Bursic 2:00
R03
ROBOTICS ETHICS PAPER
Sadhana Tadepalli (slt71@pitt.edu)
SCENARIO: THE LYING GAME
After graduating from the University of Pittsburgh with a
Computer Engineering major and a Biomedical Engineering
minor, I was able secure a position at RoboTechnoGo, a
biotechnical firm specializing in creating robots for different
purposes in hospitals. In becoming a computer engineer, I
focused on the technology, design, and development of
communication systems. Communication is a key part of
hospitals as patients and doctors must exchange information
to provide the best care for patients. In order to improve the
quality and efficiency of communication, we have been
working on a project in which robots are produced to help
with the rehabilitation process for patients. In therapy, it is
vital that a patient follows a given routine consistently to
ensure that a specific injured part is recovers and strengths in
the right way. The local hospital and RoboTechnoGo have
recently started working together to see if the use robot
technology would help improve care and efficiency. The
benefits of having robots in hospitals include more care for
patients without the need of a nurse and increased efficiency
as nurses can do other tasks at the same time [1]. So our
company has undertaken the task of producing rehabilitation
robots that are able to use sensors to track the pressure placed,
the force felt, and the strength used by the patient to perform
certain exercises. My particular group is in charge of creating
the robot for the rehabilitation of knees. By building a robot
in which a leg can be rested, the robot can be set to lead the
leg to perform certain actions (passive movement) or be used
as a regular exercise machine but can track if the exercise is
being performed properly and how many repetitions have
been done (active movement) [1]. The hospital has ordered 5
robots for its facility. If it finds that that robots are beneficial
enough and worth the cost, they have agreed to purchase
many more for their site and its other branches.
Three days before our robots are to be sent to the hospitals
to be assessed, after everyone had already left, I was selected
to test the robots and sign off that the sensors and software are
working together properly to collect and store information.
While being on my specific team, I had only ever worked on
my job of connecting the sensors to the software and making
sure that if something was sensed, the robot would collect,
store, analyze, and manipulate the data as needed. Never had
I seen or used the machine once it was completed though.
After conducting the tests, the robot was able to perform all
of its main functions without any problems. But it was
observed in the passive movement regimes that if the knee
started twitching very slightly, the sensor was not able to
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering 1
2015-11-03
recognize this as a problem, so the robot continued to lead
movement as if nothing was wrong. Only after the twitching
became shaking did the robot detect a problem. This could
potentially risk the status of patients as twitching can be a sign
that the muscles are not working properly, especially after
surgery, indicating that there is a problem. With the use of an
autonomous robot, there should be no need for a nurse to be
watching for problem signs like twitching. Though twitching
may seem miniscule, it could be potentially dangerous for
patients. I was not in charge of building the sensors or
software that would detect such a problem so this issue does
not fall under my responsibilities as an engineer. Not knowing
what to do, I call my team manager and tell her the small
discrepancy with the sensor and robot. She simply tells me
that she will take care of it and that I should just sign off on
the papers to pass the robots before the hospital comes to
retrieve them, as this is the last test needed for the robots to
be sent off. This poses the ethical question of whether or not
I should sign the papers. Thus, the situation should be further
inspected, with the effects of certain decisions being analyzed
and the use of outside sources to determine what the best
response would be.
THE DECISION PROCESS
Potential Professional and Financial Effects of a
Decision
In the case that I did pass the robots and they were
delivered to the hospital on time, the company would initially
be praised by the hospital, strengthening the relationship
between the two. If the problem goes without being noticed
while being used in the hospital, the deal established between
the hospital and the company would be carried out, increasing
business for RoboTechnoGo, and strengthening the
reputation of the company. In an ethical case study published
by Michael McFarland, through Santa Clara University, a
software engineer is in charge of certifying and passing an air
traffic control system that has a small flaw in it. Ultimately,
with the persistence of his project manager, who said that the
problem could be fixed later on without anyone outside the
project knowing, he unwillingly signs the papers and resigns
afterwards. The company ends up becoming very successful
with the deals made after the certification of the air traffic
system [2]. This case study shows that it is very well possible
that a mistake may go unnoticed and there may not be any bad
consequences for the company. But with this, there is the
chance that the problem is discovered. If this were to happen,
Sadhana Tadepalli
the hospital would need to determine who is at fault. As
Kenneth Kernaghan, a professor at Brock University,
discusses the ethics of robotics in an ethics article, he asks the
question “who is responsible if something goes wrong-the
robot’s designer, its manufacturer, or the hospital?”[3].
