Connecting Engineering Processes and Responsible Innovation: A Response to Macro-Ethical Challenges

ABSTRACT

If it is understood that engineers are ‘turning dreams to reality,’ then educators share the responsibility for supporting engineers in developing the capacities to consider the future impacts of their decisions. Yet even the most competent engineer's decisions can contribute to macro-ethical failures that arise from narrow problem framing, unevenly distributed risks and benefits, or design solutions unfit for their intended social and cultural contexts. This paper describes how macro-ethical failures can arise at different points in engineering design processes, and considers how competences associated with responsible innovation might assuage those vulnerabilities. To build those competences among future professional engineers, examples of pedagogical approaches are presented at three scales: activities, courses and curricula. For scholars and educators interested in engineering ethics, this article challenges approaches that favor individualistic understandings of responsibility, instead seeking to support learners’ awareness of, and ability to, ameliorate macro-ethical failures. For scholars and educators interested in operationalizing responsible innovation as a learning outcome that aligns with engineering practice, we offer an entry point for that conversation.

KEYWORDS:

• Collective responsibility
• complex systems
• macro-ethics
• engineering design
• engineering education

Acknowledgements

This manuscript draws inspiration from workshops hosted by University of Sheffield in May 2016 and the Society for New and Emerging Technologies, yet does not directly incorporate materials or discussions therein. An earlier version of this material was shared at the Engineering Education Symposium, Sheffield July 2016. The authors would like to thank all the workshop participants and audience members at the symposium that shared their critique. The findings and observations contained in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID

Rider Foley http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9362-8790

Notes

1 Reynolds and Seeley, “Striving for Balance,”136–51.

2 Downey and Lucena, “National Identities in Multicultural Worlds,” 257.

3 Khandekhar, “Engineering the Global Indian.”

4 ISEE “Call for Papers”.

5 Van de Poel and Royakkers, Ethics, Technology, and Engineering.

6 Stilgoe et al., “Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation,” 1568–80.

7 c.f. de Saille, “Innovating Innovation Policy,” 152–68.

8 von Schomberg, “A Vision of Responsible Innovation,” 63.

9 Herkert, “Future Directions in Engineering Ethics Research,” 403–14 offers ‘macroethics; Allenby, “Macroethical Systems and Sustainability Science,” 7–13 uses ‘macro ethical’, while Newberry, “Katrina: Marcro-ethical Issues for Engineers,” 535–71 states ‘macro-ethical.’ We are unconcerned with the differences and have used the hyphenated spelling.

10 Downey and Lucena, “National Identities in Multicultural Worlds.”

11 Ocone, “Engineering Ethics and Accreditation,” e115.

12 ABET, “Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs.”

13 Engineering Council, The Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes, 13.

14 EUR-ACE Framework Standards and Guidelines, 2015.

15 Engineering Council, UK Standard for Professional Engineering Competence. 3rd ed. 2013, 45.

16 ASCE, Code of Ethics, 2017.

17 INCOSE, Code of Ethics, 2018.

18 IMechE, 2017, Code of Conduct Regulations.

19 BCS, Code of Conduct, Clause 1d, 2018.

20 Van den Hoven, “Value Sentsitive Design and Responsible Innovation.”

21 Herkert, “Future Directions in Engineering Ethics Research,” 403–14.

22 Ibid.

23 Uff, “The Engineer's Public Duty.”

24 Allenby, “Macroethical Systems and Sustainability Science,” 7–13.

25 Kuo et al., “Design for Manufacture and Design for ‘X’,” 241–60.

26 van de Poel and Royakkers, Ethics, Technology and Engineering.

27 Ibid.

28 ibid.

29 Lucky, “Reflections,” 84.

30 Newberry, “Katrina,” 535–71.

31 Hurlbert et al., “An Ethical Analysis of Automation, Risk, and the Financial Crises of 2008, 2009.

32 Hansell, S. “Bits: Business, Innovation, Technology, Society: How Wall Street Lied to Its Computers,” as reported in the The New York Times on September 18, 2008.

33 Date and Chandrasekharan, “Beyond Efficiency,” 12–37.

34 Schot and Rip, “The Past and Future of Constructive Technology Assessment,” 251–68.

35 Stilgoe et al., “Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation,” 1568–80; Owen et al., A Framework for Responsible Innovation,” 27–50.

