Is biorobotics science? Some theoretical reflections.

In this paper, we ask one fairly simple question: to what extent can biorobotics be sensibly qualified as science? The answer clearly depends on what 'science' means and whether what is actually done in biorobotics corresponds to this meaning. To respond to this question, we will deploy the distinction between science and so-called technoscience, and isolate different kinds of objects of inquiry in biorobotics research. Capitalising on the distinction between 'proximal' and 'distal' biorobotic hypotheses, we will argue that technoscientific biorobotic studies address proximal hypotheses, whilst scientific biorobotic studies address distal hypotheses. As a result, we argue that bioroboticians can be both considered as scientists and technoscientists and that this is one of the main payoffs of biorobotics. Indeed, technoscientists play an extremely important role in 21st-century culture and in the current critical production of knowledge. Today's world is increasingly technological, or rather, it is a bio-hybrid system in which the biological and the technological are mixed. Therefore, studying the behaviour of robotic systems and the phenomena of animal-robot interaction means analysing, understanding, and shaping our world. Indeed, in the conclusion of the paper, we broadly reflect on the philosophical and disciplinary payoff of seeing biorobotics as a science and/or technoscience for the increasingly bio-hybrid and technical world of the 21st century.