Robotics manufacturing in the US will be getting federal support to match business or startup investments via the new Advanced Robotics Manufacturing (ARM) Institute. Perhaps more importantly, the ARM Institute can act as a conduit to connect and amplify robotics innovations between regions of the USA. As the global robotics ecosystem becomes flooded with interest, and investors, any technological lead the USA currently has is rapidly disappearing.

The ARM Institute is now one of 14 Manufacturing USA institutes and the 8th funded by the DOD. Each Manufacturing USA Institute focuses on a technology area critical to future competitiveness – such as additive manufacturing, integrated photonics, or smart sensors.  The federal government has committed over $1 billion, matched by over $2 billion in non-federal investment, across the Manufacturing USA network.

At the time of the launch, the ARM Institute had attracted 267 industry and academic partners, with a commitment of $173 million to be added to the $80 million DOD investment. Of course, this level of funding is not very much when compared to European and Asian investments into advanced manufacturing.

The European SPARC program is the largest research and innovation initiative in civilian robotics in the world. It was launched in 2014 by the joint public-private partnership between the European Commission and the robotics industry and academia. Investments under this joint initiative are expected to reach 2.8 billion euro with 700 million euro in financial investments coming from the European Commission under Horizon 2020 over 7 years.

Image via UK-RAS Network

In 2015, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe called for a “robotics revolution”, a five-year plan to increase the use of intelligent machines and boost sales. Abe urged companies to “spread the use of robotics from large-scale factories to every corner of our economy and society”, increasing the use of intelligent machines in manufacturing, supply chains, construction, and health care, while expanding robotics sales from 600 billion yen ($6.4 billion) annually to 2.4 trillion yen by 2020. The 2020 Olympics being hosted in Tokyo is also pushing innovation forward rapidly, with plans for Tokyo to have self-driving vehicles, and robots in as many places as possible.

The Korean government is also planning to invest 500 billion won into robotics manufacturing, between 2016 and 2020, in over 80 pilot projects and corporate research centers for robotics manufacturing. After growing at a compound rate of 17 per cent a year, the robot market will be worth $135bn by 2019, according to IDC, a tech research firm, with Asia now accounting for the majority of all robot spending. In 2014, President Xi Jinping of China called for a “robot revolution” that would transform first China, and then the world. “Our country will be the biggest market for robots,” he said in a speech to the Chinese Academy of Sciences, “but can our technology and manufacturing capacity cope with the competition? Not only do we need to upgrade our robots, we also need to capture markets in many places.”

China is now the world’s largest purchaser of industrial robots from overseas, but is now creating Chinese robot manufacturing companies. China is also now the leader in global robotics patent filing. The ARM Institute in the USA will need to use their comparatively small amount of federal grant money with very clear focus in order to maintain competitiveness in the global environment.

“Robotics are increasingly necessary to achieve the level of precision required for defense and other industrial manufacturing needs, “according to the Department of Defense (DOD), “but the capital cost and complexity of use often limits small to mid-size manufacturers from utilizing the technology. The ARM Institute’s mission therefore is to create and then deploy robotic technology by integrating the diverse collection of industry practices and institutional knowledge across many disciplines – sensor technologies, end-effector development, software and artificial intelligence, materials science, human and machine behavior modeling, and quality assurance – to realize the promises of a robust manufacturing innovation ecosystem.”

On June 15, the ARM Institute held an Informational and Technology Review Meeting in Los Angeles for ecosystem partners from all over the US. As one of the industry partners, Silicon Valley Robotics was represented and I’m providing a summary of my notes on the event and presentations. Speakers were; SK Gupta, USC; Howie Choset, ARM Institute; Lisa Masciantonio, ARM Institute; Suzy Teele, ARM Institute; Elena Messina, NIST; Valerie Patrick, Boston Consulting Group; followed by breakout sessions for specific technological areas.

The meeting really had two purposes. The first was to let us know how rapidly the ARM Institute was taking shape in terms of organization, staff and membership structure. While staying faithful to the original mission documents in the proposal of 2016, the Institute is able to start taking formal memberships not just letters of intent. They are still seeking staff for the position of CEO and other vacancies, although some interim positions are simply in the more stringent process of vetting.

And to inform members and potential members of the ARM Institute of the membership process and project application process. It should be noted that the DOD has said that there will also be money assigned to projects outside of the ARM Institute funding, where the company or startup might receive an extension of ARM funding or a completely separate commission.

The other was to align the ARM Institute with the most up-to-date industry challenges. The intention is to develop regional councils and hold regular meetings in order to remain at the forefront of the rapid change in robotics manufacturing innovation and to deliver meaningful assistance. Silicon Valley Robotics members can contact me for a full copy of my notes.

The Bristol Robotics Laboratory (BRL) will host the first European- Commission funded European Robotics League (ERL) tournament for service robots to be held in the UK.

Two teams from the BRL and Birmingham will pitch their robots against each other in a series of events from 26 and 30 June.

Robots designed to support people with care-related tasks in the home will be put to the test in a simulated home test bed.

The assisted living robots of the two teams will face various challenges, including understanding natural speech and finding and retrieving objects for the user.

The robots will also have to greet visitors at the door appropriately, such as welcoming a doctor on their visit, or turning away unwanted visitors.

Associate Professor Praminda Caleb-Solly, Theme Leader for Assistive Robotics at the BRL said, “The lessons learned during the competition will contribute to how robots in the future help people, such as those with ageing-related impairments and those with other disabilities, live independently in their own homes for as long as possible.

“This is particularly significant with the growing shortage of carers available to provide support for an ageing populations.”

The BRL, the host of the UK’s first ERL Service Robots tournament, is a joint initiative of the University of the West of England and the University of Bristol. The many research areas include swarm robotics, unmanned aerial vehicles, driverless cars, medical robotics and robotic sensing for touch and vision. BRL’s assisted living research group is developing interactive assistive robots as part of an ambient smart home ecosystem to support independent living.

The ERL Service Robots tournament will be held in the BRL’s Anchor Robotics Personalised Assisted Living Studio, which was set up to develop, test and evaluate assistive robotic and other technologies in a realistic home environment.

The studio was recently certified as a test bed by the ERL, which runs alongside similar competitions for industrial robots and for emergency robots, which includes vehicles that can search for and rescue people in disaster-response scenarios.

The two teams in the Bristol event will be Birmingham Autonomous Robotics Club (BARC) led by Sean Bastable from the School of Computer Science at the University of Birmingham, and the Healthcare Engineering and Assistive Robotics Technology and Services (HEARTS) team from the BRL led by PhD Student Zeke Steer.

BARC has developed its own robotics platform, Dora, and HEARTS will use a TIAGo Steel robot from PAL Robotics with a mix of bespoke and proprietary software.

The Bristol event will be open for public viewing in the BRL on the afternoon of the 29th of June 2017 (Bookable via EventBrite), and include short tours of the assisted living studio for the attendees. It will be held during UK Robotics Week, on 24-30 June 2017, when there will be a nationwide programme of robotics and automation events.

The BRL will also be organising focus groups on 28 and 29 June 2017 (Bookable via EventBrite and here) as part of the UK Robotics Week, to demonstrate assistive robots and their functionality, and seek the views of carers and older adults on these assistive technologies, exploring further applications and integration of such robots into care scenarios.

The European Commission-funded European Robotics League (ERL) is the successor to the RoCKIn, euRathlon and EuRoC robotics competitions, all funded by the EU and designed to foster scientific progress and innovation in cognitive systems and robotics. The ERL is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme. See: https://www.eu-robotics.net/robotics_league/

The ERL is part of the SPARC public-private partnership set up by the European Commission and the euRobotics association to extend Europe’s leadership in civilian robotics. SPARC’s €700 million of funding from the Commission in 2014̶20 is being combined with €1.4 billion of funding from European industry. See: http://www.eu-robotics.net/sparc

euRobotics is a European Commission-funded non-profit organisation which promotes robotics research and innovation for the benefit of Europe’s economy and society. It is based in Brussels and has more than 250 member organisations. See: www.eu-robotics.net

In 2016, the European Union co-funded 17 new robotics projects from the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for research and innovation. 16 of these resulted from the robotics work programme, and 1 project resulted from the Societal Challenges part of Horizon 2020. The robotics work programme implements the robotics strategy developed by SPARC, the Public-Private Partnership for Robotics in Europe (see the Strategic Research Agenda). 

