Beyond Responsible Conduct: Engineering Macroethics

1. Beyond Responsible Conduct:Engineering Macroethics Daniel A. Vallero, Ph.D. Pratt School of Engineering Duke University Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative RCR MeetingSeattle, Washington October 4, 2007

2. 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)

3. 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

4. Stages • Ethics: • Awareness • Decision Making • Behavior • Our Project: • Planning • Implementation and Modality Testing • Assessment • Throughout • 3rd year dedicated to dissemination, adoption and adaptation successes • Peterfreund Associates

5. Study 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

6. 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

7. 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.

8. Assessment • Three key dimensions of ethical learning: • knowledge or awarenessof 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.

9. 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.

10. Linking Research Ethics with Professional Ethics • Can be likened to Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development

11. KOHLBERG’S THEORY OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT Pre-Conventional Level: Avoid punishment

12. KOHLBERG’S THEORY OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT Conventional Level: Concern about peers; concern about community Pre-Conventional Level: Avoid punishment

13. Macroethics addressed with vertical progression. 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

14. 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.

15. 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 Future Engineers (FE) Engineers in Training (EIT), Designers Legal, Career, Reputation : Oriented toward staying out of trouble, gaining knowledge, making money Pre-Conventional Level: Avoid punishment

16. The Engineer’s View KOHLBERG’S THEORY OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALISM MODEL Post-Conventional Level: Concern for wider society; universal ethical principles Leader and Expert: Oriented toward leading customers, suppliers, employees, and engineering profession Partners, Full Members of Societies, Mentors, Professional Engineers (PE) Conventional Level: Concern about peers; concern about community Future Engineers (FE) Engineers in Training (EIT), Designers Legal, Career, Reputation : Oriented toward staying out of trouble, gaining knowledge, making money Pre-Conventional Level: Avoid punishment

17. The Engineer’s View KOHLBERG’S THEORY OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALISM MODEL Examples: Engineering Exemplar: Oriented toward wisdom, being a role model and setting tone for future generations of engineers Post-Conventional Level: Concern for wider society; universal ethical principles Grey beards, Founding Members, Members of the Academy Leader and Expert: Oriented toward leading customers, suppliers, employees, and engineering profession Partners, Full Members of Societies, Mentors, Professional Engineers (PE) Conventional Level: Concern about peers; concern about community Future Engineers (FE) Engineers in Training (EIT), Designers Legal, Career, Reputation : Oriented toward staying out of trouble, gaining knowledge, making money Pre-Conventional Level: Avoid punishment

18. 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.

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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)

22. 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)

23. 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)

24. 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)

25. 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)

26. 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.

27. 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.”

28. 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."

29. 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 careto rectify or alleviate health problems induced by the nanotherapy."

30. 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."

31. 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."

32. 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."

33. 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."

34. Conversations • Science has primacy • Don’t set up dilemmas (ala Whitbeck) • Careful with case studies

35. Workshop 2 • Pre-workshop questionnaire on awareness of nano issues • Breakouts addressing scenario from three perspectives: • 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

36. Pre- and Post-Tests (Awareness) • Goal: • Assess whether students were able to better both identify macro-ethical issue and articulate strategies for addressing them as a result of workshop participation • Participants given 1 of 2 brief cases and asked to outline the main points that should be considered and strategy for addressing them. • 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.

37. 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.

38. 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.

39. Workshop 2 Summary • Data • 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). • Impacts divided into 3 categories; • manufacturing • consumer • health issues and environmental issues • Strategies were grouped into 5 categories: • 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.

40. 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….

41. Workshop 2 Delta

42. Workshop 2 Delta The largest changes associated with impact were the higher frequency of mention of environmental issues associated with both cases.

43. Significant at p<0.05 Workshop 2 Delta

44. Workshop 2 Delta Consumer issues also show more frequent mention.

45. Workshop 2 Delta The smallest change in the mention of impact issues was those associated with the manufacturing process

46. Workshop 2 Delta Little difference in change by case, with the exception of greater frequency of mentioning environmental issues with Case 1.

47. 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.”

48. Workshop 2 Delta

49. Significant at p<0.05 Workshop 2 Delta

50. Workshop 2 Delta 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.