Beyond Responsible Conduct: Engineering Macroethics Daniel A. Vallero, Ph.D. Pratt School of Engineering Duke University Collaborative Institutional Training

Beyond Responsible Beyond Responsible Conduct:Conduct:

Engineering MacroethicsEngineering Macroethics

Daniel A. Vallero, Ph.D.Daniel A. Vallero, Ph.D.Pratt School of EngineeringPratt School of Engineering

Duke UniversityDuke University

Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative RCR MeetingSeattle, Washington

October 4, 2007October 4, 2007

Bridging Macro and Micro Ethics

NSF Grant Project Goal: Advancing Ethics Education

for Nano-Scale Researchers Multi-school research teamMulti-school research team

Engineering Engineering (lead)/Graduate/Environment/Jenkins New (lead)/Graduate/Environment/Jenkins New Technology & Society/Kenan Institute of EthicsTechnology & Society/Kenan Institute of Ethics

Primary Target Group “Nano” Centers: Primary Target Group “Nano” Centers: Center for Biologically Inspired Materials and Center for Biologically Inspired Materials and

Material Sciences (CBIMMS)Material Sciences (CBIMMS) Center for Biological Tissue Engineering (CBTE)Center for Biological Tissue Engineering (CBTE)

Our DefinitionsOur Definitions 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

StagesStages Ethics:Ethics:

AwarenessAwareness Decision MakingDecision Making BehaviorBehavior

Our Project:Our Project:I.I. PlanningPlanningII.II. Implementation and Modality TestingImplementation and Modality TestingIII.III. AssessmentAssessment

ThroughoutThroughout 33rdrd year dedicated to dissemination, adoption year dedicated to dissemination, adoption

and adaptation successesand adaptation successes Peterfreund AssociatesPeterfreund Associates

Study SpecificsStudy Specifics New paradigm for ethical education of graduate-level

researchers in emerging fields Primarily aimed at Ph.D. research

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

Community Building• Within Duke • Other universities in North Carolina and beyond. • LANGURE and CITI

Measures of SuccessMeasures of Success AwarenessAwareness

Focus groups/student Focus groups/student conversations/workshopsconversations/workshops

Progress and more to come….Progress and more to come…. Decision MakingDecision Making

Workshop 2/scenariosWorkshop 2/scenarios Just beginning…Just beginning…

BehaviorBehavior Long-term investmentLong-term investment

Candidate PedagogiesCandidate Pedagogies

RCR good for microethics for general scientific integrity

Engineering needs targeted pedagogical modes for micro- and macro-ethical training to optimize ethical content and consciousness within the graduate experience Community Building• Within Duke • Other universities in North Carolina and

beyond.

AssessmentAssessment Three key dimensions of ethical learning:

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?Why Duke? Unique window of opportunity to build upon

a significant existing RCR framework Biomedical All disciplines

PIs to help develop learning modules for specific technological relevance to the students' research.

Macroethical dimension of this also sets it apart from much of graduate ethics training including much of Duke’s already highly

innovative and successful RCR program. Challenge is to enhance the RCR

framework.

Linking Research Ethics Linking Research Ethics with Professional Ethicswith Professional Ethics Can be likened to Kohlberg’s

Theory of Moral Development

KOHLBERG’S THEORYOF MORAL

DEVELOPMENT

Pre-Conventional Level:Avoid punishment


DEVELOPMENT

Pre-Conventional Level:

Avoid punishment

Conventional Level:Concern about peers;

concern about community

Macroethics

addressed with

vertical progressi

on.


DEVELOPMENT

Pre-Conventional Level:Avoid punishment



Post-Conventional Level:Concern for wider society;universal ethical principles

Linking Research Ethics Linking Research Ethics with Professional Ethicswith Professional Ethics Can be likened to Kohlberg’s

Theory of Moral Development 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 ViewThe Engineer’s ViewENGINEERING PROFESSIONALISM MODEL

KOHLBERG’S THEORY

OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT



Avoid punishment

Legal, Career, Reputation :Oriented toward staying out of trouble, gaining knowledge, making money

Future Engineers (FE)Engineers in Training (EIT), Designers




KOHLBERG’S THEORY




Avoid punishment


Partners, Full Members of Societies, Mentors, Professional Engineers (PE)


Leader and Expert:Oriented toward leading customers,suppliers, employees, and engineering profession




KOHLBERG’S THEORY



Examples:

Grey beards, Founding Members, Members of the Academy


Avoid punishment


Partners, Full Members of Societies, Mentors, Professional Engineers (PE)


Leader and Expert:Oriented toward leading customers,suppliers, employees, and engineering profession



Engineering Exemplar:Oriented toward wisdom, being a role model and setting tone for future generations of engineers

Research & Professional Research & Professional EthicsEthics

This will form the basis for our comprehensive RCR training

Innovations in pedagogy associated with this project include modalities that are potentially more effective in approaching the macroethical issues.

Results to DateResults to Date

Workshop 1 – March 2006Workshop 1 – March 2006 Baseline – What do we care about?Baseline – What do we care about? Introduction to ethics of emerging Introduction to ethics of emerging

technologiestechnologies ““Nano” a part, but not the only issuesNano” a part, but not the only issues

Essay CompetitionEssay Competition Student Focus Groups/Faculty – Student Focus Groups/Faculty –

Student ConversationsStudent Conversations Workshop 2 – March 2007Workshop 2 – March 2007 Roundtable – June 2007Roundtable – June 2007

Workshop 1Workshop 1

Introduction to Ethical DecisionsIntroduction to Ethical Decisions Kenan Institute structure of ethical Kenan Institute structure of ethical

decision makingdecision making Video capture exampleVideo capture example

BrainstormingBrainstorming MultivotingMultivoting

2 per participant (could use both on 2 per participant (could use both on same issue)same issue)

ImportanceImportance

Identified Issues: Identified Issues: MicroethicalMicroethical

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 Some Microethical SurprisesSurprises

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: Identified Issues: MacroethicalMacroethical

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 Some Macroethical SurprisesSurprises

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 CompetitionEssay Competition PhD students from the two centersPhD students from the two centers Request for essays via email and website Request for essays via email and website

postingspostings Rating CriteriaRating Criteria

Technological and ethical importance (25) Technological and ethical importance (25) Relevance (20)Relevance (20) Currency (20)Currency (20) Completeness and strength of argument (15)Completeness and strength of argument (15) Creativity (20)Creativity (20) Writing competence (Negative only) Writing competence (Negative only)

Science and the Public Good

"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.


“… the immediate ethical responsibility lies with the scientists who are proposing and carrying out the research that will deliver the nanotechnology revolution.”


"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 Conduct of Nanoscience ResearchResearch

"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 Conduct of Nanoscience ResearchResearch

"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."

PrescriptionsPrescriptions

"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 ArtifactsEthical 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 LineBottom 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."

ConversationsConversations

Science has primacyScience has primacy Don’t set up dilemmas (ala Don’t set up dilemmas (ala

Whitbeck)Whitbeck) Careful with case studiesCareful with case studies

Workshop 2Workshop 2 Pre-workshop questionnaire on awareness of Pre-workshop questionnaire on awareness of

nano issuesnano issues Breakouts addressing scenario from three Breakouts addressing scenario from three

perspectives:perspectives:A.A. Researcher safety and healthResearcher safety and healthB.B. Consumer/end userConsumer/end userC.C. Environmental fate and transportEnvironmental fate and transport

Post-workshop responses and faculty Post-workshop responses and faculty observersobservers

Semi-quantitative and qualitative evaluationsSemi-quantitative and qualitative evaluations Follow-up roundtable planned for June 2007Follow-up roundtable planned for June 2007

Pre- and Post-Tests Pre- and Post-Tests (Awareness)(Awareness)

Goal: Goal: Assess whether students were able to better both Assess whether students were able to better both

identify macro-ethical issue and articulate strategies for identify macro-ethical issue and articulate strategies for addressing them as a result of workshop participationaddressing them as a result of workshop participation

Participants given 1 of 2 brief cases and asked to Participants given 1 of 2 brief cases and asked to outline the main points that should be considered outline the main points that should be considered and strategy for addressing them. and strategy for addressing them. Half of the participants were given Case 1 as a pre-test Half of the participants were given Case 1 as a pre-test

and half given Case 2. and half given Case 2. After the workshop, participants were given the After the workshop, participants were given the

case they had not seen and asked to repeat the case they had not seen and asked to repeat the exercise. exercise.

In each case, the responses were completed in In each case, the responses were completed in approximately 10 to 15 minutes. approximately 10 to 15 minutes.

Case 1Case 1 You are engaged in the research You are engaged in the research

associated with a class of engineered associated with a class of engineered nanoparticles using silver that assists in nanoparticles using silver that assists in desalination. The expanded application desalination. The expanded application of this research could include large-scale of this research could include large-scale manufacturing and usage of these manufacturing and usage of these materials. Currently, there are no clear materials. Currently, there are no clear standards for toxicity of the material standards for toxicity of the material being produced at these very small being produced at these very small particle sizes.particle sizes.

Case 2Case 2

Your research into the use of Your research into the use of nanocomposites for tissue regeneration nanocomposites for tissue regeneration associated with bone healing has associated with bone healing has resulted in a novel use that could have resulted in a novel use that could have broad application. A biotech company is broad application. A biotech company is interested in commercializing your interested in commercializing your research. Currently little is known on research. Currently little is known on whether these nanocomposites are whether these nanocomposites are stable or can be translocated to other stable or can be translocated to other parts of the body. parts of the body.

Workshop 2 SummaryWorkshop 2 Summary DataData

24 students completed the pre-test 24 students completed the pre-test 12 did Case 1 and 12 did Case 212 did Case 1 and 12 did Case 2 25 completed the post-test (12 did Case 1 and 13 did Case 2).25 completed the post-test (12 did Case 1 and 13 did Case 2).

ImpactsImpacts divided into 3 categories; divided into 3 categories;1)1) manufacturingmanufacturing2)2) consumerconsumer3)3) health issues and environmental issueshealth issues and environmental issues

StrategiesStrategies were grouped into 5 categories: were grouped into 5 categories:1)1) standard testing for known concernsstandard testing for known concerns2)2) research on properties or other unknownsresearch on properties or other unknowns3)3) creation of or referral to standardscreation of or referral to standards4)4) continued monitoring or long-term follow upcontinued monitoring or long-term follow up5)5) education of otherseducation of others

Overall, the results suggest a relatively successful Overall, the results suggest a relatively successful demonstration of participant learning. demonstration of participant learning.

Workshop 2: Awareness Workshop 2: Awareness & Approach& Approach

Following are the answers (before and Following are the answers (before and after workshop) to:after workshop) to:

““Please provide an outline of how you Please provide an outline of how you might approach the macroethical might approach the macroethical issues, if you see any, associated with issues, if you see any, associated with this research. You might consider this research. You might consider both your role and the role of others both your role and the role of others important to addressing ethical issues important to addressing ethical issues associated with this research.”associated with this research.”

Main points to be considered….Main points to be considered….

Workshop 2 DeltaWorkshop 2 Delta

Approach to Macro-ethics - Impact(Pre-post essays)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Manufacturing Consumer Environment

IMPACT

% M

enti

on

ing Pre- 1 (Desal)

Post- 1

Pre- 2 (Bone)

Post- 2



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


IMPACT

% M

enti

on

ing Pre- 1 (Desal)

Post- 1

Pre- 2 (Bone)

Post- 2

The largest changes associated with impact were the higher frequency of mention of environmental issues associated with both cases.



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


IMPACT

% M

enti

on

ing Pre- 1 (Desal)

Post- 1

Pre- 2 (Bone)

Post- 2

Significant at p<0.05



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


IMPACT

% M

enti

on

ing Pre- 1 (Desal)

Post- 1

Pre- 2 (Bone)

Post- 2

Consumer issues also show more frequent mention.



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


IMPACT

% M

enti

on

ing Pre- 1 (Desal)

Post- 1

Pre- 2 (Bone)

Post- 2

The smallest change in the mention of impact issues was those associated

with the manufacturing process



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


IMPACT

% M

enti

on

ing Pre- 1 (Desal)

Post- 1

Pre- 2 (Bone)

Post- 2

Little difference in change by case, with the exception of greater frequency of mentioning

environmental issues with Case 1.

Workshop 2: StrategiesWorkshop 2: Strategies

Following are the answers (before and Following are the answers (before and after workshop) to:after workshop) to:

““Please outline the main points that Please outline the main points that should be considered and a strategy should be considered and a strategy for addressing them.”for addressing them.”


Approach to Macro-ethics - Strategies(Pre-post essays)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Testing Research Standards Monitoring Education

STRATEGY FOR ADDRESSING

% M

enti

on

ing Pre- 1 (Desal)

Post- 1

Pre- 2 (Bone)

Post- 2



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



% M

enti

on

ing Pre- 1 (Desal)

Post- 1

Pre- 2 (Bone)

Post- 2

Significant at p<0.05



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



% M

enti

on

ing Pre- 1 (Desal)

Post- 1

Pre- 2 (Bone)

Post- 2

The largest changes in strategies for addressing the macro-ethical issues suggested by participants were associated with the researchers’ responsibilities of fostering research about the impact of the nano-materials.



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



% M

enti

on

ing Pre- 1 (Desal)

Post- 1

Pre- 2 (Bone)

Post- 2

Particularly for Case 1 this also includes more attention to developing appropriate standards and monitoring.

Workshop 2 Results Workshop 2 Results NarrativeNarrative

Post-workshop responses more nuanced and Post-workshop responses more nuanced and thoughtful than the original pre-workshop thoughtful than the original pre-workshop answers.answers.

Participants developed new categories in their Participants developed new categories in their responses, specifically attention to environmental responses, specifically attention to environmental and health issues in production as well as the and health issues in production as well as the importance of ongoing evaluation after a product importance of ongoing evaluation after a product hits market. hits market.

In the pre-workshop exercise respondents largely In the pre-workshop exercise respondents largely used toxicity as a standard for safety and health used toxicity as a standard for safety and health issues, but in the post-exercise participants issues, but in the post-exercise participants considered a variety of environmental and health considered a variety of environmental and health issues at all stages of research and production.issues at all stages of research and production.

Workshop 2 Narrative Workshop 2 Narrative cont’dcont’d

Rather than listing scientific procedures and Rather than listing scientific procedures and methods for safety testing as they had done in methods for safety testing as they had done in the first response, participants emphasized the the first response, participants emphasized the development of standards and procedures for development of standards and procedures for ensuring quality of health and environmental ensuring quality of health and environmental safety measures. safety measures.

Emphasis shifted from laboratory procedures to Emphasis shifted from laboratory procedures to institutional and policy arrangements for human institutional and policy arrangements for human and environmental health and safety. and environmental health and safety.

More thorough description of the stages at More thorough description of the stages at which involved parties had ethical obligations, which involved parties had ethical obligations, and considered how these obligations could be and considered how these obligations could be met. met.

Workshop 2: Who’s Workshop 2: Who’s Responsible?Responsible?

More participants pointed to the responsibilities More participants pointed to the responsibilities companies had in researching health and environmental companies had in researching health and environmental issues. issues.

