Yearbook of Biosecurity Education Edited by Judi Sture
2012 Bradford Disarmament Research Centre, University of Bradford
1
Yearbook of Biosecurity Education 2012
Edited by Judi Sture Bradford Disarmament Research Centre University of Bradford, UK www.bradford.ac.uk/bioethics
Yearbook of Biosecurity Education 2012 ISBN 978 1 85143 271 4
2
Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction Introduction Judi Sture (editor) Programme of the conference Responsible Conduct of Research for Scientists and Engineers – Twin International Meeting, held at the University of Bradford, 9 – 11 July, 2012 Speaker Biographies Section 2: Papers related to Engineering Ethics and Education From Ghosts Behind The Machines To Just Engineers: How Engineering Can Promote Peace W. Richard Bowen, i-Newton, Wales Ethics and The Engineer: Knowing one thing, or knowing many things? Raffaella Ocone, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland Macro, Micro, Structure, Agency: Analysing Approaches to Engineering Ethics Eddie Conlon, Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland Reflections on teaching social responsibility to students in science and engineering Henk Zandvoort, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands English Language as a means of introducing French engineering students to Ethics Colette Griffin, ENSTA Bretagne, France The Techno-Anthropologist as a Socially Responsible Interactional Expert Tom Børsen, Aarlborg University, Copenhagen, Denmark Ethics Education as a Foundation for Professional Skills Development? Esat Alpay, Imperial College, London, UK How to get engineering students interested in professional ethics Lawrence Coates, University of East Anglia, Norwich, England
Section 3: Papers relating to Biosecurity Ethics and Education Opportunities For Education About Dual Use Issues: Using The Framework Of Responsible Conduct Of Science Jo Husbands, National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC, USA Experiences in Promoting Awareness on Biosecurity and Dual Use Issues in European Universities Giulio Mancini, Landau Network Centro Volta, Como, Italy Engaging with the Biosecurity Community in the UK Kevin Naylor, UK Home Office, London Developing Ethics Education For Neuroscientists: An Ongoing Project Catherine Rhodes, Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation, University of Manchester, England
3 Dual Use Applied Ethics and a Practical Research Ethics Framework Judi Sture, Bradford Disarmament Research Centre, University of Bradford, England Biosecurity Training and Competence: Preserving Life Science Research Integrity and Ensuring Compliance Simon Whitby and Tatyana Novossiolova, Bradford Disarmament Research Centre, University of Bradford, England Bradford’s new “National Series” programme Masamichi Minehata, Bradford Disarmament Research Centre, University of Bradford, England UK Global Partnership Programme: Biosecurity Education Overseas Carol Stone, Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, England. Looking ahead beyond 2012 Malcolm Dando
Yearbook of Biosecurity Education 2012 ISBN 978 1 85143 271 4
4
Yearbook of Biosecurity Education: Statement of Principles and Aims The underlying principles of the Yearbook of Biosecurity Education include the promotion of:
An understanding that science is of great benefit to society that should not be unreasonably restricted
a social responsibility approach to all scientific activities;
the peaceful, safe and ethically-reflective practice of science;
the assumption and application of practical biosecurity as a cross-cultural norm;
effective and comprehensive education in biosecurity and biosafety within the biorisk management model;
biosecurity competencies as a key skill set among all scientists;
the free and open exchange of ideas, information and values among educators, scientists, students, policy makers, and all other stakeholders in the biosecurity debate.
The Yearbook of Biosecurity Education aims to appraise, review, evaluate from an ethical perspective, comment on and offer critique of developments each year in the field of biosecurity and associated scientific, policy and educational activities. While principally focusing on papers presented and discussions held at the annual Bradford biosecurity education meeting at the University of Bradford, UK, the Yearbook will, from time to time, also include papers by other invited authors who do not join the Bradford meeting, when the editors believe that these will add essential awareness and understanding to the current debate and status of biosecurity as a scientific and social competency.
Further, as developments in associated fields offer a parallel platform or source of ideas for the advancement of biosecurity education and competency, the Yearbook will reflect these by including papers from those other scientific disciplines and areas of expertise that have something to offer the debate on scientific social responsibility and biosecurity competencies and that will promote effective biosecurity norms on a broader level.
Ultimately, scientific endeavours are a source of good to humankind, and are to be supported, not restricted unreasonably. It is the belief of the team at Bradford Disarmament Research Centre, in producing the Yearbook, that through a shared engagement between scientists and civil society, taking an approach that values ethics, social responsibility and an informed awareness of all of the potential outcomes of scientific work, it is possible for biosecurity norms to interact positively and beneficially with the norms of scientific advancement in the 21st century, to the benefit of all humankind.
5
Introduction to the 2012 edition Judi Sture Welcome to the Yearbook of Biosecurity Education 2012. This publication is the first edition of an annual series. The first Bradford biosecurity education meeting (“Bradford 1”) was held in July 2010 under the title Dual-Use Education for Life Scientists: Mapping the Global Landscape and Developments 1. This two-day international seminar, funded by the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, was twinned with a later meeting in January 2011 in Tokyo, at which similar issues were explored. At the Bradford 1 meeting, around 30 experts from over 20 countries met to share their experiences in planning, delivering and evaluating biosecurity educational activities in recent years. Prior to the first Bradford event, important meetings focusing on biosecurity had also been held in Como, Italy2 (2005), Budapest, Hungary 3 (2008) and in Warsaw (2009). These earlier meetings served to highlight and advance the importance of biosecurity as an international concept of significant importance, and the Bradford 1 meeting in 2010 built on these essential foundations by being the first to specifically address the need for biosecurity education as a concept in itself.
One of the key outcomes of the Bradford 1 meeting was recognition of the need for an annual event to provide a forum for discussion of the developing issues associated with the need for effective biosecurity education on a global scale. As a key centre for the development of biosecurity education resources and expertise, the team at Bradford Disarmament Research Centre decided to host exactly such an annual meeting, and this edition is the report of that meeting – “Bradford 2”. The timeliness of this decision has since been emphasised by the decision of the Seventh Review Meeting of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) in Geneva in December 2012, to include consideration of biosecurity "education and awareness-raising about risks and benefits of life sciences and biotechnology" as a standing agenda item at the Meetings of State Parties under the heading of “A review of relevant developments in science and technology”. The annual Bradford biosecurity education meetings are therefore envisaged as a principal focal point for discussion and debate on advances in biosecurity education that are being made worldwide and as an opportunity to monitor educational aspects of the discussions and practical outcomes derived from Geneva meetings of the BTWC.
1
Report available for free download from: www.brad.ac.uk/bioethics/monographs See: International Forum on Biosecurity, Como, Italy, 20-22 March, 2005; agenda here: http://www.icsu.org/what-we-do/projects-activities/archived-projects-andactivities/biosecurity/pdf/Biosecurity_forum_Agenda.pdf 3 The Second International Forum on Biosecurity, Summary of an International Meeting, Budapest, Hungary, 30 March – 2 April, 2008, available for free pdf download at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12525 2
6 As well as the activities of the BTWC in Geneva prior to and after the 2012 meeting, other events also highlighted the need for an increased level of education and risk-awareness during the year. Public debate, as well as various scientific and policy debates around biosecurity, were relatively lively at the time of the meeting, due to a number of recent scientific breakthroughs that had caught the attention of the media and then public. Following the expression of concerns raised by the work of Venter and colleagues in 20104, which had resulted in the first self-replicating cell being produced under laboratory conditions in the synthetic biology field (and which were discussed at the Bradford 1 meeting), we at Bradford wondered what would be the next “big issue” and when it would appear. We were duly challenged by the work of Fouchier and Kawaoka in the Netherlands and the United States, which raised public concerns prior to the Bradford 2 meeting. In late 2011 public debate arose about the work Fouchier5 and Kawaoka6 had announced, regarding their successful production of a highly virulent form of the H5N1 avian flu virus in the laboratory (a pathogen that had not previously been present naturally in the environment) by utilising the airborne transmission route in mammals. While this activity had been carried out in well-regulated laboratories, there remain serious concerns as to the ethical dimensions of such research activity, and these were discussed at the Bradford 2 meeting. Further, the biosecurity community was also increasingly aware of the growing “DIY Biology” community 7 that has continued to expand globally, with all the potential ethical challenges that arise in this area. These advances, and the growing recognition of the risks inherent in such activities by the scientific, policy and ethics communities, were a key focus of discussions held at the second Bradford 2 meeting.
The format of the Bradford 2 meeting was slightly different from the first. By 2011 it had become apparent that the biosecurity education community could learn a considerable amount from colleagues in the field of engineering, who had been engaged for some time in developing a social responsibility approach to professional work that has an effect on public life, with its focus on ethics and public safety. In late 2010, two members of Bradford Disarmament Research Centre (Sture and Minehata) were invited to speak at a meeting held at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands at the workshop Preparing for Social Responsibility: Teaching ethics, peace and sustainability to students in science and engineering8. This was the beginning of a fruitful relationship, resulting in two noteworthy outcomes. Firstly, Minehata and Sture were invited to publish a paper in the journal Science and Engineering Ethics focusing on biosecurity issues and secondly, it was decided to share the platform at the Bradford 2
4
See: http://www.jcvi.org/cms/press/press-releases/full-text/article/first-self-replicating-synthetic-bacterial-cellconstructed-by-j-craig-venter-institute-researcher/home/ 5 See: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6088/1534.abstract 6 See: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7384/full/nature10884.html 7 See, for example: http://diybio.org/ 8 Preparing for Social Responsibility: Teaching ethics, peace and sustainability to students in science and engineering. Delft University of Technology, 13-15 October 2010. See: http://ethicsandtechnology.eu/socialresponsibility/
7 meeting between biosecurity educators and engineering educators in order to facilitate an exchange of ideas and resources. The Bradford 2 meeting was held at the University of Bradford on 9-11 July 2012, with one day focussing on each of two approaches to social responsibility – one from the engineering perspective and one from the biosecurity perspective. This approach resulted in some useful sharing of ideas and stimulated considerable discussion around the issue of social responsibility as a scientific and engineering competency, alongside existing ethical approaches in these fields. Biosecurity educators present were able to take away a range of ideas and materials to promote their educational activities further.
As a result of the successful collaboration between the biosecurity and the engineering professionals involved in the Bradford 2 meeting, it is envisaged that future collaborative meetings will also be held as an when appropriate and possible. This will allow the Bradford meetings to maximise their scope and influence and enable the sharing of best practice from one disciplinary area into another, thus enhancing our joint response to the various biorisk and other threats facing us in the 21 st century.
Richard Bowen, of i-Newton, Wales, opens this year’s conference by arguing that as engineering is currently “explicitly applied mostly in the conduct of war”, then it is a responsibility of engineers to take a new perspective on their involvement. He proposes that just as Just War theory governs (or is supposed to govern) modern warfare, then “Just Engineering” also ought to govern the application of engineering in war contexts. He argues that engineers have come to be considered as ‘ghosts behind the machines’ – the inventors or producers of increasingly technical gadgetry, with little comprehension of the outcomes of their work other than economic benefit. In his paper, he proposes that “engineers have the knowledge and skills to make substantial non-violent contributions to peace” and can act as ethical agents. By focusing on engineering as a practice, having obligations through professional capabilities, Bowen describes his theory of Just Engineering and shows how the involvement of engineers can contribute to active peacemaking. In doing so, he recognises that peace is an activity demanding respect for the full and equal human status of every person and a congruence of non-violent means and ends.
Raffaella Ocone, of Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, goes on to consider the scope of knowledge and skills required of engineers as practitioners in a social context. By referencing Berlin’s essay The Hedgehog and the Fox as a metaphor to illustrate the teaching of ethics in engineering, she divides engineers into two groups. Just as Berlin divided thinkers into two categories: foxes, who draw on many different experiences and hedgehogs, who see the world through a single lens, engineers may be also categorised: should the engineer possess only technical competence (i.e. know one “big thing”), or should s/he rather have a holistic vision of the profession by interfacing and complementing technical
8 competence with a wider social perspective? Ocone promotes the practice of embedding ethics teaching and awareness in engineering curricula in higher education, explicitly so that the nacent (and practising) engineer can apply engineering technical competencies within a broader vision of the profession, applying engineering skills alongside knowledge of the social environment in which the technical work is applied.
Eddie Conlon of Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland, considers a range of approaches to the teaching and consideration of engineering ethics, focusing on a four-part model illustrating the application of theory into practice. He advocates the use of a Social Theory framework by Ritzer, mapping out four different paradigms in social analysis, applying them instead to the concept of ethics in engineering. By taking into account interaction of two social continua: the macro/micro (the magnitude of phenomena) and the subjective/objective (whether a phenomenon has a material existence, or exists simply in the realm of ideas and knowledge), Conlon shows how Ritzer’s framework provides a useful tool for analysing current approaches to ethics in engineering. The model highlights the importance of both micro and macro levels of analysis and their integration allows an interrogation of both the goals of the profession and the social context in which engineers work. He goes on to consider structure, agency and autonomy, and the role of the engineer in responding to these concepts; further, he highlights the need for alternative models of engineering practice to be presented clearly to engineers, so that profitdriven and hierarchically-organised structures need not be the only available or recognisable models within which engineers see themselves working.
Henk Zandvoort of Delft University of Technology, Netherlands, opens his paper with a review of the current recognised challenges facing society in general and technologists in particular. He identifies a range of issues that require action, and then proposes a shared set of components that could embedded in teaching to prepare students for dealing with these problems. These components would include, as well as the necessary technical knowledge and understanding necessary in a scientist or engineer, a broader educational base, including humanities and other disciplinary inputs as appropriate. They would also include increased multi-disciplinarity, understanding of the shared values of society, an awareness of cultural issues, and crucially, reasoning and critical skills, to enhance critique of the social, political and other aspects of their work. Further, Zandvoort proposes education and work experience that locates the student within the real community in which s/he will be practising, allowing a recognition of the needs of society as well as of the technical needs of the current project. He goes on to describe the “necessary knowledge for social responsibility” and relates this to the need for students to understand the relevant procedures for collective (political) decision making (“Public Choice”) and the foundation and functioning of the legal system. He believes that if such knowledge is not transmitted
9 through science and engineering curricula, then universities fail in their task to adequately prepare their students for an effective professional role.
Colette Griffin, of the Ecole Nationale Superieure de Techniques Avancées in Bretagne, France, takes an unusual but highly effective route to the teaching of ethics to students in a science and technology setting. She describes how she uses her role as a language tutor to deliver ethics education in the guise of language education at the civilian and military college where she teaches. By instigating an annual debate on ethics and some aspect of life chosen by the students, Griffin has been able to develop an interesting and stimulating activity for her students that develops their English language skills alongside their ethical awareness-building and debating skills. By requiring French-speaking students to debate on ethical issues in English, and by using a range of invited expert speakers to the debates, she has been able to raise the profile of ethics and ethical debate in the college. This has resulted in students being very receptive, as they are enabled to conceptualise values and ethical concerns onto real life examples and scenarios. By introducing an element of competition into her debates, students have been further motivated to “win” by out-arguing each other on ethical issues, resulting in an effective delivery of ethics awareness and motivation to classes who previously were unfamiliar with ethical concepts outside theory-based philosophical arguments.
Tom Børsen, of Aarlborg University, Copenhagen, Denmark, outlines the challenges and benefits of two new university programmes focusing on technologies from an anthropological perspective. The concept of “techno-anthropology” was developed as a response to the need to link science and technology more effectively with wider society. Børsen describes how pressure to implement a user-driven innovation approach in technology led to the design and approval of both Bachelor and Masters degrees in TechnoAnthropology at Aarlborg, allowing the training of technical experts in methods that facilitate userdriven innovation, bridging the divide between user need and technical innovations. Børsen shows how anthropology has a range of theories and methods needed for carrying out user-driven technological innovation and is therefore ideally placed to offer frameworks and approaches to meet these widersociety goals. He shows how these new programmes can produce experts with Contributory expertise, based on competencies and necessary knowledge of science and technology, and Interactional expertise, based on skills and mastery in another domain, alongside the science and technology domain. He goes on to demonstrate how the techno-anthropologist can team up with scientists and engineers in identifying and addressing wider technological challenges in the context of a cultural setting with different and complex needs and drivers, that one profession cannot manage alone.
Esat Alpay, of Imperial College, London, looks at the use of ethics education as a foundational element of professional skills development. By focusing on the concept of authentic leadership, he argues that
10 the concepts of the “authentic self” and group leadership can be enhanced by inclusion of an ethics perspective within both. Alpay suggests that by approaching ethics in the context of personal development, and of leadership skills development, students will be motivated to engage with ethics in an effective manner. He proposes that by highlighting to students an awareness and appraisal of personal values and other beliefs, a link between ethics education and the development of “authentic leadership” emerges.
Lawrence Coates of the University of East Anglia, Norwich, England, provides a wide range of resources available at the current time, through which teachers may address ethics with students, or even with experienced professionals as part of Continuing Professional Development programmes. Rather than presenting in a standard research paper format, he suggests a range of media-based resources, including TV programmes, DVDs, YouTube films, and other easily accessible materials in media formats that can be used in educational settings. Next, he presents some classic engineering disaster cases that are widely addressed in print and in other formats easily identified by a web search. Following on, he presents an exemplar Professional Ethics session based on a first year design and professional skills module (in the engineering context), focussing on a specific well known engineering disaster. He includes a lesson plan and covers professional and technical aspects as well as ethical and personal reflection and debate on the case. Finally he presents some thoughts on the use of case studies in teaching, reflecting on the uses and limitations of these, and closes with ideas about the embedding of ethics in teaching for engineers.
Jo Husbands, of the US National Academy of Sciences, opens the biosecurity education section of the conference, looking at opportunities for educators to use existing conceptual frameworks when considering dual use issues. She focuses on the importance of appreciating the context of biosecurity education (as a fundamental component of WMD nonproliferation and disarmament strategies) and of framing education within useful concepts such as legal responsibilities and the responsible conduct of science. She then goes on to describe recent US efforts led by the National Academy of Sciences, with its partners, as they develop approaches for education that target the wider S & T community within the life sciences. Her paper is followed by two addenda, covering the key recommendations of the NRC report Challenges and Opportunities for Education about Dual Use Issues in the Life Sciences, and her thoughts arising from her involvement in this process.