36 Periodic Reporting for period 1 – EnRRICH, 2016.

37 EPSRC, Framework for Responsible Innovation, 2018.

38 National Research Council, “Responsible Development of Nanotechnology.”

39 Ramos et al., “Neuroethics and the NIH BRAIN Initiative,” 122–30.

40 van Hove and Wickson, “Responsible Research is Not Good Science,” 213–28.

41 Chlivers, “Deliberating Competence,” 2007.

42 Hartley et al., “Essential Features of Responsible Governance of Agricultural Biotechnology,” e1002453.

43 Selin, “Expectations and the Emergence of Nanotechology,” 196–220; Guston, “Understanding ‘Anticipatory Governance’,” 218–42.

44 Fisher et al., “Midstream Modulation of Technology,” 485–96; Robbins, “The Reflexive Engineer,” 99–110; Schon, The Reflexive Practitioner.

45 Owen et al., “A Framework for Responsible Innovation,” 27–50.

46 Burgess and Chilvers, “Upping the Ante,” 713–28.

47 Ziegler, “Justice and Innovation,” 192.

48 Foley et al.,“Towards an Alignment of Activities, Aspirations and Stakeholders for Responsible Innovation,” 216.

49 Ostrom, “Polycentric Systems for Coping with Collective Action and Global Environmental Change,” 550–7; Gibson, “Sustainability Assessment,” 170–82.

50 Date and Chandrasekharan, “Beyond Efficiency,” 12–37.

51 Kemp et al., “Governance for Sustainable Development,” 12–30; Loorbach, “Transition Management.”

52 Wender et al., “Anticipatory Life Cycle Assessment for Responsible Research and Innovation,” 200–7.

53 Bernstein et al., “An Operationalized Post-normal Science Framework for Assisting in the Development of Complex Science Policy Solutions,” 2492.

54 Hughes, “The Evolution of Large Technological Systems,” 51–82.

55 For example, Dym et al., ”Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching, and Learning,” 103–20; Kolmos et al., “PBL Diversity in Research Questions and Methodologies,” 1–9.

56 UCL-STEaPP, How to Change the World, 2018.

57 Gibbs et al., Responsible Research and Innovation in the Classroom.

58 RRI Tools, Higher Education Institutions and Responsible Research and Innovation, November 1, 2015.

59 Hartley et al., The TERRAIN Tool for Teaching Responsible Research and Innovation.

60 Hartley et al., “Against the Tide of Depoliticisation,” 361–77.

61 Gibbs et al., “‘Why are You Telling Me this?’,” manuscript in preparation, 2018.

62 TU Delft, Responsible Innovation: Ethics, Safety and Technology.

63 Rip and van Lente, “Bridging the Gap between Innovation and ELSA,” 7–16.

64 University of Twente, “Twente Educational Model”, 2018.

65 ASU-SFIS, “Responsible Innovation in Science, Engineering and Society (Graduate Certificate)”, 2018.

66 NASEM, Infusing Ethics into the Development of Engineers, 11.

67 Ferguson and Foley, “Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes and ABET Accreditation.”

68 A complete analysis was shared at the Forum on Philosophy, Engineering, and Technology, 2018.

69 For a discussion on science, technology & society versus science & technology studies, cf. Jasanoff's, “The Floating Ampersand,” 2016.

70 York, “Doing STS in STEM Spaces,” 66–84.

71 Enhancing Responsible Research and Innovation through Curricula in Higher Education (EnRRICH).

72 Sunderland, “Using Student Engagement to Relocate Ethics to the Core of the Engineering Curriculum.”

73 Cech, “Culture of Disengagement in Engineering Education,” 42–72.

74 Date and Chandrasekharan, “Beyond Efficiency,” 12–37.

75 Gibbs et al., Responsible Research and Innovation in the Classroom.

Additional information

Funding

The authors’ collaboration has been partially supported by the Virtual Institute for Responsible Innovation (VIRI) and Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Arizona State University, USA (NSF Cooperative Agreements #1257246 and 0937591, respectively) Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences; SBE Office of Multidisciplinary Activities.