Through reading this article, I was able to find the opinion and
thought process of an intelligent outsider, aiding in the
process of deciding what actions to take. Applying this
question to the situation, the hospital would not take blame
for it and would thus blame RoboTechnoGo. And with
company being responsible for the design and construction on
the robots, it could potentially get sued. In this process,
specific members of the company could get fired, including
myself and others who passed the robots through the various
tests as it was our responsibilities to check that the robots
would be precise and meet the hospital’s standards. The
reputation and reliability of the company could also be ruined.
If news were to spread that mistakes like these were
happening in the robotic and engineering field, there may be
larger-scale, negative effects. The general public may
question the reliability of robots, a pre-existing ethical issue
that is already very controversial with today’s progressing
technology. Many believe that robots should not be trusted
with all of the tasks that humans are able to manage,
especially in the medical field where the lives and safety of
human beings are at risk.
If I decided to not to sign the papers, the most immediate
effect would be that the process of having the robots working
in the hospital would be delayed. This may make the company
seem unreliable, diminishing the chances of having future
deals with the hospital or other parties. But the extremity of
this reaction may depend as the delay may be found as an act
of moral integrity and honesty. If the company making a
product finds and reports a problem before it is found by users
or consumers, this would be more responsible rather than
reckless or unprofessional. With this decision, there are much
less risks, though the potential to improve the company and
its name may be hindered. Gaining credibility back from
catching a mistake earlier than later would be much easier
than trying to rebuild a company’s reputation from not
properly checking the products and assuring that all standards
are met.
Potential Personal Effects of a Decision
On a personal level, the decision which I make would
largely take into consideration the potential effects that the
decision would have on me. If I chose not to pass the robots,
then immediately, other members of the company, such as my
team leader, may blame me for the delay. But despite what
others may think, the responsibility of the mistake is not
solely of the person reporting the issue, but of the team as a
whole. In an engineering ethics article by Joseph Basart and
Serra Montse, professors at universities in Spain, it is said that
it is not recognized is the enormous obligation and pressure
taken on by engineers. Because of this, the engineers who
build the individual parts of systems are often blamed for
mistakes in machinery or engineering projects. But
engineering at its basis is made of teamwork, so responsibility
must be shared [4]. From reading ethical articles like this, one
is able to take a more objective view at the situation as they
provide information about how ethical dilemmas should be
handled and connect conflicts in engineering back to the
fundamentals of engineering. This article was especially
helpful in reminding myself that if I were to report the
problem with the robots, I am not solely at fault, for either the
mistake in the sensors or for any potential consequences the
company would face with there being no delivery of the
robots. As an engineer working for a larger group, the
responsibility and consequences would be shared and
deserved. On the contrary, if I were to pass the robots through
the tests and report that they met the standards given by the
hospital, then the positive effects that the company would feel
would likely spread to the employers, which may include a
better reputation, increases in salaries with future deals, or
recognition of a successful project. But with this, there would
always be the risk of the hospital finding flaws with the robots
and blaming the company for faulty equipment that may have
put patients at risk during rehabilitation. Also, it is important
to note the role of personal morals and the code of ethics that
should be followed by any engineer. Thus, the code of ethics
is another platform with which a decision can be made about
what to do in this ethical dilemma.