Giulio M. Mancini and Alessandro Fasani of Landau Network Centro Volta, in Como, Italy, reflect on their experiences in promoting awareness on biosecurity and dual use issues in European universities over recent years. They describe various surveys and reports that have focused on biosecurity issues and norms in the higher education sector since 2007, and go on to discuss the need for evaluation of these
11 in their work between 2009-12. They support the view that the sustainability of biosecurity education in life science faculties can take place through an active engagement of universities when there is involvement in collaborative networks and where the implementation of biosecurity education originates in initiatives from the academic community itself. Experience from their LNCV projects suggests that engagement initiatives initially promoted by civil society may well be successful in promoting ownership of education on biosecurity in the science community. They go on to describe the European Biosecurity Awareness Raising Network, which promotes the principle that biosecurity is a multidisciplinary subject, with different expertise and information crossing from the technical and scientific sides to the legal, ethical, historical and environmental ones. Finally, they introduce their new project, the “International Network of Universities and Research Institutes to Raise Awareness on dual use in bio-technology”, coordinated by LNCV in partnership with 19 institutes in 15 countries from North Africa to South East Asia.
Catherine Rhodes of the Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation (ISEI) at the University of Manchester, reports on a joint research project between ISEI and Bradford Disarmament Research Centre. The AHRC Interdisciplinary Network on the Teaching of Ethics for Neuroscientists project focuses on ethics education in the context of neuroscience, and seeks to define the most appropriate ethics teaching models in the field, and to assess priorities in achieving change from the present situation to an ideal state within the discipline. It aims, ultimately, to produce a strategy to drive this change and to support the implementation of effective ethics education alongside the current rapidly advancing neuroscience developments seen today. Ethics, in this context, is viewed very much as an essential foundation for equipping neuroscientists to identify and evaluate ethical implications of their work and respond effectively to societal concerns throughout their careers.
Judi Sture introduces The Ethics Toolkit, a framework to assist scientists and associated professionals in recognising ethical dilemmas in their work, or in their planned work, and offering pointers as to how these may be addressed in practice. The Toolkit emerged from work in a range of settings and was adapted and improved following a workshop in Ottawa, Canada focusing on biosafety and biosecurity for the Public Health Agency Canada (PHAC). By utilising a research ethics approach, the Toolkit provides background and a series of practical questions that may be applied in any scientific context, allowing ethical planning and ethical review of ongoing and past work. Professionals may use this resource to learn and enhance skills of recognition, response and application of ethical principles and concepts in the real world of science activity.
Simon Whitby and Tatyana Novossiolova discuss the challenges that dual-use life science research pose to governance, that have been widely acknowledged both in the academic literature and policy circles.
12 The paper advances the argument that while top-down regulatory measures are a necessary component for the implementation of an effective oversight system of life science research, they are insufficient to guarantee research integrity and promote a culture of responsibility. They argue that education and awareness-raising programmes, coupled with the articulation and formalisation of biosecurity competency standards endorsed by professional associations can make a considerable contribution to fostering norms of responsible conduct of biotechnology research and preventing the hostile misuse of the life sciences, thus strengthening the biological weapons non-proliferation regime. They introduce Bradford’s Masters level train-the-trainer programme in Applied Dual-Use Biosecurity as an example of effective bioethics pedagogy and then elucidate how the role of biosecurity education can be enhanced by the articulation of complementary competency standards and why the endorsement of such initiatives by life science professional associations is of paramount importance to promoting a culture of responsibility.
Masamichi Minehata introduces Bradford’s new National Series, starting with a history of the Educational Resource Module - Bradford’s first published programme of educational materials, aimed at providing a resource for teachers, students and professionals in the area of the life sciences, science management and science policy and oversight. Although this resource has been available since 2009 and is widely used by educators in a number of countries, the National Series is a more recent programme of country-specific lectures tailored to meet the biosecurity education needs of each country chosen. By devising five lectures based around key points in the biosecurity debate, the National Series addresses a range of relevant topics. These include existing threats and prohibition regimes, the “Web of Prevention” (activities aimed at preventing the development and proliferation of biological weapons), national measures taken to enhance the requirements of the Biological Weapons Convention, and the responsibilities of scientists in their own work. The work of the project, which has external funding, is also described in terms of its overseas engagements and background.
I commend this volume to you as a work in progress, and look forward to introducing you in future years to reports of subsequent Bradford meetings and an annual publication focusing on developments in biosecurity education worldwide.
13
Responsible Conduct of Research for Scientists and Engineers – Twin International Meeting 9 – 11 July 2012 Norcroft Conference Centre, University of Bradford Session Monday 9 July 10.30 Opening
Prof. Richard Greene, Dean of the School of Life Sciences, University of Bradford: Opening and Welcome Henk Zandvoort, Delft University of Technology: summary of last meeting in Delft, 2010
Monday 13.30 –
Judi Sture, Conference Convener and Host: Welcome, and notices Keynote Speaker: Prof. Richard Bowen, i-Newton, Wales:
15.00
Aspirational approaches to engineering ethics and security
Science and Ethics in Engineering 1
Raffaella Ocone, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh: The Fox or The Hedgehog: One idea, or many? Eddie Conlon, Dublin Institute of Technology: Engineering Ethics: Micro/macro or agency/structure?
Monday 15.30 – 17.00
Henk Zandvoort DTU: report on educational survey in progress in Europe. Collette Griffin, ENSTA, Bretagne: teaching ethics to engineering students
Science and Ethics in Engineering 2 Tues 9.15 – 10.45 Science and Ethics in
Tom Borsen, Aarlborg University, Denmark: The Techno-Anthropologist as a Socially Responsible Technical Expert Esat Alpay, Imperial College, London: –skills development support (30 mins)
Engineering 3
Lawrence Coates, UEA: (60 mins, with practical): How to get engineering students interested in professional ethics
Tuesday 11.15 –
Workshop: Eddie Conlon: Broadening Ethics Education in Engineering
12.30 Science and Ethics in Engineering 4
Esat Alpay: Summary of engineering sessions
14 Tues 13.30 – 15.30 Biosecurity education 1
Tues 16.00 – 17.30 Biosecurity education
Jo Husbands: US National Academy of Science: Giulio Mancini, Landau Network Centro Volta, Italy: Experiences in Promoting Awareness on Biosecurity and Dual Use Issues in European Universities Dana Perkins, US Dept Health and Human Services and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response: Dual Use Research and Bio-Armageddon in Popular Culture:The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. Kevin Naylor, UK Home Office: Hazardous Sites and Substances CBRNE Unit Office for Security & Counter Terrorism Catherine Rhodes, Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation, Uni of Manchester: Developing Ethics Education for Neuroscientists – report on an ongoing project
2 Judi Sture, Bradford Disarmament Research Centre : Dual Use Applied Ethics and a Practical Research Ethics Framework
Weds 9.15 – 11.00 Biosecurity education 3
Masamichi Minehata, Bradford Disarmament Research Centre : The Educational Module Resource Simon Whitby and Tatyana Novossiolova, Bradford Disarmament Research Centre: demo of Train-the-Trainer class online Masa Minehata : the new National Series programme Carol Stone, UK Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, Porton Down
Weds 11.20 – 12.30 Biosecurity education 4
Weds 13.30 – 15.30
Judi Sture: Intro to Small group work on elements of the EMR – adapting the materials or design/principles to “your local requirements”Small group work. Preparations by small groups of a summary presentation (5 mins) showing how they could adapt the EMR (or parts of it) into their own ethics/responsible conduct of research teaching. Short presentations to whole meeting.
Sharing materials and best practice
Discussion and Q and A session.
Weds 16.00 – 17.3
Round Table discussion, led by Malcolm Dando
Conclusions: Towards
Judi Sture: Summing up
Best Practice Announcement of next year’s COST event and Bradford 3 (separate events)
15
Speaker Biographies (alphabetical order) Esat Alpay is a Senior Lecturer in Engineering Education, supporting, developing and leading various teaching initiatives across the Faculty of Engineering. He received his BSc (Hons) degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Surrey, and his PhD from the University of Cambridge. He also holds an MA degree in the Psychology of Education from the Institute of Education, University of London. He is Associate Editor of the European Journal of Engineering Education, and is keen on promoting scholarly activity in engineering education practice. He is also Chair of the Engineering Ethics working group of the European Society of Engineering Education (SEFI). Esat has wide interests in the support and development of undergraduate and postgraduate students. He is responsible for ethics education in several engineering departments, the training of Graduate Teaching Assistants and overseeing the teacher training procedures and requirements of Probationary Lecturers (Faculty of Engineering). Some of his other research and professional interests include: the development and evaluation of student professional skills; the use of concept maps and threshold concepts in engineering; peer assessment and peer-based learning; and practices and approaches for supporting teaching in research intensive universities.
Tom Børsen is an Associate Professor based in the Department of Learning and Philosophy at Aalborg University, Copenhagen, Denmark. He has been heavily involved in the development of an anthropological approach to the study of technology, which has culminated in the launch of a degree in “Techno-Anthropology” at Aarlborg. He is a member of the university’s Research Group for TechnoAnthropology, a focus for the study of the intersection between humans and technology and between science and decision-making processes. Tom is also a member of Aarlborg and Copenhagen Institute of Technology’s Centre for Applied Ethics and Philosophy of Science.
W. Richard Bowen is a Fellow of the UK Royal Academy of Engineering and a member of the Academy’s Engineering Ethics Working Group and the UK Academies Human Rights Committee. He is on the advisory boards of the Centre for Emerging Technologies and Bioethics at St Mary’s University College London and the Centre for Global Non-killing Hawai’i. He is particularly interested in developing aspirational approaches to professional ethics. He holds chairs in engineering at University of Wales Swansea and Surrey University, and carries out consultancy on an international basis through i-Newton Wales. His work on membrane separation processes and atomic force microscopy is widely regarded as world leading.
16 Lawrence Coates is a lecturer who taught civil engineering at Birmingham University from 1984 to 2011 specialising in water engineering and design but developing an interest in energy engineering. During that time he worked with Dr Chris Kent of the Teaching Engineering Ethics Group to deliver a module called Ethics Technology and Policy which provided experience of different ways to teach ethics to engineering students from the disciplines of chemical and civil engineering. This interest grew into a desire to embed ethical teaching throughout the engineering curriculum. As part of first year modules in design and professional skills and third year modules in risk assessment, Lawrence explored ways of making ethics interesting to students. This culminated in the embedding of an assessed ethical audit into the third year’s team-based multi-disciplinary design project. In 2011 Lawrence moved to the University of East Anglia to help develop an engineering provision, beginning with energy engineering. He is continuing with his interest in teaching engineering ethics at UEA.
Eddie Conlon is the Assistant Head of the Department of Engineering Sciences and General Studies at the College of Engineering and Built Environment at the Dublin Institute of Technology. He is a sociologist with an interest in work and employment. For the last ten years he has been working with engineering students. He runs a foundation programme in engineering and teaches modules focused on the social dimension of engineering. His current research is focused on integrating sustainability into engineering education. He has been a political and trade union activist since 1978.
Malcolm Dando is Professor of International Security at the University of Bradford. A biologist by original training, his main research interest is in the preservation of the prohibitions embodied in the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention at a time of rapid scientific and technological change in the life sciences. Malcolm has been highly instrumental in early and ongoing work underpinning the development of biosecurity education. Having conducted some 90 interactive seminars with life scientists in 13 different countries, he and a colleague (Prof Brian Rappert, University of Exeter) concluded that there is a pervasive lack of awareness amongst individual scientists of the possibility of dual use aspects emerging from their research. This work laid the foundations for further research which identified the limited availability of biosecurity topics at the level of university education in biosecurity‐related degree courses in the United States,Europe, Japan,Israel and the Asia‐Pacific region. Malcolm has written extensively on these issues and writes regularly for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. His major publications include Deadly Cultures: Biological Weapons Since 1945 (Harvard University Press, 2006), which he edited with Mark Wheelis and Lajos Rozsa.
Alessandro Fasani Alessandro Fasani is Project Assistant and collaborates with LNCV in the Science and Technology for Non Proliferation Programme. He collaborates in the organization of projects of international cooperation and data gathering for policy and research projects on CBRN and cyber
17 security. He holds a BA in Interpreting and Communication from IULM University in Italy and a MA in International Relations from the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart of Milan.
Colette Griffin is Head of Language Studies at ENSTA Bretagne (Ecole Nationale Supérieure de Techniques Avancées) Brest, France. She has promoted the concept of ethics within engineering education in recent years through debating exercises between students and invited guest experts.
Jo Husbands is a Scholar/Senior Project Director at the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS), where she manages studies and projects to help mitigate the risks of the misuse of scientific research for biological weapons or bioterrorism. She represents the NAS on the Biosecurity Working Group of IAP: The Global Network of Science Academies, which also includes the academies of Australia, China, Cuba, Egypt, India, Nigeria, Poland (chair), and the United Kingdom. From 1991-2005 she was Director of the NAS Committee on International Security and Arms Control (CISAC) and its Working Group on Biological Weapons Control. Before joining the National Academies, she worked for several Washington, DC-based nongovernmental organizations focused on international security. She is a member of the Honor Roll of Women in International Security, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, and the Global Agenda Council on Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Weapons of the World Economic Forum. She is also a Fellow of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry. She holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Minnesota and a Masters in International Public Policy (International Economics) from the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies.
Giulio Mancini is researcher and Program Manager at Landau Network-Centro Volta, an international research and policy centre based in Como, Italy. He works on CBRN weapons prevention and disarmament, biosafety/biosecurity policies, and scientists engagement initiatives in policy issues. He coordinates projects on Biosecurity and Dual Use Education, and collaborates in other projects including assessments related to the G8 Global Partnership against the Spread of WMD. He holds an MSc in International Relations and European Integration and is pursuing a Mphil in Peace Studies.
Masamichi Minehata, PhD, is a Research Fellow in Bradford Disarmament Research Centre at the University of Bradford, UK. He gained his PhD in International Security with BDRC in 2010 and also holds a degree in international law. He recently held a Sasakawa Peace Foundation (SPF) Fellowship at the Pacific Forum-Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), USA. He worked on the US-Japan security partnership with CSIS, while also continuing as a Research Fellow at Bradford Disarmament Research Centre. Over recent years, his primary research focus has been to promote global biosecurity education for life scientists under the auspices of the UK Prime Minister’s Initiative on International Education (awarded by the British Council, UK) with the National Defense Medical College in Japan. He
18 has published widely on issues of biosecurity both in English and Japanese. Along with Dr Judi Sture, Masa has developed the new National Series programme of country-specific teaching modules on biosecurity and bioethics.
Tatyana Novossiolova is a Wellcome Trust Doctoral Researcher at the Bradford Disarmament Research Centre. Tatyana’s main research interests are international law and disarmament with a focus on biosecurity and governance of emerging technologies. She is currently working on a project on improving the governance of biotechnology in Post-Communist Russia. Tatyana has been involved in curricula development for several programmes, both on undergraduate and postgraduate level, including Arms Control and Disarmament, Critical Perspectives on Arms Control and the 30-credit MA distance learning train-the-trainer Applied Dual-Use Biosecurity module. She has delivered lectures and seminars, co-authored academic publications and presented papers at international conferences. She holds a BA (Hons) Degree in International Relations and Security Studies.
Raffaella Ocone holds the Chair of Chemical Engineering in the School of Engineering and Physical Sciences at Heriot-Watt University (HWU) in the UK. Before joining HWU, she was a Reader in Chemical Engineering in the Department of Chemical Engineering at Nottingham, UK, Lecturer at the University of Naples, Italy, and Visiting Professor at Louisiana State University, USA and the University Claude Bernard, France. In 2006 she was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh; in 2007 she was awarded the title of Cavaliere of the order of Merit of the Italian Republic. She held a Royal Academy of Engineering/Leverhulme Trust Senior Research Fellowship and a Royal Society of Edinburgh/Scottish Government Support Fellowship to model carbon capture through chemical looping technology. Rafaella has 25 years of experience in modelling complex systems. She was in residence for a month at the Institute for Mathematics and its Applications at the University of Minnesota (USA) working on “Particulate Solids: Process and Rheology” and was invited to spend one month in the programme on "Granular and Particle-Laden Flow" held at the Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences in Cambridge. RO has contributed about 175 papers in learned journals and at International conferences. She has published a book on “Transport Phenomena” (Elsevier) and contributed a number of book chapters. She has an interest in the teaching of Ethics to Engineers and she chaired the Royal Academy of Engineering Teaching Ethics working group.
Dana Perkins received a Ph.D. in Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics in 2002 from the University of Maryland, Baltimore, where she specialized in Microbiology/Neurovirology. Currently, she leads the Biological Weapons Nonproliferation and Counterterrorism Branch in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). She provides subject matter expertise, inter-agency coordination, and senior level policy
19 advice on biodefense, biosecurity, and the public health aspects of national and international emergency preparedness and response; serves as the HHS main point of contact for Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1540 implementation. Dr. Perkins served as a member of the U.S. delegation to the BWC at the Meetings of Experts and Meetings of States Parties (2008-2010) as well as at the BWC 7th Review Conference (05-23 December 2011).
Catherine Rhodes has been a Research Fellow in Science Ethics at the Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation since November 2008. Her research is motivated by concerns that, while science has the potential to make substantial contributions to addressing the major challenges faced by humanity, it is currently impeded from doing so by a range of factors and dynamics operating internationally. Through investigation of the ways in which science and the scientific community interact with, influence, and are influenced by international processes, realistic recommendations for improvements can be made and this is where her work focuses. Catherine has a background in international relations, and her PhD (completed August 2006) focused on how biotechnology is governed internationally, highlighting the need for coherence among the various regulatory areas that have relevance (arms control, health, trade, environment, drugs control, etc.) in order for regulations to be effective. Her PhD and Postdoctoral work, based in the Peace Studies Department at Bradford University, were funded as part of the Project to Strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention, and I retain an interest in international actions to prevent misuse of biology.
Judi Sture is a member of Bradford Disarmament Research Centre at the University of Bradford, UK. She is also Head of the University’s Graduate School and a senior lecturer in Research Ethics and Research Methods. Her PhD in Biological Anthropology (University of Durham, UK), which was fully funded by the British Academy, focused on environmental associations with human birth defect frequencies, reflecting her interest in the role of infectious agents in human health and disease. Her current research interests focus on biosecurity and ethics in society, and she takes an anthropological approach to the promotion of a social responsibility perspective in biosecurity norms among life scientists. Judi has received funding for her research work from the Wellcome Trust (UK), the Economic and Social Research Council (UK), the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, the UK Ministry of Defence and Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL). She is currently engaged in the development and delivery of the National Series, a set of country-specific educational modules focusing on biosecurity engagement and education in a range of countries around the world. Judi has presented her work at many international conferences and meetings and has hosted, organised and/or led conferences and workshops on biosecurity education in the UK and overseas. She is also part of a team developing and delivering online distance learning and short-courses in applied dual-use bioethics and biosecurity education. She has published on dual use issues, applied research ethics and cultural behaviours.
