There may be a perception that established models of ethics review have gaps in their handling of research involving AI. To some extent such gaps are likely to be locally based, and understanding the particular expertise at any given institution is important. "Institutional ethics committees in the A/IS fieldsIt is unclear how research on the interface of humans and A/IS, animals and A/IS, and biological hazards will impact research ethical review boards. Norms, institutional controls, and risk metrics appropriate to the technology are not well established in the relevant literature and research governance infrastructure. Additionally, national and international regulations governing review of human-subjects research may explicitly or implicitly exclude A/IS research from their purview on the basis of legal technicalities or medical ethical concerns, regardless of the potential harms posed by the research.Research on A/IS human-machine interaction, when it involves intervention or interaction with identifiable human participants or their data, typically falls to the governance of research ethics boards, e.g., institutional review boards. The national level and institutional resources, e.g., hospitals and universities, necessary to govern ethical conduct of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), particularly within the disciplines pertinent to A/IS research, are underdeveloped.First, there is limited international or national guidance to govern this form of research. Sections of IEEE standards governing research on A/IS in medical devices address some of the issues related to the security of A/IS enabled devices. However, the ethics of testing those devices for the purpose of bringing them to market are not developed into policies or guidance documents from recognized national and international bodies, e.g., U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and EU European Medicines Agency (EMA). Second, the bodies that typically train individuals to be gatekeepers for the research ethics bodies are under-resourced in terms of expertise for A/IS development, e.g., Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research (PRIM&R) and the Society of Clinical Research Associates (SoCRA). Third, it is not clear whether there is sufficient attention paid to A/IS ethics by research ethics board members or by researchers whose projects involve the use of human participants or their identifiable data.For example, research pertinent to the ethics-governing research at the interface of animalsand A/IS research is underdeveloped with respect to systematization for implementation by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) or other relevant committees. In institutions without a veterinary school, it is unclear that the organization would have the relevant resources necessary to conduct an ethical review of such research.Similarly, research pertinent to the intersection of radiological, biological, and toxicological research —ordinarily governed under institutional biosafety committees—and A/IS research is not oftenfound in the literature pertinent to researchethics or research governance."p.125