Using robots as a tool for therapy was the brainchild of computer scientist Maja Mataric, a Yugoslavian native. She immigrated to the United States in 1981, developed an interest in computer software for robots, and as a young graduate student developed a "shepherd" robot that could herd 20 other robots. In his article, "Robots That Care: Advances in Technological Therapy", Jerome Groopman describes the developments that are being made by Matari and her team of researchers in the area of socially interactive robots. Mataric is now a professor of computer science at the University of Southern California and, at the age of forty-four, has begun studying the benefits of using robots as therapeutic tools for Alzheimer's patients, stroke victims, autistic children and others. Her robots do not physically touch the patients, but assist patients by orally encouraging them in their therapy. Her studies show that patients are more likely to be motivated to do a task when encouraged by a robot as opposed to a computer screen. Other findings of hers include the fact that people don't mind being directed by a robot as much as they do a person, robots can be programed to have a certain temperament depending on the patient, robots behavior can be customized to change with the patient's mood, and robots allow for greater privacy for the patient. Autistic children respond well to robots because robots can consistently be repetitive without getting frustrated. The children can also direct the robots which gives them the rare feeling of control. A six month long study showed dramatic results in the patients' cognitive and physical abilities.
Matari is convinced that this type of therapy is beneficial, but her research is not without controversy. There are other scientists who think that there are dangerous risks in using robots as tools of therapy with vulnerable patients. In Jerome Groopman's article,"Robots That Care: Advances in Technological Therapy", he quotes Shay Turkle, a professor at MIT, who expresses concerns about the drawbacks. She says that the patients can actually start to relate to and care for the robots and can begin to expect that care to be returned, distorting the concept of meaningful relationships. Also, some patients say they like the robots because they "can't trust real people". Will working with robots instead of people promote that distrust? What if the patient starts to relate to the robot as a "grandchild" or companion and then has it break down or has it taken away? He or she could be devastated. There is also the possibility that a patient could begin to treat the robot as a slave and transfer that attitude to the people in his or her life. Groopman points out that Maja Mataric, the computer scientist directing the research, is aware of the dangers and is working with those in mind. She acknowledges that this kind of therapy is a "great social experiment with real risks." Groopman also points out that one of the benefits of robots is that, since Medicare is limited, robots are practical. Each one is a one-time investment, and can be used over and over again with different patients.
In light of the controversy over whether the use of Socially Assistive Robots enhances or hinders a patient's ability to relate to other humans, should therapists recommend their use? This is an important question because , if it is decided that robots can be used without significant negative side effects, the benefits to Alzheimer patients, stroke victims, autistic children and others would be tremendous. There would also be the benefit of therapists being able to make this kind of therapeutic care affordable because the robots could be reprogrammed and reused. For my blog entries, I selected four sources which emphasize the benefits of socially assistive robots, three sources which emphasize the risks of their use, and two sources which raise ethical questions about the development of social robots in general. In my research, I found that the scientists who promote the benefits of social robotic therapy agree that robots could be of great help to the elderly and to patients with autism, cognitive impairments, and physical disabilities. I found that those with reservations about the use of robots share a common concern that the emotional attachment which develops between the patient and the robot could have an unhealthy impact on the patient's emotional well-being and on his ability to relate well with other humans. The third point of view represented in my sources is that of prominent computer scientists, including the former Director of the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab, who introduce the very controversial idea that, sometime in the not too distant future, robots will become so complex that they may actually develop consciousness. These scientists raise the ethical question about whether robots should be granted rights as conscious beings. Their concern is the possible mistreatment of robots. That results of that debate will also affect how robots are utilized in therapy. As technology advances and robots become more complex and human-like, many moral and ethical questions will arise and the debate over how robots should be utilized in relationship to humans will inevitably intensify.