20 Simon Whitby works at the interface between the life science and national security communities to address the threat of deliberate disease in the context of rapidly advancing science and dualuse technology. Whitby has focused on contributing to the discourse on dual-use biosecurity and bioethics and thus on raising awareness at government, civil society, life science and industry levels about the ethical, legal and social implications of life science research. He has been actively engaged in building a world-wide capability in dual-use bioethics to engage the scientific community in awarenessraising programmes about the importance of responsible conduct of life science research. Significantly he has developed a novel and innovative online distance learning Masters level train-the-trainer programme and short courses in Applied Dual-Use Biosecurity / Bioethics which has attracted over the period of the last 2 years (2010-11 – 2011-12) bursaries funded by the United States Department of State Biosecurity Engagement Programme.
Henk Zandvoort is an Associate Professor for Ethics and Technology at Delft University of Technology. He completed his first degree in chemistry (specialisation physical chemistry) and a later degree in philosophy (specialization in the philosophy of science). His dissertation Models of scientific development and the case of NMR appeared in 1986 (Reidel, Dordrecht). Between 1986 and 1997 his main assignment was at the Dutch Ministry of Education and Sciences, where he had various functions as a civil servant in the area of higher education and university research. He has been associated with Delft University of Technology since 1991. He developed and teaches courses on ethical aspects of technology and engineering for different MSc programmes. His research and publications focus at the risks of modern technology. The aim of the research is to formulate conditions and methods for responsible and coherent decision making about risk generating technological activities, and for responsible and coherent risk assessment, management and regulation. He also publishes on teaching and education aimed at preparing students in engineering for ethical and social responsibility. He served as guest editor for special sections of the European Journal for Engineering Education devoted to that topic (Vol. 25 no 4, 2000, and Vol. 33 no. 2, 2008). He chaired the organising committee of an international workshop on the same topic held in October 2010 in Delft (http://ethicsandtechnology.eu/socialresponsibility/) and he currently acts as a guest editor for a special issue of the journal Science and Engineering Ethics on teaching social responsibility to students in science and engineering.
21
Section 2: Papers related to Engineering Ethics and Education
FROM GHOSTS BEHIND THE MACHINES TO JUST ENGINEERS: HOW ENGINEERING CAN PROMOTE PEACE. W. Richard Bowen Introduction The engineering profession as a whole has generally given a high priority to technical ingenuity whilst giving only more muted attention to ethical responsibility. Such prioritisation has become mirrored in public perception: engineering has become associated primarily with technically ingenious artefacts. Engineers have come to be considered nerds, geeks 9 or simply unknown ‘ghosts behind the machines’. As a result, the unique contributions which engineers can make to provide ethically responsible solutions to pressing human problems are often not recognised. Such unfortunate perceptions of engineering have particularly dire consequences in matters of war and peace. Engineering has become the profession that is most essential for contemporary warfare: recent developments such as drones, cyberwar and pharmaceutical weapons depend heavily on the technical skills of engineers for their invention, design and manufacture. Even their use depends more on engineers than on military personnel, as traditionally understood. As a result, almost one third of engineers in the US are employed in military-related activities10 and the largest single employer of engineers in the UK is an arms-producing company. The resources used are enormous: world military expenditure was a least $1738 billion in 2011, with weapons sales exceeding $411 billion11 . However, engineers have the knowledge and skills to make substantial non-violent contributions to peace. Appreciation of such contributions may begin with the recognition that engineering is a human endeavour, an activity of persons for the benefit of other persons – engineers are not ghosts behind the machines but ethical agents: Professional engineers work to enhance the welfare, health and safety of all whilst paying due regard to the environment and the sustainability of resources. They have made personal and professional
9
Exemplified in the dialogue of an episode of the Dilbert cartoon series: Mother – ‘Can he lead a normal life?’, Doctor – ‘No, he’ll be an engineer.’ 10 J. S. Gansler, 2003, ‘Integrating Civilian and Military Industry’, Issues in Science and Technology. http://www.issues.org/19.4/updated/gansler.html 11 Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2012, SIPRI Yearbook 2012, Armaments, Disarmament and International Security Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22 commitments to enhance the wellbeing of society through the exploitation of knowledge and the management of creative teams12. The present paper seeks to show how recognition of engineering as such a human and ethical endeavour can lead to an appreciation of how engineers can promote genuine peace. First, an outline of the real nature of engineering will be given by considering it as a practice, a ‘coherent and complex form of socially established cooperative human activity’, of the type first proposed by MacIntyre 13. It will be suggested that the practice of engineering may benefit from regarding engineers as having an obligation of professional capabilities analogous to the obligation of power proposed by Sen.14 Secondly, the contemporary contribution of engineering to war will be considered within the framework of ‘just war theory’. It will be shown that even within such a framework the present military activities of engineers are highly questionable. Thirdly, a proposal will be made for just engineering, the involvement of engineers in active peacemaking. Such an approach recognises that peace is an activity demanding respect for the full and equal human status of every person and a congruence of non-violent means and ends. Engineering: practice and obligations A preliminary account could summarise the key features of the practice of engineering in the following way15: Goal/End - the promotion of the flourishing of persons in communities through contribution to material wellbeing. Internal goods - those associated with accurate and rigorous application of scientific knowledge combined with imagination, reason, judgement and experience. External goods - considerable economic benefits and particularly technological artefacts. Virtues - desirable attitudes and actions, such as for engineering: accuracy and rigour; honesty and integrity; respect for life, law and the public good; responsible leadership, listening and informing. Institutions - university departments, professional institutions, commercial enterprises. Systematic extension - aspirations of continual improvement.
12
Royal Academy of Engineering, 2007, Statement of Ethical Principles London: Royal Academy of Engineering. The Royal Academy of Engineering is the UK's national academy of engineering, fulfilling roles comparable to those of the British Academy in humanities and social sciences and the Royal Society in science. 13 A. MacIntyre, 1985, After Virtue London: Duckworth, p. 187. 2nd edn. (Originallypublished 1981). 14 A. Sen, 2009, The Idea of Justice London: Allen Lane, p. 206. 15 W. R. Bowen, 2009, Engineering Ethics: Outline of an Aspirational Approach London: Springer-Verlag.
23 Two features of the practice are particularly pertinent in the present context. First, engineered artefacts, such as devices and processes, are external goods, contingent products of the practice and not the goal of the practice. Secondly, a successful purposive practice pays appropriate attention to all of its key constituent features, including in the present case the flourishing of all affected by the practice. It is particularly important for engineers to avoid the danger of becoming so absorbed in technical wizardry that this ethical dimension is neglected or lost. More positively, individual engineers and engineering institutions may seek to contribute to the fulfillment of the goal of engineering in many different ways. An aspirational guide for the choice of such actions may be formulated in terms of an obligation of professional capabilities: ...if some action that can be freely undertaken is open to a person (thereby making it feasible), and if the person assesses that the undertaking of that action will create a more just situation in the world (thereby making it justice-enhancing), then that is argument enough for the person to consider seriously what he or she should do in view of these recognitions16. Such obligation could be considered as a generalisation of the ‘rule of rescue’: the compelling motivation to save endangered human life wherever possible. It should also be noted that this obligation is practical rather than idealistic, for it concerns the serious consideration of feasible options and thus recognises that there may be situational constraints on action (at least initially). The obligation refers to a type of situation in which many engineers may find themselves, for they have at their disposal a range of knowledge, skills, techniques and technologies of great potential. ‘Just War Theory’: an engineering perspective Just War Theory has received much attention from philosophers and is frequently cited by politicians and the military. Though it has also been subject to strong criticism, it provides a convenient framework for discussion. A representative account17 notes five requirements dealing with a decision to commence war (jus ad bellum): (i) just cause; (ii) just intent; (iii) last resort; (iv) legitimate authority; (v) good prospect of success. There are two further requirements for the conduct of war (jus in bello): (vi) discrimination (protection of the innocent/civilians); (vii) proportionality. It is usually made clear that all of these conditions must be met for war to be considered just. Some accounts also suggest that it is important to consider the likelihood of justice after the war (jus post bellum). A recent consideration of the morality of war, which is strongly supportive of just war theory, notes three features of 16
A. Sen, The Idea of Justice, 2009, London: Allen Lane, p.206. This formulation was used to define an obligation of power in Sen’s account of political justice. However, engineers rarely have the type of political power referred to by Sen. 17 R. G. Jones, 1998, ‘Peace, Violence and War’, in B. Hoose (ed.), Christian Ethics London: Continuum, pp. 210– 222.
24 contemporary war that are particularly pertinent to the present analysis18: (i) for Western Nations, war is mostly a choice rather than a pressing necessity of territorial defence; (ii) war takes a multitude of unpredictable forms; (iii) responsibility for just war is increasingly devolved to lower levels: politicians in general, civil servants, officers and ‘ordinary service people’.
In considering the role of engineers in just war it can be beneficial to draw on some key engineering principles, three of the most relevant of which are: that reliable empirical evidence must be sought, that a comprehensive or systems analysis is vital and that a theory is only valid if it is borne out in practice. As engineering is currently explicitly applied mostly in the conduct of war, the requirements of discrimination and proportionality demand attention first. Acquiring reliable information on the victims of war is for many reasons difficult, but a critical appraisal of data for some major recent wars has been made19. The overall assessment is that ‘[the] civilian is indeed under extreme threat in war today’. Indeed, though each war requires detailed examination, the ratio of civilian to military deaths may be close to 9:1 in many conflicts. This demonstrates that the requirement for discrimination is far from being met. The numbers of people dying in conflicts are also very high: for example, possibly 5.4 million in the Democratic Republic of Congo between 1998 and 2007, 90% as a result of war-related disease, malnutrition and other causes rather than direct violence (current DRC population is about 71 million). Such numbers cast serious doubt on the proportionality of recent wars. It must also be remembered that the numbers of persons physically injured, psychologically traumatised, physically displaced or otherwise severely disadvantaged are very much higher. Consequently, an engineer’s assessment would be: if any of these wars were just, then just war theory has not protected civilians; if all of these wars were unjust, then just war theory has not protected civilians.
The response of a ‘ghost behind the machines’ to this lamentable conduct of war would be to develop more discriminate weapons. However, this search for a ‘technical fix’ is seriously misguided for two reasons. First, it has been shown to be unsuccessful: in Iraq, ‘sophisticated’ weaponry has caused a far greater proportion of indiscriminate deaths of women (46%) and children (39%) than more primitive techniques20. Secondly, most of the casualties of war are not the result of major military strikes but are due to the breakdown of provisions for law and civil order, the collapse of civil infrastructure and the collapse of medical provision. So, new ‘sophisticated’ weaponry may increase the initial intensity of conflicts but is very unlikely to promote improved outcomes for many civilians. Furthermore, as statistics mask the real human cost of war for individuals, it is worth listening to a war correspondent: 18
D. Fisher, 2011, Morality and War Oxford: Oxford University Press. A. Roberts, 2010, ‘Lives and Statistics: are 90% of War Victims Civilians?’, Survival 52 : 115–136. 20 M. H-R. Hicks, H. Dardagan, G. G. Serdan, P. M. Bagnall, J. A. Sloboda and M. Spagat, 2009, ‘The Weapons that Kill Civilians – Deaths of Children and Non-Combatants in Iraq, 2003-2008’, The New England Journal of Medicine 360: 1585–1588. 19
25
Despite all the videos you see from the Ministry of Defence or the Pentagon, and all the sanitised language describing smart bombs and pinpoint strikes, the scene on the ground has remained remarkably the same for hundreds of years. Craters. Burned houses. Mutilated bodies. Women weeping for children and husbands. Men for their wives, mothers, children21. In contrast to the role of engineering in the conduct of war, the role of engineering in the decision to commence war has received little attention. However, one of the requirements of jus ad bellum, that war must be a last resort, every possibility of peaceful settlement having been exhausted, is especially demanding for engineers, for they possess the professional capabilities (knowledge and skills) to identify and resolve many of the root causes of conflict. The three previously noted features of contemporary war enhance this demand: (i) the optional character of Western wars provides time for such resolution; (ii) the unpredictable nature of contemporary wars increases the pertinence of addressing root causes; (iii) the devolution of responsibility in just war theory (and in law) is a direct challenge to engineers. Indeed, as each death or injury of a civilian in war is a case of extraordinary injustice, there is an obligation of professional capabilities on engineers to refrain from military engineering and to use their professional knowledge and skills to seek non-violent means of promoting peace. Just Engineering and active peacemaking The Oxford Research Group has identified four factors as the likely root causes of possible future insecurity and conflict, which are here listed together with some of the ways in which engineering can contribute to their resolution22: Climate change - prediction of effects, development of renewable energy sources, transition to low carbon economies. Competition over resources - improved efficiency, materials and process innovation, better recycling. Marginalisation of the majority world
- wealth generation through introduction of appropriate
engineering processes in impoverished societies. Global militarisation - reducing or halting weapons development and production, thereby reducing trade in weapons. 21
M. Colvin, 2010, ‘Our Mission is to Report these Horrors of War with Accuracy and without Prejudice’, Speech given in London, November 2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/22/marie-colvin-ourmission-is-to-speak-truth 22 Oxford Research Group, 2006, Global Responses to Global Threats Oxford: Oxford Research Group. And Oxford Research Group, 2006, ‘Reviewing Britain's Security’, International Security Monthly (Oxford: Oxford Research Group. The ORG’s emphasis is on policy and politics.
26 Thus, engineering could make a major contribution to such sustainable security 23. One way of considering such an engineering contribution is as jus ante bellum, the use of engineering resources in preparation for war or to avert war. For example, access to clean water and provision of sanitation is very inadequate for billions of the world’s population and a potentially very significant root cause of future conflicts. Yet, a commitment of less than 2% of annual world military expenditure for a period of fifteen years could give basic access and provision for all24. Specific opportunities of this kind have already been lost. For example, access to surface water following a long-term drought was an important factor in the origin of the prolonged conflict in Darfur. An engineering solution is to drill boreholes accessing deeper water and equip them with submersible pumps. A number of NGOs are now involved in such work. The extent of this conflict is a stark reminder of how a timely application of relatively simple engineering might have prevented much suffering. The phrase jus ante bellum still suggests a culture of conflict and eventual preparation for violence. The approach proposed here is more appropriately described as a form active peacemaking that may be termed Just Engineering. For example, access to water may be seen as an opportunity rather than a problem, a possibility for cooperative socio-economic development, security and peace that has been termed Blue Peace25. The key characteristics of Just Engineering include: Practical solutions for local needs, whether they arise from climate change, competition for resources, economic marginalisation or other factors. Activities that commit communities in potential conflict to common projects of benefit to all, employing the skills of local people. Non-violent means of meeting human needs and preventing the increase of tensions, as an alternative to preventive, pre-emptive or ‘humanitarian’ military action. Furthermore, Just Engineering has a number of key features that are absent from just war approaches: Respect for the full and equal human status of every person. Congruence of non-violent means and ends in the promotion of peace.
23
Recent publications by Bowen include: Engineering Ethics: Outline of an Aspirational Approach, Springer-Verlag, London, 2009; Atomic Force Microscopy in Process Engineering, Butterworth-Heinemann, London, 2009 (with N. Hilal). 24 G. Hutton and L. Haller, 2003, Evaluation of the Costs and Benefits of Water and Sanitation Improvements at the Global Level Geneva: World Health Organisation. And W. R. Bowen, 2009, ‘Water engineering for the promotion of peace’, Desalination and Water Treatment 1: 1-6. 25 Strategic Foresight Group, 2011, The Blue Peace: Rethinking Middle East Water. http://www.strategicforesight.com/publications_research.htm .
27 Recognition that peace is not only the absence of conflict, but is additionally charaterised by relationships between individuals and social groupings of all sizes, based on honesty, fairness, openness and goodwill. Just Engineering makes particular use of an important characteristic of engineering: it is an enabling activity that provides others with the means for advancing their goals and values. This is particularly useful in the case of peace, for a major challenge is to change the perception of peace from that of a condition that somehow has arisen to an activity that requires continual commitment and imaginative input. Additionally, promotion of Just Engineering would benefit from two other changes in perception: - the promotion of a culture of peace within engineering: within university engineering departments, engineering institutions and commercial engineering enterprises. - the commitment of engineers to educate politicians and other decision-makers and opinion formers about the capabilities of engineering for the promotion of peace. If such changes in perception can be achieved, then engineers will be able to leave their ghostly existence behind the machines of war and instead make a leading contribution to the welfare, health, safety and peace of all.
Acknowledgment I thank Iselin Eie Bowen for perceptive comments during the development of this paper.
28
ETHICS AND THE ENGINEER: KNOWING ONE THING, OR KNOWING MANY THINGS? Raffaella Ocone
“The fox knows many things; the hedgehog knows one big thing.” –Archilochus 8th Century BC Isaiah Berlin’s popular essay The Hedgehog and the Fox1 could be used as an effective metaphor to illustrate the teaching of ethics in engineering. Berlin divided thinkers into two categories: foxes, who draw on many different experiences and hedgehogs, who see the world through a single lens. The same analogy could be used in engineering: should the engineer possess only technical competence (i.e. know one “big thing”), or should s/he rather have a holistic vision of the profession by interfacing and complementing technical competence with a wider social perspective? A 1963 science book, The Ancient Engineers2, examines the contribution of engineering through the ages from 3000 BC to 1519 AD, from the monumental works of the Egyptians through the speculative inventions of Leonardo da Vinci. That is a fascinating book, which clarifies, through the story of engineering, how engineering progressed and developed in various countries. Among the last pages of the book, we read these statements:
“The pace of change has speeded up till change itself has become one of the most pressing human problems…”;
“This constant and rapid change affects those who live under it…”
“Some blame engineers for these difficulties, but that is futile….Once started, technology was bound to develop much as it has…”;
“Others blame the technical men because they have not succeeded in making everybody kind, honest and peaceful. Therefore, they say, technical progress has not “civilised” men at all…”;
1
I. Berlin, 1953 (original), 1999, The Hedgehog and the Fox: An essay on Tolstoy’s view of history London: Phoenix. 2 L. Sprague de Camp, 1990, The Ancient Engineers New York: Dorset Press.
29 “But it is a mistake to confuse these virtues with civilisation. Civilisation is a matter of power over the world of nature and skill in exploiting this world. It has nothing to do with kindness, honesty, or peacefulness….”
