How are researchers thinking about and using AI?

You can’t go five minutes without hearing a reference to AI and its potential impact these days, but how are researchers feeling about it – and are they using it? A new survey focused on corporate researchers’ attitudes regarding AI is packed with interesting findings, including:

• 38% of respondents have already used AI for work purposes, and 76% expect to use AI within the next 2-5 years
• 96% think AI will accelerate knowledge discovery
• 96% are also worried about the potential for AI to be used for misinformation
• 85% are concerned about the ethical implications of AI on their work
• 77% expect transparency on the use of GenAI in the tools they use
• 91% want GenAI’s information to be based solely on high-quality, trusted sources

The results demonstrate that there is growing use of AI among corporate researchers, and that they are optimistic about how it can improve and accelerate their work – but it is also clear that they see the potential pitfalls of AI and have high standards for its use. Transparency, ethics and the quality of sources and data are all top of mind.

The survey was published as part of the broader ‘Insights 2024: Attitudes toward AI’ Report, which explores how the global research community is experiencing current developments around AI.

Between December 2023 and February 2024, Elsevier asked around 2,000 researchers, 1,000 clinicians and 300 corporate researchers to complete a 15-minute quantitative survey to gauge their attitudes towards AI for the Insights report. The results were split by region, highlighting the US, China and India.

“While responses vary somewhat by region, most researchers and clinicians regard AI more positively than negatively,” says Adrian Mulligan, who manages market research at Elsevier.

“Many researchers have been using AI for a long time. What ChatGPT did when it came out was that it created excitement around the capabilities of AI and entered the public consciousness in a way it hadn’t before, except perhaps in film. It went well beyond what everyone, including many researchers, thought AI could do,” says Adrian. “Suddenly, AI could create things and, importantly, was accessible! So naturally, we wanted to understand better the response of researchers, physicians, and corporate researchers in this new context.”?

The report insight that struck Adrian the most was how views differ regionally. Namely, APAC countries, particularly China, tend to be less conservative than Europe and North America regarding embracing AI and the change that comes with it.

“At first this may seem counterintuitive since North America is where many of the advances in AI originated. But in fact this may work to explain the caution – that the main players have had more time to consider the potential impact of their work,” says Adrian.

The report’s overall message for Adrian is that, on balance,?most people see AI as a positive advancement. “While some communities are perhaps a bit more cautious, people think there’s more to be gained than lost through AI. There's a lot of optimism that it will speed up science, and the majority think it will accelerate knowledge discovery,” says Adrian. “Yes, there is also an obvious drive for guardrails and the use of high-quality data – but these are issues Elsevier has been addressing long before the rise of generative AI.”?

Meanwhile, AI's impact will likely vary – with some areas benefiting more than others. “If you're in a research field managing large data sets, for example, astronomy or as with pharmaceutical companies, then the capabilities of AI will likely provide a significant advantage managing those datasets, connecting them, identifying and interpreting any underlying patterns. In these spaces, AI can accelerate discovery opportunities.”?

Most experts are now convinced AI will ultimately revolutionize healthcare and research. “On the healthcare side, there's great potential. To help with?a diagnosis, physicians will have quick access to options based on a substantive amount of data evidence curated and brought together in a way that wasn’t possible before. Clinicians, of course, will be the final decision-makers and will still have oversight, but will be able to make faster and better decisions.”

The research also shows that AI has a role to play beyond the analysis and collating space. “Researchers think there is potential at the front end of the research process, with AI helping to identify new targets and research areas,” says Adrian. “By finding these knowledge gaps, it is possible to discover a new research opportunity. In other words, AI is also expected to deliver on?the creation side.”?

But yes, generative AIs like ChatGPT remain a problem child due to the tendency to hallucinate. “Society at large is still transitioning and figuring out how to use a tool like ChatGPT. Ultimately, I think it is a supporting mechanism to enable people in any industry to do their jobs more efficiently – it is not dissimilar to email when it came along 25 years ago. But since it’s more in the space of what humans do – creation – we will need to have some controls in place. And I think people are now responding to that need,” says Adrian.

Meanwhile, we shouldn’t overstate AI’s impact, according to Adrian. “Even in the research and clinician community, where awareness of AI is very high, many people still haven’t used it or experimented with ChatGPT – around 25% have used it for work purposes.”?

“There has been a surge in new AI tools recently, and we’re still trying to establish the best way to use them – and for what. Moreover, we have to figure out how to use them correctly – governance and guardrails are essential, along with ensuring these systems are based on high-quality, authoritative and up-to-date data,” says Adrian.?

Read the full Insights 2024: Attitudes towards AI report, or drill down on how corporate researchers specifically are responding to AI and read about those findings here.