impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context."And, Criterion 4 requires that program graduates have design experience…that includes most ofthe following considerations: economic, environmental, sustainability, manufacturability, ethical,health and safety, social, and political" 1, 2. Notwithstanding ABET requirements, a recentsurvey indicates that 80% of engineering graduates attend schools that have no ethics-relatedcourse requirements. Even at schools that have courses with ethics-related content, the coursesare usually in philosophy or religion and have no specific engineering ethics component 3.Notwithstanding these deficiencies, the American Society for Engineering Education’s (ASEE)Statement on Engineering Ethics
2011 include oChinchilla, Rigoberto, Harris, Harold, Facial Recognition System Screening Evaluation Methodology for Complexion Biases: Proceedings of the 2011 American Society for Engineering Education ASEE, Conference. Vancouver Canada, June 26-Jun30 2011 oChinchilla, Rigoberto, S. Guccione, J. Tillman, Wind Power Technologies in the United States: A Tech- nical Comparison between Vertical and Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines: Journal Of Industrial Technology Volume 27, Number 1 - January 2011 through March 2011 Dr. Chinchilla can be reached at rchinchilla@eiu.edu. Page 25.583.1 c
disciplines, the challenge of engineering ethics isto offer content that is both useful to practitioners and genuinely substantive (i.e. moves beyondglossy generalizations about the importance of honesty, non-malfeasance, etc.). Additionally,engineering ethics education, it is hoped, will make students 1) less likely to engage in academicdishonesty 2) more likely to succeed on the ethics portion of the F.E. and 3) more aware of theobligations and issues they are likely to face in engineering practice. While each of theseadditional desiderata is important, the last is arguably the most important. It can also be the mostpedagogically challenging.In this paper, we will explore the challenges posed by the third goal above in the context of anassignment
integrateethics into engineering programs, mainstream engineering faculty members still resistengineering ethics. Sometimes engineering programs outsource the teaching of engineeringethics to departments of philosophy or of technology and society.Why do engineering faculty members fail to embrace the teaching engineering ethics? I propose Page 25.585.7that they suffer from three mistaken beliefs.Mistaken Belief #1: Expertise is necessary for teaching a subject. Most faculty membersbelieve that college teaching consists of transferring information from experts to students;consequently, subjects should be taught by experts. In particular, as profession
-authorship status. Fourth, the authorsanalyze the ethical issues governing status of authorship. Fifth, the authors propose a frameworkfor defining and refining co-authorship guidelines through analysis and evaluation.2. Types of AuthorshipWork to date has established types of co-author relationships that range from the classic exampleof partners in research such as Watson and Crick to department heads adding their name to allworks that originate in their departments.The Gift or Honorary AuthorshipIn this type of arrangement, those authors who have done the actual design, conduct, and writingof the research decide to bestow co-author status on someone who has had little or no affiliationwith the project [1]. This is a form of honorary authorship
% higher than those of thecontrol group.In this study the value of teaching ethics is documented. The improvements in grade andpersonal survey results indicate that this class provided the students with 1) valuable insight intothe ethical problems they will encounter as professionals and 2) a framework for making ethicaldecisions.The “Interrupted Case Method” represents much of the work conducted in engineering practiceby encouraging students to refine their thoughts and processes as additional data is received.Twelve case studies involving problems that are commonly faced in engineering practice weretaught in the course. The students received the data in four steps, one steps every three weeks.This “interrupted case method” gave the students
Education for Scientists and Engineers: Developing and Assessing Instructional Models 1AbstractWhile the government and the public look to universities to educate students in research ethics,those who teach ethics to science and engineering graduate students still struggle to find the mosteffective models for ensuring that their students internalize professional values and make thempart of their scientific and technical practices. (1) This paper will report on a four year researchproject to develop and assess four different instructional models that introduce and educatescience and engineering graduate students to the micro- and macroethical issues in their work.Efforts at
nanotechnology encompass so many fundamental areas such as ethics, privacy, environment, and security. This paper describes the teaching approaches used to teach the ethical and social implications of nanotechnology in a “Science, Technology and Society (STS)” capstone course at DeVry University, Addison, Illinois. There are essentially four objectives to this course: (1) developing a strong understanding of local and global forces and issues which affect people and societies, (2) guiding local/global societies to appropriate use of technology, (3) alerting societies to technological risks and failures, and (4) developing informed and encompassing
identified with groups such as Engineers WithoutBorders, Engineers for a Sustainable World and the IEEE Society for Social Implications ofTechnology.Recent work has examined this “engineering to help” movement, and designations such as“peace engineering”1 and “humanitarian engineering”2 now represent recognized fields ofinquiry and practice. Several authors have framed these efforts within a context of engineeringethics, and within this framework, they have worked to incorporate perspectives of social justice3,4,5 .One recurrent theme from these commentaries is the requirement to involve local communities,not as passive recipients, but as true partners at all stages of the development process3. Whengenuinely undertaken, this act of partnering
are primarily trained in applied math,science, and engineering coursework that leaves little room for worthwhile soft skills.While engineering technology has been well established at WTAMU for several decades, the mechanical (2003) andcivil (2010) engineering programs are relatively new. Curricula for the newer engineering degree programs aresimilar to other ABET-accredited programs which are constrained in the number of credits that can be allotted toengineering coursework and required general education curriculum. Many engineering programs in the UnitedStates use one of three approaches to ethics instruction: 1) an ethics component built into modules presented in oneor more engineering courses, 2) a required ethics or philosophy course
simplicity of ethics cases stands in contrast to the complexities of the real-lifesituations students will encounter after graduation. Aristotle astutely recognized in the firstsentence of his Nicomachean Ethics that ―every action and undertaking seems to seek Page 25.300.2something good‖ [1]. No professional wants something bad to happen. At times, the problemis not the engineer‘s intentions but his or her inability to predict a bad outcome in spite of allthe good intentions. The most fundamental challenge from an ethical perspective is thus thefact that we need to realize, first of all, that there is an ethical challenge connected to
Engineering Education, 2012 Comparing Engineering Student Use of Solution Manuals and Student/Faculty Perceptions of Academic Dishonesty Abstract Since 2002, student access to engineering textbook solution manuals has dramaticallyincreased due to the advent of their electronic availability.1, 2 Newfound access to electronicsolution manuals poses fresh ethical questions concerning when and how their use is considered“honest”. Research3 indicates that undergraduate engineering students agree that the instructor/institution holds the primary responsibility for defining and limiting acts of academic dishonesty,not the student. Anecdotal evidence1 suggests that faculty may perceive academic dishonesty inthe use of solution manuals
.Principles suggested in previous literature are as follows2, 5, 6: 1. Engineers hold a responsibility that spans national, racial, cultural, social, and economic borders to promote the welfare of all humans. 2. Engineers have a responsibility to design products and technologies with a focus on sustainable development. 3. Engineers have a responsibility to ensure engineering is not employed as an instrument that further widens the gap between the rich and the poor.When applied to current challenges in international engineering ethics, these principles form abasis for an international code of ethics1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8: 1. Safety of the public – Ensuring the protection of “the public” in a complicated global context where a
1, the National Society of Professional Engineers’ Code of Ethics forEngineers 2, and the American Institute of Constructors’ Code of Ethics provide comprehensiveexamples.Feedback from the industry representatives and practicing professionals often mention theincreasing need for ethics education. In the last two decades, professional degree programs inhigher education placed a large emphasis on ethics education. Professional ethics and socialresponsibility subjects are also a part of the accreditation requirements for most programs. TheAccreditation Board for Engineering and Technology 4, the American Council for ConstructionEducation 5, and the National Architectural Accrediting Board 6 require ethics to be included inconsiderable course
understood. For instance, one might know how and where to use sugar (skill) butat the same time have no idea of how sugar is produced (theoretical knowledge). Also, onemight know how to describe the chemical and physical reaction that arrests material degradationin a galvanized metal (theoretical knowledge) but have never galvanized a part.In summary, this paper has three goals:1. Provide some ethical motivation for university administrators to put in place programs thathelp a prospective student choose a degree program that matches his/her interests, academicskills and immediate and long-term career plans.2. Present a graphical representation that can be used to contrast the various characteristics ofengineering programs that can be used as a
theory to positionstudents in situations that model unfamiliar ethical tensions characteristic of sustainabilityproblems, such as the Tragedy of the Commons. In this approach, students can only advancetheir own grade at the ultimate expense of other students. Whereas the Nash Equilibrium in ourgames predicts systemic collapse of student grades, the actual grade outcomes aligned withegalitarian ideals, despite evidence of conflict in on-line student communications.Introduction Sustainability is increasingly gaining the interest of professional engineering societiesthat consider adherence to the principles of sustainable development a fundamental ethicalresponsibility [1]. However, exactly what those principles are and how to teach them
, its extent and different ways ofdealing with it. [1] provides an extensive review of the literature. However, most research in thisarea has focused on North America. In fact, 93% of the member institutions listed on the website[2] of the International Center of Academic Integrity are based in North America according to acount in early 2012. At the same time, the Asia Pacific Forum on Educational Integrity had atotal of only seven members [3].Universities around the globe have introduced honor codes to teach students about integrity andto help prevent violations from occurring [4]. Even though the increasing ease of copyingthrough access to digital sources may make plagiarism more tempting, it is critical for students toclearly understand
had increased only slightly to 68%.1 With the nanotechnologyindustry manufacturing over $50 billion in goods, it would be beneficial for the general publicto know about some of the new and emerging nanotechnologies. Similarly, a 2010 ResearchAmerica survey on Floridians found that 60% of individuals in Florida would like to see moreinformation about science and research.2 Therefore, this work looks to assist in increasing thepublic awareness of innovative nanotechnology.Particularly, the advancements in the area of nano materials technology, and its applications toalternative energy, have spurred the debate on ethical considerations for society and theenvironment. Dr. William Marcy, P.E., executive director of the Murdough Center
will report lessons learned, student responses, application of the programto an undergraduate NSF-funded REU program, and transition to a sustainable ethics educationprogram for STEM graduate students.Intellectual Property for STEM StudentsUnderstanding the basics of U. S. intellectual property law and the norms of scholarly publishing– copyright and appropriate attributions, fair use, falsification of data, plagiarism, and patentrights and infringement – are essential to ethics education for STEM students.1 Three factorscontribute to its urgency: 1. Federal mandates for responsible conduct of research (RCR) for students engaged in funded research. Ethics education in intellectual property and scientific publishing is a
, in academic institutions with honor codes or otherwise centralizedrules for such cases this process may not be available or allowed.The following are several recommendations for success. 1. Do have persons of authority oversee the independent study. This demonstrates the importance placed on the exercise and can be a humbling for the student and allows an opportunity for one on one mentoring. 2. Do make the assignment meaningful and ordered so that the students know what is expected. In this case the work required was to evaluate a topic, write an outline, a final paper, and a presentation. 3. It is important to impress upon the students early that it will be an easy class to fail if they are irresponsible
developments in the study of philosophy, engineering and engineering educationThe last decade has been marked by an increasing interest among engineers and engineeringeducators in the philosophy of engineering education. In 2003 there were two major publicationsconcerned with this matter. First, Billy Koen‟s “Discussion of the Method: Conducting theEngineer‟s Approach to Problem Solving” rooted in the use of heuristics that he claimed to beuniversal [1]. Second, Louis Bucciarelli explored the connections between philosophy andengineering especially engineering design, in a book with the formidable title of “EngineeringPhilosophy” [2]. A year later, Goldman argued the case for a philosophy of engineering asopposed to a philosophy of science [3]. A
(2), 329-345.18. Luegenbiehl, H. C. (2004). Ethical autonomy and engineering in a cross-cultural context. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 8(1), 57-78.19. Robinson, S., Dixon, R., Preece, C., and Moodley, K. (2007). Engineering, business, and professional ethics. New York: Elsevier. Page 25.1047.820. Callahan, J. C. (1988). Ethical issues in professional life. New York: Oxford.21. Lawson, W . D. (2004, January). Professionalism: The golden years. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 130(1), 26-36
and societal aspects, engineering design criteria,business perspectives, and values. On a more micro scale, three common notions of sustainabilitywere present in each principle: (1) safety, toxicity, and health, (2) eliminate or minimize/managewaste, and (3) resource conservation. The second part of their analysis looked at the congruencyof the published principles with what is being taught in universities. An analysis of publishedcourse descriptions showed that most courses with “sustainable” in the title or descriptionemphasized traditional technical engineering or environmental engineering including topics likeenergy and economic sustainability. Of note, descriptions of societal impacts typically invokedthe “triple bottom line” of society