This is a striking conclusion which, whilst asserting that engineers shape the world through technology, at the same time considers both technology and engineering work in an abstract way. While recognising the “power over the world” (engineering work) this, in itself, does not take into consideration either the social context or the social changes imposed on communities by new technologies. Such a conclusion is, I believe, erroneous: the engineer is an individual who should able to apply his/her technical competency within a broader vision of the profession, involving his/her knowledge of the social environment in which the technical work is applied.
Ethics, although implicit in the Codes of Conduct of various engineering institutions, has made its appearance in UK engineering curricula only in the last decade. The Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE) has been working with the Engineering Council UK (ECUK) to identify the ethical standards at the core of the engineering profession. A working party of the RAE, the Teaching Engineering Ethics Group (TEEG), was created in 2004 with the aim of looking at the teaching of ethics in engineering. The work of the TEEG culminated with the publication of An Engineering Ethics Curriculum Map which proposes a framework (location, content, learning outcome, process) for the teaching of Ethics in Engineering 3. The Map is a dynamic and continually evolving framework, intended to be flexible to suit different degree courses and different student groups, so that ethics teaching is always well matched to engineering teaching.
Core to the practice of engineering ethics is the teaching of ethics to engineering students. The Washington Accord (1989)4 considers the teaching of ethics to undergraduate engineering students as an essential component of the engineering curriculum.
Nevertheless, the teaching of ethics to
engineering students is relatively new and far from being coherently developed in the UK. Davis, however, has reported eight different ways of teaching engineering ethics5. Ultimately, all of these methods may be summarised into two broad routes: one consists of devising and delivering a specific
3
Royal Academy of Engineering (Teaching of Engineering Ethics Group) (2004) An Engineering Ethics Curriculum Map Available at: http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/releases/pdf/ethics_curriculum_map.pdf (accessed 31/10/12). 4 International Engineering Alliance (1989) The Washington Accord Available at: http://www.washingtonaccord.org/ (accessed 31/10/12). 5 M. Davis, 1999, Teaching Ethics Across the Engineering Curriculum Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions, Illinois Institute of Technology. Paper presented at the Online Ethics Centre International Conference on Ethics in Engineering and Computer Science, March 1999. Available at: http://www.onlineethics.org/Education/instructessays/curriculum.aspx (accessed 31/10/12).
30 module on ethics, the other consists of integrating ethics into the curriculum. Buckeridge 6 claims that a stand-alone module on ethics is preferable, and, based on positive feedback from students attending weekly ethics lectures running over a semester, I also endorse a block module. Buckeridge also suggested that embedding ethics into the curriculum is impractical. In my opinion, however, this is a somehow limited vision, which implicitly considers the embedding of ethics as equivalent to changing the majority of the modules already taught, to include notions on ethics.
The option which I call the “embedded” teaching of ethics presents a number of advantages. For example, it gives students the opportunity to see “ethics in action” showing that ethics is intrinsic to the engineering discipline. A further reason why the embedded approach is preferable can be shown by contrasting it with other disciplines. When teaching ethics to philosophy students, individual modules are appropriate, which go ever deeper into ethical issues and ethical theory. This is because in philosophy (at least as it is conceived today), the teaching of ethics involves the analysis of the theory: it is about understanding an ethical problem or an ethical theory, and dispassionately comparing the application of different theoretical approaches to an ethical problem. Ethics for engineers, in contrast, is about synthesis. The engineer has to find ‘solutions’ to ethical problems (i.e. identifying the best courses of action) in a way that the philosopher does not. Therefore, learning skills of ethics analysis is not necessarily useful for engineers. And unlike the philosopher, the engineer is embedded in the process rather than standing outside it – the engineer should be prepared for dealing with specific kinds of ethical problems that will arise in real practical situations. Hence, engineering ethics should be taught in the contexts in which ethical problems arise, with a focus on making ethical decisions rather than analysing ethical theories.
This suggests a similarity between engineering and medical ethics, which is also about making decisions rather than analysing problems. However, there is a difference between medical professionals and engineers, in that the former are more likely to have a responsibility to an individual patient or client. The ethical issues for a doctor, from keeping information confidential to taking life-saving decisions, are immediate and easy to grasp (even if they are not easy to ‘solve’). However, the human relationships experienced by practising engineers are less direct and immediate. In engineering the decisions could be said to have a more long term and distributed impact. This makes ethical problems harder to detect and the best course of action more difficult to identify. This means that in teaching engineering ethics there is the challenge of stimulating ethical concerns, and encouraging students to see the less obvious ethical 6
Ethics, Engineering and the Environment: is Hawking correct... is it too late? Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education. Auckland, December 10-13, 2006. 15: 1-8.
31 dimensions inherent in practical engineering problems. I would argue that this is best addressed by raising ethical issues alongside the technical and practical topics that engineering students learn about during their training and education.
Ethics in engineering brings to mind ethical dilemmas which, in turn, and inevitably, remind us of bad practice and disasters, including, for example, accounts of collapsing buildings, exploding chemical reactors, environmental pollution and so on.
This is unfortunate, but such a limited vision of
engineering ethics might actually be a consequence of the way we teach (or do not teach) ethics to engineers. Here I argue that ethics in engineering is more than this; it is more than the ethical dilemma and the application of ethical principles. Ethics in engineering actually coincides with the social aspects of engineering and in this respect, it is very similar to philosophy or, rather, to a more precise and less superficial interpretation of philosophy. This similarity should be reflected in the teaching of engineering ethics.
The disconnection of philosophy from practice is, somehow, an adapted modern interpretation. In the ancient classical societies (Greek and Roman), great importance was attributed to practical behaviour which was considered as being the same as ethics. The thinking process itself was called upon to give explanations and directions to the practical behaviour (ethics). Hegel defined the ancient Greek world as the era of “involuntary” ethics where individuals lived in immediate symbiosis with their community 7; only successively, with the advent of theories about individualism, was the link between the individual and society broken. Whilst the actual interpretation of culture attributes a core role to thinking, in the Greek and Roman world the core role was practical behaviour (namely ethics), to which thinking was applied to as a means to furnish clarifications and directions. Pierre Hadot8 discusses how the philosophical schools of the past rejected the consideration of philosophical activity as purely intellectual, theoretical and formal, instead, considering philosophy as a choice influencing life in its totality. The philosopher did not teach only how to talk and to think but also how to live, in the most complete sense.
This lesson from the past clarifies, I believe, the meaning and the importance of ethics in engineering. The engineer is a practical individual who operates within and for society. His/her ethical behaviour cannot be disconnected from the profession and the two seemingly separate concepts (the individual and the profession) are actually the same in their essence. Teaching about “disasters” to show the 7
G.W.F. Hegel, 1977, Phenomenology of Spirit (translated by A.V. Miller) New York: Oxford University Press. P. Hadot, 1995, Philosophy as a Way of Life Oxford: Blackwell; (2002). What Is Ancient Philosophy?. Harvard University Press 8
32 ethical dimensions of engineering might be effective in catching the attention, but is certainly a reductive (if not dangerous) way of presenting ethics to engineering students. Additionally, following on from a wider interpretation of ethics, it is clear that ethics cannot be most effectively taught as a module per se, but has to be taught almost in a subliminal fashion, in the way that “doing” ethics interfaces with everyday life. For those who want to appreciate ethics in action, perhaps nothing would be better than looking back at our ancient philosophical roots. I would claim, therefore, that the new engineer would do well to learn from the old philosopher: more foxes, fewer hedgehogs?
33
MACRO, MICRO, STRUCTURE, AGENCY: ANALYSING APPROACHES TO ENGINEERING ETHICS Eddie Conlon
There have been many calls for the reform of Engineering Ethics education. The dominant approach, which uses case studies to teach students to solve ethical dilemmas, is being rejected.
Various
alternatives to a narrow focus on case studies have been suggested, including a demand to focus on macro issues1, or to use an approach based on aspirational ethics 2. Others call for a fuller engagement with the philosophy of technology3, or Science, Technology and Society Studies4 . Others have identified a “policy turn” 5. This is seen as particularly important in light of increasing demands that engineers practice the principles of sustainable development (SD) 6.
All of this presents a challenge to those attempting to integrate Engineering Ethics into higher education engineering programmes. Given the divergence in approaches, it is necessary to develop tools to understand these approaches and how they might relate to each other. Such consideration may allow us to explore the possibilities for developing an integrated approach to teaching Engineering Ethics. The various approaches can be analysed using a useful framework developed by Ritzer7 to map out different paradigms in social analysis. The framework is based on four levels of analysis which emerge from the interaction of two social continua:
the macro/micro (the magnitude of phenomena) and the
subjective/objective (whether a phenomenon has a material existence, or exists simply in the realm of ideas and knowledge).
Given the emergence of a variety of approaches to Engineering Ethics and the demand for a greater focus on macro issues, Ritzer’s framework provides a useful tool for analysing current approaches (Fig. 1). It highlights the importance of both micro and macro levels of analysis, and their integration. Crucially, it allows us to see that a macro-focus involves interrogating both the goals of the profession 1
J.R. Herkert, 2005, Ways of thinking about and teaching ethical problem solving: Microethics and macroethics in engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(3), 373-385. 2 W.R. Bowen, 2009, Engineering Ethics: Outline of an Aspirational Approach. London: Springer. 3 W.C. Son, 2008, Philosophy of technology and micro-ethics in engineering Science and Engineering Ethics, 14( 3): 405-415. 4 W.T. Lynch and R. Kline, 2000, Engineering practice and engineering ethics Science, Technology and Human Values, 25 (2): 195–225. 5 C. Mitcham, C. 2009, A historico-ethical perspective on engineering education: from use and convenience to policy engagement Engineering Studies 1(1): 35-55. 6 R. Donnelly and C. Boyle, 2006, The Catch-22 of engineering sustainable development Journal of Environmental Engineering( February 2006):149-155. 7 G. Ritzer, 2001, Explorations In Social Theory: From Metatheorizing To Rationalization London: Sage.
34 and the social context in which engineers work. This may allow us to avoid a moralism that may burden engineers with responsibilities that they cannot meet, while allowing us to better identify those circumstances which would facilitate the attainment of broad goals such as enhancing human welfare.
Macroscopic Macro-Objective:
Macro-subjective:
Focus is on social,
Focus is on goals
economic
and values of
and political
the profession
structures and public policy
Objective
Micro-objective:
Micro-subjective:
Focus is on
Focus is on
organisational
consciousness
culture and
of individual
processes
engineers:
Subjective
their ability to identify and solve ethical dilemmas Microscopic
Fig. 1 Levels of analysis in engineering ethics (based on Ritzer, 2001)
In using Ritzer’s framework, my focus is on capturing the fundamental image of the subject as presented by each paradigm.
Micro-Subjective Approach The main focus of this approach is on the consciousness and commitment of individual engineers, along with their ability to identify and resolve ethical dilemmas.
This approach considers the ethical
35 commitments of individuals and uses simplified case studies to “train” students to resolve ethical dilemmas which often involve challenges to managerial wrongdoing 8.
Key problems with this approach include the assumption that win-win solutions exist for ethical problems; further, it assumes that individual engineers can actually implement their proposed solutions. The case studies used in training typically do not adequately reflect real-world engineering practice. In focusing solely on an individual engineer’s possible courses of action, these case studies tend to be uninformative about the social, organisational and political complexities of engineering practice. Further, the focus on clashes of interest between management and engineers means that engineers’ own practices are not subject to critical examination - the assumption tends to be that engineers need to be emboldened to resist amoral managers. Despite this limitation, however, this approach does highlight the manner in which strictly commercial-focused needs can clash with the requirements of good engineering.
Micro-Objective Approach In order to address the context of engineering practice, some have argued that Engineering Ethics should be informed by Science, Technology and Society studies.
The focus in this approach is on why accidents happen in engineering projects. The explanation is usually sought within the prevailing organisational culture and processes, with exemplary work being Vaughan’s analysis9 of the Challenger space shuttle disaster. In explaining the disaster, she emphasises institutional logics and the manner in which patterns of behaviour developed and became institutionalised within the organisations supporting the Shuttle programme. Vaughan discusses how risk came to be redefined, leading to a number of launches with a flawed design. This led to what Vaughan calls the “normalisation of deviance”. Lynch and Kline10 draw on Vaughan’s analysis to argue for a focus on the detail of engineering practice and the role of organisational culture and processes. Their aim is to explore how engineers can learn to identify features of their practice that potentially contribute to ethically problematic outcomes before clear-cut dilemmas emerge. They propose that engineers should exercise imagination to prevent these problematic characteristics from developing in their practice. While this approach can be welcomed, as 8
E. Conlon and H. Zandvoort, 2011, Broadening Ethics Teaching in Engineering: Beyond the Individualistic Approach, Science and Engineering Ethics, 17 (2): 217-32. 9 D. Vaughan, 1996, The Challenger Launch Decision Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10 W.T. Lynch and R. Kline, 2000, Engineering practice and engineering ethics Science, Technology and Human Values, 25 (2): 195–225.
36 it moves us away from simplified case descriptions lacking their organisational and social context, it is not without problems.
Firstly, although Vaughan pays considerable attention to the wider economic and political environment in which NASA operated and the way it reinforced the normalisation of deviance, Lynch and Kline’s focus is mainly on the organisational culture.
Secondly, in focusing on the issue of organisational culture itself, there is a danger of seeing organisational actors as “social dopes” merely following the script. This can lead to a neglect of the capacity of organisation members to challenge dominant cultural scripts. Lynch and Kline also fail to specify how engineers who become aware of the normalisation of deviance are to change the problematic aspects of organisational practices Some 11 have argued that the picture painted by Lynch and Kline is too rosy and call for “an institutional ethics”: a focus on the relationship between individual moral agency and the individual’s enabling and constraining environment.
Macro-Subjective Approach Bearing in mind these criticisms, we can widen our focus and examine the role of macro issues in Engineering Ethics. The shift of focus to the macro level requires, in the first instance, a focus on the goals of engineering. This approach requires that engineers reflect on what kind of society is desirable. Bowen12 calls for an “aspirational ethics”. He makes a distinction between ethics and morality. He states that ethics may be seen as aims of a life that can be regarded as good, and morality as norms that provide articulation of these aims. He argues that Engineering Ethics has focused, to date, on morality and suggests that engineers have, to a significant extent, forgotten that their primary objective is the promotion of human well-being. He suggests that engineers have mistaken wealth and engineered artefacts for the real end of the practice, which is actually human well-being. What is needed, he argues, is the development of a genuinely aspirational ethical ethos within engineering which prioritises human flourishing through contributing to human well-being.
Bowen argues that engineers have not engaged sufficiently in any ethical analysis of their activities; he suggests that engineers themselves need to adopt a positive way of life and take responsibility for the
11
T. Swierstra and J. Jelsma, 2006, Responsibility without moralism in technoscientific design practice Science, Technology and Human Values, 31(3): 309-332. 12 W.R. Bowen, 2009, Engineering Ethics: Outline of an Aspirational Approach. London: Springer.
37 outcomes of their activities. A person who “genuinely possesses a virtue would be expected to manifest it through the range of his or her activities” 13.
Bowen’s approach is useful in reminding engineers of the importance of prioritising people’s needs. But it is not clear that he offers a clear path to address the failure to do so. He neither provides criteria by which human well-being can be judged, nor adequately takes account of the specifically corporate context in which much engineering takes place.
The main emphasis, for Bowen, is on the culture of engineering and the development of an aspirational ethos. There is a danger here of moralism. While engineers may be committed to ethical practices it is not always possible to behave ethically. To exercise moral agency, commitment to particular outcomes is necessary, but so is the power to achieve these outcomes. Bowen provides no discussion of power and no engagement with what has been called the “captivity of engineering” 14.
Raising the level of
analysis to address the broader goals of engineering is therefore not enough, unless we address the capacity of engineers to practice engineering in a way that promotes human flourishing.
Macro-Objective Approach At the heart of this approach is the demand of Zandvoort et al15 that engineers need to accept that they must play an active role in helping to reshape the context from which ethical problems arise “whenever that may be necessary”.
Such an attitude will help engineers to meet their ethical
responsibilities and facilitate the attainment of the goals of engineering.
It is possible to identify two broad and overlapping approaches to facilitating change in the environment in which engineers work. The first would seem to accept that the current organisation of production and consumption can be reformed through regulation to give support to engineers. The second questions whether the goals of sustainability and social justice can be met within the confines of current relations of production and consumption. Some have argued that reform is not enough, that we need a wider focus and that there are contradictions between the goals of engineering, such as sustainability,
13
W.R. Bowen, 2009, Engineering Ethics: Outline of an Aspirational Approach. London: Springer, p. 79. J.E. Holt, 2001, The status of engineering in the age of technology International Journal of Engineering Education, 17 (6):496-501. 15 H. Zandvoort, I. van de Poel and M. Brumsen, 2000, Ethics in the engineering curricula: topics, trends and challenges for the future European Journal of Engineering Education, 25 (4): 291–302. 14
38 and current political and economic priorities 16. Some call for opposition to market-based problem solving17 .
Within this broad approach we can also see a demand for for a fuller engagement between Science and Technology Studies (STS) and Engineering Ethics
18
.
STS offers “thick” descriptions (complex and
context-driven) of the manner in which technology and society are co-determined. It is argued that engineers do not just produce technology, but socio-technical systems which shape human activity19. Thus engineers’ ethical responsibilities are wider than traditionally understood; further, they must engage with other actors who are responsible for the development of socio-technical systems. The problem here is that some STS scholars lack a general perspective on the social and technical patterns under study and shy away from normative analysis and proposals for changes in public policy20 .
Agency, Structure, or Macro-Micro This brief review of different approaches to Engineering Ethics suggests there are a number of factors to be considered when examining the capacity of engineers to practice engineering in a socially responsible manner. An integrated approach would not merely add the macro approach to the micro approach, but incorporate the four levels of analysis and their interaction into the analysis of engineering practice. Some issues arise from this.
Firstly, rather than trying to neatly demarcate what is or is not a macro or micro issue, it might be better to use the sociological distinction between structure and agency as a basis for integrating macro issues into the analysis. It is not always clear that macro and micro issues can be distinguished. A focus on macro issues does not mean that micro issues disappear but rather highlights the need to widen the analysis to look at how the broader environment enables or constrains the capacity of engineers to, for example, design safe products.
16
R. Petrella, 2001, Globalisation and ethical commitment. In P. Goujon & B. H. Dubreuil, eds., Technology and Ethics: A European Quest for Responsible Engineering, Leuven: Peeters. 17 D. Nieusma, 2004, Alternative design scholarship: Working toward appropriate design, Design Issues, 20(3): 1324. 18 D.G. Johnson and J.M. Wetmore, 2007, STS and ethics: Implications for engineering ethics. The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT Press. 19 D.G. Johnson and J.M. Wetmore, 2007, STS and ethics: Implications for engineering ethics. The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT Press. 20 J.R. Herket, 2006, Confession of a shoveler: STS Subcultures and Engineering Ethics Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 26 (5) 410-8. Available at: http://bst.sagepub.com/content/26/5.toc (accessed 20 November 2012).
