Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 5
2
The Environment for
Science and Engineering
This chapter provides a summary of material from the presenta-
tions, responses, and discussion related to the first session, Needs and
Issues for Ethics Education in Scientific and Engineering Research. In
preparing their remarks, panelists were asked to consider the following
questions:
Investigators and students exist in complex research and learning environ -
ments that include academic and other organizations, such as professional
societies, commercial research laboratories, government funding agencies,
and peer-reviewed journals. What do these individuals and groups identify as
the main impediments to developing effective responsible research programs?
Are there conflicting ideas about what these impediments are and what to do
about them?
The panel was chaired by Francisco Ayala, a member of the NAS
and of the project’s advisory committee, and University Professor and
Donald Bien Professor of Biological Sciences, Ecology and Evolutionary
Biology at University of California, Irvine. The speakers were Joseph
Helble, dean, Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College;
Deborah Johnson, chair, Department of Science, Technology and
Society, University of Virginia, Charlottesville; Michael Mumford, pro -
fessor, Psychology Department, University of Oklahoma, Norman; and
Wendy Williams, director, Research Education, The Children’s Hospital
of Philadelphia. The respondents were NAE member Paul Citron, chief
technology officer (retired), Medtronic; Hugh Gusterson, professor,
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, George Mason University;
and Susan Silbey, Leon and Anne Goldberg Professor of Humanities,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
OCR for page 6
ETHICS EDUCATION AND SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH
At the beginning of the meeting, when attendees attempted to
explain why ethics education is important, they proposed a variety
of answers. Some described well-known instances of research mis -
conduct. Others referred to less well known, but equally deleterious
research practices that undermine
both public trust in science and
A lot of research investigators engineering and the integrity of
are alienated by an incentive
research, for example, honesty in
structure that makes
recording data and acknowledging
their community nasty,
research contributions. Still others
individualistic, and competitive
noted that the responsibilities of
. . . a lot of graduate students,
especially female graduate academic institutions and research
students, but I have also heard
faculty include training and educa-
it from male graduate students,
tion that promotes the understand-
. . . quit. They say, “I don’t want
ing and application of the ethical
to become that kind of person,
standards of academia and specific
so I’m going to find some other
fields. Some referred to former stu-
way to spend my life.”
dents, who had told them that only
Caroline Whitbeck,
when they were faced with diffi-
Online Ethics Center
cult ethical questions on the job
did they recognize the value of the
time spent on those and other ethical issues during their education.
And some noted that sometimes the brightest and most socially aware
students turn away from research programs and careers that do not
live up to their ideals.
Many participants noted that ongoing changes in American culture
influence ethically responsible behavior. To develop ethics and men -
toring activities and assess the results, program leaders and staff must
be aware, for instance, of the internationalization of U.S. graduate
programs, the nature and priorities of current undergraduate cul -
ture or mores, and the disparate pathways into graduate education,
furious competition for federal grants, and the growing number of
university-industry partnerships. Program leaders must recognize that
new technologies promote globalization and change faculty-student
interactions. In discussions throughout the meeting, some workshop
participants noted that increasing pressures for tenure and increasing
competition for grants have led to a variety of problems, including
instances of competitive mentoring—the same project being assigned
to more than one graduate student, only one of whom receives credit
for the work.
OCR for page 7
7
THE ENVIRONMENT FOR SCIENCE AND ENGINERING
Panelist Susan Silbey of MIT reminded participants that these
“structural forces . . . tend to produce unethical behavior.”1 Other
attendees agreed on the need for new, creative responses that include
attention to ethics. Many pointed out past efforts by leaders in scientific
and engineering fields, as well as leaders of professional societies and
academic organizations, to strengthen codes, issue reports, cooperate in
government efforts to devise and implement policies, and initiate new
educational activities. These responses are reflected, as Deborah Johnson
of the University of Virginia said in her remarks, not only in ABET 2
criteria requiring student competencies in ethics and an understanding
of the social context of engineering, but also in new NSF requirements
that proposals for research projects must include a description of their
societal relevance (NSF evaluation criterion 2).3
In a general discussion, NAS member W. Carl Lineberger, Univer-
sity of Colorado, Boulder, commented that “. . . we really do have a
wonderful opportunity. . . . I’ve been going around, talking to various
groups of chemists about . . . how can they do a better job on broader
impacts [NSF criterion 2] . . . I believe you have a very large number
of receptive people to pay attention to ethics via this broader impacts
mechanism, because it’s going to affect them in a very serious way.”
Throughout the discussions, meeting participants noted that organi-
zations that fund research and employ scientists and engineers encour-
age interdisciplinary work and teamwork. However, they also noted that
academic incentives for advancement favor individual work. Thus, these
incentives should be revised to acknowledge and reward collabora -
tive and cooperative efforts. Professional societies, government funding
organizations, and universities can cooperate on workshops to promote
ethics, prizes for outstanding ethical leadership, and changes to the
tenure process that reward outstanding mentors, for example.
Several workshop participants described substantial barriers to the
1See for instance Vaughan, D. “The Dark Side of Organizations: Mistake, Misconduct and Disaster”,
Annual Review of Sociology, 25 (1999): 271-305. Also, Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R.,
and Martinson, B. C. (2007). The pererse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships.
Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(4), 437-461.
2ABET Inc., the recognized accrediting agency for college and university programs in applied
science, computing, engineering, and technology, is a federation of 29 professional and technical
societies representing these fields. See www.abet.org.
3The NSF Grant Proposal Guide provides the NSF review criteria concerning societal relevance;
see particularly http://www.nsf.go/pubs/gpg/broaderimpacts.pdf. For recent notification of inten-
tion to address ethics, see also http://www.nsf.go/oirm/bocomm/bo/bfa_updates_handout2final_
27may08.pdf.
OCR for page 8
8 ETHICS EDUCATION AND SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH
development of new incentives and suggested that change would be
more likely in the long run if faculty achievements in professional ethics
activities were incorporated into tenure decisions. In the meantime,
recognition for collaborative and cooperative work could be reinforced
by prizes given by organizations for outstanding ethical leadership or
graduate and postdoctoral workshops in science and engineering ethics
sponsored by the National Academies and other professional societies.
Overall, the workshop participants indicated that ethics mentoring
and education should include interactions between scientists and engi -
neers and the larger environment in which they work, and should include
discussions of how the environment affects, and sometimes changes,
research and professional practices. As an example of these interactions,
Mark Frankel, AAAS, noted how conflicts of interest can pose chal -
lenges to issues of authorship. Some time ago, he said, only researchers
and professional organizations paid attention to authorship issues. How-
ever, with today’s complex funding arrangements for research, the issue
of authorship has taken on a much broader relevance.
Many attendees agreed that values, such as shared standards and
transparency, can promote public trust in the work and intentions of
scientists and engineers. These values, they said, should be topics of dis-
cussion in science and engineering ethics programs. These values pro -
vide an overall coherent focus for these activities. However, they also
pointed out that differences between science and engineering, as well as
field-specific differences within them, should also be taken into account
in research ethics activities. This is especially important because many
scientific and engineering research projects today involve researchers
from different disciplines and subfields, which might have different
standards. The differences and similarities should be identified and, if
necessary, justified. As one participant indicated, these differences may
reflect ethically acceptable differences, with similar underlying ethical
values that require discussion to resolve. Standards for authorship
credit provide an example. Numerous participants commented that
these particularities can limit the utility of generic communications,
or rules meant to cover numerous fields. They also noted that ethics
education in electronic or lecture formats, which are limited to one-way
communication, are less effective because they do not allow for the
kinds of deliberation and discussion of ethical problems and practices
that can create shared standards and transparency.
Attendees discussed how research on interactions between science,
engineering and the larger social context, whether approached from the
OCR for page 9
9
THE ENVIRONMENT FOR SCIENCE AND ENGINERING
point of view of science and technology studies, social and behavioral
sciences, history, philosophy, or social ethics, can shed light on the
ethical implications of the organization of scientific and engineering
work and how ethical considerations arise in the everyday work of sci-
entists and engineers. They also noted the importance of leadership from
the science and engineering communities (e.g., the National Academies,
AAAS, and scientific and engineering societies in specific fields) in rais -
ing the visibility of these issues.
Some discussants pointed out that research on the interactions
between science and engineering and the larger social environment can
not only help to identify ethical considerations relevant to conducting
research; but it can also identify other aspects of professional conduct
that can influence whether junior scientists and engineers continue in
career paths that include research and teaching or decide to pursue other
career goals. For instance, acknowledging and ameliorating factors that
result in hyper-competition in a department may raise retention rates; a
seminar led by a faculty member from a small college may demonstrate
the desirability of an alternative pathway.
OCR for page 10