Abiding by the Code of Ethics
The code of ethics for any organization outlines the
responsibilities and moral obligations that an engineer while
working and representing the field in order to uphold the
highest standards of integrity. It is important to read over
these codes as they specifically state how an engineer should
act, which can potentially direct an individual who is unsure
of what to do in an ethical dilemma. As someone in the
professional work force, I must follow the code of ethics
published by the National Society of Professional Engineers
(NSPE) at the least. As a computer engineer, I should also
follow the code of ethics published by the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). After reading
the codes of ethics, the canons most relevant to my situation
regard honesty. In the NSPE code of ethics, it is said that as
an engineer fulfilling his or her professional duties should
“Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful
manner” [5] and “Avoid deceptive acts” [5]. These apply to
my situation as I am required to sign public papers officially
stating that the robots have passed the tests. But because the
sensors are not working as properly as they should, they do
not meet the standards they should be at, making them faulty
to an extent. But by signing the papers I would be lying by
saying the robots have no observed problem even though
there is. This is a form of a deceptive act and violates these
canons. Similar canons about honesty are also found in the
IEEE code of ethics. It is said that engineers should “be honest
in stating claims” [6] and “to avoid injuring others, their
2
Sadhana Tadepalli
property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious
action” [6]. In the case that I did pass the robots and they were
put to use on patients, there is the risk that the patients are not
properly taken care of by the robots with the lack of precision
in the sensors. If the sensors are unable to detect twitching in
the leg while guiding a patient’s leg during an exercise, there
is potential of the leg being overworked or stretched, which
may lead to additional injury or pain. This is a risk that can be
avoided by reporting the problem before the robots are put to
use. By reading these code of ethics and by wanting to uphold
the morals of an engineer, I am lead to think that I should not
sign the papers because if I were to do so, I would be violating
various codes of ethics. But as an employee of a company who
needs this deal to be successful, there is still the risk that
future deals will not take place if I do not pass the robots. As
I am still slightly torn on what action to take, I look to sources
that are less formal but still very helpful in determining what
is right or wrong.
Other Influences/Additional Advice
Another means by which a decision can be made in an
ethical dilemma can be by speaking to others. People who
have been in situations the righteousness of an action has been
questioned or even just someone that is trustworthy can give
a more objective view on what to do in a certain scenario. By
using these types of resources, one may rethink or view their
scenario in a different way as conversing with others show a
different perspective on the situation. Advice can also be
given by using sources like these. In speaking to my father,
someone who I have always gone to when I need advice, he
immediately told me to think of my morals and the
responsibilities I have as an engineer [7]. In any situation,
honesty should be upheld. Lying is a form of deception,
regardless of the reason. And by reading the codes of ethics,
it is apparent that I should report the problem and not pass the
robots in order to uphold my morals as a person and an
engineer.
Another source that I used for advice was my father’s
friend, Naveen Kota, who works for AIG and is a project
management leader. In asking him about how one should act
in my situation, keeping in mind that I still want what is best
for my company and even specifically mentioning that the
successfulness of the deal between RoboTechnoGo and the
hospital is essential for the future of the company, he still
recommended that I report the problem. His justification for
this was that as an engineer, I should abide by the code of
ethics, which also align with my personal morals. Though the
deal may be important, the fact that a worker in the company
was not being honest would be more scandalous to a company
from an outsider’s point of view than the company accepting
and fixing its mistakes early on. He also mentioned that as a
team leader himself, he would be disappointed in the workers
if he found out that they were not honest about problems they
knew about [8]. After speaking to him and knowing that he
has had much experience in making decisions, his advice
suggested that I also not sign the papers as this would be
violating the code of ethics as an engineer. Also, by speaking
to him, he made me realize that the risks taken with the
signing of the papers would be much more dangerous for the
company as a whole, as well as to the patients who could get
injured by the insufficient robots, when compared to the risks
if the robots were not to be passed. Speaking to the
professional helped me guide my thought process and has
confirmed my thoughts of making a certain decision.
THE DECISION
In my situation of having to choose whether or not to pass
the robots when it was found that the robots had sensors that
were not as precise as they needed to be, I was forced to
consider the ethics of the situation. In doing so, I have decided
that I would not sign the papers to pass the robots and report
the faulty sensors. The process by which I came to this
situation was very helpful as it lead me to consider the various
effects that a certain decision would have, compare the
consequences, and also balance my morals and
responsibilities to determine an ethical solution. Listing the
potential effects of passing the robots and not passing the
robots allowed me to assess how the decision may impact
others, which is essential when making a decision. Though
the company would admit to mistakes by delaying the
delivery of the robots to the hospital, this would be better than
ignoring the mistakes and potentially being blamed later on
after harm has been done to patients utilizing the robots.
