Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41965478›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2026

Ethics of the Design of Animal-like Robots.

Kamil Mamak, Masashi Takeshita, Hayate Shimizu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kamil MamakFaculty of Law and Administration, Department of Criminal Law, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland. kamil.mamak@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5081-792X
Masashi TakeshitaGraduate School of Informatics, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5853-3262
Hayate ShimizuGraduate School of Humanities and Human Sciences, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-7931-1353

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the ethical literature on robot design, considerable attention has been devoted to the risks that human-like robots pose to humans. In particular, the resemblance of robots to humans has been associated with concerns about social disruption, deception, and potential harm, leading some authors to argue for restrictions or bans in certain contexts. However, while the ethical significance of human-like form has been widely recognized for humans, significantly less attention has been paid to the implications of animal-like robots from the perspective of nonhuman animals and human–animal relations. This paper addresses that gap by examining how the design and deployment of animal-like robots may affect animals both directly and indirectly. We argue that the use of animal form in robotics is not ethically neutral, as it can shape human perceptions of animals, influence patterns of interaction, and potentially contribute to harms such as mislearning, objectification, and alienation. By shifting the focus from human-centered concerns to the impact on animals, we identify a set of ethically relevant risks associated with animal-like robots and analyze their broader implications for human–animal relations. On this basis, we propose preliminary guidelines aimed at supporting the responsible design and use of such technologies.

Indexed as

Equipment DesignHuman-Animal InteractionRoboticsAnimalsHumansAI ethicsAnimal ethicsAnimal-like robotsEthics of design

Identifiers

PMID41965478
PMCPMC13230260

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.