Content uploaded by Antonio Fleres
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Antonio Fleres on Apr 19, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Abstract — This work illustrates our investigation on
robotics researchers’ viewpoints on the ethical dimension of
robotics. In this study we analyse data collected from
researchers in robotics in order to understand their perspective
on an attempt of regulation of robotics in the EU. The collected
data come from different research labs in robotics across the
European continent. The main findings of this study are the
individuation of several positions of robotics experts towards
the ethical implication of robotics in society. This inquiry is a
part of a wider integrative and experimental approach to robot-
ethics which aspires to answer the unsolved challenges in this
field of studies.
I. TOWARDS NEW APPROACHES TO ROBOT-ETHICS
The diffusion of robots in our social contexts is bringing
robo-ethics issues from the margins to the center of the
scientific debate, and is engaging a variety of disciplinary
domains in ethical inquiries on human-robot interaction.
These interdisciplinary efforts, directed towards ensuring the
"social sustainability" [1] of current developments of robotics,
stimulates ethical inquiry on human-robot interaction to
engage in a process of self-criticism and self-renewal, aimed
at overcoming significant limits and gaps characterizing its
expressions [2]. Based on Damiano’s prior exploration, the
primary insufficiencies affecting contemporary ethical
investigation of human-robot interaction can be schematically
listed and articulated as follows. (I) Lack of effective
disciplinary integration: on two different sides a) expert
investigations on ethics, but which are not well informed
about human-robot interaction; b) inexpert ethical
investigations which are realized by disciplines like robotics
without a specific background in ethics. (II.) Lack of a broad,
interdisciplinary body of knowledge about the innovation and
transformation that robots generate at the societal level.
Currently the body of knowledge available on robots tends to
be limited to technical aspects. (III). The technological
determinism that prevents us from detecting the dynamics of
“mutual determination between society and robotics” in
which the development of robots is inscribed [3], including
the influences that philosophy itself - the “epistemology and
ontology of the time” [2]. (IV). A sort of resistance to the
creation of the required ethical novelties, due to the diffused
tendency to address the emergent issues of robo-ethics. (V).
The stagnation of the ethical debate, which often appears
polarized in the sterile alternative between “techno-
enthusiasm” and “technophobia”. (VI). Lack of engagement
*A. Fleres is Scholarship fellow at University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
( phone: +44 7743046219, e-mail: antonio.fleres@unime.it).
**L. Veling, is Research Associate at Maynooth University, Dublin,
Ireland. (e-mail: Louise.Veling@mu.ie).
***F. Broz is Assistant Professor at TU Delft, Delft, the Netherlands. (e-
mail: f.broz@tudelft.nl).
****L. Damiano is Associate Professor at IULM University, Milan, Italy.
(e-mail:luisa.damiano@iulm.it)
of the main voices of specialized ethical inquiry in the
definition of guidelines to maximize the benefits and reduce
the risks of human-robot interaction, and focalization on a
general condemnation of robots.
Despite much research of interest, these gaps imply that
currently robo-ethic research appears still unprepared to fully
meet the challenges imposed on our society and our future by
the ongoing transformations related to the development and
diffusion of robots. An experimental approach to the ethical
dimension of the interactive dynamics involving humans and
robots, in particular in the case of social robots, can be critical
to address the unpredictable effects of human-robot
interaction on the ethical behaviors and conducts of the
(human and, in certain cases, robotic) agents involved.
Making robo-ethics a mature branch of ethical inquiry means
to renew, in an integrative and experimental way, ethical
inquiry on human-robot interaction. Based on this point of
view, the research presented in this article proposes an
attempt to develop an integrative and experimental ethical
investigation on a central issue for the sustainability of the
diffusion of robots: regulation.
II.OBJECT AND OBJECTIVES
The object of our research is to illustrate the outlooks of
roboticists on ethical implications on robotics and their
attitudes towards the governance of robotics. We explore
these issues in the context of opinions on the recent motion to
the European Parliament called Draft Report Motion on Civil
Robotics identified [4]. This document included suggestions
for a Code of Conduct for researchers in Robotics. We used
the topics raised in this motion to provoke wider ethical
reflections on Robotics from our participants. The objectives
of this paper are to deepen the understanding and the
reasoning behind the practitioners' viewpoints and use this
knowledge as part of an experimental approach to robo-
ethics.
