Is open robotics innovation a threat to international peace and security?

TL;DR

The paper analyzes how open access in robotics accelerates innovation while amplifying dual-use and cybersecurity risks, highlighting the absence of robotics-specific guidance for responsible research. It argues for a pragmatic, sector-tailored approach rather than blanket restriction, drawing on risk-management practices from other fields. A four-part roadmap—education on responsible robotics, incentives for risk assessment, moderation of high-risk material, and clearly defined red lines—offers concrete steps to preserve openness while reducing misuse. The work thus emphasizes a culture shift within the robotics community to integrate safety and ethics into every stage of research and deployment, with potential to influence norms, policy dialogue, and industry standards. The practical impact lies in providing actionable guidance that aligns open-science ideals with international peace and security objectives.

Abstract

Open access to publication, software and hardware is central to robotics: it lowers barriers to entry, supports reproducible science and accelerates reliable system development. However, openness also exacerbates the inherent dual-use risks associated with research and innovation in robotics. It lowers barriers for states and non-state actors to develop and deploy robotics systems for military use and harmful purposes. Compared to other fields of engineering where dual-use risks are present - e.g., those that underlie the development of weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons) and even the field of AI, robotics offers no specific regulation and little guidance as to how research and innovation may be conducted and disseminated responsibly. While other fields can be used for guidance, robotics has its own needs and specificities which have to be taken into account. The robotics community should therefore work toward its own set of sector-specific guidance and possibly regulation. To that end, we propose a roadmap focusing on four practices: a) education in responsible robotics; b) incentivizing risk assessment; c) moderating the diffusion of high-risk material; and d) developing red lines.

Figures (4)

• Figure 1: Risk pathways: how openness in robotics creates risk to international peace and security.
• Figure 2: Illustration of how research and innovation in robotics present different levels of risk depending on technology maturity and the expertise needed to reuse the work for harmful purposes. While every example shown above could be misused in some way, the likelihood and potential scale of misuse needs to be factored into risk assessment. For example, an open-source surgical robot could be misused to cause harm but a drone flight control software poses higher risk as it is more likely to be directly misused and it can cause harm at a larger scale due to the provided mobility capabilities.
• Figure 3: Example of a 3x3 Risk Matrix. Risk rating: 1-3: Low Risk: May require no action or basic control measures; 4-6: Medium Risk: Requires implementation of risk reduction measures; 6-9: High Risk: Requires action to drastically reduce or avoid risk altogether.
• Figure 4: Overview of the proposed roadmap for risk assessment and mitigation. Four types of practices are identified and a summary of associated concrete actions are listed for each of them.