Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Integrative Robo-Ethics: Uncovering Roboticists’ Attitudes to Ethics and Moving Forward

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 17 April 2023

This article has been updated

Abstract

This article proposes an integrative approach to robotics research, based on bringing interdisciplinarity into the lab. Such an approach will facilitate researchers across various fields in gaining a more nuanced understanding of technology, how it is developed, and its potential impacts. We describe how a philosopher spent time embedded in robotics labs in different European countries as part of an interdisciplinary team, gaining insights into their work and perspectives, including how robotics researchers view ethical issues related to robotics research. Focusing on issues raised by the EU Parliamentary Motion on Robotics, we developed a seminar and questionnaire that investigated questions of ethics, electronic personhood and the role of policy in research ethics. Our findings highlight that while robotics researchers care about the ethical implications of their work and support policy that addresses ethical concerns, they believe there to be significant misunderstandings in how policy makers view robotics and AI, as well as a lack of understanding of, and trust in, the role that experts outside of robotics can play in regulating robotics research effectively. We propose that an integrative approach can break down these misunderstandings by demystifying the way that knowledge is created across different fields.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availibility Statement

Data is not available upon request as consent to make the dataset publicly available was not obtained from participants.

Change history

References

  1. Veruggio G (2005) The birth of roboethics–PhilPapers. In: International conference on robotics and automation, workshop on roboethics. https://philpapers.org/rec/VERTBO-3

  2. Fong T, Nourbakhsh I, Dautenhahn K (2003) A survey of socially interactive robots : concepts , design , and applications terrence fong , Illah Nourbakhsh , and Kerstin Dautenhahn. Robot Auton Syst 42(3–4)

  3. Dautenhahn K (2007) Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human-robot interaction. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 362:679–704. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2006.2004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Daily SB, James MT, Cherry D, Porter JJ, Darnell SS, Isaac J, Roy T (2017) Affective computing: historical foundations, current applications, and future trends. Emot Affect Human Factors Human-Comput Interact. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801851-4.00009-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Seibt J, Hakli R, Nørskov M (2014) Sociable robots and the future of social relations. Robo-Philos 273:374

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jones RA (2016) “if it’s not broken, don’t fix it?’’ An inquiry concerning the understanding of child-robot interaction. Front Artif Intell Appl 290:89–98. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-708-5-89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dumouchel P, Damiano L (2017) Living with robots, p. 280. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674982840. https://philpapers.org/rec/DAMLWR

  8. Damiano L, Dumouchel P (2020) Emotions in relation. Epistemological and ethical scaffolding for mixed human-robot social ecologies. Humana Mente 13(37):181–206

    Google Scholar 

  9. Damiano L (2021) Homes as human-robot ecologies: an epistemological inquiry on the “domestication’’ of robots. Home Digit Age. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003080114-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Khakurel J, Penzenstadler B, Porras J, Knutas A, Zhang W (2018) The rise of artificial intelligence under the lens of sustainability. Technologies 6(4):100. https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies6040100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Damiano L, Dumouche lP (2018) Anthropomorphism in human-robot co-evolution. Front Psychol 9(MAR):1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Šabanović S (2010) Robots in society, society in robots. Int J Soc Robot 2(4):439–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12369-010-0066-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dunstan B (2019) The plastic dynamism of the human aesthetic: : employing futurist methodologies in the cross-disciplinary. PhD thesis, UNSW

  14. Veruggio G (2004) First international symposium on roboethics . http://www.roboethics.org/sanremo2004/

  15. Veruggio G (2006) EURON roboethics roadmap. In: IEEE-RAS international conference of humanoid-robots. 1:1–42

  16. Palmerini E, Azzarri F, Battaglia F, Bertolini A, Carnevale A, Carpaneto J, Cavallo F, Carlo AD, Cempini M, Controzzi M, Koops B-J, Lucivero F, Mukerji N, Nocco L, Pirni A, Shah H, Salvini P, Schellekens M, Warwick K (2014) RoboLawGuidelines on regulating robotics, pp 1–215

  17. Delvaux M (2016) Draft report with recommendations to the commission on civil law rules on robotics (2015/2103(INL). Technical report, committee on legal affairs, European Parliament, PE582. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/JURI-PR-582443_EN.pdf?redirect

  18. Beauchamp T, Childress J (2013) Principles of biomedical ethics, 7th edn

  19. Cath C, Wachter S, Mittelstadt B, Taddeo M, Floridi L (2018) Artificial intelligence and the ‘good society’: the US, EU, and UK approach. Sci Eng Ethics 24(2):505–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9901-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Nevejans N (2016) European civil law rules in robotics. Study for the JURI committee. technical report, European Parliament. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/571379/IPOL_STU

  21. Nevejans N (2018) Open letter to the European commission. http://www.robotics-openletter.eu/ Accessed 18 02 2022

  22. Del Castillo AP (2017) A law on robotics and artificial intelligence in the EU? Foresight Brief. Eur Trade Union Inst ETUI 2:11

