AI is drafting clinical summaries. Wearables are generating mountains of patient data. Privacy laws are being rewritten across borders. And in the middle of it all, Medical Affairs is suddenly expected to play both scientific guide and ethical referee.
This isn’t a preview of the future. It is the reality today.
The AI Gold Rush Meets a Trust Deficit
AI tools are flooding into Medical Affairs to scan literature, draft responses, and even anticipate physician questions. The benefits are obvious: speed, scale, efficiency. But the risks are just as clear. Bias, hallucinated answers, and opaque algorithms make trust fragile.
A recent Health Affairs report found that 72 percent of physicians are worried about ethical issues in AI, particularly around data accuracy and bias. In parallel, BMC Medical Ethics published a review urging healthcare organizations to move beyond general principles and focus on practical safeguards when deploying AI.
For Medical Affairs, the message is simple: speed without safeguards is a credibility risk.
Wearables Are Running Ahead of the Rules
Consumer devices are reshaping the way health data is collected. Fitness trackers and smart monitors are spilling into clinical conversations, often without the same scrutiny applied to regulated devices.
A 2025 analysis in npj Digital Medicine argued that most consumers cannot tell the difference between a wellness gadget and a medical-grade device. Another review flagged the ethical challenges of wearable data, from health equity to underrepresented populations in datasets.
Medical Affairs professionals are already fielding questions about these devices. Knowing how to frame their limitations and value responsibly is becoming a core skill.
The Belmont Report Still Echoes
In February 2025, bioethics pioneer Tom Beauchamp, co-author of the Belmont Report, passed away (Washington Post, The Hastings Center). His principles of respect, justice, and beneficence shaped the foundations of research ethics in the United States.
Drafted in 1979, the report was a direct response to scandals like the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, where patients were misled and denied treatment. It established three guiding principles that still frame ethical debates today:
-
Respect for Persons: Upholding autonomy and ensuring informed consent.
-
Beneficence: Maximizing potential benefits while minimizing harm.
-
Justice: Ensuring fair distribution of research benefits and burdens.
Why does this matter for Medical Affairs? Because these principles are baked into how teams engage with HCPs and patients today. Informed consent isn’t just for trials—it shapes how data is gathered and shared. Beneficence underpins the responsibility to provide accurate, balanced information rather than promotional spin. And justice is at the heart of conversations around equity, whether it’s trial diversity or ensuring underserved populations are not left out of access to medical knowledge.
When Medical Affairs leaders wrestle with questions about AI transparency, wearable data, or patient privacy, they are working with the same ethical playbook laid down nearly 50 years ago.
AI Isn’t Just a Tech Issue; It’s a Trust Issue
From global treaties to local debates, the call for AI regulation is growing.That means additional scrutiny for tools that could impact diagnosis, treatment, or medical decision-making.
Closer to home, the CDC has warned that without intentional design, AI could widen health disparities—especially for marginalized groups underrepresented in data sets.
For Medical Affairs, this makes transparency non-negotiable. Teams must be able to explain how AI-generated insights are created, monitored, and corrected when errors occur.
Why This Matters
HCPs and patients are no longer passive. They can spot canned messaging, AI shortcuts, and vague promises. In a world where misinformation spreads fast, trust is the most valuable currency Medical Affairs can offer.
Medical Affairs sits at the intersection of science, technology, and ethics. Teams that treat ethics as a core part of their strategy will be the ones that lead the conversation, not react to it.
At Anju, we believe our role is to provide the infrastructure that supports this balance—helping Medical Affairs teams deliver information quickly, responsibly, and with integrity.
Images used under license by AdobeStock.com.
Authored by Loren Sabek, Marketing Strategist
Rachel Sheldon, Senior Director of Product Management at Anju, began her career twelve years ago in medical publications after transitioning from hospitality. With a BA in English from Penn State University, Rachel excels in leveraging language and communication to support global scientific content dissemination. Actively involved in ISMPP, she stays updated through industry roundtables, conferences, client meetings, and independent research, driving innovation and collaboration while taking immense pride in Pubstrat MAX’s advancements under her leadership. Connect with Rachel on LinkedIn to explore her expertise further.