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
 Project Goal: Advancing Ethics Education for
Nano-Scale Researchers
 Multi-school research team

Engineering (lead)/Graduate/Environment/Jenkins New
Technology & Society/Kenan Institute of Ethics
 Primary Target Group “Nano” Centers:



Center for Biologically Inspired Materials and Material Sciences
(CBIMMS)
Center for Biological Tissue Engineering (CBTE)
Our 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
Stages
Ethics:

Awareness
Decision Making
Behavior




Our Project:
I.
Planning
II.
Implementation and Modality Testing
III.
Assessment



Throughout
3rd year dedicated to dissemination, adoption and
adaptation successes
Peterfreund Associates
Study Specifics


New paradigm for ethical education of graduatelevel 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 Success

Awareness
Focus groups/student conversations/workshops
 Progress and more to come….


Decision Making
Workshop 2/scenarios
 Just beginning…


Behavior

Long-term investment
Candidate 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.
Assessment

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?

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 with
Professional Ethics
 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
 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 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
ENGINEERING
PROFESSIONALISM
MODEL
Examples:
Post-Conventional Level:
Concern for wider society;
universal ethical principles
Conventional Level:
Concern about peers;
concern about
community
Pre-Conventional
Level:
Avoid punishment
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
 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 Date

Workshop 1 – March 2006
Baseline – What do we care about?
 Introduction to ethics of emerging technologies
 “Nano” a part, but not the only issues





Essay Competition
Student Focus Groups/Faculty – Student
Conversations
Workshop 2 – March 2007
Roundtable – June 2007
Workshop 1

Introduction to Ethical Decisions
Kenan Institute structure of ethical decision making
 Video capture example



Brainstorming
Multivoting
2 per participant (could use both on same issue)
 Importance

Identified Issues: Microethical






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





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




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








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



PhD students from the two centers
Request for essays via email and website postings
Rating Criteria






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

"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
Don’t set up dilemmas (ala Whitbeck)
Careful with case studies
Workshop 2


Pre-workshop questionnaire on awareness of nano
issues
Breakouts addressing scenario from three
perspectives:
A.
B.
C.



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)

Goal:


Participants given 1 of 2 brief cases and asked to
outline the main points that should be considered and
strategy for addressing them.



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

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

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

Data




Impacts divided into 3 categories;
1)
2)
3)

manufacturing
consumer
health issues and environmental issues
Strategies were grouped into 5 categories:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)

