Science Magazine
Yüklə 46,58 Kb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Joshua D. Greene
- P E R S P E C T I V E S
- R E F E R E N C E S
- Marco Colonna and Luisa Cervantes-Barragan
- Moral dilemma.
| sciencemag.org SCIENCE 1 5 14 24 JUNE 2016 • VOL 352 ISSUE 6293 ILL U
TR A TION: D ARIA KIRP
A CH/@S
ALZMANAR T
Joshua D. Greene S uppose that a driverless car is headed toward five pedestrians. It can stay on course and kill them or swerve into a concrete wall, killing its passenger. On page 1573 of this issue, Bonnefon et al. (1) explore this social dilemma in a series of clever survey experiments. They show that people generally approve of cars programmed to minimize the total amount of harm, even at the expense of their passen- gers, but are not enthusiastic about riding in such “utilitarian” cars—that is, autonomous vehicles that are, in certain emergency situ- ations, programmed to sacrifice their pas- sengers for the greater good. Such dilemmas may arise infrequently, but once millions of autonomous vehicles are on the road, the improbable becomes probable, perhaps even inevitable. And even if such cases never arise, autonomous vehicles must be pro- grammed to handle them. How should they be programmed? And who should decide? Bonnefon et al. explore many interesting variations, such as how attitudes change when a family member is on board or when the number of lives to be saved by swerving gets larger. As one might expect, people are even less comfortable with utilitarian sac- rifices when family members are on board and somewhat more comfortable when sac- rificial swerves save larger numbers of lives. But across all of these variations, the social dilemma remains robust. A major determi- nant of people’s attitudes toward utilitar- ian cars is whether the question is about utilitarian cars in general or about riding in them oneself. In light of this consistent finding, the au- thors consider policy strategies and pitfalls. They note that the best strategy for utilitar- ian policy-makers may, ironically, be to give up on utilitarian cars. Autonomous vehicles are expected to greatly reduce road fatalities (2). If that proves true, and if utilitarian cars are unpopular, then pushing for utilitarian cars may backfire by delaying the adoption of generally safer autonomous vehicles.
When should your car be willing to kill you? INSIGHTS
on June 23, 2016 http://science.sciencemag.org/ Downloaded from SCIENCE sciencemag.org 24 JUNE 2016 • VOL 352 ISSUE 6293
As the authors acknowledge, attitudes toward utilitarian cars may change as na- tions and communities experiment with different policies. People may get used to utilitarian autonomous vehicles, just as some Europeans have grown accustomed to opt-out organ donation programs (3) and Australians have grown accustomed to stricter gun laws (4). Likewise, attitudes may change as we rethink our transpor- tation systems. Today, cars are beloved personal possessions, and the prospect of being killed by one’s own car may feel like a personal betrayal to be avoided at all costs. But as autonomous vehicles take off, car ownership may decline as people tire of paying to own vehicles that stay parked most of the time (5). The cars of the future may be interchangeable units within vast transportation systems, like the cars of to- day’s subway trains. As our thinking shifts from personal vehicles to transportation systems, people might prefer systems that maximize overall safety. In their experiments, Bonnefon et al. assume that the autonomous vehicles’ emergency algorithms are known and that their expected consequences are trans- parent. This need not be the case. In fact, the most pressing issue we face with re- spect to autonomous vehicle ethics may be transparency. Life-and-death trade-offs are unpleasant, and no matter which ethical principles autonomous vehicles adopt, they will be open to compelling criticisms, giving manufacturers little incentive to publicize their operating principles. Manufacturers of utilitarian cars will be criticized for their willingness to kill their own passengers. Manufacturers of cars that privilege their own passengers will be criticized for devalu- ing the lives of others and their willingness to cause additional deaths. Tasked with sat- isfying the demands of a morally ambiva- lent public, the makers and regulators of autonomous vehicles will find themselves in a tight spot. Software engineers—unlike politicians, philosophers, and opinionated uncles— don’t have the luxury of vague abstraction. They can’t implore their machines to respect people’s rights, to be virtuous, or to seek jus- tice—at least not until we have moral theo- ries or training criteria sufficiently precise to determine exactly which rights people have, what virtue requires, and which trade- offs are just. We can program autonomous vehicles to minimize harm, but that, appar- ently, is not something with which we are entirely comfortable. Bonnefon et al. show us, in yet another way, how hard it will be to design autono- mous machines that comport with our moral sensibilities (6–8). The problem, it seems, is more philosophical than technical. Before we can put our values into machines, we have to figure out how to make our val- ues clear and consistent. For 21st-century moral philosophers, this may be where the rubber meets the road. j
1. J.-F. Bonnefon et al., Science 352, 1573 (2016). 2. P. Gao, R. Hensley, A. Zielke, A Road Map to the Future for the Auto Industry (McKinsey & Co., Washington, DC, 2014). 3. E. J. Johnson, D. G. Goldstein, Science 302, 1338 (2003). 4. S. Chapman et al., Injury Prev. 12, 365 (2006). 5. D. Neil, “Could self-driving cars spell the end of car owner- ship?”, Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2015; www.wsj. com/articles/could-self-driving-cars-spell-the-end-of- ownership-1448986572. 6. I. Asimov, I, Robot [stories] (Gnome, New York, 1950). 7. W. Wallach, C. Allen, Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong (Oxford Univ. Press, 2010). 8. P. Lin, K. Abney, G. A. Bekey, Robot Ethics: The Ethical and
(MIT Press, 2011). 10.126/science.aaf9534
T cell plasticity in the intestinal lining By Marco Colonna and Luisa Cervantes-Barragan E ffective immune responses rely on balancing lymphocyte stability and plasticity. Lymphocytes have regula- tory circuits that control phenotypic and functional identity. Stable circuits maintain homeostasis and prevent autoimmunity. But plasticity is needed to integrate new environmental inputs and generate immune responses that subdue the eliciting agent without damaging tis- sue. Regulatory T cells (T regs ) are a subset of CD4 + T cells that control effector T cell responses and prevent excessive inflam- mation and autoimmunity (1, 2). On page 1581 in this issue, Sujino et al. (3) report that intestinal T regs convert into CD4 + in-
traepithelial T cells (CD4 IELs
) to adapt to the local intestinal environment, thus identify- ing the intestinal epithelium as a compart- ment that enforces lymphocyte plasticity. CD4 IELs
are implicated in various immune responses, including tolerance to dietary antigens (4). They originate from CD4 + T helper cells in the intestinal lamina pro- pria, and can produce interferon-γ (IFN-γ), a cytokine that triggers immune responses to infection, as well as promote cytoly- sis. Differentiation of T cells into CD4 IELs
is governed by the reduced expression of ThPOK (T helper–inducing POZ/Kruppel factor), a transcription factor that drives the CD4 + T helper cell program. More- over, increased expression of Runx3 (runt- related transcription factor 3) drives the CD8 +
and cytolysis (5, 6). CD4 IELs
in the intestinal Department of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. Email: mcolonna@pathology.wustl.edu Moral dilemma. Should autonomous vehicles protect their passengers or minimize the total amount of harm?
on June 23, 2016 http://science.sciencemag.org/ Downloaded from (6293), 1514-1515. [doi: 10.1126/science.aaf9534] 352 Science Joshua D. Greene (June 23, 2016) Our driverless dilemma
Editor's Summary
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Article Tools http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6293/1514 article tools: Visit the online version of this article to access the personalization and Permissions http://www.sciencemag.org/about/permissions.dtl Obtain information about reproducing this article: is a registered trademark of AAAS. Science Advancement of Science; all rights reserved. The title Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005. Copyright 2016 by the American Association for the in December, by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1200 New York (print ISSN 0036-8075; online ISSN 1095-9203) is published weekly, except the last week
on June 23, 2016 http://science.sciencemag.org/ Downloaded from Yüklə 46,58 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|