For Elon Musk, the term artificial intelligence conjures apocalyptic scenarios of autonomous robots wreaking destruction in a world dominated by hyper-intelligent machines. Stephen Hawking foresees a future in which smart machines replace sluggish humans across a range of activities, driving millions out of work. Last month Bill Gates, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, imagined a gentler future – one with longer holidays and more free time.

“The purpose of humanity is not just to sit behind a counter and sell things,” he said.

After having that success in his results, the next one came a few months later.

Usually, researchers submit their work to a journal and are either published or not. In Marrouche's case, he was presenting for a cardiology meeting and was approached by the New England Journal of Medicine. They wanted to publish his findings.

We can all speculate about the future. Will.i.am, the Black Eyed Peas singer, has been promoting his first novel this week, an action adventure called WaR: Wizards and Robots. Despite its title, he told an audience in Davos last month that artificial intelligence would be a force for good, narrowing the wealth gap between rich and poor countries.

We must hope it can also narrow the health gap. Healthcare provides especially fertile territory for these advances because of the sheer volume of medical knowledge. No clinician, however smart, can hope to master it. McKinsey has estimated potential savings of up to $100bn (£72bn) in the US Healthcare sector alone from developments in artificial intelligence. The aim is not to replace the doctor (yet, at least) but to enhance their medical expertise.

At the same time, treatment can be democratised and spread equally to all. Why rely on one doctor’s opinion when you can share thousands, culled from databases of their knowledge and the key studies they rely on? Rural dwellers, living far from medical facilities, may be able to enjoy the same level of expertise as their urban counterparts and, ultimately, those in low income countries may benefit from the same expert input as those in the industrialised world.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is warning consumers not to use Mitragyna speciosa, commonly known as kratom, a plant which grows naturally in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Papua New Guinea. FDA is concerned that kratom, which affects the same opioid brain receptors as morphine, appears to have properties that expose users to the risks of addiction, abuse, and dependence.

There are no FDA-approved uses for kratom, and the agency has received concerning reports about the safety of kratom. FDA is actively evaluating all available scientific information on this issue and continues to warn consumers not to use any products labeled as containing the botanical substance kratom or its psychoactive compounds, mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine. FDA encourages more research to better understand kratom's safety profile, including the use of kratom combined with other drugs.

The ablation procedure uses a catheter that is fed to the site of the abnormal heart cells. Doctors deliver a dose of radiofrequency energy and destroy the abnormal cells. From this treatment, the heart restores its regular heart rhythm.

Supporting doctors to diagnose disease is a key area of research. Mobile apps to help patients track changes in their health and respond appropriately are bringing quicker treatment and lower costs. Employing machine learning to identify new chemical agents is speeding up drug development and shaping clinical research.

Marrouche said that when his research team started wrapping up the findings of the studies and he saw that there was a significant difference between those treated with his procedure and those who were not, he was so excited that it gave him goosebumps.

"It was very rewarding," he said. "As a physician, you work all your life and you want to make an impact."

To reap these benefits, however, scientists need access to data. Data is as vital to machine learning as coal was to the railways and oil to the motorcar. However, the potential for abuse of data is real.

As a surgeon and researcher I was dismayed by the revelations last month that William E Wecker Associates, a company working for the tobacco industry, obtained the lung cancer records of almost 180,000 patients from Public Health England.

The NHS has a unique store of millions of medical records providing an unparalleled resource from which, with the use of digital techniques, we may speed progress to the next breakthroughs in medical science and transform care. That such a uniquely valuable resource should now be plundered on behalf of a tobacco manufacturer seeking to defend their cancer-causing products is simply shameful.

Since identifying kratom on an import alert for unapproved drugs in 2012 and on a second import alert in February 2014 regarding kratom-containing dietary supplements and bulk dietary ingredients, FDA has taken a number of additional actions, including:In September 2014, U.S. Marshals, at the FDA's request, seized more than 25,000 pounds of raw kratom material worth more than $5 million from Rosefield Management, Inc. in Van Nuys, California.

In January 2016, U.S. Marshals, at the FDA's request, seized nearly 90,000 bottles of dietary supplements labeled as containing kratom and worth more than $400,000. The product, manufactured for and held by Dordoniz Natural Products LLC, located in South Beloit, Illinois, is marketed under the brand name RelaKzpro.

In August 2016, U.S. Marshals, at the FDA's request, seized more than 100 cases of products labeled as containing kratom and worth more than $150,000. The products are distributed by Nature Therapeutics LLC, which does business as Kratom Therapy and is located in Grover Beach, California. The seized products are marketed under the brand name Kratom Therapy.

It remains unclear whether any rules were broken by the company in question, which has testified on behalf of tobacco giants in dozens of lawsuits. Or indeed by Public Health England, which maintains it was under a legal duty to release the information when it was requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

But our failure to protect our medical data from misuse is symptomatic of a wider malaise – our failure to value it. Incidents such as these undermine patients’ trust and set back the cause of research.

The challenge, then, is to devise a system of data governance that protects the interests of patients, provides access for researchers, distributes the fruits of success fairly and wins the confidence of the public. If we are to generate the growth that these innovations could deliver we need to demonstrate why data sharing is a social benefit, as necessary to the public good as taxes.

The Government published its industrial strategy in November 2017 in which it set out a plan to create an Artificial Intelligence Council and a Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, demonstrating its commitment to an ethical approach.

After having that success in his results, the next one came a few months later.

Usually, researchers submit their work to a journal and are either published or not. In Marrouche's case, he was presenting for a cardiology meeting and was approached by the New England Journal of Medicine. They wanted to publish his findings.

Getting recognized for his work is a dream come true, but Marrouche is also happy to spread the word because he knows what it means for patients around the world, including his own. Now, there is an alternative to drugs that can have high costs and negative side effects.

This is welcome but we need to go further. Public trust demands more transparency. We need a health specific Data Charter, with clear rules, norms and standards, setting out what can be done, what should be done and what may not be done.

Since Nassir Marrouche was in medical school, he has been interested in studying heart disease and, in particular, atrial fibrillation. After years of research and more than 100 published papers, Marrouche has taken a big step toward treating those with the heart disorder.

There are huge opportunities in these technologies to advance healthcare, benefit health systems and improve the outlook for millions of patients. But unless we establish clear rules from the outset we risk sacrificing public trust, surrendering vital clinical gains and squandering the potential in the vast quantities of medical data we have spent decades accumulating.