39 Secondly, agency can sometime be misunderstood as the absence of structural constraints, suggesting that that all structural forces are negative. This, to some extent, arises from a traditional focus on professional autonomy in Engineering Ethics21 and the conflation of agency and autonomy. But we know from social theory 22 that structures can either enable or constrain social actors. So, for example, building regulations can improve energy efficiency, thus providing gains for the public, while also enabling engineers, committed to sustainability, to implement their designs. Thus, the agency of engineers is increased through regulation. What is at stake here is the character of regulation. It is the case that regulations have not always addressed the need to promote sustainability. But as values have changed in society and social struggles by environmental activists have taken effect, change has occurred. The question, then, is one of engineers developing alliances across society with the aim of promoting the kinds of change that will enable them to attain goals such as sustainability in their practice.
Such arguments may force engineers to consider their relationships with other actors in
society. In this context, a focus on professional autonomy within the profession may not be helpful.
Finally, it is clear that there are diverse views on what is involved in attaining the goals of safety, welfare and sustainability in engineering.
For example, there is a need for the profession to clarify what it
actually means by sustainability. In the interim, those teaching Engineering Ethics have a responsibility to provide students with the recognition that change is necessary and possible and that there are alternatives to the market-based systems which constrain the activities of engineers. Without a sense that alternatives exist, agency fails to have any real meaning, as outcomes are seen as predetermined. Thus it becomes necessary to consider what alternative models of engineering practice are available, other than those located within profit-driven and hierarchically-organised corporations.
NB. For the purpose of brevity referencing has been kept to a minimum. This is based on a paper given at
the
2011
Annual
SEFI
Conference,
available
at:
http://www.sefi.be/wp-
content/papers2011/T6/187.pdf. See also Conlon and Zandvoort (2011).
21 21 22
M. Davis, 1998, Thinking Like an Engineer Oxford: Oxford University Press. See for example, M. Archer, 2000, Being Human Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40
REFLECTIONS ON TEACHING SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY TO STUDENTS IN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING: RECENT ACTIVITIES AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS Henk Zandvoort
Background and results of the Delft 2010 workshop The full title of this workshop was Workshop Preparing for Social Responsibility: Teaching ethics, peace and sustainability to students in science and engineering. It was held at Delft University of Technology, 13th to 15th October 2010. The organisers were Tom Børsen (Aalborg University, Copenhagen), Michael Deneke (Darmstadt University of Technology), Wolfgang Liebert (Darmstadt University of Technology), Hartwig Spitzer (Hamburg University), and Henk Zandvoort (Delft University of Technology, chair) 56.
This workshop was one activity of an informal network of university teachers who are active in ethics, peace, and sustainability teaching for science and engineering students at their universities. Previous, similar workshops were held in Copenhagen (2005)57 and in Hamburg (2008)58. Ties exist with other networks such as the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility 59 and the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI)60.
A shared perception of contemporary problems and of the task of universities to prepare their graduates for adequately dealing with these While the knowledge and technology produced by natural scientists and engineers can enhance human wellbeing, it can also be deliberately misused. In addition, there is always the potential for, or reality of, unforeseen risks and unintentional negative effects, such as pollution and the depletion of natural resources, as well as possible social conflicts, all of which may arise from science and engineering projects. Students of science and engineering are usually unaware of the potential dilemmas which they will have to face in their future activities. It is a key task of science and engineering education to empower students to recognise and respond effectively to these dilemmas, to contribute to the improvement of the social, legal and institutional context in which they work and to make positive impacts through the application of science and technology to society. In short, science and engineering education should empower its students for social responsibility.
56
See http://ethicsandtechnology.eu/socialresponsibility/ See http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/ethics-around-the-world/ 58 See http://www.znf.uni-hamburg.de/ethics-and-peace.html 59 See http://www.inesglobal.com/ines-home.phtml 60 See http://www.sefi.be/?page_id=1557 57
41 The organisers and, I believe, the participants of the Delft 2010 workshop, share an understanding that our globalising technological society is facing enormous current and future challenges. These include, among other issues, the ways in which science and engineering have the capacity to influence the conditions for justice and peace, sustainability, and the wellbeing of humanity, both now and later. More specific global problems of our time include:
•
A persistent pattern of unsustainable development, depletion of natural resources, environmental pollution, and irreversible ecological harm;
•
Increasing levels of activities that generate external costs and risks. These costs and risks are experienced by people who have not consented to the activities that give rise to them;
•
Unequal distribution of wealth and access to natural resources;
•
The negative effects of science and technology appear to be largely unrecognised or uncontrolled. This holds true both for the malevolent (intended) misuse of science and technology, and for unintended side effects of the “benevolent” uses of science and technology;
•
Secrecy and a resulting lack of transparency in substantial elements of research and development;
•
Continuing large scale military use of science and technology;
•
The changed nature of the role of scientists and engineers, who increasingly fulfil non-value neutral, “pseudo-political” or “interested” roles in “post-normal” science and technology.
Into this scenario comes a shared view on the importance of education. Whether current and future problems such as those enumerated above will be adequately dealt with may crucially depend on how well future citizens and professionals are prepared to assume a positive, constructive role in society. In view of this, much more (in terms of social responsibility) should be transmitted in science and engineering curricula in addition to, and beyond, the usual scientific and engineering knowledge and skills content.
A shared vision of the “formal” characteristics of education for social responsibility One result of the informal network of which the Delft 2010 workshop was an expression, is a shared vision of a set of characteristics needed in teaching to prepare students for dealing with the problems identified above. This shared vision has gradually evolved during the previous workshops in Copenhagen and Hamburg61, and was reaffirmed and further elaborated during the Delft 2010 workshop. We believe that there is consensus within the Network that all of the following goals and features should be 61
D. Rathje, H. Spitzer and H. Zandvoort, 2008, How to prepare students for a responsible use of science and engineering. Results from the workshop “Teaching ethics and peace to science and engineering students“, University of Hamburg, 15-17 Oct 2008. Available at: http://www.znf.uni-hamburg.de/brochure.pdf
42 incorporated into science and engineering curricula as a means of preparing students for social responsibility:
•
A broad knowledge base, not restricted to science and technology, but reaching out to pertinent elements of the humanities, such as philosophy, sociology, political sciences, psychology, history, law and others as relevance is identified;
•
Approaches that are multidisciplinary, or contain elements of inter/transdisciplinarity;
•
Awareness of both distinctive and shared values in society and of cultural differences, as well as awareness of existing options to deal with value-based issues;
•
Reasoning and communication skills; to apply critical faculties, not merely to technical issues, but also to ethical, social and political issues as well;
•
Awareness of the role of institutional factors (e.g. organisations, the law, political institutions) as drivers of social change and knowledge about options available to support positive change;
•
Activities and knowledge that enhance student attitude, involvement, commitment, and willingness to act in a socially responsible manner;
•
Active learning practices, such as role playing, the use of case studies and relevant project and community work.
As none of these characteristics identify any specific content or knowledge that should be transmitted during education, I refer to them as “formal” or conceptual characteristics.
Specific results and outlook The stated goal of the Delft 2010 workshop was to serve as a platform for exchanging experiences and insights, for networking and for the establishment of cooperation in activities such as the joint development of teaching approaches and exchange of teaching materials.
Perhaps the most tangible result of the workshop is a special issue of the journal Science and Engineering Ethics which is due to appear in print during the first half of 2013 (at the time of publication of this Yearbook, some papers are already available from the Science and Engineering Ethics website, under the “Online First” section). The special issue offers a collection of case studies relating to education in social responsibility for students in science and engineering in Europe. It also includes articles based on workshop contributions, augmented with commentaries that were subsequently solicited by the guest editors, Henk Zandvoort, Tom Børsen, and Michael Deneke. A further tangible result of the Delft workshop was the planning that began in 2010 for an application for funds from the European Union COST scheme (European Cooperation in Science and Technology, a European Union
43 framework) which would provide funding for Network costs. This could provide an important stimulus to the cooperative activities within the Network, including the joint development of teaching approaches and exchange of teaching material. Further talks about this application have continued in a positive setting during the Bradford 2012 twin meeting, resulting into renewed and reinforced plans for concerted action on the issue, this time explicitly including the “bio risk” community.
One of the further goals of the Delft 2010 workshop was to collect and exchange teaching materials. Only a very modest start has been made with this. Members of the Network hope that this goal will be pursued more effectively when supported by funds such as those available under the COST scheme.
Reflections on teaching content: necessary knowledge for socially responsible decision making and conduct of scientists and engineers As teachers for social responsibility we cannot be satisfied with the list of characteristics of teaching for social responsibility presented in the first part if this paper. In my view, the most pressing issue is which contents should be transferred to students in view of preparing them for social responsibility. I believe that it is crucial that the community of teachers become more specific about actual teaching content, to develop a shared list of possible or necessary content, similar to the shared list of “formal” characteristics presented earlier. This is crucial for two reasons - one basic reason and one that follows from it. The basic reason why we must focus on contents is to increase the relevance and effect of the teaching. The derivative reason is that, if we can point to the existence of knowledge that is unknown to students, yet is highly relevant to understanding and solving the problems that we address, we will be placed in a far better position to defend claims to curriculum time and university money and support. I will try to substantiate this viewpoint in what follows.
Different views on what is needed in teaching for social responsibility Different teachers may all have their particular ideas as to what should be taught in terms of social responsibility. Priority issues apart, such different points of view need not be inconsistent with each other. As an illustration, I quote three very different theses from colleagues and students on the issue62:
62
These theses were generated in the context of a workshop on the same issue. Contributors were asked to formulate a thesis of their own choice regarding what is needed in engineering education in view of preparing future engineers for performing their profession in an ethical and socially responsible way. See H. Zandvoort, 2007a, Preparing Engineers for Social Responsibility: Report of the Tree Special Interest Group D6 Ethical Issues in Engineering Education. In Re-Engineering Engineering Education in Europe, edited by C. Borri and F. Maffioli: University of Firenze. Available online at: http://www.ethicsandtechnology.eu/images/uploads/d6.pdf.
44
“Engineers need to understand the context in which engineering practice takes place and the importance of engineers seeking to shape that context so that a sustainable engineering practice is possible.” (Eddie Conlon, Dublin Institute of Technology);
“Volition aspects (ethos, attitude, pathos, will and underlying emotion) in technology need to be addressed in teaching ethics within the engineering curriculum.” (Topi Heikkero, St John’s College, Santa Fe, Mexico);
“The goal of courses on ethics should be to promote critical thinking.” (Students from the international student organisation BEST, The Board of European Students of Technology).
Necessary knowledge for social responsibility There is no inconsistency between the above three statements and I actually agree with all three. To these, I want to add the thesis that I myself produced in the same context and to which I attach very high priority:
“There exists knowledge that is necessary for social responsibility of scientists and engineers but that is largely unknown to or at least poorly understood by (future) scientists and engineers. This knowledge should be transferred through the engineering curricula, as otherwise it will remain unknown.”
The knowledge that I had in mind involves at least the following subject areas:
•
The procedures for collective (political) decision making (“Public Choice”)
•
The foundation and functioning of the legal system (including but not limited to legal liability)
There exists well founded knowledge about these areas which is essential in order to properly understand some of the problems listed in Part I, and in order to provoke and guide adequate remedial action. For details the reader is referred to Zandvoort (2007b)63 and Zandvoort (2011)64.
63
H. Zandvoort, 2007b, Necessary knowledge for social responsibility of engineers. International Conference on Engineering Education – ICEE 2007, Coimbra, Portugal, 2007. Available on line at: http://www.ineer.org/Events/ICEE2007/papers/154.pdf. 64 H. Zandvoort, 2011, Evaluation of legal liability for technological risks in view of requirements for peaceful coexistence and progress. Risk Analysis 31(6):969-83. For the abstract see: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01545.x/abstract
45 Here I just want to discuss an example of the knowledge to which I was referring. The context in which I place the example is that students (and others) display a general lack of critical attitude towards and an unjustified confidence in the social institutions that should govern the effects of science and technology in society. Students (and others) have much more confidence that things will develop all right than is justified in view of experience and sound reasoning. Such unjustified confidence would be much harder to sustain if the knowledge referred to above would form an integral part of (university) education. I will try to substantiate this claim by presenting my experiences with students responding to the topic of responsibility of science and of scientists for risk governance.
Responsibility for risk governance and attitude of students towards limited liability corporations I have introduced this topic of risk governance and the responsibility of scientists in the following way to students65. First, we need to agree on what we mean with risk governance. I propose the following definition:
A system of risk governance = the totality of institutions, procedures, and processes that together determine how risks (of science and technology) are addressed and responded to.
As just one example of a risk to be governed, we can think of the risks of unintended side effects and of intentional misuse of biological knowledge and technology (“bio risks”).
Next the responsibility of
science and scientists is introduced along the lines of the power point slide represented in Figure 1 (next page).
What I observe is that students attach only a very remote, totally hypothetical significance to the idea, presented in the last bullet, that the norms for science might lead to the conclusion that the continuation of certain research is unjustifiable and in violation with the norms for science, because the risks and side effects of that research are not under control. For instance, for MSc or PhD students in bioscience and technology who already run research projects of their own, it appears to be almost unthinkable that the norms for science might force them to relinquish their research because the potential negative effects are not under effective control.
At the same time these students have a very uncritical attitude towards the social institutions that together make up the “system of risk governance” that should control those potential negative effects, 65
Including seminars for students in biology and biotechnology regarding biosecurity issues, organised in the context of the European Biosecurity Awareness Raising Network “Eubarnet” http://www.eubarnet.eu/.
46
Responsibilities of science and scientists Duty to be aware of manifest problems in risk governance Abide by the first and most important norm for science: Critical attitude and openness for critical investigation: o
This norm should not merely be applied within scientific research itself, but also when scrutinising the social institutions that are supposed to govern the application of science and technology in society. The relevant questions to ask are:
Are these social institutions (the legal systems and laws, the procedures for political decision making, the work organisations, etc.) up to this task?
If not, how can they be improved?
The above includes an open mind towards the possible need of relinquishing certain areas of research and development.
Figure 1: The responsibilities of scientists for risk governance
e.g. by keeping those effects within preconceived bounds. An example of such a social institution that is actually part of our “system of risk governance” is the phenomenon of commercial organisations with limited liability66. These limited liability corporations as they are usually called are an important aspect of the system of risk governance that is in place to control the risks of technology development and application, including the specific area of “bio risks”67. Students (and many others) are usually unwilling or incapable to even imagine a world without limited liability corporations, and they are unwilling or incapable to recognise that, for a reliable and effective system of risk governance, it may be necessary to abolish all limited liability corporations. Yet I fail to see how someone who considers the issue with the critical attitude that is mandated by the norms for science could not arrive at the conclusion that a reliable system of risk governance is incompatible with the existence of limited liability corporations that 66
The essence of a limited liability corporation is that employees including directors, barring special conditions such as malicious intent and gross negligence, cannot be held liable for any external harm produced by the corporation, whereas shareholders are shielded from all liability beyond the loss of the value of their shares of that corporation. 67 They are also an important element in the governance of risks attached to the financial system, as the example of the financial crises make clear.
47 engage in activities generating public risks. For it follows from very simple considerations that limited liability corporations generate more risks than is socially beneficial68. This insight was recently corroborated by the global banking crisis69. Nevertheless it appears that the fact alone that our contemporary world is full of limited liability corporations effectively blocks people from seeing and acknowledging the obvious flaws of this legal construct in view of sound risk governance practices.
In order to break this uncritical and hence unscientific and unethical attitude towards, in our example, the legal construct of limited liability corporations, some relevant historical knowledge can also be of help. Thus, it could help to know that such limited liability corporations in technology and in other economic sectors are to a large extent a 19th century legal construct, introduced to stimulate the then nascent industry70, and that this construct was highly contested at the time of introduction. I mention just one revealing comment of a contemporary, Edward Thurlow, Lord Chancellor of Great Britain from 1778 to 1783 and from 1783 to 1792. He observed that “Corporations [i.e. limited liability companies] have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to be condemned; they therefore do as they like” 71. In spite of this obvious characteristic of limited liability corporations, and in spite of opposition, this legal construct was introduced on a large scale in the 19th century through far reaching changes in the relevant laws, enacted by legislative bodies operating under simple majority rule, meaning that their majorities could freely force their decisions upon the opposers.
68
For a precise statement of this see Sect. 6. Decision making, external costs and liability are addressed in: H. Zandvoort, 2009, Engineering education for a sustainable, just and peaceful society. Presentation held at the TEK Sustainable Development Seminar, 19 November 2009, Helsinki. Available online: http://www.ethicsandtechnology.eu/images/uploads/Zandvoort_Engineering_Education_for_a_Just_Sustainable_ and_Peaceful_Society1.pdf 69 I do not imply here that governments and government institutions did not play a negative role in the 2008 US subprime mortgage crisis. 70 For a summary of and references to the relevant 19th century history of liability law see Zandvoort (2011) or see: H. Zandvoort, 2008, ‘What scientists and engineers should know about the history of legal liability and why they should know it’, Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Education 2008. July 27-31, Published by Prof Dr Jozsef Mecsi, Dean, Pollack Mihaly Faculty of Engineering, University of Pecs, Hungary. Edited by Dr Geza Varaday, Pecs, Budapest, INEER. ISBN 978-963-7298-20-2. Available online at: http://icee2008hungary.net/download/fullp/full_papers/full_paper167.pdf. 71 The quote is in John Poynder Literary Extracts (1844). It is often misrepresented as: "Did you ever expect a corporation to have a conscience, when it has no soul to be damned, and no body to be kicked?“, as in the title of a well known scientific article on the topic by Coffee (1981): J.C. Coffee Jr, 1981, " 'No soul to damn: no body to kick': an unscandalized inquiry into the problem of corporate punishment", Michigan Law Review, 79 (3): 386-459. For Thurlow’s statement see http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edward_Thurlow,_1st_Baron_Thurlow.
48 Knowledge versus willingness to act When it comes to preparing students for social responsibility, both knowledge and willingness to act (the volition aspect addressed by Heikkero) are necessary. Perhaps the question “What comes first, knowledge or attitude?” should be considered as a chicken-egg problem. Even then, there can be little doubt that knowledge and insight are essential, not just for instilling in individuals a desire to act, but also for determining goals of the action that would represent positive change. Any desire to act in itself can be useless for others or worse, if the action is not directed to goals that are worth aiming at.