Every week, euRobotics will publish a video interview with a project, so that you can find out more about their activities. This week features Co4Robots: Achieving Complex Collaborative Missions via Decentralized Control and Coordination of Interacting Robots.

Objectives

Recent applications necessitate coordination of different robots. Current practice is mainly based on offline, centralized planning and tasks are fulfilled in a predefined manner. Co4Robots’ goal is to build a systematic methodology to:

• accomplish complex task specifications given to a team of potentially heterogeneous robots;
• develop control schemes appropriate for mobility and manipulation capabilities of the robots;
• achieve perceptual capabilities that enable robots to localize themselves and estimate the dynamic environment state;
• integrate all in a decentralized framework.

Expected impact

1. The envisioned scenarios involve multi-robot services in e.g. office environments. Although public facilities are in some degree pre-structured, the need for the Co4Robots’ framework is evident since:
2. it will lead to an improved use of resources and a faster accomplishment of tasks inside workspaces with high social activity;
3. it will contribute towards the vision of more flexible multi-robot applications in both professional and domestic environments, also in view of the “Industry 4.0” vision and the general need to deploy such systems in everyday life scenarios.

Partners

KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
BOSCH
NATIONAL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS
PAL ROBOTICS
FOUNDATION FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY HELLAS
UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG

Coordinator:Prof. Dimos Dimarogonas
dimos@kth.se
www.facebook.com/co4robots

Project website: www.co4robots.eu

Watch all EU-projects videos

If you enjoyed reading this article, you may also want to read:

• New Horizon 2020 robotics projects, 2016: An.Dy
• New Horizon 2020 robotics projects, 2016: BADGER
• Two Horizon 2020 projects researching EU Digital Industrial Platform for Robotics
• EU’s Horizon 2020 has funded $179 million in robotics PPPs

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

In 2016, the European Union co-funded 17 new robotics projects from the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for research and innovation. 16 of these resulted from the robotics work programme, and 1 project resulted from the Societal Challenges part of Horizon 2020. The robotics work programme implements the robotics strategy developed by SPARC, the Public-Private Partnership for Robotics in Europe (see the Strategic Research Agenda). 

Every week, euRobotics will publish a video interview with a project, so that you can find out more about their activities. This week features BADGER, a Robot for Autonomous Underground Trenchless Operations, Mapping and Navigation.

Objectives

The goal of the proposed project is the design and development of an integrated underground robotic system capable for autonomous construction of subterranean small-diameter, highly curved tunnel networks and for localization, mapping and autonomous navigation during its operation. The proposed robotic system will enable the execution of tasks in different application domains of high societal and economic impact including trenchless constructions (cabling and piping) installations, etc., search and rescue operations, remote science and exploration applications.

Expected impact

The expected strategic impact of BADGER project focuses in:

1. Introduce advanced robotics technologies, including intelligent control and cognition capabilities, to significantly increase the European competitiveness,
2. Drastically reduce the traffic congestion and pollution in the European urban environments increasing, in this way, the quality of life of people,

Enabling technologies for new potential applications: search and rescue, mining and quarrying, civil applications, mapping, etc.

Partners

UNIVERSITY CARLOS III OF MADRID (ES) 
UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW (UK)
CENTRE FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY HELLAS (GR) 
IDS GEORADAR (I)
SINGULARLOGIC (GR)
TRACTO-TECHNIK (D)
ROBOTNIK (ES) 
UNIVERSITY CARLOS III OF MADRID (ES)

Coordinator: Prof. Carlos Balaguer
balaguer@ing.uc3m.es
Twitter: @badger_project

Project website: www.badger-robotics.eu

If you enjoyed reading this article, you may also want to read:

• New Horizon 2020 robotics projects, 2016: An.Dy
• New Horizon 2020 robotics projects – 2016 presented at #ERF2017
• Two Horizon 2020 projects researching EU Digital Industrial Platform for Robotics
• EU’s Horizon 2020 has funded $179 million in robotics PPPs

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

In 2016, the European Union co-funded 17 new robotics projects from the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for research and innovation. 16 of these resulted from the robotics work programme, and 1 project resulted from the Societal Challenges part of Horizon 2020. The robotics work programme implements the robotics strategy developed by SPARC, the Public-Private Partnership for Robotics in Europe (see the Strategic Research Agenda). Every week, euRobotics will publish a video interview with a project, so that you can find out more about their activities.

A wide variety of research and innovation themes are represented in the new projects: from healthcare via transportation, industrial- and logistics robotics to events media production using drones. Some deal with complex safety matters on the frontier where robots meet people, to ensure that no one comes to harm. Others will create a sustainable ecosystem in the robotics community, setting up common platforms supporting robotics development. One project deals exclusively with the potentially radical changes facing society with the rise of new autonomous technologies. The projects are either helping humans in their daily lives at home or at work, collaborating with humans to help them with difficult, strenuous tasks, or taking care of dangerous tasks, reducing the risk to humans.

The research and innovation projects focus on a wide variety of Robotics and Autonomous Systems and capabilities, such as navigation, human-robot interaction, recognition, cognition and handling. Many of these abilities can be transferable to other fields as well.

Advancing Anticipatory Behaviors in Dyadic Human-Robot Collaboration: An.Dy

Objective

Obj1. ANDY will develop the ANDYSUIT, a wearable technology for monitoring humans involved in whole-body physical interaction tasks.  Obj2. Based on the ANDYSUIT, ANDY will generate ANDYDATASET, a collection of motion and force captures of humans involved in and collaboration tasks. Obj3. From ANDYDATASET, ANDY will develop ANDYMODEL, a set of models to describe human and robot behaviour when engaged in collaborative tasks. Obj4. With ANDYSUIT and ANDYMODEL, ANDY will develop ANDYCONTROL, a reactive and predictive control strategy for human-robot physical collaboration.

Expected impact

Impact on manufacturing domain: ANDY technologies support this objective in two ways: (1) by increasing productivity through more effective production and service processes in which the strength of humans and robots are optimally combined, and (2) by maintaining workers health until the age of retirement including reduced costs for health care and compensation. Impact on healthcare: the ANDYSUIT will open a completely new field for methodological analysis with the possibility of monitoring patients also outside the clinics.

Partners

FONDAZIONE ISTITUTO ITALIANO DI TECNOLOGIA
INSTITUT NATIONAL DE RECHERCHE EN INFORMATIQUE ET EN AUTOMATIQUE
INŠTITUT JOŽEF ŠTEFAN
DEUTSCHES ZENTRUM FÜR LUFT- UND RAUMFAHRT
XSENS TECHNOLOGIES BV
IMK AUTOMOTIVE GMBH
OTTO BOCK HEALTHCARE GMBH
ANYBODY TECHNOLOGY A/S

Coordinator: Francesco Nori
francesco.nori@iit.it
http://iron76.github.io
Instituto Italiano di Tecnologia – iCub Facility
Via Morego, 30
16163 Genova, Italy
Phone: (+39) 010 71 781 420
Fax: +39 010 71 70 817
Twitter: @AnDy_H2020

Project website: www.andy-project.eu

In 2016, the European Union co-funded 17 new robotics projects from the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for research and innovation. 16 of these resulted from the robotics work programme, and one project resulted from the Societal Challenges part of Horizon 2020. The robotics work programme implements the robotics strategy developed by SPARC, the Public-Private Partnership for Robotics in Europe (see the Strategic Research Agenda).

A wide variety of research and innovation themes are represented in the new projects: from healthcare via transportation, industrial- and logistics robotics to events media production using drones. Some deal with complex safety matters on the frontier where robots meet people, to ensure that no one comes to harm. Others will create a sustainable ecosystem in the robotics community, setting up common platforms supporting robotics development. One project deals exclusively with the potentially radical changes facing society with the rise of new autonomous technologies. The projects are either helping humans in their daily lives at home or at work, collaborating with humans to help them with difficult, strenuous tasks, or taking care of dangerous tasks, reducing the risk to humans.

The research and innovation projects focus on a wide variety of Robotics and Autonomous Systems and capabilities, such as navigation, human-robot interaction, recognition, cognition and handling. Many of these abilities can be transferable to other fields as well.

At the European Robotics Forum 2017, on 22-24 March 2017, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, all projects presented themselves during a dedicated workshop.

