Ethical Assessment of a Hospital Disinfection Robot

C. McGinn, R. Scott, Niamh Donnelly, M. Cullinan, A. Winfield, P. Treusch
{"title":"Ethical Assessment of a Hospital Disinfection Robot","authors":"C. McGinn, R. Scott, Niamh Donnelly, M. Cullinan, A. Winfield, P. Treusch","doi":"10.1109/ICRA48891.2023.10160903","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Robots have the potential to deliver very positive impacts for society, however, it's critical that in preparing for real-world deployments, we recognize and take steps to mitigate against the potential harms, both direct and indirect, that they may cause. In this paper, we explore how the ethics canvas (EC) and the ethical risk assessment (ERA) methodology defined in British Standard 8611 can be combined to better align robot technologies with ethics and their socio-cultural context of operation. We illustrate this through a practical case-study involving the real-world introduction of a disinfection robot to a radiology department in a European hospital. Using the EC, we identified 49 distinct ways that the technology was likely to impact key stakeholders and 11 ways that failure or misuse of the technology was likely to impact service provision. From this data, 8 mitigating measures were identified. Then, using the ERA tool, 9 risks were identified that were considered to represent a high likelihood of occurrence. From these insights, a further 8 mitigation measures were proposed. The combined use of both tools was found to be complementary, since the EC fostered a bottom-up, subjective critical thinking process whereas the ERA provided a broader, more top-down objective view. This example provides a practical template for robotics practitioners to better understand and manage the ethical and socio-cultural dimensions of their work, and contributes towards the standardization of ethical assessments in robotics with an emphasis on the move from principles to practice.","PeriodicalId":360533,"journal":{"name":"2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA48891.2023.10160903","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Robots have the potential to deliver very positive impacts for society, however, it's critical that in preparing for real-world deployments, we recognize and take steps to mitigate against the potential harms, both direct and indirect, that they may cause. In this paper, we explore how the ethics canvas (EC) and the ethical risk assessment (ERA) methodology defined in British Standard 8611 can be combined to better align robot technologies with ethics and their socio-cultural context of operation. We illustrate this through a practical case-study involving the real-world introduction of a disinfection robot to a radiology department in a European hospital. Using the EC, we identified 49 distinct ways that the technology was likely to impact key stakeholders and 11 ways that failure or misuse of the technology was likely to impact service provision. From this data, 8 mitigating measures were identified. Then, using the ERA tool, 9 risks were identified that were considered to represent a high likelihood of occurrence. From these insights, a further 8 mitigation measures were proposed. The combined use of both tools was found to be complementary, since the EC fostered a bottom-up, subjective critical thinking process whereas the ERA provided a broader, more top-down objective view. This example provides a practical template for robotics practitioners to better understand and manage the ethical and socio-cultural dimensions of their work, and contributes towards the standardization of ethical assessments in robotics with an emphasis on the move from principles to practice.
医院消毒机器人的伦理评价
机器人有可能为社会带来非常积极的影响,然而,在为现实世界的部署做准备时,我们必须认识到并采取措施减轻它们可能造成的潜在危害,无论是直接的还是间接的。在本文中,我们探讨了英国标准8611中定义的伦理画布(EC)和伦理风险评估(ERA)方法如何结合起来,以更好地将机器人技术与伦理及其操作的社会文化背景结合起来。我们通过一个实际的案例研究来说明这一点,该研究涉及在欧洲医院的放射科引入消毒机器人的现实世界。使用EC,我们确定了49种技术可能影响关键利益相关者的不同方式,以及11种技术失败或滥用可能影响服务提供的方式。根据这些数据,确定了8项缓解措施。然后,使用ERA工具,确定了9个被认为是高可能性发生的风险。根据这些见解,又提出了8项缓解措施。这两种工具的结合使用被认为是互补的,因为欧共体培养了一种自下而上的主观批判性思维过程,而环境评估则提供了一种更广泛、更自上而下的客观观点。这个例子为机器人从业者提供了一个实用的模板,以更好地理解和管理他们工作的伦理和社会文化层面,并有助于机器人伦理评估的标准化,强调从原则到实践的转变。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信