Digitalization is globally transforming the world with profound implications. It has enormous potential to foster progress toward sustainability. However, in its current form, digitalization also continues to enable and encourage practices with numerous unsustainable impacts affecting our environment, ingraining inequality, and degrading quality of life. There is an urgent need to identify such multifaceted impacts holistically. Impact assessment of digital interventions (DIs) leading to digitalization is essential specifically for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Action is required to understand the pursuit of short-term gains toward achieving long-term value-driven sustainable development. We need to understand the impact of DIs on various actors and in diverse contexts. A holistic understanding of the impact will help us align the visions of sustainable development and identify potential measures to mitigate negative short and long-term impacts. The recently developed digitainability assessment framework (DAF) unveils the impact of DIs with an in-depth context-aware assessment and offers an evidence-based impact profile of SDGs at the indicator level. This paper demonstrates how DAF can be instrumental in guiding participatory action for the implementation of digitainability practices. This paper summarizes the insights developed during the Digitainable Spring School 2022 (DSS) on “Sustainability with Digitalization and Artificial Intelligence,” one of whose goals was to operationalize the DAF as a tool in the participatory action process with collaboration and active involvement of diverse professionals in the field of digitalization and sustainability. The DAF guides a holistic context-aware process formulation for a given DI. An evidence-based evaluation within the DAF protocol benchmarks a specific DI’s impact against the SDG indicators framework. The participating experts worked together to identify a DI and gather and analyze evidence by operationalizing the DAF. The four DIs identified in the process are as follows: smart home technology (SHT) for energy efficiency, the blockchain for food security, artificial intelligence (AI) for land use and cover change (LUCC), and Big Data for international law. Each of the four expert groups addresses different DIs for digitainability assessment using different techniques to gather and analyze data related to the criteria and indicators. The knowledge presented here could increase understanding of the challenges and opportunities related to digitainability and provide a structure for developing and implementing robust digitainability practices with data-driven insights.

Digital phenotyping represents an avenue of consideration in patients' self-management. This scoping review aims to explore the trends in the body of literature on ethical, legal, and social challenges relevant to the implementation of digital phenotyping technologies in healthcare. The study followed the PRISMA-ScR methodology (Tricco et al. in Ann Int Med 169(7):467–473, 2018.https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850). The review systematically identified relevant literature, characterised the discussed technology, explored its impacts and the proposed solutions to identified challenges. Overall, the literature, perhaps unsurprisingly, concentrates on technical rather than ethical, legal, and social perspectives, which limits understanding of the more complex cultural and social factors in which digital phenotyping technologies are embedded. ELS issues mostly concern privacy, security, consent, lack of regulation, and issues of adoptability, and seldom expand to more complex ethical issues. Trust was chosen as an umbrella theme of a continuum of major ELS and technical issues. Sustained critical analysis of digital phenotyping showed to be sparse and geographically exclusive. There is a continuum and overlap between ELS issues, suggesting the need for a holistic, interdisciplinary approach to each of the challenges posed by the various technologies of digital phenotyping.

While universities now lie between two philosophical poles – idealism and utilitarianism – the Humboldtian ideal primarily serves to give a humanist glaze to a technocratic discourse. Regardless of its autonomy on paper, the University does not control its finances. This guise of autonomy has set a double authoritarian heteronomy of the university: from increased administrative supervision and from market control. While the current debate is strongly permeated by the idea that we should simultaneously compete with and copy the model of elite US universities, this article presents reflections on how detached from Humboldtian ideals we now are, explores the consequences of that transformational logic and encourages debate through critical distance.