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sullins JP (2015) Applied professional ethics for the reluctant roboticist. In: The emerging policy and ethics of human-robot interaction workshop

  24. Sullins JP (2016) Automated ethical practical reasoning : the problem of artificial phronesis. In: Designing moral technologies: theoretical, practical, and ethical issues Workshop, Locarno, Switzerland

  25. Winfield AFT, Jirotka M (2018) Ethical governance is essential to building trust in robotics and artificial intelligence systems. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 376(2133):19. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2018.0085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Winfield A (2019) Ethical standards in robotics and AI. Nat Electron 2(2):46–48. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41928-019-0213-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bryson JJ, Winfield A (2017) Standardizing ethical design for artificial intelligence and autonomous systems. Computers 50(5):116–119. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2017.154

  28. Riek LD, Howard D (2014) A code of ethics for the human-robot interaction profession. In: We robot conference, pp 1–10

  29. Zawieska K (2020) Disengagement with ethics in robotics as a tacit form of dehumanisation. AI Soc 35(4):869–883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-01000-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Fosch-Villaronga E, Lutz C, Tamò-Larrieux A (2020) Gathering expert opinions for social robots’ ethical, legal, and societal concerns: Findings from four international workshops. Int J Soc Robot 12(2):441–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12369-019-00605-Z/TABLES/1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Seibt J (2016) “integrative social robotics’’: A new method paradigm to solve the description problem and the regulation problem? Front Artif Intell Appl 290(September):104–115. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-708-5-104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Funk M, Seibt J, Coeckelbergh M (2018) Why do/should we build robots?-Summary of a plenary discussion session. Envis Rob Soc-Power, Politics, Public Space 311:369–384. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-931-7-369

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Hagen Lehmann and Ioana Ocnarescu for their insightful collaboration.

Funding

Antonio Fleres was supported by an Erasmus Grant issued by the European Commission for the travel undertaken while conducting this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Logic and Philosophy of Science, International University of Languages and Media, Carlo Bo Street, Milan, 20143, Italy

    Antonio Fleres & Luisa Damiano

  2. Department of Anthropology, Maynooth University, Maynooth, County Kildare, Ireland

    Louise Veling

  3. Intelligent Systems, TU Delft, Van Mourik Broekmanweg 6, Delft, 2628 XE, The Netherlands

    Frank Broz

Authors
  1. Antonio Fleres
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Louise Veling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Frank Broz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Luisa Damiano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonio Fleres.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethics Approval

Ethics approval for this study was granted by the Ethics Committee of Heriot-Watt Unversity.

Consent

All participants in this study provided informed consent for their responses to be used in publications resulting from this research.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix

Questionnaire

  • Field of study:........

  • Level: (msc student, phd student, postdoc, assist prof, associate prof, prof) *add a checkbox next to

  • each of these options*

  • Do you consider yourself a robotics researcher? yes/no

Part A: About the Motion to European Parliament

  1. 1.

    Did you hear about it prior to this talk?

  2. 2.

    In your opinion, is this motion useful?

  3. 3.a

    Should politics be concerned with the development of robotics and try to orient it?

  4. 3.b

    Why?

Part B: About the Code of Conduct

  1. 1.

    Do you feel the need for a Code of Conduct?

  2. 2.

    Do you think that a code of conduct could slow down the development of robotics?

  3. 3.

    Do you think that the code proposed by the motion can be improved?

  4. 4.

    What would you add to or remove from it?

  5. 5.a

    The Code of Conduct should be voluntary. Do you agree with this decision or not?

  6. 5.b

    Why?

Part C: About the Nascent Branch of Ethics that Deals with Robotics

  1. 1.a

    Do you consider ethical reflection on robotics to be useful?

  2. 1.b

    Why?

  3. 2.a

    During your career, did you run into ethical dilemmas related to the development of robots?

  4. 2.b

    If yes, what ethical dilemmas did you meet?

  5. 3.

    In your opinion, is the ethical issue of liability an important problem?

  6. 4.

    In your opinion, are programmers responsible for the behaviour of the robot they programmed? To what extent?

Part D: About the Near Future of Robotics

  1. 1.a

    Probably in the future, the users of robots will be able to modify their robots. Is this possibility suitable from the point of view of roboticists?

  2. 1.b

    What are possible advantages and/or disadvantages of user modification?

  3. 2.

    What is your point of view on the possibility of creating a human society that integrates robots?

  4. 3.

    How do you imagine the evolution of robotics in the near future?

  5. 4.a

    Do you think that social robots can pose real risks for humans?

  6. 4.b

    Why?

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fleres, A., Veling, L., Broz, F. et al. Integrative Robo-Ethics: Uncovering Roboticists’ Attitudes to Ethics and Moving Forward. Int J of Soc Robotics 15, 2019–2037 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-023-00978-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-023-00978-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation