Human medicine has changed a lot recently due to ICT, with much bias against robotic systems. Elevating it to the regulatory level, the EU is working on a robot ethics doctrine [40]. While standards are to be followed by the industry, through the products cleared, they impact the entire society. Recognizing this fact, multiple SDOs started to work on ethical standards recently, including the ad hoc group (AHG) ISO AHG 79, Autonomous Systems—Ethics, and also, the IEEE is drafting relevant standards. Recognizing the great responsibility to guide and direct the public through the rough waters of modern technology, IEEE launched the Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems (“The IEEE Global Initiative”,https://
ethicsinaction.ieee.org/) with the mission “To ensure every stakeholder involved in the design and development of autonomous and intelligent systems is educated, trained, and empowered to prioritize ethical considerations so that these technologies are advanced for the benefit of humanity.”
A series of ethical standard working groups were initiated, to establish guide-lines for system developers, once we cannot predict the direct outcome of these R&D processes. This was a forward looking, bold step, and the first tangible outcome is the Ethically Aligned Design: A Vision for Prioritizing Human Well-being with Autonomous and Intelligent Systemstechnical report (edition 2, Decem-ber 2017) (http://standards.ieee.org/develop/indconn/ec/autonomous_systems.html) with the aim to advance a public discussion on these topics, to facilitate the emer-gence of national and global policies, and to inspire the creation of the P7000 standard family: most notably, theIEEE P7000—Model Process for Addressing Ethical Con-cerns During System Design, IEEE P7001—Transparency of Autonomous Systems andIEEE P7007—Ontological Standard for Ethically Driven Robotics and Automa-tion Systems.
There is a fierce debate ongoing in the public about the robots taking away people’s jobs [41]. While this topic is out of the scope of this chapter, the public opinion is def-initely putting a pressure on SDOs to facilitate the adaption of safe robot application for the benefit of all.
From this chapter, military applications are omitted, while they also have a huge impact on the overall technology development and may influence the whole society. There has been a lot of public arguments about the development and use of automated weapons, with far from any conclusions or international consensus (spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/military-robots/army-considers-replacing-thousands-of-soldiers-with-robots).
7 Conclusions
We are witnessing the rise of the next generation robots for manufacturing, health-care and service with respect to personal health-care, medical, industrial, and rescue robots.
These shall be accompanied by new standards that address robot mobility, sensing, navigation, planning, integration into operational caches, and human system inter-action. Safety standards for industrial robot arms and automated guided vehicles are already being written to reduce the risk to humans in industrial environments, but only with regard to their respective platforms. While there exists some overlap and complementing protective clauses, neither the industrial robot safety standards nor the new safety standards fully address all of the potential hazards of e.g., mobile manipulators or image-guided medical robots, when applied either separately or col-lectively with other systems (cameras, navigation, etc.). Existing protections break down further when robotic systems are introduced into a manufacturing environment or operating room free of physical barriers between robots and humans.
Some argue that while existing standards are mostly aimed at machinery, they are regularly employed for medical devices as well, and applied to personal care robots sought to improve the quality of life of humans. Roboticists and other stakeholders have the responsibility to properly employ the standards, and do not abuse the existing regulatory pathways’ shortcomings. They shall be thoughtful of the roles that service robots will play, the kind of support the care robots should or should not provide, and the impact that robot care will have on their layman users. For personal care robots, the safety requirements are already given based on machine safety guidelines, whereas medical robots’ standardization guidelines need basic safety and essential performance requirements to be published and practiced. The key issues is that some analysis of risk–benefit posed to the patient needs to be carried out in the medical applications, especially with invasive systems (surgical robots, that may be a major factor of risk.
It is foreseen that more autonomy will soon be introduced with personal care and medical robots, offering more assistance to lay persons, with new rising hazards originating from the routine interaction. From the user’s (and the manufacturer’s)
point of view, safety is the single most important feature of any robotic device working together or directly in contact with humans.
Compliance with international guidelines and standards will remain a pre-requisite of entering foreign markets. Standards present real value only if they are widely accepted and followed, therefore SDOs need to focus on the applicability of the new standards, especially when they emerge to be regulations to be followed. The community strongly believes that future standards should focus more on practical applied safety and system level improvement, rather than pure technical metrics.