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:
 “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.”
 Main points to be considered….
Workshop 2 Delta
Approach to Macro-ethics - Impact
(Pre-post essays)
100%
% Mentioning
80%
60%
Pre- 1 (Desal)
Post- 1
Pre- 2 (Bone)
Post- 2
40%
20%
0%
Manufacturing
Consumer
IMPACT
Environment
Workshop 2 Delta
Approach to Macro-ethics - Impact
(Pre-post essays)
100%
The largest changes
associated with impact were
the higher frequency of
mention of environmental
issues associated with both
cases.
% Mentioning
80%
60%
Pre- 1 (Desal)
Post- 1
Pre- 2 (Bone)
Post- 2
40%
20%
0%
Manufacturing
Consumer
IMPACT
Environment
Workshop 2 Delta
Approach to Macro-ethics - Impact
(Pre-post essays)
Significant at p<0.05
100%
% Mentioning
80%
60%
Pre- 1 (Desal)
Post- 1
Pre- 2 (Bone)
Post- 2
40%
20%
0%
Manufacturing
Consumer
IMPACT
Environment
Workshop 2 Delta
Approach to Macro-ethics - Impact
(Pre-post essays)
Consumer issues also show more frequent
mention.
100%
% Mentioning
80%
60%
Pre- 1 (Desal)
Post- 1
Pre- 2 (Bone)
Post- 2
40%
20%
0%
Manufacturing
Consumer
IMPACT
Environment
Workshop 2 Delta
Approach to Macro-ethics - Impact
(Pre-post essays)
100%
% Mentioning
The smallest change in the mention of impact
issues was those associated with the manufacturing
80%
process
60%
Pre- 1 (Desal)
Post- 1
Pre- 2 (Bone)
Post- 2
40%
20%
0%
Manufacturing
Consumer
IMPACT
Environment
Workshop 2 Delta
Approach to Macro-ethics - Impact
(Pre-post essays)
Little difference in change by case, with the exception of greater
frequency of mentioning environmental issues with Case 1.
100%
% Mentioning
80%
60%
Pre- 1 (Desal)
Post- 1
Pre- 2 (Bone)
Post- 2
40%
20%
0%
Manufacturing
Consumer
IMPACT
Environment
Workshop 2: Strategies
Following are the answers (before and after
workshop) to:
 “Please outline the main points that should be
considered and a strategy for addressing them.”
Workshop 2 Delta
Approach to Macro-ethics - Strategies
(Pre-post essays)
100%
% Mentioning
80%
60%
Pre- 1 (Desal)
Post- 1
Pre- 2 (Bone)
Post- 2
40%
20%
0%
Testing
Research
Standards
STRATEGY FOR ADDRESSING
Monitoring
Education
Workshop 2 Delta
Approach to Macro-ethics - Strategies
(Pre-post essays)
100%
Significant at p<0.05
% Mentioning
80%
60%
Pre- 1 (Desal)
Post- 1
Pre- 2 (Bone)
Post- 2
40%
20%
0%
Testing
Research
Standards
STRATEGY FOR ADDRESSING
Monitoring
Education
Workshop 2 Delta
Approach to Macro-ethics - Strategies
(Pre-post essays)
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.
100%
% Mentioning
80%
60%
Pre- 1 (Desal)
Post- 1
Pre- 2 (Bone)
Post- 2
40%
20%
0%
Testing
Research
Standards
STRATEGY FOR ADDRESSING
Monitoring
Education
Workshop 2 Delta
Approach to Macro-ethics - Strategies
(Pre-post essays)
100%
Particularly for Case 1 this also includes more attention
to developing appropriate standards and monitoring.
% Mentioning
80%
60%
Pre- 1 (Desal)
Post- 1
Pre- 2 (Bone)
Post- 2
40%
20%
0%
Testing
Research
Standards
STRATEGY FOR ADDRESSING
Monitoring
Education
Workshop 2 Results Narrative



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



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?




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.
As they expanded their responses to include the
new categories, the participants also addressed
broader issues of ethical obligations.
Considered more carefully the levels of ethical
responsibility of the groups invested in the
research.
Workshop 2: Big Picture cont’d



Several respondents mentioned that individual
researchers were not qualified to investigate all
ethical issues involved in their work,
But pointed to the roles for others to cover these
issues.
This was different than what was said in preworkshop emphasis on specific scientific
procedures and tests.
Bottom Line




Workshops seem to work….
Other venues (focus groups, conversations, essay
competitions) also provide support to
awareness….
Need to tailor to engineering researchers….
So, ….
Next Steps


Looking into our own “backyard”
November 2007 Workshop


Code Writing
Entrée to benchside consultations


Therapeutics


Nano gene delivery (Kam Leong)
Photonics


Conferring with Lenoir (Jenkins Chair) on technologies
Genetically encoded molecular beacons (Tuan VoDign)
Coupling scientific advances with ethical
considerations

The next phase of RCR….
Third Year Challenge

Design studies to match modalities
Benchside consultation
 Code writing
 Case studies
 Others (e.g. juries, game theory, etc.)


Ideas from CITI?
Collaborators to Date

Engineering
Tod Laursen, PI
 Rob Clark
 Monty Reichert
 Mark Wiesner
 Dan Vallero



Jenkins Chair





Lynn Maguire
Doug James
Kenan Institute
Noah Pickus
 Elizabeth Kiss


Genomics

Tim Lenoir
Environment
Graduate School

Bob Cook-Deegan
Assessment

Alan Peterfreund
Contact me


dav1@duke.edu
919-541-3306