Technology Assessment Michael Funk and Bernhard Irrgang - 9783631620717 Downloaded from PubFactory at 09/26/2021 07:04:13PM via free access Michael Funk and Bernhard Irrgang - 9783631620717 Downloaded from PubFactory at 09/26/2021 07:04:13PM via free access Who is taking over? Technology Assessment of Autonomous (Service) Robots Michael Decker Introduction Several recent events put robot systems into public attention. In connection with the Fukushima nuclear disaster (Stöcker 2011) and the explosion of the oil rig “Deepwater Horizon” the use of robot systems to combat these catastrophes was discussed. During the oil spill, robots were used to close the leak. According to media reports, an underwater robot was used to cut off a torn pipe and to lower a containment dome over the leak (Spiegelonline 04.06.2010). Ariel Bleicher (2010) drew “the first Gulf Spill´s lessons for Robotics. The demands on the largest underwater robotics armada ever fielded show that ROVs need better au- tomation” (while ROV means remotely operated vehicles).1 “To help eliminate human error, ROV manufacturers like Schilling Robotics are developing com- puter software to automate some of the standard things ROVs do.” This automa- tion should not only reduce the time a robot needs to complete a task, but also improve the quality of its results. Moreover, robotics is also used for the investi- gation of subsea hydrocarbon plums caused by the blowout. An international group from the Australian Centre for Field Robotics at the University of Sydney and from the Deep Submergence Laboratory at Woods Hole Oceanographic In- stitution employed conventional oceanographic sampling techniques along with the SENTRY autonomous underwater vehicle to confirm the existence of a co- herent subsea hydrocarbon plume, to map the plume´s spatial extent and finally to collect targeted water samples from within the plume for later laboratory analysis (Jakuba et al. 2010). Robot systems for deep-sea operation belong to the so-called “expansion robots” (Christaller et al. 2001, p. 217). They expand the people´s scope of action and enable them to overcome barriers and be “remotely present,” i.e. to act at places they cannot access directly. This inaccessibility can result from large distances (like in space), ratios (like in the micro- or nanometre range), or physical barriers. Remote presence concepts can be used in minimally invasive surgery to transmit the hand movements of the surgeon intuitively, controllably, and commensurately to the instruments applied. Danger for the human operator may also constitute a barrier which remote presence may help to overcome – apart from deep-sea applications this could also include the disposal of explo- sive materials, inspection or dismantling of nuclear power stations, medical radiation, etc. In the framework of an interdisciplinary technology assessment 1 For further information see also Bleicher 2011. Michael Funk and Bernhard Irrgang - 9783631620717 Downloaded from PubFactory at 09/26/2021 07:04:13PM via free access 92 Michael Decker these applications were classified as innovations which should be “comprehen- sively promoted.” With regard to the distinction between “industrial robots” and “service robots,” these expansion robots can be described as intermediates. Unlike con- ventional industrial robots, they are not used in factory buildings where the complete environment is adapted to the use of robot systems. In most of the cas- es industrial robots are even operated in a safety cage to keep humans off the working space of the robot. But nevertheless, they are also not employed in our everyday environment close to human beings to perform their tasks, which could be expected for most services. Even though expansion robots are used outside factory buildings, this normally takes place in a professional context. The opera- tors of the robots which were used during the oil spill were experts which are familiar with both the problem of oil leakages and the use of robots in this field. “Third parties” will neither be encountered in the deep sea nor in space nor in an operating room. Only a limited group of people gets in contact with the robot. All these people can be trained, if necessary even take an exam, to be able to op- erate the robot system and comply with the respective safety regulations. A closer look at the areas of application of today´s service robot systems reveals that out of the 63,000 service robots for commercial applications sold worldwide until the end of 2008 the greater number were used in the field of defence, rescue, and security (30%), followed by agriculture (23%), especially milking robots (World Robotics 2009). These are areas where the service robots – in the sense of expansion robots – are operated and supervised by a human expert and/or operated in a protected surrounding. Most services, however, are characterized by the fact that they have to be performed in an environment full of people (one example might be the cleaning of train stations) or directly