Lying about the insufficient robots has more risks than
reporting the problem. By reading two codes of ethics, I was
reminded of what my responsibilities are as an engineer in
general and that I represent engineering and my field, not just
my company. As mentioned in the code of ethics, honesty is
an integral part of being an engineer, as well as my own
morals, so in order to uphold these canons, I would have to
report the faulty sensors. My additional sources, my father
and a professional in the engineering field, also recommended
that I follow these codes of ethics as they are the means by
which the integrity of an engineer is assessed. By doing all of
this, I was able to come to the conclusion to not pass the robots
as doing so would be more risky for the company in the long
run and because it would simply violate the codes of ethics of
engineers and my own morals. Though I care about the
company and its future, lying to make progress is unethical
and wrong, and thus should not be done.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO OTHER
ENGINEERS
By having to go through the process of deciding what to
do, I have learned that making decisions in such crucial and
serious scenarios is difficult. If one is ever in an ethical
situation similar to this, I would highly recommend looking
to outside sources for reference and advice. As an engineer, it
is essential that one refers to at least one code of ethics as this
3
Sadhana Tadepalli
outlines the responsibilities as worker in the field. If these
moral obligations do not already convince the person in the
dilemma to choose an appropriate action, they should also
look at articles regarding ethical issues as they often will
provide questions that one should ask when unsure of what to
do, which may lead them to think one way or another. But if
there is no time to do these things, simply asking a trusted
person may aid in the process of making a decision as
discussing the issue may lead the person to realize what is
right or wrong.
I would like to thank my writing instructor, Dr. Janet
Zellmann, for helping me fix my mistakes from my last
assignment and brainstorm ideas for this assignment. Without
her, this paper would have a very poor focal point. Beth
Newborg was very helpful in introducing and describing the
guidelines of this assignment. I would also like to thank my
friends for reading and editing my paper. Without the support
of others, the success and completion of this paper would not
have been possible.
REFERENCES
[1]J. Dunaj, et al. (2015). "Human-Robot Communication In
Rehabilitation Devices." Journal Of Automation, Mobile
Robotics & Intelligent Systems. (online article).
http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/command/detail?sid=b8e5
600f-0202-42bb-890cfa11fde8304c%40sessionmgr113&vid=12&hid=128
[2] M. McFarland. (2012). “Occidental Engineering Case
Study: Part 1.” Online Ethics Center. (online website).
http://www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Cases/OccidentalEng
.aspx
[3] K. Kernaghan. (2014)."The Rights And Wrongs Of
Robotics: Ethics And Robots In Public Organizations."
Canadian Public Administration. (online article). DOI:
10.1111/capa.12093
[4] J. Basart and S. Montse. (2013) "Engineering Ethics
Beyond Engineers' Ethics." Science & Engineering Ethics.
(online article). DOI: 10.1007/s11948-011-9293-z
[5] National Society of Professional Engineers. “NSPE Code
of Ethics for Engineers.” National Society of Professional
Engineers
website.
(online
website).
http://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics
[6] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. “IEEE
Code of Ethics.” IEEE website. (online website).
http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html
[7] S. Tadepalli. (November 2015). Interview.
[8] N. Kota. (October 2015). Interview.
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
R. Bucknam. (2002). “What’s the Angle.” National Institute
for
Engineering
Ethics.
(online
case
study).
http://www.depts.ttu.edu/murdoughcenter/products/cases.ph
p
NSPE Board of Ethical Review. “Public Health and SafetyDelay in Addressing Fire Code Violations.” National Society
of Professional Engineers Website. (online article).
http://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/BER%20Case%20No
%2013-11-FINAL.pdf
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
4
Sadhana Tadepalli
5