Abstract
Risk Assessment is a well known and powerful method for discovering and mitigating risks, and hence improving safety. Ethical Risk Assessment uses the same approach, but extends the scope of risk to cover ethical risks in addition to safety risks. In this paper we outline Ethical Risk Assessment (ERA), and set ERA within the broader framework of Responsible Robotics. We then illustrate ERA, first with a hypothetical smart robot teddy bear (RoboTed), and later with an actual smart robot toy (Purrble). Through these two case studies this paper demonstrates the value of ERA and how consideration of ethical risks can prompt design changes, resulting in more ethical and sustainable robots.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
As a tribute to Stanley Kubrick.
- 4.
Highlighted by the 2019–2021 Covid-19 pandemic.
- 5.
References
Bernabe R, van Thiel G, Raaijmakers J, van Delden J (2012) The risk-benefit task of research ethics committees: an evaluation of current approaches and the need to incorporate decision studies methods. BMC Med Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-13-6
Winfield AFT, Winkle K (2020) RoboTed: a case study in ethical risk assessment. Presented at the 5th international conference on robot ethics and standards (ICRES 2020), 28–29 September 2020. arXiv preprint: arXiv:2007.15864
Winfield A (2019) Ethical standards in robotics and AI. Nat Electron 2:46–48. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41928-019-0213-6
BSI (2016) BS8611:2016 Robots and robotic devices, Guide to the ethical design and application of robots and robotic systems. British Standards Institute
Lasota P, Fong T, Shah J (2017) A survey of methods for safe human-robot interaction. Found Trends Robot 5:261–349. https://doi.org/10.1561/2300000052
Delvaux M (2017) Report with recommendations to the commission on civil law rules on robotics. European Parliament, 27
IEEE P7014 Standard for Ethical Considerations in Emulated Empathy in Autonomous and Intelligent Systems. https://standards.ieee.org/project/7014.html. Accessed 7 Jan 2021
Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P (2013) Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res Policy 42(9):1568–1580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008
Winfield AF, Winkle K, Webb H, Lyngs U, Jirotka M, Macrae C (2020) Robot accident investigation: a case study in responsible robotics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.07474
IEEE (2019) The IEEE global initiative on ethics of autonomous and intelligent systems. Ethically aligned design: a vision for prioritizing human well-being with autonomous and intelligent systems, 1st edn. Tech. Rep. IEEE Standards Association
Spiekermann S, Winkler T (2020, May 12) Value-based engineering for ethics by design. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3598911 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3598911
Sharkey N, Sharkey A (2010) The crying shame of robot nannies. Interact Stud 11:161–190. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.11.2.01sha
Sparrow R, Sparrow L (2006) In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Mind Mach 16:141–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-006-9030-6
Feil-Seifer D, Mataric M (2011) Socially assistive robotics. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 18:24–31. https://doi.org/10.1109/mra.2010.940150
Moore R (2012) A Bayesian explanation of the ‘Uncanny Valley’ effect and related psychological phenomena. Nat Sci Rep 2:864. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00864
Winfield AFT, Jirotka M (2017) The case for an ethical black box. In: Gao Y, Fallah S, Jin Y, Lekakou C (eds) Towards autonomous robotic systems. TAROS 2017. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 10454. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64107-2_21
Theofanopoulou N, Isbister K, Edbrooke-Childs J, Slovák P (2019) A smart toy intervention to promote emotion regulation in middle childhood: feasibility study. JMIR Mental Health 6:e14029. https://doi.org/10.2196/14029
Slovák P, Theofanopoulou N, Cecchet A et al (2018) I just let him cry …. Proc ACM Hum Comput Interact 2:1–34. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274429
Turkle S (2007) Authenticity in the age of digital companions. Interact Stud 8:501–517. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.8.3.11tur
Kahn PH Jr, Severson RL, Ruckert JH (2009) The human relation with nature and technological nature. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 18(1):37–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01602.x
Vallor S, Green B, Raicu I (2018) Ethics in technology practice. The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, Santa Clara University
Madnick S, Johnson S, Huang K (2019) What countries and companies can do when trade and cybersecurity overlap. Harvard Business Review, p 4
Acknowledgements
The work of this paper has been conducted within EPSRC project RoboTIPS, grant reference EP/S005099/1 RoboTIPS: Developing Responsible Robots for the Digital Economy. The authors are also grateful for the comments of the anonymous reviewers of ICRES 2020. The work of this extended paper was partially supported by the Assuring Autonomy International Programme, a partnership between Lloyd’s Register Foundation and the University of York.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Winfield, A.F.T. et al. (2022). Ethical Risk Assessment for Social Robots: Case Studies in Smart Robot Toys. In: Ferreira, M.I.A., Tokhi, M.O. (eds) Towards Trustworthy Artificial Intelligent Systems. Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering, vol 102. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09823-9_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09823-9_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-09822-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-09823-9
eBook Packages: Intelligent Technologies and RoboticsIntelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)