready for the UK by the end of the year and 40 million by the end of March 2021.

The UK is the first country in the world to sign an agreement with Oxford University/AstraZeneca, securing access to 100 million doses of the vaccine

Earlier this week, the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca published their interim efficacy results, which indicated the vaccine was at least 70% effective in protecting individuals from COVID-19.

This rose to 90% effective when administered as half a dose, followed by a full dose – rather than 2 full doses.

Health and Social Care Secretary Matt Hancock said:

We are working tirelessly to be in the best possible position to deploy a vaccine as soon as one is approved by the independent regulator, the MHRA.

We have formally asked the regulator to assess the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, to understand the data and determine whether it meets rigorous safety standards. This letter is an important step towards deploying a vaccine as quickly as safely possible.

In a letter sent by the Department of Health and Social Care to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the government has asked the regulator to assess the vaccine for authorisation under Regulation 174 of the Human Medicines Regulations, which enables the temporary supply of medicines to be authorised in response to a public health need.

The MHRA has already started a rolling review to determine whether the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine meets its strict standards of safety, efficacy and quality.

Once the MHRA receives the full data from the company, its renowned team of scientists and clinicians stand ready to progress its assessment of the vaccine.

Until the end of December, and as part of the transition period, vaccines must be authorised via the European Medicines Agency and that authorisation will automatically be valid in the UK.

However, if a suitable COVID-19 vaccine candidate, with strong supporting evidence of safety, quality and effectiveness from clinical trials becomes available before the end of the transition period, EU legislation which we have implemented – Regulation 174 – allows the MHRA to temporarily authorise the supply of a medicine or vaccine, based on public health need.

The letter, signed by Deputy Chief Medical Officer for England Professor Jonathan Van-Tam and Director for COVID-19 Vaccine Deployment Antonia Williams, requests the MHRA’s Chief Executive Dr June Raine for the MHRA to evaluate whether the vaccine can be authorised under this regulation.

The government has already formally asked the MHRA to assess the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine for its suitability for authorisation under Regulation 174.

Until a vaccine is approved, the public must continue to take necessary actions to keep themselves and their loved ones safe including by following the ‘Hands. Face. Space’ guidance and other public health advice.

Medical countermeasures such as effective therapeutics and vaccines could eventually make COVID-19 a more manageable disease, reducing its impact on society and the NHS so we can begin to get back to normal.

The MHRA is the UK’s independent regulator, globally recognised for requiring the highest standards for quality, safety and effectiveness.

After the transition period ends in January 2021, the MHRA will have new powers to approve medicines, including vaccines, and will have greater flexibility to do this in a shorter time, while maintaining the highest standards of safety, quality and effectiveness.

The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) are the independent experts who advise the government on which vaccines the UK should use and provide advice on who should be offered the vaccination first. The committee’s interim advice is that a COVID-19 vaccine should first be given to care home residents and staff, followed by people over 80 and health and social workers, then to the rest of the population in order of age and risk.

Vaccination will be managed by the health services in each nation: NHS England and NHS Improvement, NHS Wales, NHS Scotland, and Health and Social Care Northern Ireland.

The government has previously announced funding for the Oxford University/AstraZeneca vaccine including:

• £2.6 million announced on 23 March 2020
• £20 million announced on 21 April 2020
• £65.5 million announced on 17 May 2020

Through the government’s Vaccines Taskforce, the UK has secured early access to 355 million doses of 7 of the most promising vaccine candidates, including:

• Pfizer/BioNTech for 40 million doses
• Oxford/AstraZeneca for 100 million doses
• Moderna for 5 million doses
• GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi Pasteur for 60 million doses
• Novavax for 60 million doses
• Janssen for 30 million doses
• Valneva for 60 million doses