Working groups will continue to labour towards that goal.
Acknowledgements Thank are expressed to the robot standardization work groups at the various SODs. Authors acknowledge the financial support of this work by the Hungarian State and the European Union under the EFOP-3.6.1-16-2016-00010 project.
References
1. T. Jacobs, J. Veneman, G.S. Virk, T. Haidegger, The flourishing landscape of robot standard-ization. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag.25(1), 8–15 (2018)
2. A. Takacs, I. Rudas, D. Bosl, T. Haidegger, Highly automated vehicles and self-driving cars.
IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag.25(4), 106–112 (2018)
3. G.S. Virk, C. Herman, R. Bostelman, T. Haidegger, Challenges of the changing robot markets, inNature-Inspired Mobile Robotics(2013), pp. 833–840
4. V.O. Robotics, A roadmap for US robotics: from internet to robotics, inRobotics Virtual Organization, 2nd edn. (2013)
5. J.W. Mroszczyk,Safety Practices for Automated Guided Vehicles (AGVs)(American Society of Safety Engineers, 2004)
6. R. Bischoff, U. Huggenberger, E. Prassler, Kuka youBot-a mobile manipulator for research and education, in2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) (IEEE, 2011), pp. 1–4
7. L. Márton, Z. Szántó, T. Haidegger, P. Galambos, J. Kövecses, Internet-based bilateral teleop-eration using a revised time-domain passivity controller. Acta Polytech. Hung. (2017) 8. B. Takács, R. Dóczi, B. Süt˝o, J. Kalló, T.A. Várkonyi, T. Haidegger, M. Kozlovszky, Extending
AUV response robot capabilities to solve standardized test methods. Acta Polytech. Hung.
13(1), 157–170 (2016)
9. G.S. Virk, T. Haidegger, Classification guidelines for personal care robots–medical and non-medical applications, inProceedings of the IEEE IROS Workshop on Safety in Human-Robot Coexistence & Interaction(2012), pp. 33–36
10. A. Takács, D.Á. Nagy, I. Rudas, T. Haidegger, Origins of surgical robotics: from space to the operating room. Acta Polytech. Hung.13(1), 13–30 (2016)
11. M. Hoeckelmann, I.J. Rudas, P. Fiorini, F. Kirchner, T. Haidegger, Current capabilities and development potential in surgical robotics. Int. J. Adv. Rob. Syst.12(5), 61 (2015)
12. T. Haidegger, B. Benyó, L. Kovács, Z. Benyó, Force sensing and force control for surgical robots, in7th IFAC Symposium on Modeling and Control in Biomedical Systems,vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 413–418, Aug 2009
13. Á. Takács, I. Rudas, T. Haidegger, Open-source research platforms and system integration in modern surgical robotics. Acta Univ. Sapientiae; Electr. Mech. Eng.14(6), 20–34 (2015) 14. J.A. Marvel, Performance metrics of speed and separation monitoring in shared workspaces.
IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng.10(2), 405–414 (2013)
15. J.A. Falco, J.A. Marvel, R.J. Norcross, Collaborative robotics: measuring blunt force impacts on humans. Chest140(210), 45 (2012)
16. J. Marvel, R. Bostelman, Towards mobile manipulator safety standards, in2013 IEEE Inter-national Symposium on Robotic and Sensors Environments (ROSE)(IEEE, 2013), pp. 31–36 17. R. Bostelman, R. Norcross, J. Falco, J. Marvel, Development of standard test methods for
unmanned and manned industrial vehicles used near humans, inMultisensor, Multisource Information Fusion: Architectures, Algorithms, and Applications 2013, vol. 8756 (International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2013), p. 87560P
18. Development of Standard Test Methods for Emergency Response Robots for Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate (DHS S&T) and National Institute of Justice, NIST 2013.http://www.nist.gov/el/isd/ms/robottestmethods.cfm
19. T. Haidegger, I.J. Rudas, From concept to market: surgical robot development, in Human-Computer Interaction: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications(IGI Global, 2016), pp. 484–522
20. J.B. Stiehl, J. Bach, D.A. Heck, Validation and metrology in CAOS, inNavigation and MIS in Orthopedic Surgery(Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007), pp. 68–78
21. A. Barrera, J. Bach, P. Kazanzides, H. Haider, Validation of an ASTM standard proposed to assess localizer functionality of CAOS systems: a joint effort by three laboratories, in Pro-ceedings of the 20th Annual Congress of International Society for Technology in Arthroplasty (ISTA), Paris (2007), pp. 81–81
22. J.C. Chiao, J.M. Goldman, D.A. Heck, P. Kazanzides, W.J. Peine, J.B. Stiehl et al., Metrology and standards needs for some categories of medical devices. J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol.