Summary I have argued in the first part that the members of the informal network of university teachers that is associated with workshops in Copenhagen (2005), Hamburg (2008), Delft (2010), and also Bradford (2012) have a shared vision on the problems of contemporary technological society that call for education for social responsibility, and on a set of what I have here called formal characteristics of he required teaching. In the second part I have argued that the community of educators should now lend priority to the question which contents should be transferred through the curricula in view of properly preparing students for social responsibility. As a personal contribution to that issue, I have pointed to the existence of knowledge regarding the procedures for collective (political) decision making (“Public Choice”) and regarding the foundation and functioning of the legal system. I claim that this knowledge is necessary for social responsibility of scientists and engineers, but at the same time it is largely unknown to (future) scientists and engineers. If this knowledge is not transmitted through the science and engineering curricula, the universities fail in their task to adequately prepare their students for positive contributions to the resolution of the problems, mentioned in part I, that current technological society is facing. Although my focus has thus been on the transfer of relevant knowledge for social responsibility, I have tried to make it clear that this issue cannot be separated from the instilling of a critical attitude, for instance towards the social institutions that are assumed or expected to govern the effects of science and technology in society. The legal construct of corporations with limited liability is a specific social institution forming an integral part of the system of risk governance that should control the risks and negative side effects of science and technology. I have illuminated the uncritical attitude of students towards this particular social institution, in violation of the norms of science that demand from scientists and engineers a critical attitude. I have argued that students must be provided with relevant knowledge, which for the example of the limited liability legal construct is partly theoretical, partly empirical, and partly historical, in order to be empowered for sound and critical evaluations of such institutions. I have argued that such knowledge is necessary both to instil a desire for action and to guide that action towards positive social change.
49
ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES AS A MEANS OF INTRODUCING FRENCH ENGINEERING STUDENTS TO ETHICS Colette Griffin
In this paper I will show how my experience of teaching in French Grandes Ecoles has led to the use of English language teaching and class debates as a means of educating engineering students in ethics and social responsibility. This may be an unusual approach, but it is one that has proved worthwhile here in France, so I wish to share it with colleagues teaching in other countries as a possibly useful tool in their efforts to enhance social responsibility approaches among other student and professional bodies.
The French education system is proud of its Grandes Ecoles. These schools cater for the elite of the nation, those who have had the best the education system can offer and who have been channeled from an early age towards a predominantly math-based curriculum. This pathway culminates in a twoyear intensive graduate preparatory course for the French competitive exams, allowing entry to a hierarchical system of renowned schools. These schools “cream off” students who have succeeded in passing the highly disciplined ‘concours’ exams and once students have been accepted into a Grande Ecole, their careers are more or less guaranteed, certainly within the French Republic, its overseas dominions and territories.
I started working in such schools in 1999 at the Ecole Navale, Lanveoc Poulmic, the French Naval Academy and later at ENSIETA, Brest, now the Ecole Nationale Superieure de Techniques Avancées, or ENSTA Bretagne. The Naval Academy teaches only military personnel, but ENSTA Bretagne school has both civilian students and military affiliations in that it is under the tutorship of the DGA, the French Procurement Agency. In practice, military students (who make up 25% of the total student body) at ENSTA Bretagne have completed one year of military training before integrating their engineering studies. As well as engineering skills, ENSTA Bretagne also offers courses in Management and Organisation, allying Human Resources to the more technical aspects of an engineer’s education.
There was no doubt in my mind that students in such institutions were destined for outstanding careers, that they would one day find themselves in positions of authority, which they would acquire as a result of the academic choices they made at an early age. These students, I believed, would be unequalled in their technical sphere. However, it soon became clear to me that the students’ academically sheltered existence, while preparing them for engineering excellence, also kept them in a state of socially-responsible
naivety that was disconcerting. This was brought home to me one day
during a debate in an English class on the threat of bio-chemicals as weapons; the debate led to a
50 comment from one enthusiastic navy cadet who stated that he would never be in danger from such threats, as he would be safe aboard his frigate. A later declaration emerged from an engineering student who confidently stated during a similar debate, that whatever company he worked for in the future would lay down the rules he should follow and that this would protect him from any repercussions in the event of a faux pas. Such comments from students made it clear to me that all the maths and technical training in the world would never help them to acquire a sense of personal responsibility if their simplistic sense of being protected by some higher authority at work were not challenged. Class debates had clearly illustrated the strength of my students’ total trust in “the system”. I decided that the same debates would have to take the challenge one step further.
I had initially wanted to set up debating groups in the Naval Academy, but the students there were in the hands of their “Loufiats” or platoon officers once the final bell rang at the end of the school day, so I could not implement my debating plans there. At ENSTA Bretagne, however, where the Language Studies Department (Domaine Langues et Culture) falls within the Human and Social Sciences laboratory (SHS), new opportunities presented themselves. Languages hold a very important role at ENSTA Bretagne, although many science tutors also view English as something of an obstacle to the future of their students, who cannot obtain their engineering degrees unless they have a minimum B2 level in English, according to the CTI (Commission des Titres des Ingénieurs). This levelis evaluated by passing external assessment exams such as the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) and the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). My decision to introduce the notion of ethics to English language classes would have to be done with diplomacy and tact, but would also enable me to introduce to the French Grandes Ecoles system the idea of ‘debating’, which I prize as both a language learning method and an opportunity to question beliefs and opinions...
The next step was to find a way to integrate:
Debating, in the form of a combination of the British Parliamentary style and the World School debating championships, into the French Education system (incorporating points of information, points of order, argument and counter-argument, rebuttal, extensive research, clarity, precision, humour etc.)
With the theme of Ethics, into the language curriculum.
We had recently introduced a new format to second-year English studies in which the student body could to choose two themes to be studied in the language classes. The teaching body was to choose two other themes. If one of these themes were ethics, then the first foothold would be established! The first
51 year taught us that two themes from the teaching body proved too onerous, se therefore reduced it to one: Ethics and Research.
Year
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
Teacher choice
Ethics and Research
Ethics and Research
Ethics and Research
Globalisation Student choice
Advertising
Sport
and
its
Information
influences
Technology
The French as seen
Networking under its
Media and
from abroad
various facets
Manipulation
Table 1: Year-on-year student and teacher subject choice for debates
Teaching time was limited to three weeks - at best four - of only 2 ½ hours per week. The curriculum would have to be well balanced, giving assignments to students outside class time and organizing discussion and fact-sharing sessions within classes. Brainstorming was vital. We found that the word “ethics”, being seen by many to be synonymous with religious connotations, caused some of the students to balk at its use. Many others felt that “ethics” was simply a means of adding more constraints to the already restricted field of research, seeing ethics as being akin to rules, limits the fixing of boundaries. Accordingly, we decided to take some steps to minimize the effects of these concerns.
Steps taken in teaching: Brainstorming on the definition of “ethics”; Use of illustrations of how students’ “definitions” could be regrouped under other approaches, For example, under the umbrellas of Aristotle, Kant, or Utilitarian headings; Use of case studies to highlight abuses and flagrant breaches of ethical codes, for example, the cases of Ragner Rylander, Jan Hendrick Schön, S. Reuben, or Hwang Woo Suk. Use of discussions arising from the above examples on peer review processes, sanctions (or lack of), the influence of pressures to produce, the need for celebrity, funding based on apparent results and so on; Use of further examples using video or similar, for example, The Challenger, the Untold Story, with accompanying worksheets, leading to discussion of details, of engineering choices to be made, pressures from companies and colleagues, media intervention and influence, hype and above all whistleblowing;
52 Use of other engineering examples put forward, this time produced by students as part of their homework assignment. Comparison and comment in class. Reactions voiced, allowing elements of “right” and “wrong” to be broached. Heated discussion and debates ensued; Use of references to popular films and documentaries which raise ethical issues: The Constant Gardener, Erin Brockovich, Jurassic Park, BBC World Debate, The Lord of War and so on; Use of quotations from famous people on “ethics” eg. Einstein; The Russell-Einstein Manifesto; introduction to Pugwash; UNESCO; NIEHS (National Institute of Environmental Health and Sciences); Encouraging of subjects chosen by students, which ranged from robots to drones, stem cells to beauty products, the Stanford Prison experiment to GMOs. The final class on the theme consisted of a debate between two groups: “That Ethics Should Never Be Compromised For Progress”.
From Class to Reality The above was all class-based, which means that students would consider ethics only from an academic point of view and associate it with what we had done in language class. A “tour de force” or complementary element had to be found. I was leaning towards the idea of a conference/debate, to be timetabled on one single afternoon, where guests from positions of authority within companies would address the students on issues of ethical concern they had encountered in their working world. Budget was an issue - I quite simply had none. Rather than go into detail on this issue, suffice it to say that I learned where to turn to and organized a conference debate on a shoestring to prove it could be done and further, that it had both pedagogical and logical merit if ethics were to mean something to engineering students. Colleagues in Grenoble were working along similar lines and had also learned how to finance such a project through intensive paper work and fund-seeking efforts throughout France and even Europe.
In order to give ethics credibility, students had to see the extent to which companies and institutions they were familiar with considered values. Guests at debates included researchers, company directors, the senior investment officer of the FAO Rome (UN Food and Agriculture Organization) , a lawyer from Dublin, the director of DCNS (Naval shipbuilding company) India researchers from Galway and Bradford Universities, a journalist from “Courrier International” (a French weekly newspaper printing articles from hundreds of international newspapers), a past pupil now working for the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) and a former member of the Irish Parliament who gave a talk on accountability in the light of the recession. The students were very receptive. They could suddenly put values and ethical concerns into a broader perspective. They exchanged views during question and
53 answer sessions and after the first debate even requested that there be only three speakers, rather than four as in the first event, in order to allow more time for interaction with the guests.
The programmes of the three debates are presented below in the full page box. All presentations were given in English, but translations of positions or titles were needed if I was to receive funding from local and/or regional bodies.
The momentum grew from year to year. The peak moment of the afternoon was when three fellow students took the floor in a challenging debate using British Parliamentary rules. The first year they took on a team from Grenoble who travelled to Brest for the event. The house debated the motion that “This house believes that Ethics will never hold sway in a material world”. The second year was an internal debate, as the “mechanics” students vied with those in “electronics”. The house debated the motion that “This house believes that science and ethics seriously need to do more than just shake hands”.
By the third year, I had learned that my teaching staff were in need of encouragement and training, so I invited a colleague from Paris to do a debating workshop for them, which proved invaluable. There was no way that this project could succeed without backup from a motivated and confident teaching team. It is worth mentioning at this point that in my establishment, for over 650 students, there are only three full time language teachers but over 40 part time tutors. These “vacataires” as they are called in France are the backbone of many Grandes Ecoles but are hired on a need-to-have basis and paid an hourly rate according to the number of classes they give. This year’s debate took place between ENSTA Bretagne and Telecom Paris Tech, where debating has taken root and is devotedly nourished. The debate focused on the motion that “This house believes that he who pays the piper calls the tune”.
Linguistically speaking, a challenge had to be maintained. Ethically speaking, guest speakers had to be interesting enough to hold students’ attention, important enough for them to turn up (despite the fact the conference was timetabled as part of their English classes), and realistic enough for them to see the importance of ethics in a world where they themselves would one day have a major role to play.
Many people were mobilized to lend support for the occasion: technicians, the communications service, printers, the mediathèque staff who kindly displayed material,
54 2010 ETHICS and ENGINEERING Opening Session by the Master of Ceremonies // Première séance. Opening Address: Mr Francis JOUANJEAN, Director Ensieta. Law V Practices.. Speaker: Mr Conor BOWMAN, Barrister-at-Law and Author, Dublin. Humanitarian Organisations Faced with Ethical Questions. Speaker: Mr David COLBERT, Senior Investments Officer, FAO, Rome. Ethical Dilemmas in the World of Industry. Speaker: Mr Didier MARGINEDES, Directeur Général, Groupe Bolloré. Do Ethics Have a Say in Issues Related to Weaponry? Speaker: Mr Alain CREMIEUX, Ingénieur général de l’armement, Président du Comité de Réflexion sur l’Ethique de l’Armement. Student DEBATE in English. Ensieta , Brest V. PHELMA, Grenoble Institute of Technology “This House Believes that Ethics will never hold sway in a Material World.”
2011 ETHICS and RESPONSIBILITY The Right to Know : The Responsibility of the Media Speaker : Mr Eric GLOVER, Chef de Service Sciences Technologies et Environnement, Courrier International, Paris Research : Ethics and Responsibility Speaker : Heike SCHMIDT-FELZMANN Dr.Phil., Dipl.Psych., MA, COBRA Centre of Bioethical Research and Analysis, NUI Galway The Responsibility of Companies and Ethical Questions Raised Speaker : Mr Xavier MARCHAL, IGA, Directeur des programmes futurs DCNS “This House Believes that Science and Ethics Seriously Need to do More than Just Shake Hands”
2012 ETHICS and ACCOUNTABILITY Ethics and Compliance: Implications to a Company in an International Context. Speaker: Mr Alexis BRUGERE, A350XWB Version Manager – Airbus Operations SAS. Responsible Conduct of Research: Starting to Think about Applied Ethics and Accountability Speaker: Ms Tatyana NOVOSSIOLOVA, Research Associate, Wellcome Trust PhD Student Bradford Disarmament Research Centre, University of Bradford. England. Consequences of the Lack of Accountability in the Euro Zone films, booksMr onFrancis the subject of ethics ordered for Government the occasion,Minister studentsand whoSenator. were Speaker: FAHEY, formerand Member ofeditions the Irishespecially Parliament, filmed voicing their opinion on ethics and others who contributed by finding and creating visual material Student DEBATE in English. ENSTA Bretagne V Telecom Paris Tech that could be projected throughout the afternoon between guest speakers and at the breaks. The “This House Believes That When it Comes to Ethics, He Who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune
55 debating teams were encouraged to come forward, along with helpers and researchers, masters and mistresses of ceremonies, and of course, timekeepers. The logistics were vast.
Was it worth it? I felt that the more organized the event, the less forthcoming students were in participating in questionand-answer sessions. I found this disturbing at first and rather curious. In follow-up discussions however, comments and criticism came easily with regard to the various presentations, especially when students felt that speakers were more concerned with reading prepared speeches than communicating with them. They themselves saw nothing remiss in the fact that their appreciation of guest speakers was not conveyed through extensively motivating questions.
However, when probed further, they all agreed that the experience should be renewed: that the subject of ethics was well worth studying and even more so as the conference and debate placed ethics within a professional perspective, making the issues “more approachable and concrete”. Interestingly enough, they felt that we had done a very thorough job in three to four weeks, which is debatable, but this might also be an indication of the limits of tackling the subject of ethics in a parallel field of studies, or perhaps an indicator of how the question of ethics can only be taken in small doses by Grandes Ecoles students, for the moment. The danger may lie in the fact the conference might be personalized as “Colette’s” (i.e. my , the author’s own “property”) , as being the brain-child of one individual, as being purely language-based, as an interesting approach to English learning rather than as an essential element in French Engineering schools. The next step will be to involve our scientific colleagues from within ENSTA. All of these were invited to the event, but the invitation was not taken up by many of them. As for the students themselves, it was very rewarding when, in the exam hall two weeks later, as two subjects were drawn from an envelope, one of which they were to write an essay on, I heard a remark, “I hope ethics comes up”. Who would have thought?
56
THE TECHNO-ANTHROPOLOGIST AS A SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE INTERACTIONAL EXPERT Tom Børsen
In May 2010 a group of researchers at Aalborg University applied to the Danish accreditation authorities (ACE Denmark) for permission to set up two new interdisciplinary study programs in TechnoAnthropology at both bachelors and Masters levels. The application was approved in November 2010, and a Study Board was set up, with the responsibility of turning the ideas and visions presented in the accreditation application into concrete study programs. In September 2011 the first students enrolled at Aalborg University's new bachelor program in Techno-Anthropology, and a Master's program in TechnoAnthropology
will
start
in
September
2012.
The background for establishing these two interdisciplinary study programs lies in trends emerging in society today. The initiators of Techno-Anthropology as an academic subject agreed with the aims of the Danish Globalization council – a body set up in April 2005 by the Danish Government comprising representatives of all sections of society. The council was tasked with advising the Government on a strategy for Denmark in the global economy, bearing in mind the need to attract more students to natural scientific and technical study areas. Hence, the Techno-Anthropology programs are hosted by the School of Engineering and Science at Aalborg University, and successful students of TechnoAnthropology formally become Bachelor or Master of Science (B.Sc. and M.Sc.) graduates.
The group that developed the concept of Techno-Anthropology, in following the recommendations of the Globalization Council, saw a need to link Science and Technology more effectively with wider society. One approach to such linkage is through training the next generation of technical experts in methods that facilitate user-driven innovation,
thereby bridging the potential divide between user-
needs and technological possibilities . The discipline of anthropology can provide theories and methods needed for carrying out user-driven technological innovation and is therefore ideally placed to offer frameworks and approaches to meet these wider-society goals. The study-program designers also strongly believed that a greater links between wider society and the Science, Engineering and Technology (SET) community requires the development and implementation of ethical and social responsibility competencies, and is in this regard the new programs are aligned with UNESCO’s medium term strategy for 2008‐2013:
“The ethical dimensions of the current scientific and technological evolution must be fully addressed. Ensuring the world remains secure for everyone means that scientific
57 and technological progress must be placed in a context of ethical reflection rooted in the cultural, legal, philosophical and religious heritage of all our communities. UNESCO contributes to this ethical watch by:
Promoting the international conventions and instruments related to the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
Developing ethical principles and drawing up recommendations for decision‐
makers;
Developing an educational approach to inform public opinion on the human
rights implications of scientific and technological progress, including the impact of globalization;
Implementing its advisory role in the development of national capacities;
Helping the scientific community and decision‐makers to incorporate the ethical
dimension into their endeavors.”
The new Techno-Anthropology programs are interdisciplinary and combine anthropological skills with an understanding of technology as well as of social responsibility. Hence, the Techno-Anthropology programs combine applied anthropology and ethics with SET.
As in all other study programs at Aalborg University, the new Techno-Anthropology programs apply the Aalborg Model of Problem Based Learning. This means that each semester contains approximately 50% course work and 50 % project-work that is driven by the students under the supervision of one or two supervisors.
