Robots - Inanimate or Living: To Evaluate the Receptivity of Xenobots by Indian Respondents
Keywords:
Living Robots, Robots, Ethical Concerns, Receptivity, TechnologyAbstract
As industrialization continues, the world is introduced to many challenges, such as Global Warming and Pollution. Even with adverse effects on the environment, synthetic materials continue to be commonly used. To tackle this, scientists from the University of Vermont combined the fields of AI and bio-technology to develop a robot capable of performing specific functions e.g, locomoting and manipulating objects, using cells. Other than reducing the use of synthetic materials, this robot can directly help in collecting microplastics from the ocean, while being biodegradable. With time, as manufacturing gets automated, the capability of these robots will be widened. Though it’s not an immediate concern,, the idea of a living robot can be seen to come with many ethical concerns. To understand the reservations it can create, this research paper intends to evaluate the receptivity of Xenobots by high-school students and teachers. A total of 30 respondents from various urban and suburban locations of the country were surveyed on their knowledge and interest of Xenobots, before and after watching an informational video, and their thoughts on its ethical concerns and effectiveness were collected from open-ended questions. Qualitative and Quantitative tools such as t-tests, mean, SD tests and thematic analysis were used to study the accumulated data. The video positively impacted their rating of knowledge, however interest remained equally high. Further thematic analysis revealed that respondents were doubtful about its usefulness as well as its drawbacks, which notifies aspiring companies and governments that it might be too soon for such technology.
Downloads
References or Bibliography
Ball, P. (2020). Living robots. Nature materials, 19(3), 265-265.
Coghlan, S., & Leins, K. (2020). “Living Robots”: Ethical Questions About Xenobots. The American Journal of Bioethics, 20(5), W1-W3.
Coupland, R., & Leins, K. R. (2005). Science and prohibited weapons. Science, 308(5730), 1841-1842.
Kriegman, S., Blackiston, D., Levin, M., & Bongard, J. (2020). A scalable pipeline for designing reconfigurable organisms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(4), 1853-1859.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2022 Aarav Agrawal; Kah Ying Choo, Dr. Mritunjay Sharma, Srishti Kapoor
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright holder(s) granted JSR a perpetual, non-exclusive license to distriute & display this article.