Page - 189 - in Pflegeroboter

18910 Implementing Responsible Research … Section 6 covers ethics-related system design recommendations which promote the use of inherently ethical design or, where this is not possible, the use of safeguards and protective measures to protect robot users from harm. It also points to the protection against the perception of harm. Such perceptions, e.g. a close encounter or near collision with a self-driven vehicle, can itself count as harm and should be avoided. Section 7 covers verification and validation. These are defined as follows: “‘verifica- tion’ checks that a system does what its specification requires it to do, whereas “valida- tion” checks that a system does what its users expect. Precise specifications are needed in order to carry out verification, while user engagement is needed in order to carry out vali- dation” (p. 14). Various methods for both verification and validation are then discussed. The final section of BS 8611 covers information for use of robots. This covers general points such as the language in which usage information should be provided and which potential users need to be able to interact with robots and thus be capable of understan- ding use information. More detail is given in separate sections on markings or indica- tions as well as the user manual and the service manual. 10.5 BS 8611 as Implementation of RRI in Care Robots Having now introduced the concept of RRI, the ethical concerns about care robots and BS 8611 this section discusses how and to which degree BS 8611 can help realise or implement RRI. It is probably not surprising that BS 8611 is closely aligned to RRI and offers a way of implementing or realising RRI in robotics. The standard quotes Rome Declaration on RRI (2014) as an inspiration. It subsequently touches on many of the aspects and compo- nents of RRI. From the perspective of RRI it is important that the standard signals to the robotics research community that issues of ethics and social responsibility are to be taken seriously. By having gone through the consultation process that is associated with stan- dardisation and having the official seal of approval from the British Standards Institute, BS 8611 represents an important statement underlining the relevance of these issues. In addition to the general political support that BS 8611 lends to the principle and idea of RRI, it provides important practical advice to roboticists. Most technicians and robotics researchers and developers are familiar with various ethical and social questions related to robots. The current debate surrounding artificial intelligence, big data analytics and robotics is difficult to ignore and researchers are generally happy to engage in it. There is a big difference, however, between generally engaging in a debate and practi- cally changing one’s work to address such issues. BS 8611 represents a tool that helps roboticists to do just that. Technology researchers and developers are used to working with standards and are very likely to be able to implement this standard in practice. The list of ethical hazards that BS 8611 covers is significant and broadly covers the issues that the general discussion of robot ethics covers. The standard states that the list is not comprehensive, however, which leaves open the question of how the list will be