CONIUS DAY – December 14, 2018
On Friday, December 14, Santiago Marcet, a collaborator of UNESCO Chair in Bioethics and Human Rights participated in the CONIUS Day on the initiative of the CONIUS Commission, with the organization of the Sapienza University’s Center for Eurosapienza and the UNESCO Chair “Population, Migrations and Development” as a continuation of the Symposium held in Florence last November.
Enrico Vicenti, secretary general of the Italian National Commission of UNESCO opened the conference recalling the role and activities of the CNIU (Italian National Commission for UNESCO), as well as the genesis of the three Commissions in which the program of Italian Unesco Chairs was articulated in the last two years. He highlighted how the work of this Day is part of the celebrations of the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, perhaps too much neglected by the media and public opinion.
Professor Alessandra De Rose, Chairolder of the UNESCO Chair in Population, Migraztion and Development, continued recalling the anniversary of the 10th anniversary of the establishment of the Chair, the programs carried out to date and the planning guidelines for the near future. Professor Catherine Wihtol de Wenden, has therefore carried out her “lectio magistralis” on the theme of “Human Rights and Sustainable Development” illustrating in detail the contents and characteristics of her important “Atlas des Droits de l’homme “just published in France by the publisher” Autrement.”
Those present then listened to the first of the reports of the Working Committees of the Italian Unesco Chairs. Professor Paolo Orefice continued explaining in detail the works of the recent Symposium in Florence, which is currently underway for the e-book and whose program has been widely disseminated among scholars and researchers of the Unesco Chairs system.
Dr. Martina Alemanno, who came to replace Enrico Giovanni from ASVIS, made a very interesting explanation about her agenda of goals set for 2030, and the various projects in which they are participating. Of particular interest to our Chair were their collaborations in various United Nations projects on early childhood education, for which they have translated European manuals for trainers. They have also developed a short sustainability training course.
Most of the speeches focused on the importance of the Statement, its implementation in the various universities or institutions, and its importance as a reflection of the communicative effort of the various Chairs. Which, according to Prof. Paolo Ceccarelli, need to have more visibility and notoriety within the general scope of UNESCO, as well as a more direct communication with the core structure of the organization (as are other chairs in other parts of the world).
In the conclusion Lorena Velasco Guerrero claims that “the person is affirmed as a living being. Life that constitutionally has to be understood as a path that begins with gestation and ends with death, in which qualitative changes of a somatic and psychic nature take place, due to the physical and a moral —or psychological— dimension that composed the person in “psychosomatic unity”. The person is sexed. Depending on their sex, their biological reality, it can be one of two genders of the human species: male or female. In addition to biological sex, the sexual orientation and sexual identity are considered in the decisions of the High Court.”
Prof. Alberto Gracia underlines how was interesting that “since the term person has been constitutionalized, it necessarily becomes the subject of constitutional interpretation —the Constitution, after all, does not say anything more or less than what the Constitutional Court says it says—. The multiplicity of interpretative criteria and the absence of justification in their election entails a constitutional voluntarism, a breach of the principle of legal security. Insecurity that is aggravated by the denial of any unavailable elements. There
The 2019 GEM report focuses on “presenting evidence on the implication of different types of migration and displacement for education but also the impact that reforming the curricula, pedagogy and teacher preparation can have on embracing diversity,” Stefania Giannini. This report serves as a guide for teachers and governments to determine education objectives for future multicultural generations.
Dr. Stefano Mazzoleni, lecturer and Coordinator of the Bioengineering Laboratory of Rehabilitation, through his speech titled “Human-machine interaction: can robots and AI help improve our quality of life, particularly the quality of life of people with disability?”, guided the participants through the logic of robotic engineering applied to the user-help, referring especially to patients who face difficulties managing their daily routine due to their physical limits. The concern for these needs pushes biorobotics in the direction of service, which looks for the good man.
The very origin of the term “robot”, derived from “robota“, refers to heavy work, an index of the nature inherent in the functional-collaborative interaction with human effort, a cooperation that does not (or should not) propose replacement for optimization, namely the efficiency that takes away dignity, but rather should support the thinking subject as the true protagonist. «Observing nature to understand its needs, in the wake of what Leonardo da Vinci has done», educating future engineers in the renaissance model of their profession, so that, seeing trauma or disability, they understand how to take the opportunity to put individual skills at service of others. This fundamental assumption of biorobotics, which has close to its heart the dignity and the good of the person, is absolutely essential; it is indispensable because, without such trajectories, the “ability to make” surrenders to the causes of its birth, namely the “creating know-how” gains the probability of destroying / threatening mankind, a risk that is considered to be therefore acceptable. Cinematography and literature on biorobotics, since the ’80s and decisively surging in the 2000s, suggests new goals. Since 2000, through «bio-inspiration» many capacities not previously explored has taken shape: generation of movement through sensors; wondering why, observing natural and animal bodies to overcome their limits through robotic replication. This progress has led from rigid robotics to neurorobotics and “soft robotics.
Currently, biorobotics explains the medical implant of organs and artificial limbs where they are absent, bringing in close contact doctors, researchers, scientists, engineers whose work will be a qualitative improvement of the life of patients for whom biorobotics will be an advantage. For example, the robotic hand, whose functioning Dr. Mazzoleni has highlighted, and which could be summarized in the interception of the electric impulse, thanks to the study of nerve signals, referring to the intentionality of moving the robotic hand as the human one usually moves. Biorobotics also promises benefits such as smaller incisions, shorter hospitalization, reduced risk of infection, less pain, faster healing times.
Considering the robot as a tool does not scare, but to think of it as similar to the human species does frighten. Prof. Mazzoleni spoke of the “Uncanny valley“, a perturbing valley, a “sudden fall” in that place where we lose the serene familiarity with objects which have a human appearance. The technical aspects and scientific disciplines treated so far have noted the positive contributions of the relationship between man and machine, but they do not remove that feeling of extraneousness and uncertainty. In this context, bioethics is called to take a buffer function thanks to the critical and rational reflection that the dialogue between research fields, near or far, can build when the object is a subject, i.e. the human being. It encourages the beneficial contribution that robotics, together with artificial intelligence, are making and are destined to cultivate. Preventive ethical vigilance should not degenerate into the trivialization of itself. Instead it is necessary to consider the hypothesis that not all philosophical-scientific movements have close to heart the integral good of the human being, so acting according to the measure of the productive, empowering or efficient advantage, even if this should force us to consider the human being as an entity not dissimilar to what everyone wants to find in his own nature, which is as a bastion of innovation. Conversing about the irreplaceable nature of the human presence in collaboration with technology is the proactive strategy implemented by this first, very rich, appointment, whose spirit resides exactly in living what we know, together with what remains ahead.