III. METODOLOGY
A. Method
We have asked 4 groups of experts in robotics (one for
each visited location) their point of view on a series of
questions related to ethical implication in robotics. Each
group of people come from a robotics lab linked to an
institution or university located on the European continent.
The average number of people for each group was 15
individuals (with 57 participants in total), and the data have
been collected using hard copy questionnaires.
This study uses a mixed method combining qualitative
and quantitative analysis. The creation of the questionnaire
was subsequent to the embedding of the main investigator, a
European robotics practitioners' attitudes towards the ethical
impact of robotics and its regulation
Antonio Fleres*, Louise Veling**, Frank Broz*** and Luisa Damiano****
philosopher, as part of a robotics research lab. This took place
over three months at the initial location of data collection.
The participation of the investigator to the activities of the lab
was fundamental in order to formulate specific questions for
the practitioners in robotics. The questionnaire is divided in
four parts: a) About the Motion to the European Parliament;
b) About the Code of Conduct; c) About the nascent branch
of ethics that deals with Robotics; d) About the near future of
Robotics. Two different types of questions are used: 1)
multiple answer questions; 2) open-answer questions. Before
the filling of the questionnaires, the investigator presented a
seminar on the principal contents of the Motion to the
European Parliament and led a small debate with the
attendees. The purpose of the seminar was to ensure that all
participants had knowledge of the contents of the motion
prior to filling out the questionnaire and to provoke reflection
on the ethical issues it raised.
B. Locations
The data were collected from different research labs
across Europe. The laboratories have been chosen on the
basis of our network of collaboration, giving priority to the
labs which are specialised in research on social robotics. We
have focussed on social robotics research due the relevance of
this branch of robotics for human society.
1. The United Kingdom - The first chosen lab is
located in the UK. It was visited in 2017. This lab is
specialized in Social robotics and Human-Robot
interaction.
2. France - Two different labs from different
institutions have been chosen from France. The visits
took place in 2018. The two labs are in collaboration
and together are involved in research in Robot
Design and Social Robotics.
3. Italy - Two labs from two different institutions
have been visited in 2019. These two labs are not
linked but both of them are active in social robotics
research.
C. Qualitative analysis
The qualitative analysis was conducted on all the open-
answer questions in order to identify and relate the relevant
themes. We will summarize these in the following section.
D. Quantitative analysis
The quantitative analysis illustrates the outcome of the
multiple-answers questions. Demographic data was collected
from participants on their level of education, field of study
and whether they consider themselves a robotics researcher.
Most of the closed forms questions consider only two
different answers: Yes or No (we have also recorded
participants declining to answer individual questions using
the Abstained category). These responses provide context for
the qualitative data, highlighting topics on which there was
consensus (or a lack of it) among our participants. We are
unable to report all of the quantitative results in this paper, but
will show a few illustrative cases in the following section.
IV. RESULTS
Figure 1. Responses to a closed form question on the Code of Conduct (from
Section B of the questionnaire).
A. Quantitative Analysis
The analysis on the multiple-answers has shown the main
trends in how practitioners think about robot-ethics and
regulation of robotics. Participants overwhelmingly (93%)
responded that they consider ethical reflection on robotics
useful.. 82% of the participants think that politics should deal
with robotics, versus the 12% of practitioners who do not
agree ( 6% Abstained). 88% of them also feel the need for a
Code of Conduct, and 52% have answered that they agree
that the Code of Conduct should be compulsory (see Figure
1). On the question whether such a code can slow down
research, they are evenly split between “No” and “Yes”'
respectively 49% and 46% (6% abstained). On the question of
whether social robots can pose risks for human beings, the
responses split as follows: 39% agree, 47% disagree and 14%
abstained.
