ReviewNature communications2025
Risks of AI scientists: prioritizing safeguarding over autonomy.
Review in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Censoring chemical data to mitigate dual use risk.Digital discovery · 2026Article
- Leveraging Advanced AI Frameworks for Dual PPAR α/γ Agonist Discovery in Alzheimer's Disease.ACS chemical neuroscience · 2026Review
- Automating data extraction in meta-research: A multi-model benchmark in network psychometrics papers.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Pitfalls and risks of generative AI in machine learning.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Transcriptomics: From Human-in-the-Loop to Agentic AI.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Integration of LLMs and VLMs in plant stress phenotyping: From trait recognition to decision support.Plant phenomics (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Review
- [Application and progress of artificial intelligence agents in drug development].Zhejiang da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Zhejiang University. Medical sciences · 2026Review
- Prompt-to-Pill: Multi-Agent Drug Discovery and Clinical Simulation Pipeline.Bioinformatics advances · 2026Article
- Towards an AI biomedical scientist: Accelerating discoveries in neurodegenerative disease.The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease · 2025Article
- Article
- Safeguarding large language models: a survey.Artificial intelligence review · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
AI scientists powered by large language models have demonstrated substantial promise in autonomously conducting experiments and facilitating scientific discoveries across various disciplines. While their capabilities are promising, these agents also introduce novel vulnerabilities that require careful consideration for safety. However, there has been limited comprehensive exploration of these vulnerabilities. This perspective examines vulnerabilities in AI scientists, shedding light on potential risks associated with their misuse, and emphasizing the need for safety measures. We begin by providing an overview of the potential risks inherent to AI scientists, taking into account user intent, the specific scientific domain, and their potential impact on the external environment. Then, we explore the underlying causes of these vulnerabilities and provide a scoping review of the limited existing works. Based on our analysis, we propose a triadic framework involving human regulation, agent alignment, and an understanding of environmental feedback (agent regulation) to mitigate these identified risks. Furthermore, we highlight the limitations and challenges associated with safeguarding AI scientists and advocate for the development of improved models, robust benchmarks, and comprehensive regulations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.