Robot tutors provide new opportunities for education. However, they also introduce moral challenges. This study reports a systematic literature re-view (N = 256) aimed at identifying the moral considerations related to ro-bots in education. While our findings suggest that robot tutors hold great potential for improving education, there are multiple values of both (special needs) children and teachers that are impacted (positively and negatively) by its introduction. Positive values related to robot tutors are: psychological welfare and happiness, efficiency, freedom from bias and usability. However, there are also concerns that robot tutors may negatively impact these same values. Other concerns relate to the values of friendship and attachment, human contact, deception and trust, privacy, security, safety and accountability. All these values relate to children and teachers. The moral values of other stakeholder groups, such as parents, are overlooked in the existing literature. The results suggest that, while there is a potential for ap-plying robot tutors in a morally justified way, there are imported stake-holder groups that need to be consulted to also take their moral values into consideration by implementing tutor robots in an educational setting. (from Narcis.nl)
MULTIFILE
To elucidate how authoritative knowledge is established for better dealing with unstructured urban problems, this article describes how collaborations between researchers and officials become an instrument for conceptualizing and addressing policy problems. A case study is used to describe a research consortium evaluating the controversial practice of ‘Lifestyle’ based housing allocation in the Dutch domain of social-housing. Analyzing this case in key episodes, we see researchers and policymakers selectively draw on established institutional practices—their so called ‘home practices’—to jointly (re-)structure problems. In addition, we find that restructuring problems is not only intertwined with, but also deliberately aimed at (re-)structuring the relations within and between the governmental practices, the actors are embedded in. It is by selectively tinkering with knowledges, values, norms, and criteria that the actors can deliberately enable and constrain the ways a real-world problem is addressed.
This white paper is presented by the Ethics Working Group of the uNLock Consortium This white paper presents findings of the Ethics Working Group, from the conceptual phase of investigation into the ethical issues of the uNLock solution, providing identity management solutions for sharing and presentation of medical COVID-19 credentials (test results) in the context of healthcare institutions. We have provided an outline of direct and indirect stakeholders for the uNLock solution and mapped values, benefits, and harms to the respective stakeholders. The resulting conceptual framework has allowed us to lay down key norms and principles of Self Sovereign Identity (SSI) in the specific context of uNLock solution. We hope that adherence to these norms and principles could serve as a groundwork for anticipatory mitigation of moral risk and hazards stemming from the implementation of uNLock solution and similar solutions. Our findings suggest that even early stage of conceptual investigation in the framework of Value Sensitive Design (VSD), reveals numerous ethical issues. The proposed implementation of the uNLock app in the healthcare context did not proceed further than prototype stage, thus our investigation was limited to the conceptual stage, and did not involve the practical implementation of VSD method involving translation of norms and values into engineering requirements. Nevertheless, our findings suggest that the implementation of VSD method in this context is a promising approach that helps to identify moral conflicts and risks at a very early stage of technological development of SSI solutions. Furthermore, we would like to stress that in the light of our findings it became painfully obvious that hasty implementation of medical credentials system without thorough ethical assessment, risks creating more ethical issues rather than addressing existing ones.
