Page - 191 - in Pflegeroboter

19110 Implementing Responsible Research … similarly collide with the norm of employment, where a human may be made redundant, if a robot can perform a particular task better than a human. Such value conflicts often arise and are subject of discussion in ethics and RRI (Fleischmann and Wallace 2010; Hedström et al. 2011). BS 8611 could be clearer on how individuals encountering such value conflicts are expected to deal with them. One reason why value conflicts arise is that there are numerous different values held by members of society and they often do not agree on these or their priorities. This is one of the reasons why public engagement plays an increasing role in research and innovation governance and plays a central role in RRI. BS 8611 recognises this and makes explicit reference to such public engagement. Where the standard could go fur- ther is in the description of what such public engagement could look like or how stake- holders could be engaged. There is a rich literature on this topic which is not referenced ( Arnstein 1969; Est 2011; European Commission 2014). Moreover, there are various tra- ditions of public engagement. The traditional one sees public engagement as an activity that educates the public to ensure that technologies are met with acceptance. The other position sees public engagement as a mechanism of co-creation technologies in colla- boration between researchers or experts and affected stakeholders (Jasanoff 2003). It is important to realise that RRI very much aims at the latter model, sometimes referred to as mode 2 of knowledge creation (Nowotny et al. 2003). While the standard cannot reasonably be expected to cover this complex topic in any depth, it could provide more pointers to existing debates. Similar to the uncertainty that BS 8611 leaves with regards to public engagement, it also fails to give sufficient guidance on another aspect that is of crucial importance in developing robots responsibly, namely cost-benefit analysis. The standard rightly points out that in many cases different values and aims may need to be considered and decisi- ons have to be made that lead to the overall best outcome. Risk-benefit analysis is thus presumably part of the answer to the question raised earlier, namely how value conflicts can be managed. However, the standard says very little about the practical challenges this raises and how these can be overcome. Similarly to the case of public engagement, at least some more references and pointers would have helped the practical applicability. And, finally, there are questions to be asked concerning the overall positioning of the standard in the RRI discourse. On the one hand the standard cites the highly aspirational vision of RRI that describes RRI as an attempt to promote creativity and opportunities for science and innovation that are socially desirable and undertaken in the public inter- est. While this large, and difficult to achieve, aspiration informs the standard, the way it is developed focuses much more on immediate concerns in terms of risk assessment and mitigation. The potential for RRI to be a source of creativity is not developed in depth. Furthermore, the focus on risk assessment limits the type of issue to be discussed. In the case of care robots this means that some of the foundational questions, such as the ques- tion how we conceptualise care in the first instance, or which resources our societies are willing to invest in care of older people or people with particular diseases or conditions, cannot be addressed.