Watch the video with all Horizon2020 projects presentations:

Watch the video with FP7 projects results:

Every week, euRobotics will publish a video interview with each project, so that you can find out more about their activities.

We are looking forward to following these new projects and accompanying them to bring benefits to Europe’s citizens and economy.

Teams participating in the ERL Service Robots local tournament at certified Leon@Home Test bed. Copyright: Universidad de León.

The European Robotics League has closed a successful first season. Funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Programme for research, the ERL brings a common framework for two indoor robotics competitions, ERL Industrial Robots and ERL Service Robots and one outdoor robotics competition, ERL Emergency Robots.  The three competitions are designed to target three clear objectives: the European societal challenge of an aging population, the strengthening of the European robotics industry and the use of autonomous systems for emergency response.

The last tournament of the ERL season 2016/17 took place at the Leon@Home Test bed located at the Módulo de Investigación en Cibernética of the Universidad de León, Spain. The ERL Service Robots local competition organised by Dr Vicente Matellan and the Leon Robotics Group was held from the 13-17 March and consisted of several trials, which mainly took place on the last day.

Caption: (Left) Leon@Home Test bed. (Right) Módulo de Investigación en Cibernética (MIC). Copyright: Universidad de León

The teams competed in different Task Benchmarks (TBM) and Functionality Benchmarks (FBM), comprising “TBM1: Getting to know my home”, “TBM4: Visit My Home”, “FBM2: Navigation Functionality” and “FBM3: Speech Recognition”. Robots were required to generate a map of their environment, detect random changes in the location of furniture and other items, interact effectively with humans and demonstrate different behaviors when dealing with known and unknown people, and help them with general tasks throughout the day.

The three teams that participated in the local tournament were SPQReL, University of Rome (Italy) and University of Lincoln (UK), Outsider Bots, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos (Spain) and University of Luxemburg (Luxembourg), and Leonbot, Universidad de León (Spain).

Caption: (Left) Example of a  semantic Map of the environment. (Right) Objects used in TBM1. Copyright: Universidad de León

The final score for each team was calculated as the MEDIAN of the best performance in each TBM and FBM trials. The teams’ scoring and standings for the season 2016/2017 are available on the ERL Service Robots and ERL Industrial Robots web page.

The ERL Service and ERL Industrial Awards (Season 2016/17), sponsored by Texas Instruments University Program, were handed to the winning teams during the euRobotics Awards Ceremony held on 23 March, at the National Museum of Scotland, in Edinburgh.

ERL Tournaments dates (Season 2017/18)

The European Robotics League has announced the tournament dates for the new season. The local and major tournaments are based in Europe and are open to international participation from Universities, Research labs, Industry and/or end-users. The events are open to the public and anyone interested is welcome to contact the local organisers and attend as a spectator.

There are eight tournaments already confirmed for this season 2017-2018 and new ones are expected to be confirmed in the next months.

ERL Service Robots

Major Tournament

• 28-31 August 2017: as part of the IEEE RO-MAN 2017 event held in Lisbon, Portugal

Local Tournament

• 26-30 June 2017: BRL Anchor Personalised Assisted Living Studio, Bristol Robotics Laboratory, Bristol, UK
• 11-15 September 2017: Leon@Home test bed, Universidad de Leon, Leon, Spain
• ERW 2017, 20-26 November 2017: PAL Robotics, Barcelona, Spain.
• 4-7 December 2017: ECHORD++ RIF Peccioli test bed, Peccioli, Italy.

ERL Industrial Robots

Local Tournament

• 11-15 September 2017: b-it-bots@Work Test Bed, Bonn-Rhein-Sieg University of Applied Science, Sankt Augustin, Germany
• ERW 2017, 21-25 November 2017: Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy

ERL Emergency Robots

Major Tournament

• 15-23 September 2017: Piombino, Italy. (Download ERL Emergency 2017 brochure)

ERL Emergency 2017 promo video:

This season 2017/18, Worthington Sharpe Ltd., silver sponsor of ERL Emergency Robots 2017,  will provide one Wing Ground Control Station (GCS) for loan to a selected applicant team. Teams wishing to borrow the Wing GCS must apply to the ERL consortium, following the application procedure set on ERL Emergency web page. Applications received will be evaluated by the consortium and Worthington Sharpe Ltd. to select the team who will be granted the loan equipment.

PAL Robotics, a platinum sponsor of ERL Service Robots, announced at the ERL Awards ceremony that the company will offer on a very affordable rental scheme limited units of TIAGo robots for different teams to use in the competition.

Companies and academic institutions interested in sponsoring ERL events can contact Dr Fausto Ferreira for information on the sponsorship and exhibitor packages.

To find out more about the European Robotics League, please visit www.robotics-league.eu.

 ERL History

The ERL is the natural evolution of a series of highly successful previous competitions that were established via FP7 funded projects: RoCKIn, euRathlon and EuRoC.  All three projects aimed to foster scientific progress and innovation in cognitive systems and robotics through the design and implementation of new competitions.

The European Robotics League is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement n° 688441

Watch the European Robotics League promo video:

www.robotics-league.eu

About euRobotics and SPARC

euRobotics is a non-profit organisation based in Brussels with the objective to make robotics beneficial for Europe’s economy and society.  With more than 250 member organisations, euRobotics also provides the European Robotics Community with a legal entity to engage in a public/private partnership with the European Commission, named SPARC.

SPARC, the public-private partnership (PPP) between the European Commission and euRobotics, is a European initiative to maintain and extend Europe’s leadership in civilian robotics. Its aim is to strategically position European robotics in the world thereby securing major benefits for the European economy and the society at large.

SPARC is the largest research and innovation programme in civilian robotics in the world, with 700 million euro in funding from the European Commission between 2014 to 2020, which is tripled by European industry to yield a total investment of 2.1 billion euro. SPARC will stimulate an ever more vibrant and effective robotics community that collaborates in the successful development of technical transfer and commercial exploitation.

www.eu-robotics.net

www.eu-robotics.net/sparc

At the pinnacle event, panellists from Robotics for Elderly Care engaged with audience members in a lively discussion about topics ranging from how quickly technology is developing to how perceptions shape how users may interact with new technology. Knowledge exchange, especially with the end user, is crucial to develop better ideas and tech advancements in elderly care. There was also debate on how robotics could help care givers free up time (by doing dull or repetitive tasks) so they could focus on human relationships.

The panel included: Nuray Gokalp (as moderator), Information Technology Manager for City of Amsterdam; Heleen Riper, Professor of eMental-Health at the Department of Clinical Psychology VU University Amsterdam; Marcel Heerink, Associate professor at Windesheim and LaSalle University; Sophia de Rooij, Professor in Internal Medicine, specialized in Geriatric Medicine; Marieke Van Der Waal, Director of Leyden Academy on Vitality and Ageing; and Andreas Argubi-Wollesen, Research Assistance, SmartASSIST.

“How do we address challenges like loneliness with the elderly, can loneliness be viewed as a human care problem?” said Nuray. “Are we losing something essential as humans if robots help with elderly care?”

“Therein lies a bit of a conundrum,” says Marcel. “Do we have robots that only do practical repetitive tasks, and that’s it? Do we leave emotional, attentive care to humans?”

“Technology is a means, not an end,” said Heleen. “Will we use robots to help with emotional needs in the future? Perhaps. Maybe it is better to look at it as a personal choice of social preference, depending on the individual.”

“Robots can be helpful in the future, but personal human interaction are still very important,” said Marieke, noting that tablets and cell phones have provided new ways to communicate with family at long distances.

“Yes, said Andreas. “No one thought we would interact with cellphones or smartphones like we do now. I think it would be a failure to develop something, and for there only to be one perception of how to use it. We need to give people the tools and see how they would interact with them. It’s important from a design aspect.”

After some initial dialogue, an older audience member remarked that she created a network of unemployed young people and the older generation called “generations in touch” but was looking into scoping funding for projects like this in the community. She enquired about funding and asked if the panel knew of any other avenues that can be used to engage older generations.

“Devices need to be adaptive to different individuals and reactive, as each day can be different,” said Heleen. “Your calendar age doesn’t say much, there’s a big difference person to person. For example, your biological age may be 80, but you could feel very active and healthy.”

