Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

A cautionary tale about the adoption of medical AI in Sweden

A recent case of a flawed medical AI system that was backed by public funding provides an opportunity to discuss the impact of government policies and regulation in AI.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it


Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout


  1. Government Offices of Sweden. National Approach to Artificial Intelligence; (2018).

  2. Swanberg, L. & Samuelsson, O. (2020).

  3. Cederberg, J. Läkartidningen (2020).

  4. European Commission. (2021).

  5. Fridh, L. & Lärka, P. SVT Nyheter (2020).

  6. Lindahl, D. SVT Nyheter (2020).

  7. Sveriges Domstolar. (2022).

  8. Fridh, L. & Lärka, P. SVT Nyheter (2020).

  9. Fridh, L. & Lärka, P. SVT Nyheter (2021).

  10. Fridh, L. & Lärka, P. SVT Nyheter (2021).

  11. Niemiec, E. Digit. Health 8, 1–8 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jarman, H., Rozenblum, S. & Huang, T. J. Health Econ. Policy Law 16, 51–63 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ben-Menahem, S. M., Nistor-Gallo, R., Macia, G., von Krogh, G. & Goldhahn, J. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 4, 585–590 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. European Commission. (2021).

  15. Mazzucato, M. The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths (Anthem Press, 2014).

  16. Mazzucato, M. (2022).

  17. European Commission. (2022).

  18. Wennberg, K. & Sandström, C. in Questioning the Entrepreneurial State: Status-quo, Pitfalls, and the Need for Credible Innovation Policy (eds Wennberg K. & Sandström C.) 3–18 (Springer International, 2022).

  19. Mingardi, A. Cato J 35, 603–625 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Nagendran, M. et al. Br. Med. J. 368, m689 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bunz, M. & Braghieri, M. AI Soc. 37, 9–22 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bareis, J. & Katzenbach, C. Sci. Technol. Human Values 47, 855–881 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Toll, D., Lindgren, I., Melin, U. & Madsen, C. Ø. JeDEM 12, 40–60 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Berg, F. SVT Nyheter (2020).

  25. Fridh, L. & Lärka, P. SVT Nyheter (2021).

  26. Fridh, L. & Lårka, P. SVT Nyheter (2021).

  27. Veale, M. & Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. Comput. Law Rev. Int. 22, 97–112 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


I thank S. Slokenberga, D. Trubnikov and M. Johansson for helpful comments on the earlier version of this article, and P. Robinson for help with language editing. This work was funded by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare via grant “Ethical and social issues related to use of AI-based decision support tools in healthcare” (2020-01089).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emilia Niemiec.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Machine Intelligence thanks Douglas Miller and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Niemiec, E. A cautionary tale about the adoption of medical AI in Sweden. Nat Mach Intell 5, 5–7 (2023).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing