Teaching ethics in engineering and computer science: A panel discussion

At a conference, two engineering professors and a philosophy professor discussed the teaching of ethics in engineering and computer science. The panelists considered the integration of material on ethics into technical courses, the role of ethical theory in teaching applied ethics, the relationship between cases and codes of ethics, the enlisting of support of engineering faculty, the background needed to teach ethics, and the assessment of student outcomes. Several audience members contributed comments, particularly on teaching ethical theory and on student assessment. This panel discussion took place at a mini-conference, Practicing and Teaching Ethics in Engineering and Computing, held during the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics, Washington, D.C., March 8–9, 1997. Biographical information on panelists: Charles Glagola is an assistant professor of civil engineering at the University of Florida. He is a registered professional engineer in the states of Florida and Alabama. Before coming to academia, he had extensive industry experience culminating with his owning and operating a construction and engineering firm in Pensacola, Florida. He currently teaches engineering ethics as part of a professional issues course in the Department of Civil Engineering, and a one-hour engineering ethics course that is offered to all engineering students through the College of Engineering. Moshe Kam is professor of electrical and computer engineering at Drexel University. He heads Drexel’s Data Fusion Laboratory which specializes in multisensor systems and robot navigation. His professional interests include detection and estimation, distributed decision making, forensic applications of image processing, and engineering ethics. Michael Loui is professor of electrical and computer engineering and associate dean of the Graduate College at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. From 1990 to 1991, he served at the National Science Foundation in Washington, D.C. His scholarly interests include computational complexity theory, theory of parallel and distributed computation, fault-tolerant software, and professional ethics. Caroline Whitbeck is a philosopher of science, technology and medicine and is the Elmer G. Beamer-Hubert H. Shneider Professor in Ethics at Case-Western Reserve University. She also directs the WWW Ethics Center for Engineering & Science— http://ethics.cwru.edu— under a grant from the National Science Foundation. The focus of her current work is practical ethics, especially ethics in scholarly and scientific research. Her book, Ethics in Engineering Practice and Research, will appear from Cambridge University Press in winter 1997–98.     

Teaching ethics in engineering education through historical analysis

The goal of this paper is to stress the significance of ethics for engineering education and to illustrate how it can be brought into the mainstream of higher education in a natural way that is integrated with the teaching objectives of enriching the core meaning of engineering. Everyone will agree that the practicing engineer should be virtuous, should be a good colleague, and should use professional understanding for the common good. But these injunctions to virtue do not reach closely enough the ethic of the engineer as engineer, as someone acting in a uniquely engineering situation, and it is to such conditions that I wish to speak through a set of specific examples from recent history. I shall briefly refer to four controversies between engineers. Then, in some detail I shall narrate three historical cases that directly involve the actions of one engineer, and finally I would like to address some common contemporary issues. The first section, “Engineering Ethics and the History of Innovation” includes four cases involving professional controversy. Each controversy sets two people against each other in disputes over who invented the telegraph, the radio, the automobile, and the airplane. In each dispute, it is possible to identify ethical and unethical behavior or ambiguous ethical behavior that serves as a basis for educational discussion. The first two historical cases described in “Crises and the Engineer” involve the primary closure dam systems in the Netherlands, each one the result of the actions of one engineer. The third tells of an American engineer who took his political boss, a big city mayor, to court over the illegal use of a watershed. The challenges these engineers faced required, in the deepest sense, a commitment to ethical behavior that is unique to engineering and instructive to our students. Finally, the cases in “Professors and Comparative Critical Analysis” illuminate the behavior of engineers in the design of structures and also how professors can make public criticisms of designs that seem wasteful. This paper was the keynote address at the 2005 conference, Ethics and Social Responsibility in Engineering and Technology, Linking Workplace Ethics and Education, co-hosted by Gonzaga University and Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, California, USA, 9–10 June 2005.     

A role-play Rorschach procedure.

Rorschach responses of three subjects were used to stimulate the type of role-playing popularized by Fritz Perls' Gestalt therapy. The standard Rorschachs were given first. Afterwards, each subject was presented with certain of his or her own images as a stimulus for the role-playing. The subjects consisted of a 19-year-old female with severe anxiety attacks, an 11-year-old lad diagnosed as having minimal cerebral dysfunction, and a 46-year-old man who had undergone two years of successful psychotherapy. It is proposed that the resulting data are valuable in expanding and clarifying the psychological meaning of the Rorschach images. Further, the procedure can be utilized, if desired, as a spur to therapeutic involvement.     

绝对命令伦理学和协调伦理学——四谈工程伦理学

绝对命令伦理学和协调伦理学是两种具有不同性质、不同理论假设和不同特征的伦理学立场和伦理学进路。由于决策在工程活动中占据了中心位置,决策伦理问题在工程伦理学中也占据了中心位置。在工程决策中,必须正确认识和处理工程中伦理因素和非伦理因素的关系,强化工程决策中的伦理意识,正确处理决策伦理和伦理决策的关系,特别是要妥善处理工程决策中涉及伦理要素的“内外双重协调”问题。文章最后分析了协调原则和共同体、共识和共赢的关系。     

Teaching research theory and application through on-line simulation

The development of the University of Louisville program for teaching experimental psychology and statistics through computer simulation techniques is described.     

Empirical research on research ethics

Ethics is normative; ethics indicates, in broad terms, what researchers should do. For example, researchers should respect human participants. Empirical study tells us what actually happens. Empirical research is often needed to fine-tune the best ways to achieve normative objectives, for example, to discover how best to achieve the dual aims of gaining important knowledge and respecting participants. Ethical decision making by scientists and institutional review boards should not be based on hunches and anecdotes (e.g., about such matters as what information potential research participants would want to know and what they understand, or what they consider to be acceptable risks). These questions should be answered through empirical research. Some of the preceding articles in this special issue illustrate uses of empirical research on research ethics. This article places empirical research on research ethics into broader perspective and challenges investigators to use the tools of their disciplines to proactively solve ethical problems for which there currently exist no empirically proven solutions.     

Rethinking research ethics

Contemporary research ethics policies started with reflection on the atrocities perpetrated upon concentration camp inmates by Nazi doctors. Apparently, as a consequence of that experience, the policies that now guide human subject research focus on the protection of human subjects by making informed consent the centerpiece of regulatory attention. I take the choice of context for policy design, the initial prioritization of informed consent, and several associated conceptual missteps, to have set research ethics off in the wrong direction. The aim of this paper is to sort out these confusions and their implications and to offer instead a straightforward framework for considering the ethical conduct of human subject research. In the course of this discussion I clarify different senses of autonomy that have been confounded and present more intelligible justifications for informed consent. I also take issue with several of the now accepted dogmas that govern research ethics. These include: the primacy of informed consent, the protection of the vulnerable, the substitution of beneficence for research's social purpose, and the introduction of an untenable distinction between innovation and research.     

Rethinking research ethics

Contemporary research ethics policies started with reflection on the atrocities perpetrated upon concentration camp inmates by Nazi doctors. Apparently, as a consequence of that experience, the policies that now guide human subject research focus on the protection of human subjects by making informed consent the centerpiece of regulatory attention. I take the choice of context for policy design, the initial prioritization of informed consent, and several associated conceptual missteps, to have set research ethics off in the wrong direction. The aim of this paper is to sort out these confusions and their implications and to offer instead a straightforward framework for considering the ethical conduct of human subject research. In the course of this discussion I clarify different senses of autonomy that have been confounded and present more intelligible justifications for informed consent. I also take issue with several of the now accepted dogmas that govern research ethics. These include: the primacy of informed consent, the protection of the vulnerable, the substitution of beneficence for research's social purpose, and the introduction of an untenable distinction between innovation and research.     

Christian ethics and empirical research

What significance might empirical research have for a constructive theory of Christian ethics? This article discusses this question by bringing results from a concrete empirical study of aspects of Christian ethics into conversation with two theories of the same phenomenon: those of William Schweiker and Stanley Hauerwas/Samuel Wells. After mapping the results of the empirical study to the views offered by the two constructive accounts, I discuss more generally whether empirical studies of this kind can have significance for constructive ethical theory. I discuss three possible objections against such a position: that introducing empirical research to constructive theory of Christian ethics undermines normativity, that it blocks criticism, and that its contributions are likely to be divergent, incoherent and unsystematic, thus adding little of significance to constructive theory. I argue that none of these objections can definitively exclude empirical research from constructive theory. But they certainly have implications concerning not only how empirical research might have significance, but also regarding criteria it must meet in order to legitimately claim constructive relevance. Some concrete suggestions to this effect are launched in a final argumentative move.     

Statistics and ethics in medical research

Ethical conduct is an essential component in research, especially in medical research. Statistical methods for design and analysis are powerful research tools if used properly. Abuse of these principles and methods are just as unethical as other laboratory or clinical misconduct. Inadequate research design can produce worthless results and thus wastes effort and valuable resources. For clinical research, patient resources are wasted. Inappropriate analysis of data can also produce misleading results and conclusions. For clinical research, inferior therapy might be given to patients as a consequence. These ethical concerns can have implications for and affect the individuals responsible for the statistical design and analysis. Examples are provided which illustrate some possible abuses and inappropriate pressures.     

Autonomy and morality: A Self-Determination Theory discussion of ethics

Kantian ethics is based on a metaphysical conception of autonomy that may seem difficult to reconcile with the empirically-based science of psychology. I argue that, although not formally developed, a Self-Determination Theory (SDT) perspective of ethics can broaden the field of Kantian-based moral psychology and specify what it means, motivationally, to have autonomy in the application of a moral norm. More specifically, I argue that this is possible when a moral norm is fully endorsed by the self through a process of internalization that is energized by intrinsic motivation and is facilitated by the fulfillment of the basic needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness. The conditions of the fulfillment of these needs may even implicitly reveal which norms will be integrated and treated as moral norms. I conclude that SDT offers a motivational approach that is useful in understanding the development of moral norms.