“Education on both parts (researcher and user) is a critical piece to create better technology,” said Andreas. “We need to put artefacts into the hands of the users. We found that many people thought what we were providing them was like something featured in science fiction and that’s often not the case. That’s why it is so important to put robots into users’ hands and see how they want to use it and create the idea. As researchers, we need to analyse these interactions and how the robot changes user behaviour.”

“Robots could one day help organize your day, guide you to a shop, help with cooking, taking medicine, possibly,” continued Andreas. “Essentially help guide you through your day. Look at it as added value. We need to think of having robots as our assistant, but that is not to say they couldn’t possibly also develop as social companions.”

“In 10-20 years, digital will become physical in robotics”, said Sophia. “Physical items will become autonomous, flexible, and able to understand us. This may scare people as machines learn. That’s why it’s important to have robots that enable human contact, so it’s not viewed as a threat, but as support to bring us together.”

All images credit: Visual Outcasts

European Robotics Week is organised by euRobotics and brought together by SPARC, a partnership for robotics in Europe to help maintain and extend Europe’s leadership in robotics. ERW has attracted more than 200,000 people since 2011 to take part in robotics related activities. During the week, research institutes, universities, industry, and activities are open to the public to engage and learn more about robotics.

If you enjoyed this article, you can read more about European Robotics Week below:

• Considering robot care, ethics & future tech at #ERW2016 European Robotics Week
• Robots at your service: Empowering healthy aging at European Robotics Week, 2016
• European Robotics Week #ERW2015 recap and videos
• Major debate on robots & society sets scene for #ERW2015 European Robotics Week

Europe’s roadmap for robotics released its latest version on 2 December. The MAR is updated annually as priorities, technologies and strategic developments shape European research development and innovation. This version of the MAR relates to the Horizon 2020 robotics work programme defined for the 2017 call in ICT25, ICT 27 & ICT-28.

If you liked this article, you may want to also read more about Horizon 2020:

• Horizon 2020 earmarks € 98M for new wave of European robotics
• Robohub Focus on European Robotics
• #ERF2016 webcam: Horizon2020 project pitches
• 2 agricultural robotics projects funded under latest Horizon 2020
• EU’s Horizon 2020 has funded $179 million in robotics PPPs

Horizon 2020 projects on Robohub

• Future robots will learn through curiosity and self-generated goals
• XoSoft: Intelligent trousers designed to assist people with limited mobility
• Surveying flooded mines with UNEXMIN: Interview with Norbert Zajzon
• Space for the masses as helium balloons and remote control planes reach through the stratosphere

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Roboethics panel in Amsterdam.

What ethical issues do we face in providing robot care for the elderly? Is there better acceptance with the public? What should we be mindful of when designing human-robot interactions?

At the #ERW2016 central event, held in Amsterdam 18-22 November, these questions (and more) were discussed, debated, and encouraged by expert panellists hailing from research, industry, academia, and government as well as insightful members in the community. All were welcome to ‘Robots at Your Service’, a multi-track event featuring panel deliberations in robotics regulation, assistive living technologies, and aimed at attracting more youth, and especially girls, into science, technology, engineering, arts and maths (STEAM). The event hosted workshops and featured a 48-hour hackathon for designers, makers, coders, engineers, and anyone else who believed healthy ageing should be a societal challenge.

The first panel ‘Roboethics’ focussed on the role robots may have in elderly care and ethical implications. Should robots be regarded as tools, helping with administrative and manual tasks, and also as emotional support? The panel featured Sabine Hauert, (as moderator) President of Robohub and Lecturer at the Bristol Robotics Laboratory; Vincent Muller, Professor of Philosophy and University Academic Fellow at the University of Leeds; Andy Bleaden, Funding and Programmes Manager at Stockport Council with a background in social care; Aimee van Wynsberghe, Assistant Professor of Ethics and Technology at the University of Twente and co-founder of the Foundation for Responsible Robotics; and Bennie Mols, science and technology journalist with a special interest in artificial intelligence and robots.

Ethical issues in robot care – There was some initial discussion about ethical considerations in the area of robocare. Ethical in terms of the social-emotional impact of what and whether or not real “care” should come only from human-to-human contact. Some wondered if robots could provide real care, others thought they should continue filling tasks in the 3Ds (dirty, dull, and dangerous) and free up the human carer’s time to be physically/emotionally supportive with patients. Snippets from the panel discussion are below:

“It’s good to have robots specifically tasked on things we don’t want to be doing,” said Benny. “People want human attention. The human brain is really the social brain, we like to connect to other people. Care of people is the most difficult aspect.”

“We are testing robots for use with people who are living well with dementia,” said Andy. “People feel isolated. Dementia could have meant a form of “social leprosy” at one time, and this is now changing across Europe. I’m aware that we have nursing homes that fail regularly because of the standard of care [in the UK]. We are dealing with a lot of people who are feeling that they are isolated. Maybe we need to have that conversation about companionship with robots.”

“What should we be mindful of when designing human-robot interactions?” asked Sabine.

“There always needs to be a human in the loop making sure the human aspects are there,” said Aimee. “The robot is there to help fulfill their role as a caregiver.”

“Engaging people with activities is a really useful way to manage their thoughts and their day,” said Andy. “And it’s also fun. Maybe having an AI programme to engage people.”

“It’s important to consider how can we incorporate ethics into the design process of robots, that way we can have a more proactive approach,” said Aimee. “In a hospital, for example, someone is designated for that person’s care. How will this change when a robot is introduced into that chain?”

“One gentleman told me he’s much more inclined to have a robot nurse help him with showering and dressing, as opposed to a care worker,” said Andy.

“What does the public think about robots for eldercare?” said Sabine.

“One side thinks its creepy, one side thinks they will be great for everything,” said Bennie. “I think we’ll need to find something in the middle.”

“How do we decide these kinds of things?” said Aimee. “Is it by choice? How are we suppose to make a choice? Is it the majority, or by individual personal preferences? Or is it by the government?”

“The best way could be designating enough money to the local governments and letting them decide,” said Andy. “That way they can explore how to care for their citizens.”

An audience question enquired about whether an ‘ethical brochure’ or manual will be created. “We keep contemplating examples, but we need something,” he said. “You also discuss the elderly, but we can also talk about children. Is it ethically correct if a child forms a bond with a robot? What is the borderline between good/bad?”

“People attach value to things,” said Vincent. There are a few considerations: ethics doesn’t quite work like that. You do have to enable people to tackle ethical issues by themselves (empowering the individual). We are developing a position statement from this group.”

“Do we need an ethical framework to drive decisions?” asked Sabine.

“We need guidance to gauge what is it that we want to achieve,” said Vincent. “Some people may say ‘Okay, let’s economise this’. However, we need to ask ourselves: What are the best case consequences and how do we want to achieve this? What aims are we trying to achieve? How high is the percentage of people who need our support? If a robot can be programmed to be ethical, who decides that (roboticist or person). No one really knows the answer just yet. Machine ethics makes us question what ethics is. Do we give the robot life goals and preferences, so it understands consequences? Or, should the robot have decision-making skills so it’s safe and reliable? Lots of questions to consider.”

The second panel focussed on robotics in OUR future. How do we see robotics shaping in the next 10-20 years? The panel featured participants Uwe Haass, (as moderator) Senior Consultant with RoboConsult; Maarten Goos, Professor of Economics and Institutions at the Utrecht University School of Economics (U.S.E.); Francesco Ferro, CEO at Pal Robotics, Sabine Hauert, President of Robohub and Lecturer at the Bristol Robotics Laboratory; Vincent Muller, Professor of Philosophy and University Academic Fellow at the University of Leeds; and Anne Bajart, Programme Officer for the European Commission. Snippets from the panel discussion are below:

What can we expect with robotics in Our immediate future – “Robotics has been announced for many years as the ‘future’ technology. But the question is ‘OUR’ robotics future. Where do you see the future of robotics in general? In the next 10-20 years, or even in our lifetimes?” asked Uwe. “Are there new applications popping up?”

“Only a few years ago, people thought robots were too expensive and didn’t want to invest. Now it’s 3x different,” says Anne. “One thing is for sure. Robotics in our future need to be intelligent, otherwise, they won’t be very useful,” she said.

“In the next 10-20 years, I hope to see more robots in our homes,” said Sabine. “Making robots is hard, 10 years is not all that long — Dyson took 10 years of development to make their eye 360. My hope is that we do see several robots who are able to perform simple tasks, I don’t think we’re going to see Rosie the Robot [from the Jetsons], but I’m hoping in our lifetime these things will become a reality. ”

“A few years ago, people were saying robotics was too expensive or people didn’t want to invest in robotics. Now, the situation is completely different. Why is this development now accelerating? Is it for profit, or is it altruism?” asked Uwe.

“Well, the difference is now that you have industrial robotics on the one hand and service robotics on the other,” said Martin. The price in industrial robotics has fallen and it’s adding more robots to the manufacturing processes. So now there’s both low-end services and high-end services.”

“Is there more acceptance with the general public because of service robots?” asked Uwe.

“The public is more inclined to accept robots,” said Vincent. “People are really curious to adopt these things. Children are even more willing to interact with robots. One type of robot that will enter into our lives fairly soon will be autonomous cars. I don’t expect it to be much of an issue. We won’t have terminator robots. I think the public is quite ready for it; it’s the ethical issues that pose an issue.”

“As soon as people see the need and the use of robots, people are less fearful,” said Anne. The never ending question is “will a robot take our job.” We shouldn’t be afraid of the change and should welcome it. Just like every other industrial change so long as we prepare for it and people are trained in the right skills.”

There was also discussion of the many advantages of conducting robotics within Europe. In part because of unique partnerships, like SPARC, but also the collaborative community working together. Indeed, the robotics community is starting to embrace a very global mindset and perhaps could do a bit more risk taking.

“Europe is getting more entrepreneurial. Will this be a barrier for further development?” asked Uwe.

“We definitely need more and more collaborations in the community of robotics manufacturers,” said Francesco. “We have excellent research in Europe. There’s a bit of fear with people losing ideas or competing for money. But there can absolutely be a sustainable business model for robotics which involves sharing.”

“Europe has a lot of advantages with lots of great companies,” said Anne. “Not everything that is the “best” comes out of the US. SPARC is a unique partnership with industry and academia working together. I don’t see why this isn’t just as a good as many companies in the States. I don’t believe in science in isolation. We have to accept that public funding is limited to a certain amount of people. We need to ensure that we are funding not just research, but also innovation.”

“I see a lot of vibrant startups in Bristol, for example, Open Bionics,” said Sabine. “There’s not a European or a US feel. Robotics has a very global mindset. I’m encouraged to see this in Europe. What is tricky is the investment side, there needs to be more risk-taking in Europe so startups feel they can stay in Europe.”

The panel closed with discussions that robotics should be for everyone, and that, not everybody involved in robotics has to be an engineer. No country should be left behind due to lack of technology. In the future, and in terms of how robotics will be, we will need to rethink what we place value on (for example education or health care) and help provide opportunities to everybody.

All images credit: Visual Outcasts

European Robotics Week is organised by euRobotics and brought together by SPARC, a partnership for robotics in Europe to help maintain and extend Europe’s leadership in robotics. ERW has attracted more than 200,000 people since 2011 to take part in robotics related activities. During the week, research institutes, universities, industry, and activities are open to the public to engage and learn more about robotics.

Air, land and sea robots will meet in Piombino, Italy, for the ERL Emergency Robots major tournament. Photos: Joshua Hayes Davidson / euRathlon

The European Robotics League (ERL) is pleased to announce the dates for the major tournament of the ERL Emergency Robots competition. The 2017 challenge will be held in Piombino, Italy, from 15-23 September 2017. The call for participation is now open.

Lead by euRobotics in collaboration with SPARC Robotics, and funded by the European Union, the ERL is the natural evolution of a series of highly successful previous competitions that were established via FP7-funded projects: euRathlon, RoCKIn and EuRoC. This competition builds upon the success of euRathlon 2015 Challenge, the first world’s robotics multi-domain competition and aims to push the state of the art in heterogeneous cooperative autonomous systems for emergency response.

ERL Emergency Robots: Call for participants

The call for participation in ERL Emergency Robots major tournament is now open. Detailed information on the application process and requirements can be found on ERL Emergency website and the competition Rulebook.

ERL Emergency Robots is a civilian, outdoor robotics competition, with a focus on realistic, multi-domain emergency response scenarios. Inspired by the 2011 Fukushima accident, the ERL Emergency challenge can only be met when land, marine and flying robots work cooperatively. The competition itself sees International teams of various disciplines and organisations surveying the scene, collecting data, searching for missing workers and identifying critical hazards, all in a race against the clock.

The challenge is open to universities, research centres and industrial companies interested in applying the results of robotics research and development to real world challenges.

ERL Emergency Robots 2017 is expected to go beyond the competition boundaries, aiming to cross-fertilise multiple robotics domain and foster discussions within the robotics community. The event will also provide a forum where roboticists from different areas will exchange ideas, show the state-of-the-art and outline the future of research on disaster-response robot systems.

Sponsors and exhibitors

Companies and academic institutions are invited to attend the event and present their work as an exhibitor and/or as a sponsor.

In parallel to the competition, the event will run a program of activities that will include robot demonstrations and robotics talks from eminent experts in the field. In 2015, the competition attracted over 100 robotics experts, 150 participants and more than 1200 visitors and public in general.

This is a unique opportunity to be associated with a high-profile European robotics competition and with universities and institutions leading in robotics research across Europe.

Please visit their website for detailed information on the competition and sponsorship, or contact erl.emergency@robotics-league.eu

If you enjoyed this article, you may also want to read:

• European Robotics Week #ERW2015 recap and videos
• Live coverage: Robocup 2016
• European Robotics League posts first major tournament results
• Day One at euRathlon 2015: Video recap
• Day Two at euRathlon 2015: Video recap
• Day Three at euRathlon 2015: Video recap
• Day Four at euRathlon 2015: Video recap

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Source: euRobotics

European Robotics Week 2016 (#ERW2016) is kicking off 18-22 November in Amsterdam. The central event ‘Robots at your Service’ is about focussing on robotic technologies to help ageing populations live a healthier, active, and independent life. European Robotics Week celebrates Europe as a world-leader in robotics with typically hundreds of events.

In the 2015 Ageing Report from the European Commission, it’s anticipated that the number of Europeans over 65 will double in 50 years. Caring for those seniors – physically, emotionally and mentally – will be a big undertaking, and experts say there will be a shortage of professionals trained and willing to take on the job.

Photo credit: Keith Bujak. Source: Georgia Tech News Center

This year’s EWR is expected to have over 700 events across Europe. The opening at the Maritime Museum on the 18^th November will feature a number of dignitaries from The Netherlands, and EU officials from the European Commission and Parliament, who will welcome and present the ERW to members of Dutch the public. Presenting keynotes, Khalil Rouhana (DG Connect), Mady Delveux (MEP) and Bernd Liepert (CIO KUKA) will discuss their views for robotics developments and education in Europe. Followed by expert panel discussions about roboethics, our robotics future, and workshops about autonomous vehicles and professional service robots.

“Over the past few years we have seen considerable and growing interest in the ERW and the response from people wanting to engage with their own events have been phenomenal,” said Philip Piatkiewicz, Coordinator ERW, euRobotics. “What I feel makes it such a success are the principals of openness and inclusivity that drive our work, along with an exceptional network of dedicated individuals who form part of our National coordinator network. Together, we have managed to encourage kids and adults alike, from all walks of life, to become not just interested in robotics, but to continue their journey of discovery after the events wrap up for the year.”

Debate panels will be held on the 18 & 19 November about the use of robotics. On the 18th November, Roboethics, (12:30-13:30), will discuss developments in the ethical, legal, and societal aspects of robotics, an important debate that has increased in conversation in the last few years. Our Robotics Future, (14:00- 15:30), a debate around society’s current reaction to robotics technology and what we can expect in the future.  On the 19th, the panel session Robotics for Elderly Care, (11:00-12:30), will consider how robotics can transform healthcare and provide solutions to social health and healthy ageing. Finally, a panel discussion Saturday afternoon about Women in Tech, (13:30-15:00), will feature Nuray Golap (moderator), Elisabeth Schärtl, Franka Buurmeijer, Jacqueline Heinerman, Jurate Keblyte, and Sabine Hauert.

The Hack(athon) for Active & Healthy Ageing – the central track of the event – will be held Friday evening. Multi-disciplinary students, start-ups and scale-ups will collaborate and compete for 48-hours to create the best solutions for this challenge and get the chance to win an accelerator program to bring their concept to life.

The entire schedule and additional information can be found on the website.

In our final interview in The Robot Economy series, we speak with Mady Delvaux, Member of the European Parliament (MEP) and Chair of the Working Group on robotics. Mady has written an extensive draft report “Civil Law Rules on Robotics,” and proposes the creation of a legal framework for automation and ways to promote European industry.

How do you think robots will impact the economy?

I believe that robots will impact the economy positively because it will allow us to be more competitive. I would like European industry to be strong, and to continue to produce in Europe rather than delocalise. I believe robots could be instrumental in bringing industry back to Europe. You always need innovation, innovation is positive for Europe, and there are so many synergies between different sectors of European industry.

It’s my first mandate as a Member of the European Parliament (MEP). The European Parliament can propose laws through reports provided to the European Commission, which is then able to legislate.

I’m a member of the committee on Legal Affairs, and decided to lobby colleagues to set up a working group on robotics. I chaired the committee, which brought together members from every political party, and members from other committees on employment, civil liberties, and industry. We also invited experts, that’s one of the nice things about being an MEP, you identify people you would like to talk to, and they are happy to join! We had monthly working group meetings which resulted in a report.

The report looks at how we can promote European industry, while emphasizing robots that are friendly to humans. We need a high standard for robots in terms of safety and security. There are also many issues around liability and legislation which are not yet urgent, but may be in 10-15 years. And then there is the “jobs discussion” we read about in the media. The reality is that no one really knows what the impact will be. We’ve asked the European Commission to closely monitor the employment market, so that we can know what jobs are taken over, and which jobs aren’t. If robots do destroy jobs, then we need to think about how to finance the social systems. This could be through a tax on robots, perhaps to insure a Basic Universal Income. Industry is alarmed, but we should at least think about this. The goal is really to be prepared in case this displacement does happen. Another issue is privacy, robots typically only work if they are connected, and then the question is who owns the data, and who has access to it.

What are some of the recommendations from the report?

We asked the European Commission to put up a register that defines categories for robots and keeps track of them, what they do, and where they are. We already do this with cars for example.

On ethics, we suggested the creation of Research Ethics Committees (REC) in universities to think of the ethical aspects of the work they are doing. In the health sector, prosthetics and implants, raise questions around the enhancement of human capabilities. There is also a question about equality, who has access to robot technology, who will pay for it, and how can knowledge be evenly distributed?

What are some of the positive aspects highlighted?

Robots can facilitate the life of people. Technology is usually developed to make life easier, but there is always a bright side, and a dark side. We need a responsible way to interact with robots. Interactions will be more complex in all sectors, for example in agriculture, health, elder care, or education. Robots could be an excellent tool for teachers, but there are other domains where robots shouldn’t be used. Many worry about the human aspect. But there may also be a danger with the development of android robots, that could be confused with humans. Robots shouldn’t be confusing. I personally believe in having a human in the loop.

Has your view about robotics changed since you’ve started working on the report?

I didn’t know anything about robots, and I don’t like science fiction. I’ve learned a lot through the making of this report, and it has completely changed my view. At the start I was a bit sceptical, I am now more friendly to the technology.

How should we communicate about robotics?

We should use all channels, and simple messages. Robots have strongly reduced the number of accidents in the oil and gas industry, why don’t we say it! These should be the headlines.

What can we expect next with the report?

Committees are working on the draft report to provide their opinion, the deadline for feedback is end of October. I hope that we will then have a procedure committee, followed by a plenary two months later. Overall, I hope we will have a vote in the European Parliament in January. The European Commission would then receive the report, and decide to accept the recommendations.

This is the final article in a series of three interviews about the robot economy. Read part one here and part two here.

Read the previous articles in the European Robotics series here.

This series is published on the SPARC website and Robohub. Funding for the series was provided by RockEU – a Coordination and Support Action funded under FP7 by the European Commission, Grant Agreement Number 611247.

In today’s interview, we sat down with Alan Manning, Professor of Labour Economics at the London School of Economics. He is a leading author in his field, particularly in understanding the imperfections of labour markets.

How do you think robots will impact the economy?

Like any new technology, there will be winners and losers. On the whole, however, I believe there will be more winners.

Who will the winners be?

The winners will mostly be two groups: First robots will be used by firms to make production cheaper, which will in turn lower prices, and benefit the consumer. Second, because consumers are getting products cheaper, they will have more money to spend, which will boost the economy as a whole.

There have been discussions about robotics increasing inequality, and a tax on automation as a way to counter this. What do you think?

Don’t tax automation, let automation happen and then correct its effects. Redistribution of wealth should be done amongst the workers by taxing high wage workers more, and redistributing these earnings to low-wage workers. Overall, I don’t think robots will necessarily raise inequality but if it does, we have well-established ways to respond to that.

Are there differences in the way Europe, the US, Japan or China perceive the robot economy?

There has been a very long history of people worrying about new technology lowering wages and bringing upon the end of work. I think those fears are exaggerated.

Perception is broadly similar across the different regions – but problems in the labour market are slightly different from one country to the other. In the US they worry about stagnation and a jobless recovery. In the UK, we haven’t had stagnation, but we worry about the quality of jobs and the lowering of living standards. In Europe, the worry is about joblessness. Right now there is a tendency to blame robots for all of these problems, and it plays into the general lack of optimism.

Could robots be a solution to the perceived slouch in the economy?

More investment in modern technology, including robotics, would help increase productivity. Historically, rising productivity has improved everyone’s living standards. If optimism about the opportunities that new technology offers could suffuse the economy that would do something to off-set the pessimism that has taken hold.

Yet the media are constantly reporting on the high percentage of jobs that may be “replaced” by robots. Do you have a number to give us?

If I had to give a number, I would say that the impact of new technology on jobs is zero. Meaning that the net percentage of people employed will stay the same overall.

Numbers reported on in mainstream media are often misinterpreted as being predictions, the simplistic conclusion is read as “40 % of jobs will disappear”. I don’t think that’s the right interpretation even if 40% of occupations are affected by robots. The main problem is that this approach looks directly at specific jobs that are affected instead of looking at jobs overall. It is clear that there will be occupations where opportunities will fall because of robots. Other opportunities will also be created due to an increase in spending power. These will not necessarily be new jobs, just more old jobs as consumers spend the extra spending money that comes from the falling prices caused by new technology.

What should we be thinking about regarding regulation to make the most of the robot economy?

One issue is whether people will feel comfortable having a job a done by a robot, that was previously done by a human. Will they be happy with autonomous cars, or autonomous doctors? Regulation can ensure that technology is really better at these tasks before they are deployed, and can help reassure those who show resistance to the technology.

Another issue is intellectual property (IP). Robotics is the source of new knowledge, knowledge can be spread freely across everyone. However, if we are aggressive with IP, we will limit the extent of use of this technology, which would reduce competition in the market. It would help to think a bit more about the consequences of our IP laws and how they are going to help.

Ideally, we would want to have as many people as possible who can understand, have access to, and use this technology. Obviously, you have to strike a balance by providing incentives to motivate people to improve knowledge, but without allowing them to entirely keep that knowledge for themselves.

This is the second in a series of three interviews about the robot economy. Read part one, here.

Read the previous articles in the European Robotics series here.

This series is published on the SPARC website and Robohub. Funding for the series was provided by RockEU – a Coordination and Support Action funded under FP7 by the European Commission, Grant Agreement Number 611247.

How do you think robots will impact the economy?

Positively for sure. But the debate around robots and jobs is too polarized. People seem to pick sides, either believing “robots are going to take all our jobs”, or “it’s all going to be fine – far more new jobs will be created than old ones lost”. My view is that there is no single answer. The extent to which robots replace jobs depends on the specific robot and the job. You need to unpick the context on a case-by-case basis. It’s quite a nuanced question. As a result, it’s very hard to figure out how this will average out in terms of net number of jobs gained or lost.

Do you have concrete examples of where robots might impact the job market?

My bigger worry is AI, rather than physical robots. Knowledge workers (lawyers, call centre workers, translators, data analysts, etc) are more at risk from AI than physical workers are from robots. A robot is a much more difficult technology to mature and deploy. And in almost every situation where we think robots might be useful, we find that what we really need are collaborative robots that work alongside humans. That’s because most physical jobs that we do cannot be fully automated. The jobs that can be fully automated, for example assembly line manufacturing, have been already.