Figure 1 illustrates the content of the Techno-Anthropology programs. Marked in black are the courses and projects that contribute to the formation of concepts of social and civic responsibility in the students. Courses and projects that might contribute to the formation of social and civic responsibility competencies are marked in gray. Measured in ECTS credits (European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System – the European method of credit-weighting in academic courses) social and civic responsibility is involved in more than one third of the programs’ module credits. Students who desire to pursue SET ethics can do so in more than half of the program’s module credits. Social and civic responsibility plays, in other words, a significant role in the Techno-Anthropology programs – almost as significant as those of anthropology and SET.
58
Semester
5 ECTS
5 ECTS
5 ECTS
5 ECTS
5 ECTS
5 ECTS
10 Master’s Thesis
9 Field Work
8 Elective
Mapping
Product
Project: Anthropology-based
controversies development Product Development
7 Elective
Organiza-
Knowledge
Project: Expert Cultures and
tional
production
Responsible Technology
Culture… 6 Interdisciplinary
Elective
Bachelor project
Philosophy of Science
5 Portfolio in anthropological
Elective
work
Project: Participant Observation in Technology Culture
4 Science
Elective
Journalism
Technology
Project: User-Driven Innovation and
in a macro
Technology Communication
perspective 3 Anthropological methods
Analysis of
Elective
stakeholders
Project: Technology in anthropological perspective
in technology
2 Technoscience
Technology
Technology
Project: Technology, Innovation &
& ethics
at the micro
Ethics
level 1 Introduction to anthropology
PBL in science
Cases in
technology &
applied
society
technology
Project: Human and Technology
Figure 1: The BSc and MSc programs in Techno-Anthropology
59 The focus on social and civil responsibility competencies is also mirrored in the overall competency profile of the programs, which is reproduced in Table 1. ‘Buzz words’ in the competencies that deal with social and civic responsibility are enhanced in the Table.
Competency profile in…
Bachelor program
Knowledge
• Has knowledge about anthropological theories and methods • Has knowledge about the development and use of sustainable technology inside selected areas • Has knowledge about theories on the interaction between technology and its cultural, institutional, organizational and ethical dimensions.
Skills
• Can apply anthropological theories and methods to illuminate technology and its interaction with cultural, institutional, organizational and ethical dimensions. • Can critically evaluate the consequences and contributions of technology to the development of human, culture and organization and on this basis support the business opportunities of new technologies. • Can contribute to the creation of sustainable and innovational technological solutions • Can communicate organizational, cultural, institutional and ethical dimensions of new technology to technical experts • Can communicate technological questions and solution-models to nonspecialists, partners and users. • Can handle complex problems regarding innovation and development of new technology • Can independently take part in collaboration across professions and disciplines. • Can identify and document own learning
Competencies
needs, and structure and document own learning in different environments.
Master’s program • hold knowledge of responsible technological innovation and production, anthropological study design and analysis, and technological expert cultures based on the latest international research. • have an understanding of the philosophical and ethical basis that underpins responsible technological innovation and production, anthropological study. design and analysis, and technological expert cultures • know how to identify interdisciplinary scientific problems within these areas. • can carry out anthropological studies and analysis that link technology to its integrated /underpinning social, cultural, organizational, institutional and ethical assumptions and implications and critically evaluate such studies and analysis • can connect technological insight and anthropological study design and analysis, and on an interdisciplinary basis establish new, responsible and innovative analysis and solutions • can transform solutions into concrete actions • can communicate anthropological studies and analysis of technological expert cultures and cultural conditions and effects of technology to experts, and political, administrative and economic stakeholders as well as the wider public.
• can handle ethical dilemmas within the technoanthropological field • can manage work and development situations that are complex, unpredictable and require new or different ways of analysis and solutions • can independently initiate and take leadership over interdisciplinary collaboration and assume professional responsibility • can take responsibility for, and demonstrate, own professional and interdisciplinary development and specialization.
Table 1: Competency profiles of BSc and MSc. in Techno-Anthropology
60 Socially Responsible Interactional Experts The overall idea behind the new study programs in Techno-Anthropology is to produce socially responsible interactional experts who can apply their skills in a SET setting by holding expertise in two domains. The term "interactional expert" is taken from a much discussed paper by Harry Collins and Robert Evans 1. In their 2007 book “Rethinking Expertise” they expand their topology of expertise as they set up ‘The periodic table of expertise’2. Here a simple distinction between two kinds of expertise will suffice for explaining the underpinning of Techno-Anthropology as a subject and provider of interactional experts. Contributory expertise is what an individual needs to contribute to a scientific area 3 or to do an activity with competence4. Scientists, engineers and other technical experts, including non-certified experiencebased experts and non-technical professionals, all hold contributory expertise within their specialized area of experience, education and training.
Interactional expertise, on the other hand, “is mastery of the language of a domain, and … requires enculturation within a linguistic community”5. “The idea of interactional expertise is immanent in many roles, from peer reviewer to high-level journalist, not to mention sociologist or anthropologist.”6.
The techno-anthropologist masters the language of, and hence holds interactional expertise within, a given technical domain and another domain: this can be another technical domain, or it could be a domain of decision- or policy-making, or it could be a non-technical domain. As the technoanthropologist holds interactional expertise in two domains s/he can translate between the two. Translation means the ability “alternate between different social worlds and translate between them. The translator [and the techno-anthropologist] will have to have at least interactional expertise in both areas.”7
In Table 1 we can see how interactional expertise is operationalized within the overall competency profiles of the Techno-Anthropology B.Sc. and M.Sc. programs when we look for skills and competencies addressing interdisciplinarity and communication between different groups / domains.
Qualified
techno-anthropologists will be able to apply the concepts and skills of anthropology in a SET setting,
1
Collins, H. and Evans, R. 2002. The Third Wave of Science Studies. In Social Studies of Science, 32 (2). Collins, H. and Evans, R. 2007. Rethinking Expertise. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. 3 Collins, H. and Evans, R. 2002. The Third Wave of Science Studies. In Social Studies of Science, 32 (2), p. 254. 4 Collins, H. and Evans, R. 2007. Rethinking Expertise. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.p. 14. 5 Collins, H. and Evans, R. 2007. Rethinking Expertise. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, p. 30. 6 Collins, H. and Evans, R. 2007. Rethinking Expertise. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, p. 14. 7 Collins, H. and Evans, R. 2002. The Third Wave of Science Studies. In Social Studies of Science, 32 (2), p. 258. 2
61 providing added value to the SET setting through their contributory and interactional expertise in both domains. Bryan Wynne8 has criticized Collins and Evans for neglecting the social and cultural processes that lead to recognition of expertise and to the framing of the questions that policy-makers, business managers, media and others expect experts to answer. It is important, Wynne argues, to consider “how public issues are framed and thus given meaning”,9 thereby bringing neglected issues to the fore. Accordingly, the ability to reflect on how issues are framed, and hence identify neglected questions and patterns of ignorance, is an important trait of being an interactional expert which may constitute a disagreement with Collins and Evans). The interactional expert can therefore bring attention to 1) how questions are framed and 2) patterns of ignorance in a given domain of expertise (and in that sense turn into a contributory expert).
The new Techno-Anthropology programs have internalized this criticism in the overall competency profiles, as they include knowledge, skills and competencies that address the interaction between technology and its cultural, institutional, organizational and ethical dimensions.
A techno-
anthropologist might therefore contribute to a technical area by bringing cultural, institutional, organizational, and ethical reflections into focus in that technical area.
Social responsibility in scientific research, technological innovation and research-based advice are found within the interface between Science, Engineering and Technology and the ethical assumptions and implications inherent in their social, cultural, organizational and institutional foundations. Social responsibility in Science, Engineering and Technology is demonstrated in the correspondence between the wider consequences of Science, Engineering and Technology projects and the ethical assumptions embedded in different social, cultural, institutional and organisational domains.
It is difficult to evaluate social responsibility aspects in Science, Engineering and Technology projects, but:
It should be possible to assess the potential environmental, health, and societal consequences of SET projects. Although the future is not exactly predictable, a prognosis of future scenarios -
8
Wynne, B. 2003. Seasick on the Third Wave? Subverting the Hegemony of Propositionalism: Response to Collins and Evans (2002). Social Studies of Science, 33 (3). 9 Wynne, B. 2003. Seasick on the Third Wave? Subverting the Hegemony of Propositionalism: Response to Collins and Evans (2002). Social Studies of Science, 33 (3), p.402.
62 within given uncertainty levels – is often possible. If it is impossible to assess the consequences of a SET project, then one needs to decide how to handle this uncertainty;
In order to evaluate the social responsibility aspects of a SET project, one needs to identify, map, criticise and communicate the ethical assumptions embedded in the different social, cultural, institutional and organisational domains involved in or affected by the project – which requires a multi-disciplinary set of expertise.
Techno-anthropology candidates address both points. But, Techno-Anthropology is also action-oriented. Hence, it is also the intention of the Techno-Anthropology programs that they enable the students to give advice on how to, or actively take part in, bridging different or opposing perspectives in a specific SET project by involving the application of ethical and sustainable problem-solving approaches, valuesensitive design and user-driven innovation. The techno-anthropologist is, in other words, a socially responsible interactional expert. The purpose of techno-anthropology is not to replace science or engineering. Rather, the techno-anthropologist can team up with scientists and engineers in identifying and addressing wider technological challenges in the context of a cultural setting with different and complex needs and drivers, that one profession cannot manage alone.
63
ETHICS EDUCATION AS A FOUNDATION FOR PROFESSIONAL SKILLS DEVELOPMENT? A DISCUSSION PAPER E. Alpay
Introduction Ethics education in science and engineering has seen much interest in recent years. The actual impact of such education is difficult to gauge, and faculty motivation for teaching involvement has been mixed. Often, the perceived subjective, ambiguous and philosophical nature of the topic presents challenges to both teachers and students alike1. In engineering, the interactive use of discipline-specific case studies and industrial scenarios2 , as well as guidelines for embedding ethics into curricula (see the Royal Academy of Engineering publication on “An engineering ethics curriculum map”3), has helped to raise the
profile of ethics education. For example, such resources provide practical ways of student
engagement through the disciplinary contextualisation of ethical decision making. Ultimately, ethics education is intended to raise student awareness of professional and social responsibilities and to equip students with the skills to recognise, evaluate and address ethical issues. Not surprisingly then, much overlap exists between effective ethical practice and the general professional skills needed for, among other things, effective communication, critical thinking and leadership. However, whilst students and faculty generally accept and appreciate the importance of skills development per se, its connection to ethics is often implied or indeed overlooked. In this paper, it will be argued that ethics education may in fact act as a foundation for professional skills development, potentially enhancing the effectiveness of such development overall. Specific attention will be given to leadership development, in as much as this concept represents a broad amalgamation of professional skills. Discussion points will then be presented that may help in considering possible new directions in ethics education for scientists and engineers.
Ethics and Professional Skills Development The connections between ethics education and professional skills development can be demonstrated through issues concerning the needs of both employers and society as a whole. For example, for the
1
Alpay, E., 2011, Student-Inspired Activities for the Teaching and Learning of Engineering Ethics, Science and Engineering Ethics, (Web publication ahead of print), DOI:10.1007/s11948-011-9297-8. 2 See: Quinn, M.J., 2006, Case-based analysis: a practical tool for teaching computer ethics. ACM SIGCSE ’06, Houston Texas, USA; Shallcross, D.C., Parkinson M.J., 2006, Teaching ethics to chemical engineers: some class room scenarios. Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 1, 49-54. 3 http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/releases/pdf/Ethics_Curriculum_Map.pdf
64 former, in a survey by Archer and Davison4 of 233 UK and international employers, integrity (i.e. ethics and professionalism) featured amongst the top five most important skills and attributes when recruiting new graduates. . Other core skills and attributes in this list were reported as communication, teamwork and confidence. Communication skills and confidence ranked especially poorly in terms of employers’ satisfaction in graduate recruitment. Practical workshops may address different aspects of communication skills of course, but confidence and integrity present more challenging areas, involving, for example, issues of self-awareness and self-beliefs, and reflection on both positive and negative experiences.
In the context of social needs, the notion of a global dimension in science and engineering education has also been widely discussed in the literature5. This reflects an important change in the role of science and engineering graduates, with greater emphasis being focussed on ethical awareness:
“The critical role of engineers to deliver solutions towards a sustainable and equitable world is becoming increasingly apparent. Such delivery requires an attitude towards leadership that is defined by doing the right things, creating change and influencing others for rightful change. At the heart of leadership then, is ethical awareness and cogent reasoning that relate to both personal values and societal needs.” 6
The motivations and attitudes of students themselves often reflect a desire for leadership development and opportunities to make contributions that have societal value. For example, in a recent UK survey of pre-university students7, individuals were asked to identify the subjects that they would like to learn more about as part of a broader curriculum at university. Student responses are summarised in Table 1 and indicate leadership and teamwork development as key aspirations. In a similar study of engineering 4
Archer, W., Davison, J., 2008, Graduate employability: what do employers think and want. Council for Industry and Higher Education (CIHE) publication, London. See: http://aces.shu.ac.uk/employability/resources/0802Grademployability.pdf (visited June 2012). 5 See, for example: De Graaf, E., Ravesteijn, W., 2001, Training complete engineers: global enterprise and engineering education, European Journal of Engineering Education, 26 (4), 419-427; Fallows, S. and Steven, C. (Eds.), 2000, Integrating key skills in higher education. Kogan Page Limited, London; Fenner R.A., Ainger C.A., Cruickshank H.J. and Guthrie P., 2006, Widening horizons for engineers: addressing the complexity of Sustainable Development. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Engineering Sustainability Journal, 159 (ES4), 145154; Leitch, S., 2006, Leitch Review of Skills: Prosperity for all in the global economy – world class skills, HMSO, London. See http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/6/4/leitch_finalreport051206.pdf (accessed January 2012); Pritchard, J. and Baillie, C., 2006, How can engineering education contribute to a sustainable future? European Journal of Engineering Education, 31 (5), 555 – 565. 6 Alpay, E., 2012a, Being ethical and intelligent about leadership: awareness, beliefs and leadership development, Engineering Leadership Review, in press. 7 16-18 age group; all students studying mathematics and physics and therefore potentially eligible for engineering studies; national survey through the UCAS Media student database of pre-registered students for university application; see Alpay (2012b).
65 undergraduates, student aspirations to “make a difference” are clearly indicated, as well as a desire for skills development in supporting leadership on this front 8.
Engineering being
top 6
Engineering not
Top 6
considered
ranking
being considered
ranking
(N=740)
(N=683)
International issues
57.6
57.8
5
Teamwork
80.8
3
70.7
2
Business skills
67.8
5
60.5
4
Law
34.5
39.5
Languages
41.2
44.7
Self awareness & personal development
66.8
Ethics
47.6
Leadership
83.2
2
76.9
Environmental and sustainability issues
68.4
4
54.2
Aspects of other engineering disciplines
85.2
1
36.9
Health and medical issues
61.8
55.1
Politics
39.9
48.8
6
64.0
3
50.8 1
6
Table 1: “As part of your broader University education, which of the following would you like to learn more about?”: % of students selecting “yes, some of this” or “yes, a lot of this”. (Figure adapted from Alpay 9)
As mentioned above, “leadership”, as a concept, necessitates a wide range of professional skills. Moreover, authentic leadership10 requires both personal and social awareness competencies, drawing aspects of self-awareness and personal development into the professional skills domain, for example:
“[Authentic leaders are] genuine people who are true to themselves and what they believe in. They engender trust and develop genuine connections with others. Because 8
Alpay E., Ahearn A., Graham R.., Bull, A.M.J., 2008, Student enthusiasm for engineering: charting changes in student aspirations and motivation, European Journal of Engineering Education, 33, 573-585. 9 Alpay, E., 2012b, Student attraction to engineering through flexibility and breadth in the curriculum, submitted to European Journal of Engineering Education. 10 See, for example, the review by Gardner, W.L., Cogliser, C.G., Davis, K.M., Dickens, M.P., 2011, Authentic leadership: a review of the literature and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 22 (6), 1120-1145.
66 people trust them, they are able to motivate others to high levels of performance… As they develop as authentic leaders, they are most more? concerned about serving others than they are about their own success or recognition.”11
As illustrated in Figure 1, through an awareness and appraisal of personal values and other beliefs, a link between ethics education and the development of “authentic leadership” emerges. Of course, there are challenges in this approach, for example, the nature of individual student circumstances. Individuals may find that an objective appraisal of beliefs may involve issues concerning stereotype threat 12, the impostor syndrome13 and self-theories of intelligence14.
ETHICS EDUCATION
LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
Activities / Experiences debates; case (anecdote) studies; role plays; critique of moral frameworks; conflict analysis; application of thinking tools; group work
Objective Appraisal of Beliefs self-awareness self-beliefs stereotypes
Personal Development reflection on personal beliefs, values and motivation; self, group and societal understanding; moral reasoning / critical thinking
Development of Authentic (Self-) Leadership
Development of Authentic (Group) Leadership
Figure 1: Ethics education and leadership development: the awareness and appraisal of beliefs. Figure adapted from Alpay15 .
These issues are also addressed in the discussions of Alpay16. Without such a personal self- appraisal, and subsequent evidence of corresponding personal growth, a genuine commitment by the individual to ethical practice and societal concern may be limited. 11
George, W., Sims, P., 2007, True north: discover your authentic leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Franciscco. Davies, P.G., Spencer, S.J., Steele, C.M., 2005, Clearing the air: identity safety moderates the effects of stereotype threat on women's leadership aspirations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), 276-287. 13 Laursen, L, 2008, No you’re not an impostor, Science AAAS, Feb14 2008. See http://changingcourse.com/pressrelease/science02142008.htm (accessed January 2012). 14 Dweck, C.S., 2000, Self-theories: their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology Press (Taylor and Francis Group), Hove, UK. 15 Alpay, E., 2012a, Being ethical and intelligent about leadership: awareness, beliefs and leadership development, Engineering Leadership Review, in press. 12
67 New Directions in Ethics Education? Given these discussions on the connections between authentic leadership and ethics education, and considering the evidence of student motivations underpinning leadership development aspirations, what are the implications for ethics education in science and engineering? I will close with a number of points for consideration that may be useful to readers:
1. The introduction of leadership development programmes / courses that promote a framework for self- and societal awareness may be a better option than either stand-alone courses in ethics or distributed and embedded ethics-related activities;
2. The promotion of “authenticity” in leadership may act as a stimulus for understanding one’s own values, biases, inhibitions and preferences, as well as of the subsequent leadership style and behaviours that emerges from these. Authentic self-leadership should be considered as more than being a responsible individual, but also someone who understands the positive motivations for proactive responsibility.
