Beyond Responsible Conduct: Engineering Macroethics Daniel A. Vallero, Ph. D. Pratt School of Engineering Duke University Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative RCR Meeting Seattle, Washington October 4, 2007
Bridging Macro and Micro Ethics NSF Grant n Project Goal: Advancing Ethics Education for Nano -Scale Researchers n Multi-school research team n n Engineering (lead)/Graduate/Environment/Jenkins New Technology & Society/Kenan Institute of Ethics n Primary Target Group “Nano” Centers: n n Center for Biologically Inspired Materials and Material Sciences (CBIMMS) Center for Biological Tissue Engineering (CBTE)
Our Definitions n n Microethics – ethical choices and dilemmas faced by individual researchers/practitioners, especially as they relate to acting in accordance with professional codes and norms Macroethics – ethical issues of research and practice in larger social and institutional contexts, including broader social responsibilities of engineers, policy and political questions and debates, questions about what the rules and norms should be, and who is involved in debates
Stages Ethics: n Awareness Decision Making Behavior n n Our Project: I. Planning II. Implementation and Modality Testing III. Assessment n n n Throughout 3 rd year dedicated to dissemination, adoption and adaptation successes Peterfreund Associates
Study Specifics New paradigm for ethical education of graduate-level researchers in emerging fields n Primarily aimed at Ph. D. research n n Also includes modules related to professional degrees Developing, implementing, and assessing multiple pedagogical modes for micro- and macro-ethical training to optimize ethical content and consciousness n Community Building n • • • Within Duke Other universities in North Carolina and beyond. LANGURE and CITI
Measures of Success n Awareness Focus groups/student conversations/workshops n Progress and more to come…. n n Decision Making Workshop 2/scenarios n Just beginning… n n Behavior n Long-term investment
Candidate Pedagogies RCR good for microethics for general scientific integrity n Engineering needs targeted pedagogical modes for micro- and macro-ethical training to optimize ethical content and consciousness within the graduate experience Community Building n • Within Duke • Other universities in North Carolina and beyond.
Assessment n Three key dimensions of ethical learning: n n n knowledge or awareness of ethically relevant issues and considerations, reasoning and reflection skills that lead to thoughtful conclusions about what ought to be done; and motivation and will to act in accordance with one’s judgment about the right, or best, thing to do. First 2 dimensions assessed through pre-and post- workshop surveys. Third dimension assessed through tools that collect feedback from the participants’ research community.
Why Duke? n Unique window of opportunity to build upon a significant existing RCR framework Biomedical n All disciplines n PIs to help develop learning modules for specific technological relevance to the students' research. n Macroethical dimension of this also sets it apart from much of graduate ethics training n n n including much of Duke’s already highly innovative and successful RCR program. Challenge is to enhance the RCR framework.
Linking Research Ethics with Professional Ethics n Can be likened to Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development
KOHLBERG’S THEORY OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT Pre-Conventional Level: Avoid punishment
KOHLBERG’S THEORY OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT Conventional Level: Concern about peers; concern about community Pre-Conventional Level: Avoid punishment
KOHLBERG’S THEORY OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT Macroethics addressed with vertical progression. Post-Conventional Level: Concern for wider society; universal ethical principles Conventional Level: Concern about peers; concern about community Pre-Conventional Level: Avoid punishment
Linking Research Ethics with Professional Ethics n Can be likened to Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development n The resultant model from this project will form the basis for departmental, center and other more targeted ethical challenges stemming from research in emerging technologies.
The Engineer’s View KOHLBERG’S THEORY OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALISM MODEL Post-Conventional Level: Concern for wider society; universal ethical principles Conventional Level: Concern about peers; concern about community Pre-Conventional Level: Avoid punishment Legal, Career, Reputation : Oriented toward staying out of trouble, gaining knowledge, making money Future Engineers (FE) Engineers in Training (EIT), Designers
The Engineer’s View KOHLBERG’S THEORY OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALISM MODEL Post-Conventional Level: Concern for wider society; universal ethical principles Conventional Level: Concern about peers; concern about community Pre-Conventional Level: Avoid punishment Leader and Expert: Oriented toward leading customers, suppliers, employees, and engineering profession Legal, Career, Reputation : Oriented toward staying out of trouble, gaining knowledge, making money Partners, Full Members of Societies, Mentors, Professional Engineers (PE) Future Engineers (FE) Engineers in Training (EIT), Designers
The Engineer’s View KOHLBERG’S THEORY OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT Post-Conventional Level: Concern for wider society; universal ethical principles Conventional Level: Concern about peers; concern about community Pre-Conventional Level: Avoid punishment ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALISM MODEL Examples: Engineering Exemplar: Oriented toward wisdom, being a role model and setting tone for future generations of engineers Leader and Expert: Oriented toward leading customers, suppliers, employees, and engineering profession Legal, Career, Reputation : Oriented toward staying out of trouble, gaining knowledge, making money Grey beards, Founding Members, Members of the Academy Partners, Full Members of Societies, Mentors, Professional Engineers (PE) Future Engineers (FE) Engineers in Training (EIT), Designers
Research & Professional Ethics n This will form the basis for our comprehensive RCR training n Innovations in pedagogy associated with this project include modalities that are potentially more effective in approaching the macroethical issues.
Results to Date n Workshop 1 – March 2006 Baseline – What do we care about? n Introduction to ethics of emerging technologies n “Nano” a part, but not the only issues n Essay Competition n Student Focus Groups/Faculty – Student Conversations n Workshop 2 – March 2007 n Roundtable – June 2007 n
Workshop 1 n Introduction to Ethical Decisions Kenan Institute structure of ethical decision making n Video capture example n Brainstorming n Multivoting n 2 per participant (could use both on same issue) n Importance n
Identified Issues: Microethical n n n Conflicts of Interest (7) Publication, e. g. Authorship, Data, Control (7) “Cooking” and “Trimming” Data (5) Human Subjects (Risk) (4) Science/Media Interactions (RCR with Press) (4) Proprietary Secrets and Info Sharing (3)
Some Microethical Surprises n n n Appropriate Use of Stem Cells (1) Patient Confidentiality and Privacy (1) Animals (e. g. Pain Management) (0) Relationships with Prospective Employers beyond Academia or Government (0) Researcher Safety (0)
Identified Issues: Macroethical n n Environmental (10) Human “enhancement” (e. g. evolved vs. manufactured future in context of engineering and its focus on design/translation) (8) Nanomanufacturing issues – deciding what to engineer (5) “Open Science” vs. intellectual property protections – benefits and risks (5)
Some Macroethical Surprises n n n n Balancing careful regulation of science vs. scientific progress in a context of global competition (1) Commercialization (1) Funding – how priorities are set (1) Human cloning and blastocyst research (1) Social equity in deployment of nanoscience (1) Limitations on international students (0) Re-synthesis of deadly viruses as biological weapons (0) Role of government (e. g. security agencies) in decisions about publication/dissemination (0)
Essay Competition n Ph. D students from the two centers Request for essays via email and website postings Rating Criteria n n n Technological and ethical importance (25) Relevance (20) Currency (20) Completeness and strength of argument (15) Creativity (20) Writing competence (Negative only)
Science and the Public Good n "The ethical issues surrounding the emerging nanotechnology revolution cannot be left entirely up to society to decide, where the competing values of the whole and those of the elite few, who possess the power to direct the goals and intentions of technological innovations, may be at odds.
Science and the Public Good “… the immediate ethical responsibility lies with the scientists who are proposing and carrying out the research that will deliver the nanotechnology revolution. ”
Science and the Public Good "Public perception of science and technology is mixed, based largely on a history of inspiring successes and devastating failures. At one extreme are the skeptics who focus on the risks of technological advances and who demand a halt to all progress until the absence of risk can be assured. Their polar opposites are the proponents of technology who, with almost blind optimism, extol the benefits of progress and downplay the risks as necessary. Both groups, in their extremism, hamper the development of technology. "
Conduct of Nanoscience Research "Applications of medical nanoscience put at risk the very population they are used to aid. The ethical challenges of nanotherapeutics lie in assessing the health risks, determining a reasonable screening strategy for complications, and providing timely and accessible medical care to rectify or alleviate health problems induced by the nanotherapy. "
Conduct of Nanoscience Research "Good research practices are imperative to the success of nanotechnology. Placing restrictions on the researcher only inhibits the abilities of growth. However, it is the responsibility of the researcher to conduct research in an ethical matter, taking into account the positive and negative effects of nanotechnology. These responsibilities include continual training of the ethics of nanotechnology and its effects on the world. "
Prescriptions "Perhaps as a result of this disjointed collection of viewpoints, scientists are carefully discussing those issues which are expected to affect the rightness of research into and subsequent applications within the field of nanoscience. Foremost among these considerations are the financial cost, health risks, and potential abuses of nanoscience. "
Ethical Artifacts "Sadly, the possibilities for abuse of nanoscience knowledge, however well-intentioned, are only constrained by the limits of human imagination. Given the risk of misuse, scientists must carefully evaluate and strive to anticipate the ramifications of each study. Simultaneously, society must prepare a control framework to limit the accessibility of high-risk nanotherapies to those who would use them ethically. "
Bottom Line "Nature has given us the template for nanotechnology; it is ultimately human responsibility to use this technology in an ethical way for the benefit of our … world. "
Conversations Science has primacy n Don’t set up dilemmas (ala Whitbeck) n Careful with case studies n
Workshop 2 n n Pre-workshop questionnaire on awareness of nano issues Breakouts addressing scenario from three perspectives: A. B. C. n n n Researcher safety and health Consumer/end user Environmental fate and transport Post-workshop responses and faculty observers Semi-quantitative and qualitative evaluations Follow-up roundtable planned for June 2007
Pre- and Post-Tests (Awareness) n Goal: n n Participants given 1 of 2 brief cases and asked to outline the main points that should be considered and strategy for addressing them. n n n Assess whether students were able to better both identify macro-ethical issue and articulate strategies for addressing them as a result of workshop participation Half of the participants were given Case 1 as a pre-test and half given Case 2. After the workshop, participants were given the case they had not seen and asked to repeat the exercise. In each case, the responses were completed in approximately 10 to 15 minutes.
Case 1 n You are engaged in the research associated with a class of engineered nanoparticles using silver that assists in desalination. The expanded application of this research could include large-scale manufacturing and usage of these materials. Currently, there are no clear standards for toxicity of the material being produced at these very small particle sizes.
Case 2 n Your research into the use of nanocomposites for tissue regeneration associated with bone healing has resulted in a novel use that could have broad application. A biotech company is interested in commercializing your research. Currently little is known on whether these nanocomposites are stable or can be translocated to other parts of the body.
Workshop 2 Summary n Data n n Impacts divided into 3 categories; 1) 2) 3) n manufacturing consumer health issues and environmental issues Strategies were grouped into 5 categories: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) n 24 students completed the pre-test 12 did Case 1 and 12 did Case 2 25 completed the post-test (12 did Case 1 and 13 did Case 2). standard testing for known concerns research on properties or other unknowns creation of or referral to standards continued monitoring or long-term follow up education of others Overall, the results suggest a relatively successful demonstration of participant learning.
Workshop 2: Awareness & Approach Following are the answers (before and after workshop) to: n “Please provide an outline of how you might approach the macroethical issues, if you see any, associated with this research. You might consider both your role and the role of others important to addressing ethical issues associated with this research. ” n Main points to be considered….
Workshop 2 Delta
Workshop 2 Delta The largest changes associated with impact were the higher frequency of mention of environmental issues associated with both cases.
Workshop 2 Delta Significant at p<0. 05
Workshop 2 Delta Consumer issues also show more frequent mention.
Workshop 2 Delta The smallest change in the mention of impact issues was those associated with the manufacturing process
Workshop 2 Delta Little difference in change by case, with the exception of greater frequency of mentioning environmental issues with Case 1.
Workshop 2: Strategies Following are the answers (before and after workshop) to: n “Please outline the main points that should be considered and a strategy for addressing them. ”
Workshop 2 Delta
Workshop 2 Delta Significant at p<0. 05
Workshop 2 Delta The largest changes in strategies for addressing the macroethical issues suggested by participants were associated with the researchers’ responsibilities of fostering research about the impact of the nano-materials.
Workshop 2 Delta Particularly for Case 1 this also includes more attention to developing appropriate standards and monitoring.
Workshop 2 Results Narrative n n n Post-workshop responses more nuanced and thoughtful than the original pre-workshop answers. Participants developed new categories in their responses, specifically attention to environmental and health issues in production as well as the importance of ongoing evaluation after a product hits market. In the pre-workshop exercise respondents largely used toxicity as a standard for safety and health issues, but in the post-exercise participants considered a variety of environmental and health issues at all stages of research and production.
Workshop 2 Narrative cont’d n n n Rather than listing scientific procedures and methods for safety testing as they had done in the first response, participants emphasized the development of standards and procedures for ensuring quality of health and environmental safety measures. Emphasis shifted from laboratory procedures to institutional and policy arrangements for human and environmental health and safety. More thorough description of the stages at which involved parties had ethical obligations, and considered how these obligations could be met.
Workshop 2: Who’s Responsible? n n More participants pointed to the responsibilities companies had in researching health and environmental issues. Overall, more consideration of the role different entities should play in the research and development stages. Several respondents described systems of checks and balances in which industry and researchers could verify that appropriate safety and health issues were being addressed. Participants suggested ways researchers in different areas could collaborate and share results, emphasizing the shared ethical obligation in research and production.
Workshop 2: Big Picture Engagement with larger ethical questions. n As they expanded their responses to include the new categories, the participants also addressed broader issues of ethical obligations. n Considered more carefully the levels of ethical responsibility of the groups invested in the research. n
Workshop 2: Big Picture cont’d Several respondents mentioned that individual researchers were not qualified to investigate all ethical issues involved in their work, n But pointed to the roles for others to cover these issues. n This was different than what was said in preworkshop emphasis on specific scientific procedures and tests. n
Bottom Line Workshops seem to work…. n Other venues (focus groups, conversations, essay competitions) also provide support to awareness…. n Need to tailor to engineering researchers…. n So, …. n
Next Steps Looking into our own “backyard” n November 2007 Workshop n n n Code Writing Entrée to benchside consultations n n Therapeutics n n Nano gene delivery (Kam Leong) Photonics n n Conferring with Lenoir (Jenkins Chair) on technologies Genetically encoded molecular beacons (Tuan Vo. Dign) Coupling scientific advances with ethical considerations n The next phase of RCR….
Third Year Challenge n Design studies to match modalities Benchside consultation n Code writing n Case studies n Others (e. g. juries, game theory, etc. ) n n Ideas from CITI?
Collaborators to Date n Engineering Tod Laursen, PI n Rob Clark n Monty Reichert n Mark Wiesner n Dan Vallero n n n Jenkins Chair n n n Lynn Maguire Doug James Kenan Institute Noah Pickus n Elizabeth Kiss n n Genomics n Tim Lenoir Environment Graduate School n Bob Cook-Deegan Assessment n Alan Peterfreund
Contact me dav 1@duke. edu n 919 -541 -3306 n
Скачать презентацию Beyond Responsible Conduct Engineering Macroethics Daniel A Vallero
1a07984b82e97cc2becd10dc9b850a17.ppt