Implementing Ethical, Legal, and Societal Considerations in Wearable Robot Design

Abstract

Ethical, legal and societal implications (ELSI) in the development of wearable robots (WRs) are currently not explicitly addressed in most guidelines for WR developers. Previous work has identified ELSI related to WRs, e.g., impacts on body and identity, ableism, data protection, control and responsibilities, but translation of these concerns into actionable recommendations remains outstanding. This paper provides practical guidance for the implementation of ELSI in WR design, development and use. First, we identify the need for domain-specific recommendations against the context of current ELSI guidance. We then demonstrate the feasibility and usefulness of taking a domain-specific approach by successively transforming currently identified ELSI into an action-guiding flowchart for integration of ELSI specific to the different stages of WR development. This flowchart identifies specific questions to be considered by WR development teams and suggests actions to be taken in response. By tailoring ELSI guidance to WR developers, centring it on user needs, their relation to others and wider society, and being cognizant of existing legislation and values, we hope to help the community develop better WRs that are safer, have greater usability, and which impact positively on society.

Harnessing robot experimentation to optimize the regulatory framing of emerging robot technologies

“…Instead of focusing on how the device fits the standard, it seeks to understand if ISO 13482:2014 addresses safety sufficiently and comprehensively. In concrete, the project focuses on some of the safety requirements revolve around topics identified in the context of the H2020 Cost Action 16,116 on Wearable Robots, 1 such as those concerning psychological aspects (e.g., FoF), push recovery algorithms, and different user categories (see Kapeller et al, 2020Kapeller et al, , 2021.…”

“…Unlike other technologies, these robots work assembled to the users' bodies, which often depend on them to walk, lift things, or even remain to stand. They thus challenge how users experience themselves and their bodies (Kapeller et al, 2021). That is why testing methods and Table 1.…”

“…Wearable robots include hardware—actuators and sensors—and control algorithms geared toward augmenting, training, or supplementing human motor functions (Greenbaum, 2015a). These robots are intimately intertwined with the human body, profoundly impacting how users experience their environment and how others experience them (Kapeller et al, 2021). Although some private standards have been developed in the past that could frame the issues arising from these technologies, our, and the research of others, shows these do not frame robot technology development accurately (Zwitter, 2014; Calo et al, 2016; Leenes et al, 2017; Fosch-Villaronga, 2019).…”

“…Unlike other technologies, these robots work assembled to the users’ bodies, which often depend on them to walk, lift things, or even remain to stand. They thus challenge how users experience themselves and their bodies (Kapeller et al, 2021). That is why testing methods and design choices that are oblivious to intersectional aspects will likely prevent many users from accessing this technology’s benefits (Fosch-Villaronga et al, 2020).…”

“…Should these asymmetries continue, technology companies “[will] have a lock on how their products work while underfunded and understaffed regulators will continue to struggle not only to understand the technology but to articulate their concerns” (Guihot and Moses, 2020). Moreover, (robot) developers will continue to struggle to implement legal provisions into their designs, resulting in constant disconnects between policy goals and safe technology (Kapeller et al, 2021). Equipping regulators with technical knowledge on design and practices could help them understand the regulatory needs of a specific and novel technology (Athey, 2017).…”