Responsible research for the construction of maximally humanlike automata: the paradox of unattainable informed consent
- PDF / 715,551 Bytes
- 9 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 14 Downloads / 148 Views
ORIGINAL PAPER
Responsible research for the construction of maximally humanlike automata: the paradox of unattainable informed consent Lantz Fleming Miller1
© The Author(s) 2017. This article is an open access publication
Abstract Since the Nuremberg Code and the first Declaration of Helsinki, globally there has been increasing adoption and adherence to procedures for ensuring that human subjects in research are as well informed as possible of the study’s reasons and risks and voluntarily consent to serving as subject. To do otherwise is essentially viewed as violation of the human research subject’s legal and moral rights. However, with the recent philosophical concerns about responsible robotics, the limits and ambiguities of research-subjects ethical codes become apparent on the matter of constructing automata that maximally resemble human beings (as defined hereunder). In this case, the automata themselves, as products of research and development, are in the very process of their construction subjects of research and development. However, such research faces a paradox: The subjects cannot give their informed consent to this research for their own development, although their consent would be needed for the research. According to ethical codes, this research would be unethical. The article then explores whether the background concepts giving rise to this paradox could be reframed in order to allow such research to proceed ethically. Keywords Automata · Ethical research · Helsinki Declaration · Informed consent for research subjects · Maximally humanlike automata · Nuremberg Code · Responsible robotics
* Lantz Fleming Miller [email protected] 1
Department of Philosophy, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
Introduction In Mary Shelly’s day, there were few standard ethical codes for research on humans. One can safely say there were no international professional codes concerning such work. Thus, the researcher in Shelley’s most well-known novel did not consult with current global ethical codes of research before constructing his automaton built based on a deathbound criminal. If the novel had been written, set, and published in 2016, perhaps taking place in a modern research institute, the scientist’s research would likely raise red flags for many among the scientific and philosophical readership, to the loss of the novel’s credibility (or its increase in drama from the lead character’s violating ethics). In many countries across the globe there are now ethical research committees to oversee project proposals and help ensure these adhere to ethical research guidelines. However, despite the sordidness of Shelley’s novel, it took more than a century and the gruesomeness of World War Two with its Nazi doctors’ experimentation on human subjects to draw international attention to the need for worldwide professional codes for research on human subjects (Faden and Beauchamp 1986). The 1945 Nuremburg code’s ten points were addressed to the practice of human experimentation (reflecting what seeme
Data Loading...
