Page - 190 - in Pflegeroboter

190 B. C. Stahl maintained and updated. And, like all such lists of issues, it carries the risk that resear- chers who have worked though all of the issues will assume that they have done all there is to do and subsequently overlook issues that are not covered. In light of the extensive coverage of the list this risk is probably low, but it should not be discounted alltogether. A further positive aspect of BS 8611 is that it explicitly includes a focus on misuse and non-intended use. In our research on RRI in ICT (Jirotka et al. 2017) we have found that this is a topic that researchers and developers are not always comfortable with. A typical position is that research is a valuable good in itself because it contri- butes to knowledge, which is a value per se. Researchers are often reluctant to engage in the question of what the social consequences of their work will be, frequently and rightly citing the uncertainty of prediction of future use. They are even more reluctant to engage with the question of misuse, tending to see this as a social and policy problem that is beyond their remit. This position is not entirely unreasonable. However, in pre- sent research funding environments researchers are typically required to elaborate on the practical impact of their work. The higher the technology readiness level of the work, the closer to market it is, the more specific such views of the impact are expected to be. By the same token, it would seem to be appropriate to reflect on the non-intended practical consequences of research and development. These will not be possible to comprehensi- vely predict, but they are not completely unknowable either. By highlighting the question of misuse, BS 8611 makes an important contribution in raising awareness of this import- ant aspect of robot development. A further strength of BS 8611 is its emphasis on validation and verification. Again, these are activities that are more prevalent at higher technology readiness levels and less obvious in more fundamental and basic research. Requiring reflection on validation and verification puts pressure on the individuals and organisations involved in work on care robots to develop useful metrics that can be applied to RRI. While BS 8611 is thus a positive contribution to RRI and most likely applicable and relevant to work on care robots, it raises a number of further questions that will need debate. Firstly, the linked nature of the standard and its reliance on a set of other stan- dards mean that it is not a stand-alone document but requires users to have access to vari- ous other standards and the ability to work through and implement those. There are some questions about the provenance and justification of the content. Sec- tion 5 of the standard explicates a number of norms. All of these are perfectly reasonable and reflect the norms that modern democratic societies are trying to uphold. What is not clear, however, is how this list of norms was generated and what its status is meant to be. Presumably it is not a comprehensive list, which leads to the same problem observed earlier with regards to the list of ethical risks. It may lead to an assumption of compre- hensive coverage where this is not given and maybe not even possible. Another observation with regards to the norms in section 5 is that it does not discuss the question of conflicting norms. It is easy to imagine cases where different norms con- flict in care robotics, where for example the requirement to protect private data may col- lide with the social responsibility of care for a patient. Quality of service delivery may