Social costs in innovative research
I am writing regarding an article "Scientists get a handle on robotics" (ANU Reporter, December 10). While I roundly applaud their intellectual achievements in this, no mention was made of any thought being given to the social impacts of the widespread use of robots. Until the advent of the more sensitive robot arm mentioned in the article, robots were mainly confined to manufacturing where, though they may have displaced people, the work was highly undesirable - being very noisy, very repetitive and pretty soul-destroying. However the applications as stated by the researchers for this new, more sensitive type of robot were in service areas. The first mentioned was in assisting the elderly, helping them in and out of the bath, opening doors, making meals. My heart sank at this lonely - old people would be getting lonelier - the nurse would be replaced by a black hook. Also, most old people are staunch technophobes and I'm sure would be horrified by this replacement. The article continued "Robots could also be used in hospitals to deliver food or lab results [or in] supermarkets to stock shelves". More jobs down the drain. Why can't researchers think beyond "research for research's sake" when the social costs are so obvious? (There is the marketing problem as well. I think most people would rather deal with a nice, warm person, than a cold black hook.) I feel the place for robotics is to do tasks that humans don't want to do due to physical danger, climatic extremes, poisonous substances, etc. Please leave the service jobs to the humans. Justine Geake Marrickville, NSW