Overall, more consideration of the role different entities Overall, more consideration of the role different entities should play in the research and development stages. should play in the research and development stages.

Several respondents described systems of checks and Several respondents described systems of checks and balances in which industry and researchers could verify balances in which industry and researchers could verify that appropriate safety and health issues were being that appropriate safety and health issues were being addressed.addressed.

Participants suggested ways researchers in different Participants suggested ways researchers in different areas could collaborate and share results, emphasizing areas could collaborate and share results, emphasizing the shared ethical obligation in research and the shared ethical obligation in research and production. production.

Workshop 2: Big PictureWorkshop 2: Big Picture

Engagement with larger ethical Engagement with larger ethical questions. questions.

As they expanded their responses to As they expanded their responses to include the new categories, the include the new categories, the participants also addressed broader participants also addressed broader issues of ethical obligations. issues of ethical obligations.

Considered more carefully the levels Considered more carefully the levels of ethical responsibility of the groups of ethical responsibility of the groups invested in the research.invested in the research.

Workshop 2: Big Picture Workshop 2: Big Picture cont’dcont’d

Several respondents mentioned that Several respondents mentioned that individual researchers were not individual researchers were not qualified to investigate all ethical qualified to investigate all ethical issues involved in their work, issues involved in their work,

But pointed to the roles for others to But pointed to the roles for others to cover these issues.cover these issues.

This was different than what was said This was different than what was said in pre-workshop emphasis on specific in pre-workshop emphasis on specific scientific procedures and tests. scientific procedures and tests.

Bottom LineBottom Line

Workshops seem to work….Workshops seem to work…. Other venues (focus groups, Other venues (focus groups,

conversations, essay competitions) conversations, essay competitions) also provide support to awareness….also provide support to awareness….

Need to tailor to engineering Need to tailor to engineering researchers….researchers….

So, ….So, ….

Next StepsNext Steps Looking into our own “backyard”Looking into our own “backyard” November 2007 WorkshopNovember 2007 Workshop

Code WritingCode Writing Entrée to benchside consultationsEntrée to benchside consultations

Conferring with Lenoir (Jenkins Chair) on technologiesConferring with Lenoir (Jenkins Chair) on technologies

TherapeuticsTherapeutics Nano gene delivery (Kam Leong)Nano gene delivery (Kam Leong)

PhotonicsPhotonics Genetically encoded molecular beacons (Tuan VoDign)Genetically encoded molecular beacons (Tuan VoDign)

Coupling scientific advances with ethical Coupling scientific advances with ethical considerationsconsiderations The next phase of RCR….The next phase of RCR….

Third Year ChallengeThird Year Challenge

Design studies to match modalitiesDesign studies to match modalities Benchside consultationBenchside consultation Code writingCode writing Case studiesCase studies Others (e.g. juries, game theory, etc.)Others (e.g. juries, game theory, etc.)

Ideas from CITI?Ideas from CITI?

Collaborators to DateCollaborators to Date

EngineeringEngineering Tod Laursen, PITod Laursen, PI Rob ClarkRob Clark Monty ReichertMonty Reichert Mark WiesnerMark Wiesner Dan ValleroDan Vallero

Jenkins ChairJenkins Chair Tim LenoirTim Lenoir

EnvironmentEnvironment Lynn MaguireLynn Maguire

Graduate SchoolGraduate School Doug JamesDoug James

Kenan InstituteKenan Institute Noah PickusNoah Pickus Elizabeth KissElizabeth Kiss

GenomicsGenomics Bob Cook-DeeganBob Cook-Deegan

AssessmentAssessment Alan PeterfreundAlan Peterfreund

Contact meContact me

[email protected]@duke.edu 919-541-3306919-541-3306

Documents

Beyond Responsible Conduct: Engineering Macroethics Daniel A. Vallero, Ph.D. Pratt School of Engineering Duke University Collaborative Institutional Training