Abstract
Whether it is the Roomba running around your house or the advanced robotic arm you designed at work, robots are now fully integrated into our society. As such, it is important to understand the difference in the meaning of robotics to engineers, who may be more technical, and members of society, who may be less technical. Doing so will help ensure the advancement of technical education and moral paradigms in society. In my technical research, I focused on the engineers who see robotics as an integral aspect of their education and who seek access to experience in the advanced manufacturing techniques used to create robot components. For my STS research, I investigated these two social groups to better understand why this divide exists and how it should be handled by engineers. This problem matters because if robotics continues to advance independent of meaning and public moral scrutiny, there risks a distrust, or even a divide between the technical and less technical members of society.
The problem addressed by my technical work is the lack of accessibility to hands-on education on advanced manufacturing techniques during college. At UVA, the general mechanical engineering curriculum does not encourage or enable industry-relevant skills in advanced manufacturing. This is unacceptable, as skills in these fields are integral to an engineer’s workplace readiness. To solve this problem, I drew on ideas from composite suppliers, 3d-printer suppliers, and published research. Using these sources, I developed a process for compression molding carbon fiber composite robotic arm members using easily accessible tools and materials alongside 3d-printed mold designs. This process can enable students to gain hands-on experience with composite molding to produce complex, high-quality parts without the traditional high-cost and risk associated with composites. To further increase accessibility, I developed a novel method for creating non-standard features in compression molded carbon fiber parts using water soluble, 3d-printed, PVA cores. These cores eliminate the risk of associated demolding issues, allow for complex feature shapes of any size and draft, and are much cheaper than traditional metal cores, especially for low production batches.
The problem investigated by my STS research is that there exists a disconnect between the views of more and less technical members of society. Specifically, their views on whether nature-resembling robots should have ethical considerations. To provide a major example of this disconnect, I used the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) framework to analyze the scandal surrounding a Boston Dynamics YouTube video from 2015 which showed a robotic dog being kicked. Comments on this video and news reports about it provided direct insights into the two sides at play: those who thought that Spot was not that different from a real dog, and those who saw Spot as a tool. To investigate these sides, I drew from a psychological source which provided information on how humans interact with robots as pets and companions. I then explored philosophical literature to demystify the idea of sentience and if robots could ever achieve it. Finally, I drew on additional philosophical, ethical, and engineering sources to uncover the requirements for pain and suffering as well as the potential uses for artificial pain in robotics. This research culminated in the evidence-based findings that robots can never be sentient, feel pain, or suffer. However, I also found that engineers have a duty to maintain proper “etiquette” when designing and testing for the non-scientific public.
My technical research focusses closely on the more-technical members of society, successfully developing a method to increase accessibility to robotics-related education for college students. However, this research left out the less-technical members of society, who could also benefit from increased accessibility to robotics education, albeit in different ways. Future research could uncover these educational methods which could help to reduce the knowledge gap. My STS research offers valuable insight into the disconnect between the more and less technical members of society. It analyzes why the disconnect exists, why the more technical side is objectively correct, but also why the technical side should be cautious of what they do under the scrutiny of the less technical side. However, while objective truth is important, my research did not provide insights into historic movements for policy or the legal precedents that may be present around the rights of nature-resembling robots. A legal analysis would shed more light on where this issue will likely stabilize.
I would like to thank Dr. Chris Li, Nicholas Jones, and Dr. Caitlin Wylie for their facilitation, influence, and support of my ideas which came to fruition in this thesis portfolio.