113(2), 121 (2008)
23. A. Gartner,Teleneurology and requirements of the Medical Devices Directive (MDD)(Baaske Medical GmbH & Co., Lübbecke, 2008), pp. 1–22
24. D.B. Kaber, M.R. Endsley, The effects of level of automation and adaptive automation on human performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Theor. Issues Ergon.
Sci.5(2), 113–153 (2004)
25. B. Fei, W.S. Ng, S. Chauhan, C.K. Kwoh, The safety issues of medical robotics. Reliab. Eng.
Syst. Saf.73(2), 183–192 (2001)
26. P. Varley, Techniques for development of safety-related software for surgical robots. IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed.3(4), 261–267 (1999)
27. J. Guiochet, A. Vilchis, Safety analysis of a medical robot for tele-echography, in2nd IARP IEEE/RAS Joint Workshop on Technical Challenge for Dependable Robots in Human Environ-ments, Toulouse, France, Oct 2002
28. S.Y. Nof (ed.),Handbook of Industrial Robotics, vol. 1 (John Wiley & Sons, 1999)
29. P. Grunert, K. Darabi, J. Espinosa, R. Filippi, Computer-aided navigation in neurosurgery.
Neurosurg. Rev.26(2), 73–99 (2003)
30. G. Kronreif, Robot systems for percutaneous needle placement, in Proceedings of the 1st BME–MAVE International Computer-Integrated Surgery Workshop, Budapest (2011) 31. D.V. Makarov, J.B. Yu, R.A. Desai, D.F. Penson, C.P. Gross, The association between diffusion
of the surgical robot and radical prostatectomy rates. Med. Care 333–339 (2011)
32. G.S. Virk, Safety standard for personal care robots, inMobile Robotics: Solutions and Chal-lenges(2010), pp. 147–154
33. Food and Drug Administration, De novo classification process (evaluation of automatic class III designation) (2017)
34. A. Bannat, T. Bautze, M. Beetz, J. Blume, K. Diepold, C. Ertelt et al., Artificial cognition in production systems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng.8(1), 148–174 (2011)
35. B. Matthias, S. Kock, H. Jerregard, M. Källman, I. Lundberg, Safety of collaborative industrial robots: certification possibilities for a collaborative assembly robot concept, in2011 IEEE International Symposium on Assembly and Manufacturing (ISAM)(IEEE, 2011), pp. 1–6 36. A.M. Zanchettin, N.M. Ceriani, P. Rocco, H. Ding, B. Matthias, Safety in human-robot
col-laborative manufacturing environments: metrics and control. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng.
13(2), 882–893 (2016)
37. J.A. Marvel, R. Bostelman, Test methods for the evaluation of manufacturing mobile manipu-lator safety. JRM28(2), 199–214 (2016)
38. E. Messina, A. Jacoff, Performance standards for urban search and rescue robots, inUnmanned Systems Technology VIII, vol. 6230 (International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2006), p. 62301V
39. J.B. Guinée, Handbook on life cycle assessment operational guide to the ISO standards. Int. J.
Life Cycle Assess.7(5), 311 (2002)
40. M. Delvaux,Draft report with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics, vol. 22. European Parliament: Brussels, Belgium (2016)
41. C.B. Frey, M.A. Osborne, The future of employment: how susceptible are jobs to computeri-sation? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change114, 254–280 (2017)