Henk Zandvoort

Preparing engineers for social responsibility

In this paper I introduce the contributions to a special section of the journal: one devoted to the question of how engineering curricula can or should contribute to the preparation of graduates for socially responsible decision making and conduct. The special section is motivated by the circumstance that, although there is broad agreement that engineering education has a role in preparing its graduates for social responsibility, there is a considerable lack of clarity as to how graduates should be prepared for social responsibility, and what this entails for the engineering curricula. Bucciarelli and Conlon both provide reasons why, in order to prepare graduates adequately for social responsibility, considerations of the organisational, social, legal and political context in which engineers operate need to be included in the teaching. Conlon, in addition, explores the possible contributions that the field of sociology can make to this teaching. Heikkerö focuses on the attitudes that are required for socially responsible professional practice and that should be taught in engineering education. Didier and Huet present the results of a survey on how the issue of corporate social responsibility is being discussed and taught in engineering education in France. Both Börsen and Zandvoort et al. report on courses that they teach, and which are aimed at preparing students for ethical and social responsibility.

Broadening ethics teaching in engineering: beyond the individualistic approach.

There is a widespread approach to the teaching of ethics to engineering students in which the exclusive focus is on engineers as individual agents and the broader context in which they do their work is ignored. Although this approach has frequently been criticised in the literature, it persists on a wide scale, as can be inferred from accounts in the educational literature and from the contents of widely used textbooks in engineering ethics. In this contribution we intend to: (1) Restate why the individualistic approach to the teaching of ethics to engineering students is inadequate in view of preparing them for ethical, professional and social responsibility; (2) Examine the existing literature regarding the possible contribution of Science, Technology and Society (STS) scholarship in addressing the inadequacies of the individualistic approach; and (3) Assess this possible contribution of STS in order to realise desired learning outcomes regarding the preparation of students for ethical and social responsibility.

Ethics in the engineering curricula: Topics, trends and challenges for the future

This paper presents an introduction to and an overview of the papers in a special section of this journal for which we acted as guest editors. As guest editors, we have aimed at presenting a collection of regional papers that together give an overview of the present state of the teaching of ethics in the engineering curricula in three continents: the USA, Europe and Australia. In our own paper, we provide historical information concerning the motivation for and the development of engineering ethics, point to important topics and trends that arise from the regional papers, and identify the main challenges for the future.

Editors’ Overview Perspectives on Teaching Social Responsibility to Students in Science and Engineering

Global society is facing formidable current and future problems that threaten the prospects for justice and peace, sustainability, and the well-being of humanity both now and in the future. Many of these problems are related to science and technology and to how they function in the world. If the social responsibility of scientists and engineers implies a duty to safeguard or promote a peaceful, just and sustainable world society, then science and engineering education should empower students to fulfil this responsibility. The contributions to this special issue present European examples of teaching social responsibility to students in science and engineering, and provide examples and discussion of how this teaching can be promoted, and of obstacles that are encountered. Speaking generally, education aimed at preparing future scientists and engineers for social responsibility is presently very limited and seemingly insufficient in view of the enormous ethical and social problems that are associated with current science and technology. Although many social, political and professional organisations have expressed the need for the provision of teaching for social responsibility, important and persistent barriers stand in the way of its sustained development. What is needed are both bottom-up teaching initiatives from individuals or groups of academic teachers, and top-down support to secure appropriate embedding in the university. Often the latter is lacking or inadequate. Educational policies at the national or international level, such as the Bologna agreements in Europe, can be an opportunity for introducing teaching for social responsibility. However, frequently no or only limited positive effect of such policies can be discerned. Existing accreditation and evaluation mechanisms do not guarantee appropriate attention to teaching for social responsibility, because, in their current form, they provide no guarantee that the curricula pay sufficient attention to teaching goals that are desirable for society as a whole.

A Joint Venture Model for Teaching Required Courses in "Ethics and Engineering" to Engineering Students.

We present our experience, spanning more than 10 years of teaching a course on ‘ethics and engineering’ for a group of MSc programmes in applied sciences at Delft University of Technology. The course is taught by a team of teachers from the faculty of Applied Sciences and from the department of Philosophy of the Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, on a basis of complementarity and equality. We call it the Joint Venture teaching model. We conclude that the Joint Venture teaching model, in combination with the contents and teaching methods of the course, are successful. The course is a positively perceived element in the curricula. But we also point to a threat to the Joint Venture teaching model. As it may not be very attractive for staff from a technical faculty to participate in this kind of teaching, the availability of motivated and qualified staff from a technical faculty may be a problem. Mitigation of this threat requires sustained commitment from a technical faculty, and hence this is a necessary condition for a successful and sustained application of our teaching model.

Good engineers need good laws

In this paper, a critical analysis is presented of aspects of contemporary legal systems, from the perspective of engineers who desire to perform their profession in an ethical or socially responsible way, or who wish to contribute positively, through their professional work, to human well-being. It is argued that such aspirations are at present obstructed or impaired by certain aspects of contemporary legislation. Three such aspects are analysed, that is, the legal stipulations governing (1) secrecy, (2) liability and (3) responsibility of and within hierarchical organizations. Indications are given of the directions in which these areas of law may be changed to enable and safeguard ethical and socially responsible conduct of engineers. Implications are drawn for the engineering curriculum and for the community of engineers.

Risk zoning and risk decision making

Two requirements for responsible and coherent decision making about and management of risk creating technological activities are presented and defended, called the requirement of informed consent and the requirement of strict liability. The requirements are necessary in order to assure that decisions regarding hazardous technology respect ethical principles and result in social progress. The requirements pose important challenges for operators and regulators of risk creating technological facilities such as Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs). The following challenges are discussed: How can those subjected to risks be properly informed about the risks? How can credibility of risk assessments be assured? How can the consent be obtained of those subjected to the risks? Risk zoning and risk mapping are discussed as possible instruments for informing the public.

KNOWLEDGE, RISK, AND LIABILITY: ANALYSIS OF A DISCUSSION CONTINUING WITHIN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

In this paper I present my reflections on the ethics of science as described by Merton and as actually practiced by scientists and technologists. This ethics was the subject of Kuipers’ paper “‘Default norms’ in Research Ethics” (Kuipers 2001). There is an implicit assumption in this ethics, notably in Merton’s norm of communism, that knowledge is always, or unconditionally good, and hence that scientific research, and the dissemination of its results, is unconditionally good. I will give here reasons why scientists are not permitted to proceed, as they actually do, on the basis of this assumption. There is no factual or other binding justification for this assumption, and the activities it gives rise to frequently conflict with the broadly accepted ethical principle of restricted liberty. A recent discussion on the risks and hazards of science and on the issue of relinquishment is presented. What is shown in this paper is that the scientists and technologists participating in this discussion frequently violate core values of science relating to logical and empirical scrutiny and systematic criticism, as mentioned in Merton’s norms of universalism, organized skepticism, and disinterestedness. It is concluded that, in order to live up to these values and in order to operate in agreement with broader ethical principles, science should stimulate open and critical discussion on the hazards and negative effects of science and technology, and on the present failure on the part of law and politics to control those hazards and negative effects. Science should also take the possibility of relinquishing certain themes of research seriously as long as such flaws in the systems of law and political decision-making persist.

Liability and Controlling Technological Risks. Ethical and Decision Theoretical Foundations

This paper contains a formulation of the ethical and decision theoretical requirements that must be imposed upon legal liability in view of responsible and coherent decision making and management regarding the risks of technology. These requirements are compared with actual and historical liability law, and with the law and economics approach to liability. A description is given of how these requirements serve as a framework for a comparative and evaluative research project on the regulation and liability legislation governing energy production and consumption.

Controlling Technology Through Law: The Role of Liability

Abstract The paper deals with the actual and possible role of legal liability in controlling technology. The historical development of the relevant aspects of the legal system are described and discussed. The claim is developed that, for ethical reasons and in order to adequately control technology, the legal system should evolve towards strict and unlimited liability for all technological activities. Some implications for organisations and engineers are briefly stated.