B. Qualitative Analysis
An analysis of the data yielded a number of key themes
which we labelled under the following headings and
subheadings:
1. Participant/roboticist’s perception of ethical risk
of robots/robotics research to society: i)Three
different attitudes to ethical risks were evident in the
data: the view that there are no risks, the view that
there will be risks in the future, the belief that there
are current risks/ethical implications. ii) Of the
immediate risks, two were considered the most
pressing: a)The risk of isolation - practitioners have
underlined the risk of social robotics to influence the
users’ willingness to socialize. b)Privacy and
Security problems – attendees have specified that
robots are subjected to the same security and privacy
than other computer-based technologies, but there is
a new element related to the manipulation of the
physical environment which adds new ethical
concerns. iii) No difference in ethical risk between
robotics and other technologies – a number of
perticipants expressed the view that robotics has
exactly the same ethical implication as other new
tech., arguing that technology can always be a risk
for humans.
2. Participant/Roboticist’s attitude towards
policymakers: i) Lack of knowledge: roboticists
perceived policymaker’s knowledge of robotics to be
lacking and overly influenced by science fiction. ii)
Distrust: some participants expressed their concerns
about policymaker’s motivations, believing they
might prioritise political interest over people’s
wellbeing.
3. Participant/Roboticist views of the need for
greater inclusion/collaboration from outside the field
(including non-STEM perspectives and policy
makers): i) Support for inclusion - Some researchers
in robotics support the idea that assisting
policymakers can largely improve the regulation of
the robotics process. ii) Positive attitude towards
politics - despite the distrust and the
misunderstanding, practitioners in robotics display a
positive inclination towards politics. Many of them
look at politics as the space where it is possible to
solve some of the ethical implications of robotics.
Others have stressed that politics is necessary in
order to preserve the rights of the population.
V. DISCUSSION
Contrary to what one might traditionally expect from
technologists, the majority of participants believe that
politics is relevant to robotics research even if it means that it
will interfere with or slow the research down. A consistent
majority of practitioners and researchers in robotics support
the idea of specific regulation for their profession, especially
expressing a preference for a mandatory Code of Conduct.
Furthermore they have shown interest in ethical and social
implications, such as in potential problems of social isolation
in users.
However, our study also reveals a number of barriers to
developing effective communication and collaboration
between these two areas. Although our study focused on
roboticists’ perceptions, it also revealed a lack of consensus
and understanding on the part of the roboticists in terms of
how ethics works and what ethical principles are. In addition,
this study reveals a lack of consensus by experts in robotics
that social robots may pose a risk for human society.
Strengthening collaborations with non-STEM research
fields can help roboticists to better understand and design for
complex ethical issues. Our study demonstrates how
embedded non-STEM experts in robotics laboratories can
help to: a) make technologists more informed on topics in
fields relevant to robotics and its applications, and b)
challenge biases about robotics in non-STEM experts that
arise from lack of interaction with practitioners and working
robotic systems.
VI. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this work reveals perspectives that
European practitioners in robotics have towards politics and
policy makers and illustrates the reasoning behind their
viewpoints. In addition, the findings show how a lack of
meaningful collaboration between experts in robotics and
policymaking on the motion investigated results in
differences in priorities and preferred approaches to
regulation that can lead to a distrust of policy by
practicioners. This highlights the need for prolonged and
substantial interaction between disciplines in order to
improve mutual understanding across fields. This work can
be considered the first step of an experimental approach to
robo-ethics being able to surpass the evident criticalities in
robo-ethics studies. We believe that this integrative approach
is necessary to address the ethical issues raised by the
increasingly widespread use of social robots.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We thank all the people who allowed us to develop this
research in their labs, and the participants who have
answered our questionnaire.
REFERENCES
[1] Khakurel, J., Penzenstadler, B., Porras, J., Knutas, A., Zhang, W.
(2018). “The Rise of Artificial Intelligence under the Lens of
Sustainability.” Technology, 6(100).
[2] Damiano, L. (2020), “Mond, robots and mixed social ecologies. For
an experimental epistemology of social robots”, Sistemi Intelligenti,
1, 2020, pp. 27-39
[3] Śabanovic, S. (2010) “Robots in society, society in robots.”
International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(4), pp. 439-450.
[4] Draft Report, with recommendation to the Commission on Civil Law
Rules on Robotics(2015/2103(INL)), PE583.443v01-00,
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/JURI-PR-
582443_EN.pdf?redirect
