Page - 183 - in Pflegeroboter

18310 Implementing Responsible Research … with the Dutch MVI programme and was taken up by other research funding organisa- tions, notably the European Commission (EC). The EC has adopted RRI as a cross-cut- ting activity in its Horizon 2020 research framework programme. Given the significant financial value of H2020 of about € 80 billion and the leadership function that this pro- gramme has across Europe in inspiring other funders, this has been a key driver for the wider adoption of RRI. It is important to note that the EC has developed a conception of RRI that focuses on six keys: public engagement, gender equality, ethics, science educa- tion, open access and governance (European Commission 2013). This European concep- tion of RRI highlights a number of important aspects of RRI but is arguably somewhat narrower than the academic RRI discourse calls for. It is therefore important to note that there are alternative conceptualisations of RRI. For the purposes of this paper, I will use the concept of RRI as put developed by Stilgoe et al. (2013) and subsequently adopted by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (Owen 2014). This con- cept represents RRI using the acronym AREA, which stands for anticipation, reflection, engagement and action. A piece of research or innovation activity, in order to count as having been undertaken responsibly, would need to incorporate anticipation about possi- ble consequences, integrate mechanisms of reflection about the work, its aims and purpo- ses, engage with relevant stakeholders and guid action of researchers accordingly. Elsewhere (Jirotka et al. 2017) we have developed this AREA framework further by adding what we called the 4 Ps: Process, Product, Purpose and People. This repre- sents an attempt to render the AREA framework more accessible and practical by gui- ding users to reflect on the process of undertaking the work, guiding their attention to the products or outcomes of the research, explicitly highlighting the importance of con- sidering the purpose of the research and continuously focusing on the people who are involved and likely to be affected in the research and innovation. We have presented this AREA-4P framework as a matrix with each cell in the matrix containing some guiding questions that will help users to consider important parts and aspects of their work. This matrix looks as follows (Table 10.1): I will use this view of RRI to explore whether and to what degree the BS 8611 stan- dard represents an implementation of RRI in care robots. To do so, I now briefly discuss care robots and the ethical concerns that are typically associated with these. 10.3 Characteristics of Care Robots and Ethical Concerns Robots as embodied information and communication technology (ICT) that can directly interact with their external environments have been a source of fascination and anxiety ever since they were first proposed. These mixed emotions are most strongly triggered by anthropomorphic robots, but they can be observed in the case of most other robots as well. Positions on robots range from the widely optimistic that see robots as integral part to the solution to most human problems (Brooks 2002) to dystopian visions of robots as