involve a human being (museum guide, nursing or elderly care). The people in contact with these robots can only be trained to a limited extent as robotics experts. Thus these services implicate that a robotic layperson can and has to in- teract with robots and that third parties will encounter a robot´s direct environ- ment. Furthermore, these services are performed in everyday life, which can on- ly be adapted to a limited extent to the employment of robots. This combination entails grand challenges, both for the technical realization of service robots and the societal environment where they are employed. Humanoid robots play a spe- cial role in the context of these services which directly involve a human being. Robot systems are normally used as a means to an end. This is underlined by the case studies on expansion robots. To expand the people´s scope of action “across barriers,” the robot has to be made able to complete the desired task beyond this barrier. The “end” is the sealing of the oil leakage. Therefore the pipe has to be cut off and the containment dome has to be put over the leak. A human being would not be able to work in this depth of the sea without elabo- Michael Funk and Bernhard Irrgang - 9783631620717 Downloaded from PubFactory at 09/26/2021 07:04:13PM via free access Who is taking over? Technology Assessment of Autonomous (Service) Robots 93 rate protective equipment. If a robot exists which can be used as a means to this end, then it replaces the human being as actor in this context. Regarding the application of robot systems, one can therefore speak of “a replaceability of the human being” (Decker 2000) in specific action contexts. In the following, this replaceability shall be discussed from different scien- tific disciplinary perspectives. I will start with a short description of the current definition of service robots. This will be followed by an excursus on humanoid robots. According to some researchers, they play a special role in connection with services directly involving human beings since the intuitive interaction with robots can be supported by their humanoid shape (Behnke 2008). To sum up, I will present some considerations from the perspective of technology assessment. Multisdisciplinary Questions on TA of Service Robots “Service robots” are often indirectly defined as “non-production robots.” The In- ternational Federation of Robotics (IFR) states on its website: “Service robots have no strict internationally accepted definition, which, among oth- er things, delimits them from other types of equipment, in particular the manipulat- ing industrial robot. IFR, however, have adopted a preliminary definition: A service robot is a robot which operates semi- or fully autonomously to perform services useful to the well-being of humans and equipment, excluding man- ufacturing operations.” (IFR) The Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation (Fraunhofer IPA) phrased it in a similar way: “A service robot is a freely programmable mobile device carrying out services either partially or fully automatically. Services are activities that do not contribute to the direct industrial manufacture of goods, but to the performance of services for humans and institutions.” (Schraft et al 2004, p. 9) The definition by Engelhardt and Edwards refers to descriptions like “sense,” “think” and “act” and reads as follows: “[…] systems that function as smart, programmable tools, that can sense, think, and act to benefit or enable humans or extend/enhance human productivity.” (Quoted af- ter Hüttenrauch 2006, p. 3.) Services in the private sector are a particular challenge for service robotics since both the environment and the user of the robot can vary considerably. Therefore robot systems for private use shall be taken as preferred case studies here. Robotics provides applications for all age groups: Toy robots, entertainment ro- bots, kitchen aids, assistant robots, care robots for elder and sick people, etc. The service sector makes high demands on robots. They have to be able to move in an unknown environment (private flat) that is not geared to them and perform a number of different tasks. If the program- ming efforts prior to the start of operation should be still acceptable for robotic laypersons, most of the adaptation to the new environment and the new user has Michael Funk and Bernhard Irrgang - 9783631620717 Downloaded from PubFactory at 09/26/2021 07:04:13PM via free access 94 Michael Decker to be done by the robot system itself. This technical problem is even more criti- cal for older users and those in need of care, since they are often cognitively un- able to give the necessary instructions. In the following we will outline the ques- tions that are relevant for a technology assessment of service robots for individ- ual disciplines and discuss the technological, economic, legal, ethical, and psy- chological replaceability.2 Technological Perspective The successful provision of a service is already a big technological challenge.