Ethical concerns in rescue robotics: a scoping review
This academic paper is a scoping review exploring the ethical literature surrounding rescue and disaster robotics. The authors identify six relevant peer-reviewed papers through a structured screening process and highlight seven core ethical themes: fairness and discrimination, false or excessive expectations, labor replacement, privacy, responsibility, safety, and trust. The review concludes that while the literature is scant and disparate, the identified papers uniformly endorse a proactive approach to handling ethical concerns before rescue robots become ubiquitous.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Researchers, developers, and practitioners in robotics and disaster response should read this to understand the existing academic landscape and ethical challenges of rescue robots.
What the document contains
The document covers a scoping review of academic literature regarding ethical concerns in rescue and disaster robotics, analyzing methodologies, research types, and qualitative themes from six selected publications.
The document does not provide binding regulatory standards, enforceable enforcement mechanisms, or direct legislative rules for robot deployment.
- A scoping review of the academic literature identified only six peer-reviewed papers addressing ethical issues in rescue robotics.
- Qualitative text analysis of these papers identified seven core ethical themes: fairness and discrimination, false or excessive expectations, labor replacement, privacy, responsibility, safety, and trust.
- Most studies investigating ethical concerns rely on anticipatory approaches, simulations, or scenarios rather than actual deployments.
- Fairness and discrimination concerns frequently focus on distributive justice in prioritizing disaster victims for search and rescue operations.
- The literature uniformly endorses a proactive approach to handling ethical issues before rescue robots become ubiquitous.
· Abstract · Background · Methods · Results · Discussion · Conclusions
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
2/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
If a robot malfunctions, behaves incorrectly, makes a mistake or causes harm, it may be unclear who is responsible for the damage caused: the operator, the software developer, the manufacturer or the robot itself.
Responsibility
screening score · 2026-10-24
Fairness
3/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
Concerns associated with fairness and discrimination were the most frequently discussed ethical considerations in our review (4/6 papers); in three of these papers, discrimination was looked at in terms of disaster victims
Fairness and discrimination
screening score · 2026-10-24
Transparency
0/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-24
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-24
Impact Assessment
3/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
Most use simulations or scenarios to anticipate the ethical implications and other consequences of using robots in search and rescue missions.
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-24