Advertisement

AI & SOCIETY

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 167–183 | Cite as

Science, technology and values: promoting ethics and social responsibility

  • Marion HershEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

The paper discusses the limitations of engineering ethics as implemented in practice, with a focus on the fact that engineering and other activities are carried out without any consideration of whether the activities are themselves ethical, and on the gap between legality and ethics. This leads to the following three central ideas of the paper. The first is the need for engineers to both be aware of and critique their own values and be able to widen their perspective to that of the ‘other’, i.e., marginalised and minority groups and the environment. This understanding of the ‘other’ and values is also applied to the discussion of ethical issues relating to minority world (‘developed’) country engineers working in majority world (‘developing’) countries. The second central idea is the fact that structural and contextual factors in the form of barriers and enablers affect ethical values and practices. Individuals are not necessarily unethical in themselves, but the context and organisational ethos may present barriers to ethical behaviour and encourage the development of unethical values. These barriers and enablers are investigated through a pilot survey. The third central idea is the relationship between individual and collective responsibility and the need for support to enable engineers to think and behave ethically.

Keywords

Ethics Engineers Individual and collective responsibility Support Values Barriers and enablers 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank all the people who completed questionnaires and distributed them to colleagues and Dr. Larry Stapleton for his support and encouragement.

References

  1. AIATSIS (2000) ‘Guidelines for ethical research in indigenous studies’, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/research/docs/ethics.pdf. Accessed 9.8.10
  2. Anon (2012) ‘Feedback’, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedback. Accessed 18.10.2012
  3. Babcock DL (2009) Managing engineering and technology. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  4. Banerjee R (2001) ‘Biodiversity, biotechnology & intellectual property rights’. In: 19th standing conference of organisational symbolism, DublinGoogle Scholar
  5. Baudrillard J (1999) The consumer society: myths and structure. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  6. Berry JW (1989) ‘Imposed etics-emics-derived etics: the operationalization of a compelling idea’. Int J Psychol 24:721–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blettner M, Berg G (2000) Are mobile phones harmful? Acta Oncol 39(8):927–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bok S (1981) Blowing the whistle. In: Fleishman, J, Liebman, L, Moore, M (eds) Public duties: the moral obligation of public officials. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Borgman A (1984) Technology and the character of contemporary life. Univ. Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  10. Brislin RW (1970) Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J Cross Cult Psychol 1(3):185–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Broughton E (2005) ‘The Bhopal disaster and its aftermath: a review’. Environ Health 4(6). doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-4-6
  12. Chen W, Wellman B (2004) The global digital divide—within and between countries. IT Soc 1(7):39–45Google Scholar
  13. De Maria W (1992) Queensland whistleblowing. Aust J Soc Issues 27(4):248–261Google Scholar
  14. Dethlefsen VT, Jackson T, Taylor P (1993) The precautionary principle. In: Jackson T (ed) Clean production strategies, developing preventive environmental management in the industrial economy. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, pp 41–62Google Scholar
  15. Easterby-Smith M, Malina D (1999) Cross-cultural collaborative research: toward reflexivity. Acad Manag J 42(1):76–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ellul J (1954) La technique ou l’enjeu du siècle. Librairie Armand Colin, ParisGoogle Scholar
  17. Escobar A (1994) Welcome to Cyberia: notes on the anthropology of cyberculture. Curr Anthropol 35:221–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gaskell G, Allum N, Wagner W, Kronberger N, Torgersen H, Hampel J, Bardes J (2004) GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Anal 24(1):185–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gilligan C (1982) In a different voice. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Hall ET (1976) Beyond culture. Anchor Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Hersh MA (2000a) Environmental ethics for engineers. Eng Sci Educ J 9(1):13–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hersh MA (2000b) ‘The ethics of military work: a guide for scientists and engineers’. In: IFAC workshop on supplemental ways for improving international stability SWIIS 2000, Ohrid, MacedoniaGoogle Scholar
