Advertisement

AI & SOCIETY

, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp 463–471 | Cite as

On the ethical framing of research programs in robotics

  • Guglielmo TamburriniEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Robotic systems and technologies step out of research laboratories jointly with information about long-term goals of technological inquiry they are lined up with and about the short-term objectives guiding daily laboratory activities. These various ingredients play crucial roles in the pursuit of what are called here technological research programs. A comprehensive ethical framing of technological research programs is decomposed here into the ethical framing of their long-term and short-term goals, respectively. This approach to the ethical framing of technological research is exemplified by reference to fundamental rights in the context of technological research programs on elderly care and child care robots. Moreover, its significance is highlighted in connection with democratic decision-making about new and emerging technologies, as well as in connection with the cultural production of ignorance which is induced by missing information about the protection and promotion of fundamental rights in the specific context of robotic technologies.

Keywords

Applied ethics Robotics Technological research programs Elderly care robots Child care robots Fundamental rights Agnotology 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Stimulating comments by Thomas Christaller, Edoardo Datteri, Michael Nagenborg, Leen Spruit, and an anonymous reviewer are gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Ainsworth MD, Blehar M, Waters E, Wall S (1978) Patterns of attachment: a psychological study of the strange situation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  2. Asada M, Kitano H, Noda I, Veloso M (1999) RoboCup: today and tomorrow—what we have learned. Artif Intell 110:193–214CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowlby J (1969–1980) Attachment and loss. Hogarth, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Camporesi F (2011) The European Parliament and the EU charter of fundamental rights. In: Di Federico G (ed) The EU charter of fundamental rights: from declaration to binding instrument. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 77–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christman J (2015) Autonomy in moral and political philosophy. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved on June 9th, 2015 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/autonomy-moral/
  6. Cohen J, Arato A (1992) Politics and the reconstruction of the civil society. In: Honneth A, McCarthy Th, Offe C, Wellmer A (eds) Cultural-political interventions in the unfinished project of enlightenment. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 121–144Google Scholar
  7. Cooley M (2009) On human-machine symbiosis. In: Gill S (ed) Cognition, communication, and interaction. Springer, London, pp 457–485Google Scholar
  8. Datteri E, Tamburrini G (2013) Robotic weapons and democratic decision-making. In: Hilgendorf E, Günther J-P (eds) Robotik und Gesetzegebung. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden, pp 211–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diamond J (2013) The world until yesterday. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Eibl-Eibesfeldt I (1989) Human ethology. Aldine de Gruyter, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Ertel KA, Glymour MM, Berkman LF (2008) Effects of social integration on preserving memory function in a nationally representative US elderly population. Am J Public Health 9:1215–1220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. European Union (2000) The EU charter of fundamental rights. Retrieved on June 9th, 2015 from http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/charter/index_en.htm
  13. Farah M (2002) Emerging ethical issues in neuroscience. Nat Neurosci 5:1123–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feil-Seifer D, Mataric MJ (2010) Dry your eyes: examining the roles of robots for childcare applications. Interact Stud 11:208–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gabel T, Riedmiller M (2010) On progress in RoboCup: the simulation league showcase. In: Chown E, Plöger PG (eds) RoboCup 2010: Robot Soccer World Cup XIV, LNCS. Springer, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  16. Galison P (1997) Image and logic: a material culture of microphysics. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  17. Godfrey-Smith P (2003) Theory and reality: an introduction to the philosophy of science. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kitano H, Kuniyoshi Y, Noda I, Asada M, Matsubara H, Osawa E (1997) RoboCup: a challenge problem for AI. AI Mag 18:73–85Google Scholar
  19. Lakatos I (1978) Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In: Worrall J, Currie G (eds) Philosophical papers: the methodology of scientific research programmes, vol 1. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Laudan L (1977) Progress and its problems: toward a theory of scientific growth. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  21. MacIntyre A (1999) Dependent rational animals: why human beings need the virtues. Open Court, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  22. Mackenzie C (2008) Relational autonomy, normative authority and perfectionism. J Soc Philos 39:512–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nordmann A (2007) If and then: a critique of speculative nanoethics. Nanoethics 1:31–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Prescott TJ (2013) Sunny uplands or slippery slopes? The risks and benefits of using robots in care. In: UKRE workshop on robot ethics, 25 March 2013, Sheffield, UK. Retrieved on June 9th, 2015 from http://www.abrg.group.shef.ac.uk/pubs/?year=2013
  25. Proctor R (2008) A missing term to describe the cultural production of ignorance (and its study). In: Proctor R, Schiebinger L (eds) Agnotology: the making and unmaking of ignorance. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp 1–33Google Scholar
  26. Russell S, Norvig P (2010) Artificial intelligence: a modern approach, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Scalzone F, Tamburrini G (2013) Human–robot interaction and psychoanalysis. AI Soc 28:297–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Scheutz M (2011) The inherent dangers of unidirectional emotional bonds between humans and social robots. In: Lin P, Abney K, Bekey G (eds) Robot ethics: the ethical and social implications of robotics. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 205–222Google Scholar
  29. Schore AN (2010) Attachment trauma and the developing right brain: origins of pathological dissociation. In: Dell PF, O’Neil JA (eds) Dissociation and the dissociative disorders: DSM-V and beyond. Routledge, New York, pp 107–143Google Scholar
  30. Seidensticker B (2006) Future hype: the myths of technology change. Berrett-Koehler Pub, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  31. Sharkey A, Sharkey N (2010) The crying shame of robot nannies: an ethical appraisal. Interact Stud 11:161–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sharkey A, Sharkey N (2011) Children, the elderly, and interactive robots. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 18(1):32–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Siciliano B, Khatib O (eds) (2009) Handbook of robotics. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  34. Sparrow R, Sparrow L (2006) In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Minds Mach 16:141–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tamburrini G (2009) Brain to computer communication: ethical perspectives on interaction models. Neuroethics 2:137–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. United Nations (1948) The universal declaration of human rights. Retrieved on June 9th, 2015 from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
  37. United Nations (1989) The convention on the rights of the child. Retrieved on June 9th, 2015 from http://www.unicef.org.uk/UNICEFs-Work/UN-Convention/
  38. van Lente H, Spitters C, Peine A (2013) Comparing technological hype cycles: towards a theory. Technol Forecast Soc Change 80:1615–1628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Visser U, Burkhard H-D (2007) RoboCup: ten years of achievements and future challenges. AI Mag 28:115–132Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elettrica e Tecnologie dell’Informazione (DIETI)Università di Napoli Federico IINaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations