WHEN the autonomous cars in Isaac Asimov’s 1953 short story “Sally” encourage a robotic bus to dole out some rough justice to an unscrupulous businessman, it appears that the bus has contravened Asimov’s first law of robotics, which states that “a robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm”.

Asimov’s three laws are merely a bit of science fiction that is often taken to be a serious basis for robot governance. But robotic devices raise many thorny legal, ethical and regulatory questions. For instance, if an autonomous car is involved in an accident, who is to blame? And bionic technologies that enhance or become part of humans are trickier still. If an assistive exoskeleton is implicated in a death, who is at fault? If a brain-computer interface is used to communicate with someone in a vegetative state, are those messages legally binding?

It was questions such as these that led to the setting up in 2012 of a project called RoboLaw, largely funded by the European Union. Consisting of experts in areas such as law, engineering, philosophy, regulation and medicine, the group presented their report, called “Guidelines on Regulating Robotics”, to a special session of the European Parliament in September. The report’s recommendations are designed to help legislators successfully manage the introduction of new robotic and human-enhancement technologies into society without compromising principles already enshrined in European law.

The report’s authors warn against “excessively restrictive” legislation that can stifle innovation. They recommend a “functional perspective” that concentrates on the practical use of robotics when drawing up any robot-specific laws. Broad, overarching legislation—such as Asimov’s three laws—is likely to fail, says Andrea Bertolini, of the Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, in Pisa, Italy, which led the RoboLaw group. Instead, ad hoc legislation could be used to steer the development of the market in specific directions. That is an important suggestion when the term “robot” covers such a diversity of devices, from medical equipment to drones and vacuum cleaners.

Stringent product-safety rules, for example, might discourage development of advanced prostheses and exoskeletons, a set of technologies that the European Union is keen to support. Liability exemptions for manufacturers could relieve some pressure. “No-fault” plans, especially in cases where an insurance market for robotic devices is difficult to establish, could help too. Manufacturers and governments might pay into a compensation fund to be used if mishaps occur.

Prostheses also raise questions about the legal distinction between person and property, but the report suggests that there is no advantage to creating a new category between human and machine. As Dr Bertolini puts it: “A human with a prosthesis is still a human.”

Robot rights

But what about rights for the machines? Dr Bertolini says there are several arguments against granting them. Artificial intelligence is still far from surpassing that of humans. More philosophically, any autonomy that robots gain is designed and granted by humans. Thus, the argument goes, if robots are to be considered objects, not subjects, the question of rights disappears. But the report says that in limited circumstances robots might be granted a legal status similar to a corporation. This could allow them to perform some transactions, such as entering into contracts.

The authors believe that international bodies could play an important part in establishing standards and regulation. But robot law is not on many agendas. Ryan Calo, a law professor at the University of Washington, says that America lags behind both Europe and Asia in its attempts to tackle ethical, regulatory and legal issues in robotics. Mr Calo has called for the establishment of a Federal Robotics Commission to co-ordinate the piecemeal research going on in America. In the meantime, he says, the RoboLaw guidelines will be of some help.

Whether or not European legislators become the first to legislate on robotics, at least Asimov’s three laws can, respectfully, be laid to rest as the basis for serious legal discussion. The truth is stranger, and more complex, than fiction.