  23. Hersh MA (2003) ‘The ethics of military work: what can be learnt from the application of ethical theories’. In: IFAC workshop on technology and international stability, SWIIS’03, Waterford, IrelandGoogle Scholar
  24. Hersh MA (2004) Ethical issues in assistive technology. CVHI’04, Granada, SpainGoogle Scholar
  25. Hersh MA (2005) ‘Technology development and ethical decision making: gatekeeping, identity and social construction’, 16th IFAC Congress, Prague, Czech RepublicGoogle Scholar
  26. Hersh MA (2006) Mathematical Modelling for Sustainable Development. Springer Verlag, ISBN 3-540-24216-3Google Scholar
  27. Hersh MA, Moss G (2004) ‘Heresy and orthodoxy: challenging established paradigms and disciplines’. J Int Womens Stud 5(3):6–21Google Scholar
  28. Hofstede G (1980) Culture’s consequences: international differences in work related values. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  29. Ihde D (1999) Expanding hermeneutics: Visualism in science. Northwestern University Press Ill, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  30. Jervis R (1997) System effects: complexity in political & social life. University Press, Princeton NJGoogle Scholar
  31. Kakar S (1996) The colours of violence: cultural identities, religion and conflict. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  32. Kirkman TW (1996) ‘Statistics to use’. http://www.physics.csbsju.edu/stats/. Accessed 28.10.2012
  33. Korotayev A, Malkov A, Khaltourina D (2006) Introduction to social macrodynamics: secular cycles and millennial trends, ISBN 5-484-00559-0Google Scholar
  34. Kranzberg M, Davenport W (1972) Technology and culture: an anthology. Schocken, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Lappé M, Bailey B (1999) Against the grain, the genetic transformation of global agriculture. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Lincoln NK, Denzin YS (2008) Epilogue; the eight and ninth moments—qualitative research in/and the fractured future. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand oaksGoogle Scholar
  37. Loch KD, Straub DW, Kamal S (2003) Diffusing the internet in the Arab world: the role of social norms and technological culturation. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 50(1):45–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Loh J, Wackernagel M (2004) Living planet Report 2004, World Wildelife FundGoogle Scholar
  39. Madu CN (1996) Managing green technologies for global competitiveness. Quorum Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Malhotra NK, Agarwal J, Peterson J (1996) Methodological issues in cross-cultural marketing research, a state-of-the-art review. Int Mark Rev 13(5):7–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Martin MW, Schinzinger R (1996) Ethics in engineering, vol 3. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Mullings B (1999) Insider or outsider, both or neither: some dilemmas of interviewing in a cross-cultural setting. Geoforum 30:337–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nielson RP (1996) The politics of ethics. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  44. O’Connor J, McDermott I (1997) The art of systems thinking: essential skills for creativity and problem solving. ThorsonsGoogle Scholar
  45. Pike KL (1967) Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behaviour. Mouton, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  46. Pollard RQ Jr (1992) Cross-cultural ethics in the conduct of deafness research. Rehabil Psychol 37(2):87–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pollard RQ Jr (2002) Ethical conduct in research involving deaf people. In: Gutman VA (ed) Ethics in mental health and deafness. Gallaudet University Press, Washington DC, pp 162–178Google Scholar
  48. Raffensperger C, Tickner J (1999) Protecting pubic health and the environment: implementing the precautionary principle. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  49. Roberts C, Moss B, Wass V, Sarangi S, Jones R (2005) Misunderstandings: a qualitative study of primary care consultations in multilingual settings, and educational implications. Med Educ 39:465–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Seedhouse D (1988) Ethics the heart of health care. John Wiley and Sons, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  51. Smith LT (1999) Decolonizing methodologies: research and indigenous people. Zed Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  52. Smith LT (2008) On tricky ground: researching the native in the age of uncertainty. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) The landscape of qualitative research, vol 3. Sage Publications, Thousand oak, pp 113–143Google Scholar
  53. Stapleton L, Hersh MA (2003) ‘Exploring the deep structure of ethics in engineering technology’. SWIIS’03, Waterford, IrelandGoogle Scholar
  54. Tapp JL, Kelman HC, Wrightsman LS, Triandis HC, Coelho GV (1974) Continuing concerns in cross-cultural ethics: a report. Int J Psychol 9(3):231–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Winner L (1977) Autonomous technology¸ technics-out-of-control as a theme in political thought. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowScotland, UK

Personalised recommendations