We should also be thinking about which areas are right for automation. Warehouses and logistics are one area where robots are already making big inroads. We’re seeing examples with Kiva and Amazon, but there is still a long way to go. Of course, these are often low-wage jobs with zero hours contracts and are physically demanding. I can also see robotics having a huge impact in the area of precision-agriculture, crop picking and harvesting. At the same time, we do not want people to be left out of work.

How can we help people through the transition should they lose their job?

I think there may be a case for an automation or redeployment tax. Companies who automate and hence lay off large numbers of low-paid workers have a duty to those workers. If companies don’t voluntarily – and generously – help those individuals through redeployment or training, then the government should step in. The last resort could be a special tax.

There has been a lot of discussion about driverless cars and their impact on the economy, what do you think?

It is going to take a lot of time before we see driverless cars and trucks on the roads, the technology is not ready. It comes back to this essential problem of whether the car requires human assistance or is fully autonomous. The recent fatal accident with a Tesla car tragically showed that it’s a very bad idea to require a human in the loop. If you have nothing to do then it’s very difficult to maintain full attention on the road, so the idea that the driver can immediately snap back and resume control is crazy; this is an unsolved problem. The Tesla accident also illustrated that robot perception is not good enough, there are lots of situations on streets and highways where the robot will be blind to what’s going on because of weaknesses in sensing and cognition.

What positive impact will robots have on the economy?

In the near term, robots will create opportunities for new types of jobs. The lesson of the last 20 years of the digital society is that it’s very hard to anticipate what these jobs will be. If we had sat down and had this conversation about the Internet in 1996, I doubt we would have predicted 10% of the IT related jobs that exist today. The point is that new technology generates new ways of being creative. We will obviously need more people to maintain robots, but there will also be a new range of businesses and entrepreneurial activities. We’re already seeing this in our incubator. Think about Open Bionics who 3D print prosthetics. Who would have thought robotics could be used in this way! As the technology improves, there is a wonderful scope for wearable robotics. And it’s not just people who’ve lost limbs, wearables could benefit the elderly, and disabled too. I really hope wheelchairs will be a thing of the past.

In the long term, it’s important that wealth creation brought about through robotics is shared by all. A Universal Basic Income is the only logical solution. Ultimately, and I’m talking a hundred or so years into the future, wouldn’t it be great to live in a post-scarcity society where essentially all of the work that most humans don’t want to do is done by robots. We should look forward to a future where there are no demeaning, physically or mentally debilitating jobs. This would leave time to do sports, arts, write books, do science. My “robotopia” is a kind of Star Trek society where work is essentially a voluntary activity. Robotics could enable that, but only if wealth creation is shared with all in society. We desperately need to ensure that the wealth is not captured exclusively by the companies who own the robots, and the 0.1% who own those companies. If we fail to do this, we risk increasing poverty and inequality. What’s the point of robots making things if people can’t afford to buy them?

There is a lot of misinformation about the robot economy, how can we improve the public discourse?

We need to make the point that there is a difference between AI (the software kind) and physical robots. Both are often confused in the public discourse.

Furthermore, it’s all about nuance. We’re not talking about robots replacing jobs, but about robots performing tasks. A lot of jobs have components that a robot can’t do, the classical example is the elder care worker. If you ask people, “would you like to see robots in care homes?”, they tend to say no. But if you ask a different question, for example, if they would like a robot to support someone with personal hygiene, then you get a different answer. People think it would be wonderful as it restores dignity. In my mind, the benefit of robots in a care home is that they free up human workers to provide the human touch, spend time in a conversation, for example. When I talk to care workers, they love the human contact and hate the routine tasks of managing people’s physical needs, which take time away from sitting down and having a chat. It’s a wonderful example where the right kind of division of labour can be actually very positive, both for the service users, and caregivers.

Who should decide what applications of robotics are beneficial for the economy?

The whole of society needs to have a say in this – there needs to be a conversation. This is already happening through the Eurobarometer survey and the many public engagement events around Europe. In addition, I think there needs to be some kind of body whose job it is to worry about this. It could be a Royal Commission, or an EU body, which seeks advice from society at large to build an understanding of how ordinary people respond to these questions – when presented with the nuanced story, not the black and white one presented by the media. Companies have a stake in this. At the end of the day, what they do needs to be accepted by society at large and should be reflected in standards and regulation. In fact, a new set of ethical guidelines were recently published by the British Standards Institute: “BS8611: Robots and robotic devices. Guide to the ethical design and application of robots and robotic systems“.

If a company wants to be successful, they should aim to get the “stamp” saying that their robot conforms with the relevant standards. Regulation is a shorthand way for the government to reassure us. Public trust in robots will come about through both regulation and public engagement. Why do we trust commercial airliners? It’s a highly regulated industry with very tough standards and robust protocols for investigating accidents. The lessons from commercial aircraft should be transferred to robotics. Tesla is an example of the need for regulation. As far as we know there are no published standards against which their Autopilot has been formally validated – and until there are – it cannot be trusted.

This is the first in a series of three interviews about the robot economy.

Read the previous articles in the European Robotics series here.

This series is published on the SPARC website and Robohub. Funding for the series was provided by RockEU – a Coordination and Support Action funded under FP7 by the European Commission, Grant Agreement Number 611247.

Source: European Commission, Europe’s Digital Progress Report (EDPR) / Robot Report

Over the past two years, research in 5G and robotics PPP projects have received the highest funding awards within Horizon 2020, the EU’s research and innovation program.

PPPs are Public-Private Partnerships which align private and public research objectives under one sponsored umbrella and channel those efforts in specifically funded projects.

Of 850 projects involving 3,312 groups receiving $2.7 billion (€2.4 billion) in European Union funding as part of Horizon 2020’s first two years of implementation, the Private Public Partnership (PPP) for 5G accounted for $290 million (€260 million) in funding while Robotics PPPs attracted $213 million (€190 million). The report does not account for private funding coming on top of EU funding.

The most recent 21 robotics projects to receive Horizon 2020 EU funding were detailed in a recent post on Robohub by Sabine Hauert.

SMErobot invention by ABB: Lead-Through-Programming (Image credit: ABB AG)

The Partnership for Robotics in Europe (SPARC) is a public-private partnership of 180 companies and research organizations and represents the EU’s strategic effort to strengthen Europe’s global robotics market, with the goal of increasing Europe’s share of that market to 42% (a boost of €4 billion per year). As part of the project, the EU will invest €700 million and industry will provide an additional €2.1 billion. Application areas emphasized by SPARC include: manufacturing, healthcare, home care, agriculture, security, cleaning waste, water and air, transport and entertainment. With €700M in funding from the Commission for 2014 – 2020, and triple that amount from European industry, SPARC is the largest civilian-funded robotics innovation program in the world.

Making robots is no easy task. If you talk to roboticists, they will tell you that it took years before the last robot they built or programmed was any good at performing a specific task. And although you may see videos of impressive robot feats, the reality is often more sobering. Remember the video of robots falling at the DARPA Robotics Challenge?

So why is it difficult to make robots? Here’s a breakdown looking at why robotics still requires years of research and development before we can expect to see them in our everyday lives .

Power

Most robots are required to operate without being plugged into a power socket. This means they need to carry their own energy source, be it a battery pack or gas tank. Small drones can typically operate for less than 1 hour, which is also the battery life of most advanced humanoids such as ATLAS from Google’s Boston Dynamics. So by the time the robot has walked out the door and made a few steps, it’s time for a power recharge.

Progress is being made, and a push for batteries that allow our laptops and cellphones to work for days on end is also powering the increase in robot run time. Take the same ATLAS robot which was tethered just a year ago, and now carries its own battery pack. The main challenge is that robot motion is often power hungry. Most drones will use the largest portion of their energy powering their propellers rather than computation, sensing, and communication combined. Larger batteries could give a robot more power, but will also make it heavier, which then requires more energy to move the robot. The reality is that robots are often docked to a charging station.

Beyond power, efficiency is also a real challenge. For example, human muscles are capable of impressive strength, yet many robot manipulators don’t have strength to carry heavy loads.

Biological muscles are still an order of magnitude lighter and smaller for generating the same force as robot motors. – Herman Bruyninckx

Sensing

Did you ever wonder why most demos show robots manipulating objects with bright colors or with a QR code?

Robots still have a hard time recognizing everyday objects. And although machine learning algorithms have proven effective in allowing computers to label images with sentences such as “black cat on a white chair”, robots also need to know what the objects are used for, and how to go about interacting with them. A fuchsia shirt, striped jacket, or a pair of trousers will all look quite different to a laundry folding robot, and would require a different sequence of motions. And even though cameras are helpful, image processing is still a burdensome task. Sensors like the Microsoft Kinect, and Laser Range Finders have enabled robots to make 3D maps of their environment. With the resulting point clouds, they can detect obstacles, build maps, and know where they are in them. Inferring the meaning of the scene however, is a step further. Beyond vision, touch and sound are still seldom used in robotic systems. Fortunately, robots have access to a number of dedicated sensors that are not human-centric, and are better suited for specific tasks, including accelerometers, temperature or gas sensors, and GPS.

Manipulation

Industrial robots are very successful at manipulating specific pre-defined objects in a repetitive manner. Manipulation outside of these constrained environments is one of the greatest challenges in robotics. There is a reason most successful commercial robots for the home environment, including telepresence robots, vacuum cleaners, and personal robots, are not built to pick up objects. Amazon solved this problem in their warehouse by building teams of humans and robots to fulfil orders. Robots move shelves to the workers who are then responsible for picking objects off the shelves and placing them in boxes. Just last year, Amazon ran a “picking challenge” at ICRA to help move the state of the art forward. The competition was won by Team RBO from Berlin. The RoCKIn competition in Europe also focuses on manipulation in the home and work environments.

Companies such as Shadow Robot are trying to capture the fine motor control that allows us to interact with everyday objects in a robotic hand – using these manipulators often requires precise planning. An alternative solution has often been to use proven manipulators from the industrial sector or increasingly soft robot manipulators that conform to different shapes of objects.

Cognition

Current robots typically use well determined algorithms that allow them to complete specific tasks, for example navigating from point A to point B, or moving an object on an assembly line. Designing collaborative robots for SMEs, or robots for the home, will increasingly require them to understand new environments and learn on the job. What seems like a simple task to us, could turn into an complex cognitive exercise for a robot. Projects such as the iCub have been making progress in this direction, aiming to reach the cognitive levels of a 2.5-year old child.

Deep learning is also providing new avenues. A team at the University of Zurich and IDSIA recently showed drones learning to fly through forest trails using Deep Neural Networks.

Whatever the learning embedded in the robot, it’s important to realise that we are still far from anything that resembles human intelligence or understanding. The forest trail navigation mostly crunches the data from lots of forest trail images and performs the correct motor commands in response. This is closer to a human learning to balance a poll on the palm of their hand through practice, rather than the development of a real understanding for the laws of physics.

Unstructured environments

The world is a messy place, and for most robots, operating in unstructured environments is difficult . That’s why commercial robots have been most successful in factories, on warehouse floors or roads, in the open air, and underwater. On the flip side, there are very few robots that operate autonomously in the home environment, other than vacuum cleaner robots. The Dyson 360 eye required over 100 000 hours of production time and 16 years of development before the company was convinced it would do a good job navigating a room. Their trials showed that kids would sometimes dance before their robot or play with it, attach little cardboard ears in front of its camera, or cover it entirely. Not to mention, every home is unique.

https://youtu.be/8c2SFXQ5zHM

Integration

The trick to understanding integration is to think like a robot. What does it take for a new robot to bring a glass of water to an elderly person in a house? First the robot would need to have a map of the house, perhaps building it from scratch by navigating through the corridors and rooms. It would then need to understand the command from the person to get the water, potentially using speech recognition. The robot would then use its map to plan a trajectory to the kitchen, avoiding obstacles, and constantly updating its estimation of where it is as it goes. Once at the cupboard, the robot would need to open the cupboard, locate a transparent glass, and pick it up. The robot would then turn to the sink, open the water tap using fine motor skills, position the glass under the stream, but only until the glass is full, and then navigate to the person without spilling. It would then gently put the glass on a table. This task requires safe hardware, an impressive sensor suite, and complex algorithms, which currently only exist as stand-alone pieces, if at all. Integrating all these components in a single robot is very difficult, and that’s just for one task – fetching a glass of water.

About integration, John Hallam from the University of Southern Denmark says

You’re not building a robot – you’re engineering a system – too often people focus on making the device. By doing that they miss out on important possibilities.

Legal framework and public perception

Startups are increasingly building robots that have the potential to be disruptive because they solve specific problems well. Drones and autonomous cars are a good example of this. The challenge for these startups is that regulation is not yet in place to allow their products to be commercialised.

Andrea Bertolini from Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna in Italy says there is “too much litigation and too little ex ante regulation” , meaning that startups may end up taking unnecessary legal risks, which could be prevented if better regulation was in place to support innovation up front.

And in a world where human safety and customer expectation is paramount, finding the right standards to make robots a reality has been an ongoing effort in the community.

Finally, misrepresentation in the public about what robots can do increases public concern. This carries the danger that policy makers may react to public opinion caused by a lack of balanced information. Public concerns need to be discussed and the responsible use of robots promoted so that policy is focused on what Europe needs.

It’s still hard to make a robot

Robotics is making strides in the development of specific technologies and robotics solutions for dedicated tasks. After years of development in research laboratories, robots are just starting to find their way to the consumer market. We are still very far away from Rosie the Robot however. Making Rosie would require profound advances in power, sensing, manipulation, cognition, and the magic glue – integration.

Read the previous article in the series here.

The ten-part series on European Robotics will be published every two weeks on the SPARC website and Robohub. Funding for the series was provided by RockEU – a Coordination and Support Action funded under FP7 by the European Commission, Grant Agreement Number 611247.

Several robotics funding announcements have been made recently, the biggest of which was announced at AUTOMATICA 2014. The Partnership for Robotics in Europe launched SPARC – a €2.8 billion public-private program to increase Europe’s share of the global robotics market. Two smaller fundings in the Service Robotics space also occurred.

Medrobotics Corp, a Raynham, MA-based start-up, closed an “E” preferred stock funding of $26 million. Funds will be used for regulatory preparations and for commercial launches in Europe and the US. of Medrobotics’ Flex System, a flexible endoscopic platform for use during minimally invasive surgeries. “It extends the capability of surgeons to look and reach around corners and operate in hard-to-reach and confined spaces.” The system recently received the European CE mark and is applying for FDA approval in the US.

Orbotix, a Boulder, CO start-up, closed a $15.5 million “D” equity funding. Funds will be used to expand the connected play aspect of their two toy products Sphero and Ollie.

“Connected play lives at the intersection between a physical toy, an immersive game experience, and a greater, more meaningful social context,” said Orbotix CEO Paul Berberian.

UPDATED June 12, 2014: The Intel Capital Fund invested an unknown amount in ZMP Inc., a Japanese robotics technology company working in robotics, autonomous vehicles, automotive technology, sensing technology, and related areas. They have developed a platform for car robotics and sensor system, ADAS (Advanced Driver Assistance System). With this investment Intel wants “to accelerate the development of autonomous and assisted driving technologies.”

7 YEAR €2.1 BILLION SPARC PROJECT

The Partnership for Robotics in Europe (SPARC) – a public-private partnership of 180 companies and research organizations – is the EU’s policy effort to strengthen Europe’s global robotics market with the goal of increasing Europe’s share of that market to 42% (a boost of €4 billion per year). As part of the project, the EU will invest €700 million and the PPP will invest €2.1 billion.

Application areas emphasized by SPARC include manufacturing, healthcare, home care, agriculture, security, cleaning waste, water and air, transport and entertainment.

The EU initiative provides €100 million in funding per year for 7 years. By comparison, in the US, the National Robotics Initiative program is $50 million (about 37% of the EU funding).

“America’s Advanced Manufacturing Program (AMP) is pumping money into the manufacturing sector. However industrial robotics is not considered as part of AMP. What we miss is a way to provide better support for service start ups and more assistance in the transition of technology from universities to industry. I do not see the service industry that much stronger in the EU, but I see them as much better at selling it. We need more people in the U.S., in decision positions, that have taken the journey from innovation to profit making. We need stronger ties between university labs and real world applications,” said Professor Henrik Christensen of GA Tech and ED of the Institute for Robotics and Intelligent Machines.