International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 77–96 | Cite as

Survey-Based Discussions on Morally Contentious Applications of Interactive Robotics

  • AJung MoonEmail author
  • Peter Danielson
  • H. F. Machiel Van der Loos


Introduction: As applications of robotics extend to areas that directly impact human life, such as the military and eldercare, the deployment of autonomous and semi-autonomous robots increasingly requires the input of stakeholder opinions. Up to now, technological deployment has been relying on the guidance of government/military policy and the healthcare system without specific incorporation of professional and lay opinion. Methods: This paper presents results from a roboethics study that uses the unique N-Reasons scenario-based survey instrument. The instrument collected Yes, No, Neutral responses from more than 250 expert and lay responders via the Internet along with their ethics-content reasons for the answers, allowing the respondents to agree to previously-provided reasons or to write their own. Data from three questions relating to military and eldercare robots are analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. Results: The survey reveals that respondents weigh the appropriateness of robotics technology deployment in concert with the level of autonomy conferred upon it. The accepted level of robot autonomy does not appear to be solely dependent on the perceived efficiency and effectiveness of the technology, but is subject to the robot’s relationship with the public’s principle-based reasons and the application field in focus. Conclusion: The N-Reasons instrument was effective in eliciting ethical commentary in a simple, on-line survey format and provides insights into the interactions between the issues that respondents consider across application and technology boundaries.


Roboethics Survey Military robots Eldercare robots Social robotics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ahmad R, Bailey J, Danielson P (2008) Analysis of an innovative survey platform: comparison of the public’s responses to human health and salmon genomics surveys. Public Underst Sci 19(2):155–165. doi: 10.1177/0963662508091806 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahmad RA, Bailey J, Bornik Z, Danielson P, Dowlatabadi H, Levy E, Longstaff H (2006) A web-based instrument to model social norms: NERD design and results. Integr Assess 6(2):9–36 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Capurro R, Nagenborg M (2009) Ethics and robotics. IOS Press, Amsterdam Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Danielson P (in press) N-reasons: computer mediated ethical decision support for public participation Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Danielson P. Your views.
  6. 6.
    Danielson P (2010) Designing a machine to learn about the ethics of robotics: the N-reasons platform. Ethics Inf Technol 12(3):251–261. doi: 10.1007/s10676-009-9214-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Danielson PA (2011) Prototyping N-reasons: a computer mediated ethics machine. Cambridge University Press, New York, Chap 24 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fishkin PJS (1993) Democracy and deliberation: new directions for democratic reform. Yale University Press, New Haven Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fishkin PJS (1997) The voice of the people: public opinion and democracy. Yale University Press, New Haven Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Forlizzi J, DiSalvo C, Gemperle F (2004) Assistive robotics and an ecology of elders living independently in their homes. Hum-Comput Interact 19(1):25–59. doi: 10.1207/s15327051hci1901&2_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goven J (2006) Dialogue, governance, and biotechnology: acknowledging the context of the conversation. Integr. Assess. 6(2):99–116 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huxley J (1946) UNESCO: its purpose and its philosophy. Public Affairs Press, Paris Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lin P, Bekey G, Abney K (2008) Autonomous military robotics: risk, ethics, and design Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moshkina L, Arkin RC Lethality and autonomous systems: survey design and results Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Scharff R, Dusek V (2003) Philosophy of technology: the technological condition—an anthology. Blackwell philosophy anthologies, 1st edn. Wiley/Blackwell, Oxford Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schomberg R (2007) From the ethics of technology towards an ethics of knowledge policy: implications for robotics. AI Soc 22(3):331–348 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sharkey A, Sharkey N (2010) Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics Inf Technol doi: 10.1007/s10676-010-9234-6 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Singer PW (2009) Wired for war: the robotics revolution and conflict in the 21st century, 1st edn. Penguin, Baltimore Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sparrow R (2007) Killer Robots. J Appl Philos 24(1):62–77. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5930.2007.00346.x Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sparrow R, Sparrow L (2006) In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Minds Mach 16(2):141–161. doi: 10.1007/s11023-006-9030-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sullivan MJ (2010) Defense acquisitions: DOD could achieve greater commonality and efficiencies among its unmanned aircraft systems Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Takayama L, Ju W, Nass C (2008) Beyond dirty, dangerous, and dull: what everyday people think robots should do. In: Proc of human-robot interact. ACM/IEEE, Amsterdam. doi: 10.1145/1349822.1349827 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tergesen A, Inada M (2010) It’s not a stuffed animal, it’s a $6,000 medical device: paro the robo-seal aims to comfort elderly, but is it ethical? Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Veruggio G (2005) The Birth of Roboethics. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, workshop on roboethics. IEEE, Barcelona, pp 1–4 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Whitman J (2007) The challenge to deliberative systems of technological systems convergence. Innovation. Eur J Soc Sci Res 20(4):329–342. doi: 10.1080/13511610701760747 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science & Business Media BV 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • AJung Moon
    • 1
    Email author
  • Peter Danielson
    • 2
  • H. F. Machiel Van der Loos
    • 1
  1. 1.CARIS Lab, Institute for Computing, Information and Cognitive Systems (ICICS), Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.The W. Maurice Young Centre for Applied EthicsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations