“Manufacturing Life” in Real Work Processes? New Manufacturing Environments with Micro- and Nanorobotics

Moniz, António Brandão; Krings, Bettina-Johanna Article — Published Version “Manufacturing Life” in Real Work Processes? New Manufacturing Environments with Microand Nanorobotics NanoEthics Suggested Citation: Moniz, António Brandão; Krings, Bettina-Johanna (2022) : “Manufacturing Life” in Real Work Processes? New Manufacturing Environments with Microand Nanorobotics, NanoEthics, ISSN 1871-4765, Springer, Berlin, Iss. Latest articles, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-021-00406-7 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/249344 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 Vol.: (0123456789) 1 3 Nanoethics https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-021-00406-7 ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER “Manufacturing Life” inReal Work Processes? New Manufacturing Environments withMicro‑ andNanorobotics AntónioBrandãoMoniz · Bettina‑JohannaKrings Received: 18 June 2020 / Accepted: 25 November 2021 © The Author(s) 2022 Issues of standardization, acceleration of processes, and order-oriented production become essential for technological innovation in this field. However, these trends tend to lead to a “manufacturing life” in work environments rather than to new modes of work in industry. Keywords Emerging technologies· Robotics· Blurring boundaries of HMI· Modes of work at microand nanoscale Introduction The convergence of nano-, bio-, information, and cognitive sciences and technologies (NBIC) is continuously advancing in a wide range of work and social spheres. These technological advances have constantly changed the interrelation between “natural” and “artificial” material and have led to a blurring of the boundaries between humans and machines. The debate about the boundaries between humans and technology has been intense for decades [1, 2] and still seems an important topos today. This is also true for current NBIC developments, which probably will lead to a profound change in “our sense of being human — concerning its nature, capabilities, and limits” [3]. Transformation processes triggered by technologies such as molecular manipulation or the development of artifacts that can intervene in organic structures will thus result in radical changes Abstract The convergence of nano-, bio-, information, and cognitive sciences and technologies (NBIC) is advancing continuously in many societal spheres. This also applies to the manufacturing sector, where technological transformations in robotics push the boundaries of human–machine interaction (HMI). Here, current technological advances in microand nanomanufacturing are accompanied by new socioeconomic concepts for different sectors of the process industry. Although these developments are still ongoing, the blurring of the boundaries of HMI in processes at the microand nanolevel can already be observed. According to the authors, these new socio-technical HMIs may lead to the development of new work environments, which can also have an impact on work organization. While there is still little empirical evidence, the following contribution focuses on the question whether the “manufacturing (or working) life” using enhancement practices pushes the boundaries of HMI and how these effects enable new modes of working in manufacturing. A.B.Moniz(*) CICS.NOVA, Interdisciplinary Centre ofSocial Sciences, Faculty ofSciences andTechnology, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, 2829-516Caparica, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] B.-J.Krings Institute forTechnology Assessment andSystems Analysis (ITAS), Karlsruhe Institute ofTechnology (KIT), 76133Karlsruhe, Germany e-mail: [email protected] Nanoethics 1 3 Vol:. (1234567890) in the meaning of life itself [4, 5]. In this development towards a “manufacturing of life”, the informatization of processes, new forms of standardization, and order-oriented production become essential conditions for socio-technological innovation [3, 6, 7]. Interestingly, the blurring of boundaries can also be identified in classic environments of standardization and order-oriented production: in real manufacturing processes. Here, technical advances in microand nanomanufacturing environments with robots were accompanied by new industrial concepts in the last decade. At these size levels, products manufactured by such novel machines (nanorobots) are mostly found in the field of health devices such as tissues, nanoelectronics biosensors, molecular devices, and drug components. According to Nelson, Dong, and Arai, “nanorobotics is the study of robotics at the nanometer scale, and includes robots that are nanoscale in size, i.e., nanorobots, and large robots capable of manipulating objects that have nanometer dimensions with nanometer resolution, i.e., nano robotic manipulators” [8]. But molecular manipulation is also used in the field of additive manufacturing, especially for microelectronic products and specialized machines. In this way, converging NBIC technologies move from the laboratory to the shop floor. Microelectronics is important in the field of computer components such as microchips, wafers, devices for the Internet of Things (IoT), and sensors. Both products types cover a variety of industries and specific applications. At the same time, our daily life is filling up with new objects and devices with ever smaller components, such as laptops, smartphones, printers, watches, etc., manufactured by these industries. Especially in these contexts, a blurring of boundaries can be observed, both at the macrolevel (manufacturing of microand nanoproducts) and at the microand nano levels (application of the products manufactured). At both levels, human–machine interaction (HMI) involves new interfaces which are not yet clearly defined in all sectors of the process industry [9]. Today, HMI in the process industry is characterized by the use of sensors that control the increased accuracy of production flow, product components, and product quality. These sensors provide huge amounts of data and information about the manufacturing status, which are evaluated in control and management processes. The operators involved usually control production processes using this indirect information, but they also use data collected through direct information. Due to the high division of labor in production, their expertise, work experience, and feeling for the processes are only partially used and differ according to their tasks in the work processes [10–12]. HMI in microand nanomanufacturing seems even more indirect, as machine operators observe the manufacturing processes directly, but only through specialized microscopes and computers. The technologies “mediate” the work processes. Therefore, working on both scales requires, on the one hand, increased abstraction and simulation skills of the workers. On the other hand, the application of this type of technical tools and artifacts is associated with increased standardization of work processes [13]. Starting from these observations, this article focuses on the overall question: How do issues of manufacturing life influence real working models in manufacturing? Actually, socio-technical environments such as industrial robotics have a long tradition in the manufacturing sector. They are still organized by highly rationalistic work structures that are based on strict boundaries between humans and machines [14–16], even if such boundaries metaphorically take the form of fences in robotics cells.1 Robotic cells consider the integration of one, or more than one, robot and other machinery, buffers, local warehouses, conveyors, sensors, etc., and when they are operating in automatic modes at shop floors, it is needed to apply stationary fences for safety reasons. Recent developments make possible the use of virtual fences, maintaining the strict boundaries between machines and humans. Against this background, the article focuses on the question whether working with robotics on the microand nanoscale will push the boundaries of HMI in manufacturing. Although the application of microand nanorobotics in manufacturing environments still seems rare, trends already show that nanomaterials or microelectronics will probably be part of numerous products in a few decades: the miniaturization of components of many everyday products, from sensors and smartphones to clothing or other textiles, will continue to 1 In industrial manufacturing environments, stationary fences are needed for safety reasons to prevent physical contact by human with industrial robots in operational scenarios. Nanoethics 1 3 Vol.: (0123456789) progress. One important example is the electronics sector, where technical environments require detailed and accurate production processes and the use of micro robotic machines to assemble or produce ever smaller components. The number of industries that make use of microand nanorobotic systems however is slowly increasing, e.g., in the energy storage sector and the chemical sector [17]. With regard to the manufacturing life, the challenges and implications of human-centered manufacturing systems should be intensively observed with regard to (possible) increased blurring of boundaries of HMI. These might have a significant impact on the quality of work in manufacturing which seems still underestimated. The first chapter of this article outlines the institutional relationship between technological innovation and work organization in manufacturing as discussed in recent decades. The second chapter approaches the analysis of technological developments with the extensive introduction of robotics and automation processes and the changes taking place in HMI in the manufacturing sector. In the third chapter, we briefly analyze robot applications in different sectors and related developments in work organizations. Here, we will focus on the application of emergent microand nanolevel robotics and discuss its impact on HMI. Our conclusions revisit and summarize the previous questions and outline further research needs. Robots andOrganization ofWork inProduction Systems Early industrial robots, built back in the 1960s, emerged from the combination of two technologies: numerical control machine tools for precise manufacturing and teleoperators for remote handling of radioactive materials. In addition, the rapid development of integrated circuits, digital computers, and miniaturized components enabled the design and programming of computer-controlled robots by humans [18–23]. Whether the design and programming was done by engineers and technicians only, or also by machine operators, depended very much on the model of work organization. The following decades were characterized by increasing automation in almost all sectors of the manufacturing industry [24]. Progress in automation became the technical and organizational basis for successful economic growth in many branches, such as the automotive and chemical industries. The introduction of robots into these production processes in the 1970s played a crucial role in the automation of work and the profound transformation of HMI. Since the late 1990s, robot applications have also been used outside of factories, mainly in sectors such as agriculture, services, and mobility. Here, huge potential of these applications has been identified. However, the introduction and application of robots in the health care sector has been (controversially) discussed [25–28]. Today, the use of robots in various fields is steadily increasing worldwide, which has triggered an intensive public and scientific debate about living and working “in the robot society” [29]. In these debates, robotics is portrayed as a technology that represents technological progress not only in production but also in its application in daily life [17, 30, 31]. Although empirical data show that innovations in robotics are basically related to applications in the manufacturing industry [32], robots seem to be the metaphor par excellence for describing the technical and social dimensions of future societies. At the same time, the concept of “robot societies” [31] raises doubts and concerns about human–robot interaction (HRI) and its impact on societal evolution. Public and scientific debates show that ethical reflection on HRI goes hand in hand with these concerns [27, 33, 34]. This seems especially true for NBIC technologies, which pose risks and hazards, in particular, in the field of organic material manipulation. De Jong and Borm conclude that “the scientific paradigm for the possible (adverse) reactivity of nanoparticles is lacking and we have little understanding of the basics of the interaction of nanoparticles with living cells, organs and organisms. A conceptual understanding of biological responses to nanomaterials is needed to develop and apply safe nanomaterials in drug delivery in the future” [35: 145]. The high degree of specialization in this field hampers the public and scientific debate. As described above, robot applications have been successfully introduced in the manufacturing industry. Especially in recent decades, the technology density at workplace level has increased significantly through robotics [36]. Robot-based work environments, where one operator takes control of Nanoethics 1 3 Vol:. (1234567890) several machines and several work processes, have become much more complex. This technical complexity has led to significant changes, both at the workplace level and at the organizational level, which are being intensively discussed in many disciplines [37–41]. When introducing NBIC technologies, emphasis is usually placed on new forms of business models, new organizational patterns, and the use of technological platforms (networks) to support and promote competitive company strategies [42, 43]. However, socio-technological concepts addressing issues such as quality of work, HMI, or the formation of work teams to promote worker autonomy seem to be rather neglected, especially in the field of robotics [44, 45]. There appears to be a significant knowledge gap about the relationship between increasing automation, complexity of work contents, and changes in work quality [46–48]. This lack of knowledge becomes even more apparent with innovative applications of robotics on the microand nanoscale, e.g., in the manufacturing industry or in medicine [49, 50]. To date, there are no studies analyzing the implications of robotics in terms of working conditions and forms of work organization of these sub-millimeter manufacturing systems. Technological innovations in this area are usually presented as “purely” technological development processes by engineering sciences that do not affect social and organizational conditions. In the development toward the manufacturing of life, the informatization of production processes has played and still will play a central role from the very beginning [51]. Here, the introduction of robotics on micro and sub-millimeter scale will probably be accompanied by new standardization measures and order-oriented production. These issues of standardization are being integrated into the “rational” modes of production by NBIC technologies. It should be further explored whether working at the sub-mm scale entails (or not) is generating new modes of work in manufacturing. Thus, the deep analysis of HMI can make an important contribution to integrating cognitive, physical, and mental aspects of humans more strongly into work processes. Furthermore, this analysis may figure out whether manufacturing life is integrated into manufacturing processes. The Shift fromtheMacro‑ toMicro‑ andtoNano level ofHMI inManufacturing Processes As described above, robotic applications in manufacturing are usually embedded in complex sociotechnical organizational structures. However, experience shows that robotic applications do not necessarily replace operational tasks and thus human work [52, 53]. They enable changes in the division of labor between machines and working groups/workers which bring physical relief and thus help improve working conditions. Furthermore, they can contribute to increasing human competence and autonomy, especially in highly skilled jobs at shop floor level [54–56]. But can we conclude that these phenomena will also occur at the microand nanolevels of robotics? Will increasing competence requirements and autonomy shape HMI with this type of robots? There is still little empirical research on these questions. The importance of socio-technical concepts for work environments in microand nanomanufacturing still seem to be underestimated. The impact of these technologies on new job profiles, new qualification requirements, or new task contents is still an open research field from the economic perspective [52–54]. On the other hand, research on new developments in robotics, especially in the engineering sciences, is strongly supported by public and private funding worldwide. The outcomes of that technical research can serve as tools for designing new work environments. In particular, technological developments in the fields of haptics, vision and control systems, and mobile capacity are leading to new forms of human–machine interaction (HMI) in the manufacturing industry. Social sciences could analyze the implications of those new technical concepts and contribute to the design of new work environments [57, 58]. At the microlevel, technical developments in the area of vision and control systems are becoming increasingly relevant in manufacturing processes. Haptics and mobile capacity, however, are less relevant for microand nanorobots than for industrial or service robots. Innovations in these fields mainly concern collaborative robotics, assistive bionics, exoskeletons, autonomous systems (ground, water, or air vehicles), and micro robotics. In these areas, the complexity of HMI at the working level is increasing significantly due to the use of various technologies, such as computerized numerical control (CNC) Nanoethics 1 3 Vol.: (0123456789) machine tools, automated guided vehicles (AGVs), and cyber-physical devices. For example, in many manufacturing companies, operators of flexible automation systems have to interact with CNC machine tools, collaborative robots, assistive mobile robots (AGVs or ground autonomous systems), and intermediate buffers with smart sensors. Furthermore, the use of electronic processors and computer-controlled devices has increased significantly. This means that the technology density at these workplaces is much higher than at comparable workplaces in industry [36]. Due to the acceleration of processes, the complexity of tasks, and the required level of attention, HMI becomes much more intensive. The increasing complexity affects qualification requirements and work performance: the higher the complexity, the higher the competences required to perform the tasks. In companies that use NBIC technologies, this can lead to significant changes in the manufacturing workforce. Usually, a highly skilled worker, but without experience or special training, is not able to interact with this variety of devices. This is especially true in so-called “industry 4.0” environments, which require a higher level of skills and competences [56, 59]. Visions of production at the microand nanoscale are reflected in a prominent European report which focuses on aspects of working conditions, specifically the possibility of employee involvement [60]. The authors of the report assume that there are two dimensions of HMI and its integration in these new technical environments: (a) task discretion or the influence that employees can exercise on their immediate work tasks, (b) organizational participation or the influence that employees have on decisions in their work organization. Following these considerations, work in technically complex work environments (CWEs), such as microand nanomanufacturing, can enable a higher degree of operator control over their own task design and performance [37, 61, 62]. Problems that can arise in such work environments by quasiaccidents, failures, and other unexpected events. These can occur especially in the lower mm dimensions. The more complex the technical system is (equipment, communication system, accuracy requirements, systems architecture), the greater is the need to design the work environment appropriately (tasks, job allocation). At the same time, the greater the work autonomy and the qualification requirements, the clearer the work content and the decentralized decisionmaking processes must be. Experience shows that both dimensions, the social and the technical, must be designed together to prevent divergence in management strategies for the two dimensions and to integrate the technological complexity in the work environment. This seems to be especially true for the lower mm dimensions. According to the US National Robotics Initiative’s Roadmap for U.S. Robotics — From Internet to Robotics [63, 64] on nanomanufacturing, the classic complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS)- based integrated circuits and computing paradigms are to be supplemented by new nanofabricated computing substrates. As stated in the report, advances in microelectromechanical systems (MEMS), lowpower very large-scale integration (VLSI), and nanotechnology already enable the use of sub-mm selfpowered robots (or nanorobots) in the healthcare, energy, and manufacturing sectors. New parallel, and even stochastic, assembly technologies for lowcost production are likely to emerge. Many conventional paradigms for manufacturing will, according to this technical vision [65], be replaced by new, yetto-be-imagined approaches to nanomanufacturing. Accordingly, the roadmap for nanomanufacturing and nanorobotics recommends basic research and development focusing on [63, 64]: • 5years: technologies for massively parallel assembly via self-assembly and harnessing biology to develop novel approaches for manufacturing with organic materials • 10years: manufacturing for the post-CMOS revolution enabling the next generation of molecular electronics and organic computers • 15years: nano-manufacturing for nano-robots for drug delivery, therapeutics, and diagnostics The agenda of the US Roadmap is to regulate the development of nanorobots for medical applications until the early-2030s. Important steps toward achieving the goals are measures to promote technologies in the field of micro processing. In particular, a rapid development of technologies based on CMOS, VLSI, and MEMS is planned for the next years. The knowledge gained should be applied not only in industry but also in new systems for the medical (surgery robots) and healthcare sectors (assistive systems). Nanoethics 1 3 Vol:. (1234567890) According to Nelson etal., new industrial areas for micro robotics include assembly, inspection and maintenance, micro optics (positioning of micro optical chips, micro lenses, and prisms), and micro factories. Many of these applications require automated handling and assembly of small parts with sub-mm accuracy [8]. Some suppliers and manufacturers of micro optics need to configure automated micro electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) assembly machines for their devices. Other companies need to develop automated lens (for video camera production) and endoscope inspection systems (endoscopes at the point of use by medical professionals). Based on practical experience, this knowledge should also contribute to the development of new types of microelectronic products in the long run. Work structures in which such systems are used must differ from those where the components to be integrated or transformed can be visualized directly. At nano level, the control in manufacturing process is also performed by highly specialized and precise machines, such as atomic force microscopes (AFMs) and scanning probe microscopes (SPMs), which do not allow the human operator to intervene directly. AFM is a very high-resolution type of SPM and produces images of surfaces using a physical probe that scans the specimen (organic or non-organic). In this way, the AFM provides a three-dimensional surface profile which allows the operator to work in ambient air or even in a liquid environment, as the following scheme and photo shows (Fig.1).2 There is a significant shift in the work environment, which is due to the dimensional features of the nanoscale components: materials at this level behave differently than on a conventional scale. There is a higher chemical reactivity, while the object’s surface area in relation to its volume is very small. At the microlevel, the volume of components cannot be monitored directly by operators, but through information with computerized parameters. However, at the nanoscale, special devices are needed to intervene in the process, which means the operator visualizes and works through microscope the manufacturing process. The point is that at both dimensional levels — micro and nano — HMI takes place through indirect information about the production status, and augmented reality devices may be used to control the processes. At microlevel, the worker uses imaging sensors to access information on the process control, but at nano level, the use of special microscopes is required to collect information that will be provided through augmented reality (as shown in the above scheme of Fig.1). Fig. 1 Process and work environment with scanning probe microscope (SPM). SPM from Karlsruhe University of Applied Sciences (Germany) 2 All images from Figs. 1 and 3 are from a video (https:// www. youtu be. com/ watch?v= GY9lfOtVfE) produced in the lab of Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rainer Schwab, Hochschule Karlsruhe (Karlsruhe University of Applied Sciences), Germany. Nanoethics 1 3 Vol.: (0123456789) The use of 3D images becomes important and standard in microand nano production with robots, in particular in electronics or precision metal engineering. According to De Santis etal., the “dependability of complex robot systems in anthropic domains during normal operations is threatened by different kinds of potential failures or un-modelled aspects of sensors, control/actuation systems, and software architecture, which may result in undesirable behaviours” [66]. Some of the undesirable events in work environments with NBIC technologies, sensors, control systems, software, and manipulation at sub-mm levels can have safety implications. In the context of medical robotics, Fei etal. stress that “safety is not only an engineering issue but also a management project” [25]. The same assumption can be applied to any other type of robot used in manufacturing, as for EN ISO 10218:2011 [67–69] standards about safety requirements for industrial robots. However, while HMI analyses usually consider various aspects, such as autonomy, level of shared interaction, handling of sensors and sensor fusion, task content, and ratio between robots and workers, safety conditions in nonphysical interaction are rarely considered. As described above, system integration is one of the major challenges for robotics in CWE in manufacturing. Microand nanorobots will be used in the near future and will constitute a limiting factor in the integration of production cycles. Because “nanoobjects do not exist without technological mediation: they require the use of SPM or AFM connected to powerful computers and software. In this respect they instantiate Bachelard’s notion of ‘phenomenotechnics’: they are constructed by technological means and require a convergence of research efforts and a multidisciplinary community. Nanoscale objects only came into being via a technological macrosystem, a network of information technologies” [70]. As Bensaúde-Vincent points out, these types of technologies will play a central role in the redesign of work practices. Nanotechnology in particular will establish a new quality of HMI, which is characterized by the complexity, the degree of abstraction of the content, and the relationship of the technical intermediary to its “working object.” This means that image mediation will become the standard in work environments that offer a new quality of HMI: simulation-based interaction, where the object to be assembled or manufactured only becomes visible through novel microscopes. The following pictures show the work with an AFM in a manufacturing environment (Fig.2). As shown in the pictures above, several devices are connected to the workplace interacting with the AFM, and “each AFM instrument should be miniaturized as much as possible to maximize the number of instruments that can be operated in parallel”, as referred by Sadeghian etal. [69] about these machines (atomic microscopes). The SPM, a special type of AFM, has the disadvantage of producing images in black and white or greyscale, which can lead to distortion of the shape or size of a specimen or sub-mm object. Computers are used to compensate for these distortions and generate real-time color images that provide the operators with real-time information, e.g., on interactions within cellular structures, harmonic responses, and magnetic energy (see pictures below in Figs.3 and 4). With a scanning tunneling microscope3 (see pictures above), the human operator installs the cantilever with the specimen to be manufactured or assembled and then controls the process via a computer terminal that receives data from several sensors. The Fig. 2 Operation with atomic force microscopy (From https:// www. youtu be. com/ watch?v= GybH5 DfWG9w (Park Atomic Force Microscopy)) 3 https:// en. wikip edia. org/ wiki/ Scann ing_ tunne ling_ micro scope Nanoethics 1 3 Vol:. (1234567890) feeding of the specimen chamber can also be automated when connected to an industrial robot (not shown in the above photo). The following image shows how an STM manipulates atoms to assemble a new object or even a nanorobot. Khare et al. explain in their article on sub-mm additive manufacturing: “SPM methods allow direct-write patterning and in situ imaging by contact or near-contact interactions of a substrate with a nanoscale probe, typically at the end of an atomic force microscope (AFM) cantilever” [71]. Therefore, this method, as seen in Fig.4 from the Laboratory of Solid-State Physics (LPS) form the CNRS and University of Paris-Saclay, can be applied to low batch production industry or for prototyping (medical products or electronics). At these scales, simulation, anticipation, and production instances are defined by machines, while at the same time the technical competences of humans to work with such objects must increase. Such competences are related to the task contents, such as nano handling and manipulation needs, and the scope of the overall processes. Here, it seems that the boundaries of HMI with respect to machine autonomy processes may become blurred. The high complexity of the technological systems in which humans are involved probably leads to a loss of control rather than an increase in autonomy. In other words, since the complexity of the systems requires higher skill levels to interpret the computed visual information, these machines can lead to a higher degree of automation of the manufacturing processes (additive or not) on an industrial level. It can be assumed that, under these circumstances, the human operator will lose control of the work process, while keeping his or her autonomy. This autonomy can be at the decision level or at the process level. The operator can be entitled to such autonomy because of the competences required to perform the necessary tasks. There are several authors that demonstrate different application experiences with these levels of microand nanomanufacturing possibilities. For instance, Bogue states on microand nanorobotics: “As yet, the technology is in its infancy, but a growing number of academic groups are studying nanorobotic concepts” [72]. Fabrication by deposition, etching, and lithography (additive manufacturing), reliable electronic interconnect processes, energy storage and conversion (e.g., batteries, fuel cells), and production of photovoltaic nanomaterials are recent examples of industrial applications. The range of products focuses on applications that will play a major role in the near future. However, according to Khare et al., “methods such as electron-beam lithography and focusedion beam printing work in a serial writing mode are expensive. In addition, these top-down nanomanufacturing methods are intrinsically planar, requiring multiple postprocessing steps which limit patterning flexibility and result in a large excess of material Fig. 3 Operation of an SPM (https:// www. youtu be. com/ watch? v= GY9lfOtVfE) Fig. 4 Example of manufacturing process using a STM(Physics Reimagined group (LPS, CNRS Université Paris-Sud) with funding of Labex PAL. https:// www. youtu be. com/ watch?v= HE2yE 8SvHmA) Nanoethics 1 3 Vol.: (0123456789) otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. References 1. Blumenberg H (1985) The legitimacy of the modern age (trans. Wallace RM). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 2. Latour B (1993) Aramis ou l’amour des techniques. Edition la découverte, Paris 3. Krings B-J, Rodríguez H, Schleisiek A (eds) (2016) Scientific knowledge and the transgression of boundaries. Springer VS, Wiesbaden 4. Allenby B, Sarewitz D (2011) The techno-human condition. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 5. Compagna D, Kohlbacher F (2015) The limits of participatory technology development: The case of service robots in care facilities for older people. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 93:19–31 6. Malsch T, Schulz-Schaeffer I (2007) Special Section on Socionics. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 10(1) 7. Funken C, Schulz-Schaeffer I (eds) (2008) Digitalisierung der Arbeitswelt. Zur Neuordnung formaler und informeller Prozesse in Unternehmen. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden 8. Nelson BJ, Dong L, Arai F (2008) Micro/nanorobots. In: Siciliano B, Khatib O (eds) Springer handbook of robotics. Springer, Berlin, pp 411–450 9. Hirsch-Kreinsen H, Karacic A (eds) (2019) Autonome Systeme und Arbeit. Perspektiven, Herausforderungen und Grenzen der Künstlichen Intelligenz in der Arbeitswelt. transcript, Bielefeld 10. Prewett MS etal (2010) Managing workload in humanrobot interaction: A review of empirical studies. Comput Hum Behav 26:840–856 11. Wallhoff F et al (2010) A skill-based approach towards hybrid assembly. Adv Eng Inform 24:329–339 12. Moniz AB (2015) Intuitive interaction between humans and robots in work functions at industrial environments: The role of social robotics. In: Vincent J, Taipale S, Sapio B, Lugano G, Fortunati L (eds) Social Robots from a Human Perspective. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 67–76 13. Will-Zocholl M (2017) Virtual Temptations. In: Briken K, Chillas S, Krzywdzinski M, Marks A (eds) The new digital workplace. How new technologies revolutionise work. Palgrave MacMillan, London, pp 62–87 14. Taylor FW (1911) The principles of scientific management. Harper & Brothers, New York 15. Friedmann G (1946) Problèmes humains du machinisme industriel. Gallimard, Paris 16. Kern H, Schumann M (1970) Industriearbeit und Arbeiterbewusstsein. Europäische Verlagsanstalt, Frankfurt am Main 17. Šabanović S (2010) Robots in society, society in robots. Int J Soc Robot 2:439–450 18. Ebel K-H (1987) The impact of industrial robots on the world of work. Robotics 3:65–72 19. Skordas Th, Robrock KH (1997) An overview of Robotics Technologies in RTD Programmes of the European Community under FP4. European Commision, Brussels 20. Moniz AB (2007) The collaborative work concept and the information systems support perspectives for and from manufacturing industry. Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 16(2):49–57 21. Hägele M, Schaaf W, Helms E (2002) Robot assistants at manual workplaces: Effective co-operation and safety aspects. In: Proceedings of the 33rd ISR (International Symposium on Robotics). IFR, Stockholm 22. Siciliano B, Khatib O (eds) (2008) Springer handbook of robotics. Springer, Berlin 23. Dalgaard L (2011) Rational system-level design methodology for autonomous robotic systems. PhD thesis, Danish Technological Institute, Centre for Robot Technology and University of Southern Denmark, Maersk Institute 24. Brödner P (1990) Technocentric-anthropocentric approaches: Towards skill-based manufacturing. In: Warner M, Wobbe W, Brödner P (eds) New technology and manufacturing management. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester 25. Fei B etal (2001) The safety issues of medical robotics. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 73:183–192 26. Guo S, Pan Q, Khamesee MB (2007) Development of a novel type of microrobot for biomedical application. Microsyst Technol 14(3):307–314 27. Compagna D, Weidemann A, Marquardt M, Graf P (2016) Sociological and biological insights on how to prevent the reduction in cognitive activity that stems from robots assuming workloads in human–robot cooperation. Societies 6:29. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ soc60 40029 28. Krings B-J, Weinberger N (2018) Assistant without master? Some conceptual implications of assistive robotics in health care. Technologies 6(1). https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ techn ologi es601 0013 29. van Est R, Kool L (eds) (2014) Working on the robot society. Visions and insights from science concerning the relationship between technology and employment. Rathenau Instituut, Den Haag 30. Duysburgh P, Elprama SA, Jacobs A (2014) Exploring the social-technological gap in telesurgery: Collaboration within distributed or teams. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing. pp 1537–1548 31. Royakkers L, van Est R (2016) Just ordinary robots – automation from love to war. Taylor & Francis Group, London 32. Moniz AB (2012) Anthropocentric-based robotic and autonomous systems: Assessment for new organisational options. In: Decker M, Gutmann M (eds) Robound informationethics: Some fundamentals. LIT, Zürich, pp 123–157 33. Nagenborg M etal (2008) Ethical regulations on robotics in Europe. AI Soc 22(3):349–366 34. Nida-Rümelin J, Weidenfeld N (2018) Digitaler Humanismus. Eine Ethik für das Zeitalter der Künstlichen Intelligenz. Piper, München 35. De Jong W, Borm P (2008) Drug delivery and nanoparticles: Applications and hazards. Int J Nanomed 3(2):133–149 Nanoethics 1 3 Vol:. (1234567890) 36. Curkovic P, Jerbic B, Stipancic T (2013) Coordination of robots with overlapping workspaces based on motion coevolution. International Journal of Simulation Modelling 12(1):27–38 37. Emery F, Trist EL (1960) Socio-technical systems. In: Churchman CW, Verhulst M (eds) Management science. Models and techniques, vol 2. Pergamon, London 38. Anderson RL, Gartner WB (1985) When robots and people work together. Robotics 1:69–76 39. Hirsch-Kreinsen H (1993) Use of CNC and alternative methods of work organisation. Comput Integr Manuf Syst 6(1):3–8 40. Grugulois IV (2005) Changing boundaries, shaping skills: The fragmental organizational form and employee skills. In: Marchington M etal (eds) Fragmentation work, blurring organizational boundaries and disordering hierarchies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 199–216 41. Frei R, Barata J (2010) Distributed systems – from natural to engineered: Three phases of inspiration by nature. International Journal of Bio-Inspired Computation 2(3/4):258–270 42. Huws U (ed) (2006) The transformation of work in a global knowledge economy: Towards a conceptional framework. HIVA-K. U. Leuven, Leuven 43. Huws U, Spencer N, Syrdal DS, Holts K (2017) Work in the European gig economy: Research results from the UK, Sweden, Germany, Austria, The Netherlands, Switzerland and Italy. Foundation for European Progressive Studies, Brussels 44. Devlin K, Rosenberg D (2008) Information and human interaction. In: Adriaans P, van Benthem J (eds) Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, vol 8. Philosophy of Information. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, pp 693–719 45. Pieskä S, Kaarela J, Saukko O (2012) Towards easier human-robot interaction to help inexperiences operators in SMEs. In: Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Infocommunications (CogInfoCom2012). Kosice, pp 333–338 46. Kidd P (1992) Organisation, people and technology in European manufacturing. CEC - FAST, Final Report, Brussels 47. Krings B-J (2008) Global restructuring and its effects on occupations: Towards a new division of labor? In: Anderl R, Arich-Gerz B, Schmiede R (eds) Technologies of globalization. Proc Int Conf DFG Graduate School“Topology of Technology” of TU Darmstadt, Darmstadt, pp 117–129 48. Moniz AB (2013) Robots and humans as co-workers? The human-centred perspective of work with autonomous systems, IET Working Papers Series 03/2013. http:// ideas. repec. org/p/ ieu/ wpaper/ 51. html 49. Taylor RH (ed) (1996) Computer-integrated surgery, technology and clinical application. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 50. Speich J, Rosen J (2004) Medical robotics. In: Wnek G, Bowlin G (eds) Encyclopedia of biomaterials and biomedical engineering. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 983–993 51. Schmiede R (1980) Rationalisierung und reelle Subsumption. Leviathan 8(4):472–497 52. Acemoglu D, Restrepo P (2019) Automation and new tasks: How technology displaces and reinstates labor. IZA Discussion Paper Series 12293 (April) 53. Autor DH, Levy F, Murnane RJ (2003) The skill content of recent technological change: An empirical exploration. Q J Econ 118(4):1279–1333 54. Greenan N, Kocoglu Y, Walkowiak E, Csizmadia P, Makó C (2009) The role of technology in value chain restructuring. KU Leuven, Leuven 55. International Federation of Robotics-IFR (2018) Executive summary World Robotics 2018 Industrial Robots. IFR 56. International Federation of Robotics-IFR and Metra MARTECH (2011) Positive impact of industrial robots on employment. IFR/MetraMARTECH, London 57. Krings B-J (2013) Arbeit und Technik. In: Grunwald A (ed) Handbuch Technikethik. Metzler, Stuttgart, pp 217–222 58. Lutz B (1987) Das Ende des Technikdeterminismus und die Folgen. In: Lutz B (ed) Technik und sozialer Wandel. Verhandlungen des 23. Deutschen Soziologentages, Frankfurt a.M., pp 34–57 59. Pfeiffer S (2016) Robots, Industry 4.0 and humans, or why assembly work is more than routine work. Societies 6.https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ soc60 20016 60. Gallie D, Zhou Y (2013) Work organization and employee involvement in Europe. European Foundation for Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Dublin 61. Clegg CW, Corbett M (1987) Research and development into ‘humanizing’ advanced manufacturing technology. In: Clegg CW, Kemp NJ (eds) Wall TD. The human side of advanced manufacturing technology. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester 62. Brödner P (1988) Options for CIM: ‘Unmanned factory’ versus skill-based manufacturing. Compu Integr Manuf Syst 1(2):67–74 63. National Robotics Initiative (2013) Roadmap for U.S. robotics from internet to robotics. National Science Foundation, Arlington 64. National Robotics Initiative (2016) Roadmap for U.S. robotics from internet to robotics. National Science Foundation. https:// cra. org/ ccc/ wpconte nt/ uploa ds/ sites/2/ 2016/ 11/ roadm ap3finalrs-1. pdf 65. Lösch A, Grunwald A, Meister M, Schulz-Schaeffer I (eds) (2019) Socio-technical futures shaping the present: Empirical examples and analytical challenges. Springer VS, Wiesbaden 66. De Santis etal (2008) An atlas of physical human-robot interaction. Mech Mach Theory 43:253–270 67. ECS (2011a) Robots and robotic devices – Safety requirements for industrial robots. Part 1: Robots (EN ISO 10218–1:2011). European Committee for Standardization 68. ECS (2011b) Robots and robotic devices – Safety requirements for industrial robots. Part 2: Robot systems and integration (EN ISO 10218–2:2011). European Committee for Standardization 69. Sadeghian H, Herfst R, Dekker B, Winters J, Bijnagte T, Rijnbeek R (2017) High-throughput atomic force microscopes operating in parallel. Rev Sci Instrum 88:033703 70. Bensaúde-Vincent B (2010) Objects in nanotechnology. In: Fiedeler U, Coenen C, Davies S, Ferrari A (eds) Nanoethics 1 3 Vol.: (0123456789) Understanding nanotechnology: Philosophy, policy and publics. AKA/IOS Press, Heidelberg, pp 9–21 71. Khare HS, Gosvami NN, Lahouij I, Milne ZB, McClimon JB, Carpick RW (2018) Nanotribological printing: A nanoscale additive manufacturing method. Nano Lett 18:6756–6763 72. Bogue R (2010) Microrobots and nanorobots: A review of recent developments. Industrial Robot: An International Journal 37(4):341–346 73. Ru C, Zhang Y, Sun Y, Zhong Y, Sun X, Hoyle D, Cotton I (2010) Automated four-point probe measurement of nanowires inside a scanning electron microscope. IEEE Trans Nanotechnol 10(4):674–681. https:// ieeex plore. ieee. org/ docum ent/ 55469 76 74. Yang Z, Wang Y, Yang B, Li G, Chen T, Nakajima T, Sun L, Fukuda T (2016) Mechatronic development and vision feedback control of a nanorobotics manipulation system inside SEM for Nanodevice Assembly. Sensors 16:1479. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ s1609 1479 75. Requicha A etal (2003) Nanorobots, NEMS, and nanoassembly. Proc IEEE 91(11):1922–1933.http:// ieeex plore. ieee. org/ lpdocs/ epic03/ wrapp er. htm? arnum ber= 12400 80 76. Bernstein D, Crowley K, Nourbakhsh I (2007) Working with a robot: Exploring relationship potential in human– robot systems. Interact Stud 8(3):465–482 77. Moldaschl M (2010) Organisierung und Organisation von Arbeit. In: Böhle F, Voß GG, Wachtler G (eds) Handbuch Arbeitssoziologie. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden, pp 263–299 78. Madou MJ (2007) Fundamentals of microfabrication. CRC Press, New York 79. Krüger J, Lien TK, Verl A (2009) Cooperation of human and machines in assembly lines. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 58:628–646 80. Lewis M etal (2011) Process and performance in humanrobot teams. J Cogn Eng Decis Mak 5(2):186–208 81. Morioka SS (2010) A new cell production assembly system with human–robot cooperation. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 59(2010):9–12 82. EU Robotics (2014) Robotics 2020 Multi-Annual Roadmap for Robotics in Europe. Brussels 83. MAR (2017) Robotics 2020 Multi-Annual Roadmap for Robotics in Europe Horizon 2020 Call ICT-2017 (ICT25, ICT-27 & ICT-28). European Commission/SPARC, Brussels 84. Abicht L, Freikamp H, Schumann U (2006) Identification of skill needs in nanotechnology. Cedefop Panorama series 120. Luxembourg 85. Lenz C etal (2008) Joint-action for humans and industrial robots for assembly tasks. In: Proceedings of 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. Munich, pp 130–135 86. Greenfield A (2018) Radical technologies: The design of everyday life. Verso, London 87. Moniz AB, Krings B-J (2016) Robots working with humans or humans working with robots? Searching for social dimensions in new human-robot interaction in industry. Societies 6(3).https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ soc60 30023 88. Bethel C, Murphy RR (2010) Review of human studies methods in HRI and recommendations. International Journal of Social Robots 2:247–359 89. Bullinger H-J, Korndörfer V, Salvendy G (1987) Human aspects of robotic systems. In: Salvendy G (ed) Handbook of human factors. John Wiley, New York, pp 1657–1693 90. Stipancic T, Jerbic B, Curkovic P (2012) Context-aware system applied in industrial assembly environment. Int J Adv Rob Syst 9(234):1–10 91. Moniz AB (2018) Robótica e trabalho. O futuro hoje. Glaciar/FLAD, Lisbon Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.