Search

In contemporary materials science, artificial intelligence systems increasingly generate high-stakes decisions—recommending specific compositions for synthesis, prioritizing experimental campaigns, or endorsing candidate structures for further validation—yet these systems typically provide no structured pathway for scientists to challenge, appeal, or revise the outputs when they appear erroneous or misaligned with domain knowledge. Scientific contestability is defined here as the capacity for scientists to formally challenge, appeal, or request revision of AI-generated decisions through transparent procedures that guarantee meaningful reconsideration grounded in epistemic and procedural norms. This principle matters profoundly in materials AI because erroneous recommendations can waste substantial laboratory resources, delay critical technological advances, exacerbate epistemic uncertainty inherent to data-driven predictions, undermine scientific pluralism by privileging singular algorithmic perspectives, and violate basic requirements of procedural justice for researchers whose careers and discoveries depend on these outputs. The present framework articulates five interlocking components—contestation triggers, mechanisms, review processes, decision revision pathways, and record keeping—that together transform contestability from an abstract ideal into a practical design requirement for materials AI platforms. By embedding contestability at the core of system architecture, the framework offers concrete implications for designers, researchers, and institutions, ensuring that AI-assisted materials discovery remains epistemically robust, democratically accountable, and aligned with the self-correcting ethos of science.