Is biorobotics science? Some theoretical reflections

Abstract

In this paper, we ask one fairly simple question: to what extent can biorobotics be sensibly qualified as science? The answer clearly depends on what “science” means and whether what is actually done in biorobotics corresponds to this meaning. To respond to this question, we will deploy the distinction between science and so-called technoscience, and isolate different kinds of objects of inquiry in biorobotics research. Capitalising on the distinction between “proximal” and “distal” biorobotic hypotheses, we will argue that technoscientific biorobotic studies address proximal hypotheses, whilst scientific biorobotic studies address distal hypotheses. As a result, we argue that bioroboticians can be both considered as scientists and technoscientists and that this is one of the main payoffs of biorobotics. Indeed, technoscientists play an extremely important role in 21st-century culture and in the current critical production of knowledge. Today’s world is increasingly technological, or rather, it is a bio-hybrid system in which the biological and the technological are mixed. Therefore, studying the behaviour of robotic systems and the phenomena of animal-robot interaction means analysing, understanding, and shaping our world. Indeed, in the conclusion of the paper, we broadly reflect on the philosophical and disciplinary payoff of seeing biorobotics as a science and/or technoscience for the increasingly bio-hybrid and technical world of the 21st century.

From biomimicry to robotic co-creation: rethinking the boundaries between nature and technology

“…Nature-inspired fields such as biomimicry, biomimetics, and biorobotics take inspiration from how the intricate processes of the natural world unfold [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. This includes the complex interactions between different living organisms, materials, and environments.…”

“…They enable us to experiment and control unknown and difficult properties of the world. In essence, the robot transforms from a passive tool into an active, embodied entity, enabling the exploration and realization of fresh possibilities, akin to their role in biorobotics where they contribute to knowledge and design formation [13,14,37,38].…”

Animal–robot interaction—an emerging field at the intersection of biology and robotics

“…This special issue also features a contribution focusing on a philosophical analysis of the role that robotics, in the framework of ARIS and ORIS, can play in the advancement of knowledge. In particular, Tamborini and Datteri [24] examined whether or not biorobotics qualifies as science and what the role of technoscience is/can be within it. The distinction between proximal and distal biorobotic hypotheses is used to differentiate between technoscientific and scientific biorobotic studies.…”

Bio-inspired design of hard-bodied mobile robots based on arthropod morphologies: a 10 year systematic review and bibliometric analysis

“…Additional published papers described the theory of bioinspired design of robots, such as: 'Allometric Scaling of Insects and Animals for Biomimetic Robot Design Considerations' [16], 'Bioinspired designs impart robots with unique capabilities' [17], 'The creation of phenomena in interactive biorobotics' [18], 'Is biorobotics science? Some theoretical reflections' [19], where the authors stated that robots with biological features are highly adaptable to the environment. However, there are no systematic review papers that uniquely explore arthropod robot design and manufacturing.…”