Data Provenance and Ethics in the Curricula of U.S. Health AI Education Programs
Authors: Raffaele Giancotti, Francesca Santucci, Amama Anjum, Monique de Villa, Rupsa Mitra, Soham Biren Katlariwala, Vishala Mishra, Leo Anthony Celi
Organizations: MIT Critical Data, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge (MA), USA · The University of Texas at Austin, Austin (TX), USA · Center of Artificial Intelligence, Prince Mohammad Bin Fahd University, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia · Department of Computer Science, Government College University Faisalabad (GCUF), Faisalabad, Pakistan · Department of Neurology, Neuroscape, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco (CA), USA · Centennial High School, Frisco (TX), USA · Department of Health Science, University of the People, Pasadena (CA), USA · Department of Computer Engineering, Gujarat Technological University, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India · Duke University School of Medicine, Durham (NC), USA
Failures of deployed clinical artificial intelligence (AI) systems have often originated in how their training data were generated. Whether the programs that train the health AI workforce teach practitioners to examine data provenance is unknown. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the publicly advertised curricula of health AI education programs at U.S. universities, identified through a structured multisource web search between April and July 2026. Two investigators coded coverage of data provenance (structural, dataset limitations, or data management only), ethics, and sustainability; collaborative structure; technical prerequisites; and the disciplinary background and gender of named instructors. The primary outcome was provenance coverage at the structural or dataset-limitations level. Of 43 candidate entries, 36 programs at 25 institutional units in 21 universities were included. Ethics was covered by 29 programs (80.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 65.0 to 90.2), data provenance by 8 (22.2%; 95% CI, 11.7 to 38.1), and structural provenance by 6 (16.7%; 95% CI, 7.9 to 31.9). None of the seven master's degree programs met the primary outcome, and no program addressed sustainability. Eighteen programs included team-based work, but only 5 assembled teams across clinical and technical backgrounds. Of 92 named instructors, 76.1% came from computational disciplines and 3.3% from the social sciences or humanities; among the 51 whose gender could be determined, 66.7% were men. U.S. health AI education programs widely taught ethics but rarely taught how clinical data are produced. None addressed the environmental cost of computation, and most instructors came from computational disciplines.
Adaptive AI ethics instruction in graduate research training benefits from intake measures that reflect differences in prior LLM experience. Prior coursework or workshop attendance is an obvious candidate, but it is not clear whether it is associated with pre-instruction ratings on key AI perception items. We compare three candidate intake features, self-reported usage frequency, self-rated LLM familiarity, and prior AI education, across five baseline perception outcomes in 93 bioscience graduate and postdoctoral trainees enrolled in a required research ethics course. Usage frequency shows Holm-corrected associations with all five outcomes, self-rated familiarity with three, and prior AI education with none. A threshold-like pattern at the lower end of the scale is most visible for training interest and accuracy trust rather than appearing as a uniform gradient across all five outcomes. In a short intake survey, reported LLM use is more consistently associated with these perceptions than prior coursework or workshops, with self-rated familiarity serving as a secondary indicator. These results suggest that simple pre-instruction behavioral signals can inform lightweight intake profiling for adaptive AI ethics education.
Yongkyung Oh, Lynn Talton, Alex Bui
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, CA, USA
We present a report on the status of undergraduate Artificial Intelligence (AI) programs in the United States in Spring 2026. In so doing, we 1) describe our scraping and mapping tools, which dynamically update to track the state of AI education in the U.S., and 2) create a historic record at a time of great upheaval. The tool we developed, available at https://cicmap.ai, detects, scrapes, and displays data from more than 350 undergraduate AI programs--majors, minors, concentrations, and certificates--at 4-year universities. Our tool searched over 560 institutions to locate these programs, a sample that represents 86% of all undergraduate Computer Science (CS) graduates in the U.S. This tool allows prospective students, guidance counselors, administrators, and faculty to easily access AI program requirements and is designed to continually update as new programs emerge. To the best of our knowledge, this survey represents the most comprehensive snapshot of the state of AI programs in the U.S. to date. With this work we offer three important contributions: 1) a record of AI programs in the U.S. at a time of great upheaval; 2) a tool to explore AI programs and their requirements; and 3) an analysis of the courses required for 66 AI majors and 87 AI minors. Our analysis of majors and minors shows great variability in the size and the requirements of these degrees, but we note two takeaways. First, not all majors require a general AI course, but if they don't, they do require a Machine Learning (ML) course. Second, while more than a third of majors require an Ethics in AI course, just under a quarter of AI minors do.
Felix Muzny, Carolyn Jones, Carter Ithier +3
Center for Inclusive Computing Khoury College of Computer Sciences Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Generative AI (GAI) reveals an irreducible human core at the center of data science: advances in GAI should sharpen, rather than diminish, the focus on human reasoning in data science education. GAI can now execute many routine data science workflows, including cleaning, summarizing, visualizing, modeling, and drafting reports. Yet the competencies that matter most remain irreducibly human: problem formulation, measurement and design, causal identification, statistical and computational reasoning, ethics and accountability, and sensemaking. Drawing on Donoho's Greater Data Science framework, Nolan and Temple Lang's vision of computational literacy, and the McLuhan-Culkin insight that we shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us, this paper traces the emergence of data science through three converging lineages: Tukey's intellectual vision of data analysis as a science, the commercial logic of surveillance capitalism that created industrial demand for data scientists, and the academic programs that followed. Mapping GAI's impact onto Donoho's six divisions of Greater Data Science shows that computing with data (GDS3) has been substantially automated, while data gathering, preparation, and exploration (GDS1) and science about data science (GDS6) still require essential human input. The educational implication is that data science curricula should focus on this human core while teaching students how to contribute effectively within iterative prompt-output-prompt cycles using retrieval-augmented generation, and that learning outcomes and assessments should explicitly evaluate reasoning and judgment.
Nathan Taback
Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada