Conference Session

Engineering Ethics Outside the Classroom

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Michael Bowler, Michigan Technological University; Susie Amato-Henderson, Michigan Technological University; Tom Drummer, Michigan Technological University; Joseph Holles, Michigan Technological University; Ted Lockhart, Michigan Technological University; Joanna Schreiber, Michigan Technological University; Debra Charlesworth, Michigan Technological University; Jingfang Ren, Michigan Technological University

Tagged Divisions

Engineering Ethics

by his fictitious ridiculer (Dr. Willard). Withoutrevealing his past associations with the applicant to his review panel (RCR issue; conflict ofinterest), Dr. Xiao suggests that the review panel reject Dr. Willard's proposal even though Dr.Xiao recognizes that it represented important research (RCR issue; Fairness in peer review).This vignette is referred to as the Xiao scenario for the remainder of this paper.In the second vignette, a fictitious researcher (Dr. Arnaut) developed a drug that he hopes topatent after conducting a study of its effectiveness. Dr. Arnaut hires Dr. Watson to help with thestudy and write the final report. Due to difficulty recruiting participants, Dr. Arnaut decides notto tell participants about possible side

Conference Session

Integrating Engineering Ethics into the Curriculum

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Edward Glynn, Villanova University; Frank Falcone, Villanova University; Mark Doorley, Villanova University

Tagged Divisions

Engineering Ethics

students on a continuing basis? How do we replace ethics as a lecture during acourse with ethics as a way of life?” Some of these sample practices are as follows: • Students should personally sign their work. The mere exercise of signing your own work instills a sense of personal responsibility and ownership and helps to remove the general nature of academic submissions with personal and professional submissions. In professional engineering practice, deliverables are signed before submission. • Students review their peers’ assignments. Students can be asked to review and critique their classmates’ work. The review could be as