3. Leadership development that focuses on task- and people-management, critical thinking, decision making and understanding personal values and motivations (for example) necessitates experiential learning activities that are driven by comprehensive feedback and reflection opportunities. In the context of engineering studies, group design projects may provide a framework through which to deliver such opportunities. The design projects themselves should not only address technical complexity but also social complexity, allowing students to consider technical and social challenges simultaneously.
4. Is there a need for a leadership curriculum map to guide the integration of leadership skills development into teaching? If so, should this encompass attributes of the Royal Academy of Engineering’s “Engineering Ethics Map”?
16
Alpay, E., 2012a, Being ethical and intelligent about leadership: awareness, beliefs and leadership development, Engineering Leadership Review, in press.
68
HOW TO GET ENGINEERING STUDENTS INTERESTED IN PROFESSIONAL ETHICS Lawrence Coates This contribution to the Yearbook represents the format and content of a workshop session led by Lawrence Coates at the Twin Meeting in Bradford in July 2012. Rather than preparing a paper covering the material, it was considered to be more useful to present the material in this format as a resource for interested tutors or researchers who may be seeking support in their own work or teaching. The following pages include recommendations for professional ethics in engineering sources available on the internet, as commercially available DVDs, as widely-considered case studies and as guidelines for classes or group discussions.
1. Aim The aim of this section of the workshop is to provide indications of the various ways that engineering ethics case studies may be found or created, which ones work and which approaches don’t. It is not intended to imply expertise in the author, but simply to start you thinking.
2. Well-established Resources Web Resources Texas A&M University maintains an extensive collection of web resources (http://ethics.tamu.edu) with in many cases plenty of useful information for the instructor. There is a special section of technical case studies.
Ethics on-line (http://www.onlineethics.org/) Contains over 300 case studies, many of them focusing on university-related issues. But a useful search engine can be used to narrow down the list.
Leeds
CETL
(IDEA)
case
studies
via
HE
Academy
(http://www.idea.leeds.ac.uk/
&
http://www.engsc.ac.uk) A useful collection of a dozen technically-based hypothetical case studies.
Video & DVD resources BBC Active videos is a separate organisation providing high-quality DVDs for education. For ethics teaching the Disaster Series is particularly useful.
69 This series can be found on the BBC Active website, where several formats are offered and for student instruction, the Horizon 50 minutes format always seems too long. Fortunately many of the disaster series
are
presented
in
crisp
30min
programmes.
(http://www.bbcactive.com/BroadcastLearning/asp/home/home.asp).
There are now four “Disaster Series” and in each one a few of the videos/DVDs are really useful and some are not. Disaster Series 1, for example, includes Spiral to Disaster which concerns the Piper Alpha oil rig fire, which is a classic. The Unflyable Plane can be useful in helping students to understand what “thinking the unthinkable” can actually mean. But Atlantic is probably the weakest one in this series.
Disaster Series 1:
Episode 1: Spiral to Disaster (also on DVD): This insightful programme which recreates the disaster of the oil rig 'Piper Alpha' is used by health & safety professionals all over the globe. The catastrophe was not the result of a sudden, unpredictable explosion. Poor safety training, basic communication failures, and inadequate emergency decision-making procedures created an environment in which tragedy was inevitable. Episode 2: Unflyable Plane: The crash of a United Airlines DC10 in 1989. Episode 3: The Goiana Incident: Two thieves broke in to a disused clinic in Brazil and sold on parts from a machine, which was contaminated with Caesium-137. Episode 4: Atlantic: The mental and physical pressures on two people whose boat sank whilst sailing the Atlantic. Episode 5: The Chemical Scythe: The investigations into the link between organophosphate chemicals commonly used for sheep-dipping and nerve gas. Episode 6: October Fire: A devastating accident involving Russian nuclear submarine K219 in 1986.
Disaster Series 2:
Episode 1: Channel Tunnel Fire: In November 1996, 34 people were trapped in the Eurotunnel Shuttle from Calais. Four hundred and fifty firefighters worked for six hours to get the blaze under control. Episode 2: A Major Malfunction: The final countdown to the launch of the 25th US space shuttle, Challenger, on 28th January 1986 sets the scene in a dramatic reconstruction of the Challenger disaster. Episode 3: A Cut Price Tragedy: Despite a higher than average accident record, in 1996 the fastgrowing US airline, Valujet, was flying 51 planes on 320 routes. On 31st May 1996 a Valujet DC-9 plunged into the Florida Everglades, killing all 110 people on board. Episode 4: The Christinaki: This Episode examines the sinking of The Christinaki, a 26,000 ton ship in 1996 in the Atlantic Ocean. " Episode 5: Fighting for Life: Two surgeons atBristol Royal Infirmary were heavily criticised for operating on babies
70 Disaster Series 3:
Episode 1: The Marchioness (also on DVD) - 51 people lost their lives when the 'Bowbelle' dredger collided with this passenger boat. Episode 2: Severn Tunnel (also on DVD) In December 1991 - two passenger trains collided in the 6.5km long tunnel under the River Severn in England, 185 people were injured. Rescuers did not reach the train until two hours after the accident. Episode 3: JAL 123 - In August 1985, Japan Air Flight 123 crashed into the side of a mountain northwest of Tokyo. It was the largest single aircraft fatality in history. 520 people died. A poor repair was the cause. Episode 4: A Cancer in the System - Women died because their cervical smear slides were confused and incorrectly analysed. Episode 5: Deadly Metal - A radiotherapy machine was mistakenly sold to a scrap yard. More radioactive material was released than the Three Mile Island disaster. Episode 6: The Windscale Fire - Britain's first nuclear reactor caught fire in 1957. One error, however slight, can result in deaths.
Disaster Series 4:
Ep1: Kings Cross (also on DVD) Over thirty people died in the Kings Cross underground fire, which broke out as commuters headed home on November 18, 1987. At around 19.30 a passenger on an escalator lit a cigarette and dropped the match. The results of this seemingly tiny action were disastrous. The miniscule fire fed on grease on the moving stairway and in 10 minutes had engulfed the wooden treads on the steps. Fifteen minutes later the flames had reached the Kings Cross ticket hall, then erupted in a fireball, filling the crowded station with poisonous black smoke. Many of those who died were killed instantly. Almost 15 years on, King's Cross - Beneath the Flames, examines one of the UK's worst ever disasters. Also contains three 5-minute modules addressing key elements of the catastrophe. Ep2: Kansas City On a hot July evening in 1981, 2000 people were enjoying a tea dance at the recently opened Hyatt Regency Hotel in downtown Kansa City, Missouri. A few minutes after 7pm one of the walkways collapsed onto the catwalk below, then crashed to the floor beneath. Over one hundred people were killed. Hundreds more were injured and mutilated. This comprehensive and dramatic film recreates that fatal evening, explaining why so many people lost their lives and how many more were saved by the rescue operation. Kansas City - Death by Design reveals a catalogue of horrific human error, architectural flaws and tragic occurrences that culminated in one of the accidental structural failure in American history. Also contains three 5-minute modules addressing key elements of the catastrophe.
Television for the Environment This is a charity organisation continually updating their extensive database of DVDs on global ethical issues (http://www.tve.org/). More of an international portfolio than the BBC and very good value.
YouTube and other videos The
US
Chemical
Safety
and
Hazard
Investigation
http://www.csb.gov/videoroom/videos.aspx?cid=1&F_All=y
Board
Safety
Videos
provide a wealth of useful technically
71 related analyses of recent disasters.
Each has useful supporting graphics to make the material
accessible. They are all on youtube, or you can order a free DVD from their website. They have recently been asked to investigate the BP Seabed Oil disaster in the Gulf.
The following video clips have been used successfully with several audiences. Ethylene Oxide Explosion at Sterigenics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2UnKLm2Eag This can be used for various issues, such as location and design of control rooms, or the importance of regular training of safety management staff.
“BP Texas City Explosion” - BP Texas raffinate tower http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCcN4SQkb9A This can be used in a discussion of redundancy in safety measures, and linked in to the Buncefield case.
Explosion at ASCO Acetylene Plant This is useful for illustrating that it is usually a chain of small events or mistakes that leads to a disaster. It is also useful for discussing redundancy in safety measures. In addition a range of useful clips continually appear on www.youtube.com with a few series becoming well established (see appendix, below).
3. A few classic example case studies Kansas City Hotel walkway collapse The underlying issue is an unbuildable design, which, when modified on site, was not checked. The design calculations are simple enough for 1st year students of structural mechanics. In addition, the Engineer’s responsibility for checking design calculations raises useful ethical issue linked to professional engineering ethical codes.
Kings Cross Fire Many students struggle with the concept of ALARP (As Low as Reasonably Practicable) and since the London Underground Quantified Risk Assessment tool is on-line, there are useful discussions to be had about the £1.4m for a fatality that allows a cost benefit analysis to be completed.
NASA disasters [Challenger and Columbia] Responsibility for communicating clearly to lay people is embedded in many of the professional codes of conduct. There is a multitude of resources on these two unfortunate accidents.
72 Herald of Free Enterprise Ferry Disaster This is typical of an opportunity to utilise a well-reported disaster to motivate students to grapple with complicated mathematics. Understanding the second moment of area is crucial for many engineering disciplines and this concept fits nicely into the 1st year topic, Stability of floating vessels. P&O had only just taken over Townsend-Thoresen when the disaster happened and a catalogue of cost-driven errors was revealed. The law relating to corporate responsibility may also be considered.
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) The case of the explosion at the Sterigenics plant is typical of the many case studies available. Lack of effective monitoring of training is the root cause. Each video is only about 8mins long and can be paused to prompt class interaction at several points.
4.
An exemplar Professional Ethics session
First Year Design and Professional Skills Module By way of an example of how one specific case study can be embedded in the curriculum, the Kansas Hyatt Regency Hotel Walkway collapse is illustrated. This sequence of activities takes about 150mins in total.
An example case study session:
Section
Description
Setting out calculations
The lecturer describes how calculations should be set out and the importance of a header for record keeping and auditing.
What’s in a code of ethics?
In an interactive phase students are encouraged in small groups to list what they would expect to see in a code of ethics. These lists are retained.
Kansas Hyatt Hotel Collapse
The 30min DVD (BBC Active) is explained before showing. Students are warned that some scenes are harrowing and to not feel embarrassed if they want to leave.
Sketching practice.
The DVD is paused at an appropriate point and students asked to sketch the offending connection. This can be used as an opportunity to sketch free-body diagrams of load paths.
Reflection on messages from
The DVD is very powerful and stirs emotions. It is important to wind
73 DVD
the students down gently by discussing the issues. The key ethical issues relate to the responsibility of the Engineer of Record for the checking of the design change.
ICE vs RAEng codes of ethics
The lecturer now circulates copies of a few different examples of professional codes of ethics for students to compare with their lists. The lecturer steers discussion to the common entry relating to not working beyond the engineer’s level of competence.
Case studies
This leads to case studies relating to how young graduates feel when given their first responsible position. The Texas A&M case study of the car park design subject to earthquake damage fits well here.
Checking calculations
Finally students are given a pair of prepared calculation sheets with the checked by box empty. There are deliberate errors on the sheets. Students only sign the checked by box if they are confident that they have found the errors.
A structures example Another Texas A&M example which lends itself to teaching of 1 st year structural analysis concerns the temporary bracket designed by site staff to allow a transmission aerial truss to be lifted (http://ethics.tamu.edu/Portals/3/Case%20Studies/TVAntennaCollapse.pdf ). Principles of equilibrium, moments, and free-body diagrams can be illustrated. Issues of social responsibility versus legal liability are addressed.
5. Experience of using 4 Leeds CETL (IDEA) Case Studies A series of a dozen or so hypothetical case studies has been developed using UK units as appropriate. Four case studies were chosen for evaluation by a mixed discipline group. Each comes with extensive lecturer notes and guidance.
Case Studies Chosen
Heritage, where a choice had to be made between two suppliers of Cameroonian sapele wood to refurbish a listed building in a sustainable way.
74 Transmission Towers, where a decision had to be made about whether to apply design regulations retrospectively and install additional guys to support a range of antennae towers against an unusual wind load case, possibly overruling immediate line manager and ‘whistleblowing’
Safety Measures, where the existing inventory on a site of a dangerous chemical, proscribed under COMAH legislation, could be reduced to get round a change in the regulations, or significant preparatory work done on managing the risk.
Noise at work, where a young manager promoted through the ranks is faced with owning up about lack of enforcement of ear protection or allowing the company to spend money on additional measures.
Reflection on first usage 1. Trying to use the tutor notes proved difficult without really understanding the case study in considerable depth. This is quite difficult with a totally hypothetical case study. 2. The case studies were each completed in one 50-minute session. This left very little time for indepth reflection by the students. 3. The students appreciated the in-depth nature of the preceeding real Bhopal case study, and disliked the hypothetical nature of these smaller case studies. 4. They particularly felt the need for cost information which they felt drives most decisions. They may or may not be right, but there is no doubt that providing them with more data could enhance the case study. The “noise at work” case study does contain such data. 5. This suggests that it would be better to base the hypothetical scenarios on real scenarios that have a web presence and can be split across two sessions with study tasks in between.
Nevertheless these Case Studies are a really useful starting point in developing ideas.
6. Developing a case study Devising case studies from scratch requires time and ingenuity. Each time they are used it is important to evaluate what worked well.
Shifting from traditional didactic approach to a student-centred
approach where the lecturer is a facilitator is most appropriate in ethics teaching. For example, having purchased the two videos of the NASA Columbia and Challenger Disasters, they can provide a useful basis for in-depth discussion of one or two specific issues.
Simply showing the videos and expecting the students to discuss them will encourage superficial consideration of the issues. A model that has worked well is to allow students to research the issues in
75 advance of a formal debate and submit 300 words to a VLE (virtual learning environment), this forming the assessment. For example, proposing a debate around the motion “This house believes that the money spent on space exploration could be better spent on earth” works so much better because the students are prepared.
Jeff Newcomer of Western Washington University maintains an ethics teaching home page on which he explains in detail how they deliver engineering ethics, and the various types of assessment. It is well worth watching his video clips before designing an engineering ethics session.
7. Embedding ethics in core provision. From the stance of securing professional accreditation a certain minimum of ethics teaching needs to be placed within core provision.
If this is delivered as a bolt-on element it misses an opportunity, but there just isn’t room in the engineering curriculum. So to successfully establish a sustainable provision it sis best if many teaching staff have to embrace the idea.
Avoid branding the exercise as ‘ethics’. Instead explore with staff the range of different interpretations of ‘ethics’, e.g. health and safety, risk, sustainability, professional responsibility. Use some of the available numerical case studies to illustrate that many of the technical decisions that students are taught to make have an ethical implication.
A classic in structural design is the avoidance of
disproportionate collapse. There aren’t many well-organised resources supporting a case study on Ronan Point but even so the BBC footage at the time brings out the important social aspects. So instead of just using the design codes to decide how to avoid collapse, students should be encouraged to think about the people involved, escape routes etc.
Look for technical decisions between conflicting information, hence dilemmas which may require ethical treatment. A colleague came up with a simple real dilemma involving a choice:
You are booked in to see your only child perform on stage in their first school play. At relatively short notice your senior engineer requests that you work late on a potential contract that will bring in lots of money for the company and only you have the expertise to complete the work. What do you do? Such examples can be much richer if they came from the lecturer’s own experience.
76 Decisions of this type naturally leads to embedding ethics within ‘Design’ modules, but beware of overloading them. In a sense this also lets other colleagues off the hook. It can allow ethics to be compartmentalised as something that doesn’t really apply in technical modules.
When looking for ways of assessing ethics against learning outcomes, it is likely that there will be little available assessment space. Adding an additional assessment is usually not possible. Instead try to include ethical awareness as a learning outcome within an existing assignment, rather than having to add a further assignment. The
Royal
Academy
of
Engineering
Curriculum
Map
(http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/releases/pdf/Ethics_Curriculum_Map.pdf ) is a useful framework for designing ethical study.
8. Starting students thinking about ethics. Often it is tempting to approach ethical teaching from the logical order of starting with ethical theories and then applying them to case studies. Clearly this can work but one of the difficulties that students exhibit is that they struggle to embed ethical theories in their arguments, preferring to discuss the technical detail and then only referring to an ethical theory in passing to support an argument that has already been made. Part of the difficulty is that they take a long while to accept that there won’t be a clear cut answer. Ethical theories are just extreme stances that provide a basis for discussion.
So an alternative approach is to begin by getting them to grapple with ethical ideas without reference to theory, until they find they need the theory.
Students could be asked:
to put together a ranked list of things that identify their ethical stance, from extremely wrong down to OK if you can get away with it or perfectly acceptable.
to discuss the ethical value of money – if you found some money on the floor of a supermarket, how much would it have to be for you to feel compelled to hand it in?
to consider job-hunting ethics – would you visit a company for interview, and a free lunch and paid travel expenses, if you already had a job offer which you had accepted?
to discuss the ‘campus parking barrier is up’ dilemma : should you still swipe and pay, or drive in free?
The last example was based on the author’s experience when approaching the university campus access barriers. Occasionally the barrier would already be up such that it would be possible to drive onto
77 campus without paying for the day’s parking. It was also possible to stop and swipe through anyway, thus getting charged, arguably unnecessarily.
When returning from a site visit one day in a minibus with several students in, the opportunity was taken to present this ethical dilemma. A surprisingly intelligent discussion ensued, culminating in the students deciding that having thought about it and decided that it might be wrong to drive through then I was morally obliged to swipe because I obviously thought it was wrong to do so.
There is a series of video clips on YouTube which provide a really useful and quick introduction to the ethical theories that students need to explore. Begin with the 3-minute philosophy, such as Kant at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwOCmJevigw
9. Introducing an Ethical Audit in the MEng Design Project. At the university of Birmingham Dr Chris Kent (Chemical Engineering) and Dr Lawrence Coates (Civil Engineering) had been collaborating for several years on the delivery of ethics to engineers as optional material. Interest from the Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE) as part of their accreditation process led to Dr Kent being able to embed a thread of ethics teaching in the design teaching for chemical engineers.
A key feature at Birmingham was the multi-disciplinary team design project that involved teams of 8 to 10 chemical and civil engineers working together on a real problem provided by industry. It was decided that a formal assessment of the ethical implications of the design was needed at this stage because the chemical engineers at least had the required progression of awareness from first year. It was also recognised that to get the students to do the work would require it to be formally part of the assessment.
A typical design goes through stages of feasibility, concepts, scheme and finally detailed design. The standard chemical engineering Hazard Studies approach to design is used throughout. The principles of Hazard Studies include the idea that risk assessment should not be done at the end of a design but should be an integral part of the design process from the start, but the assessment pattern and the challenges faced by the students meant that including ethics from the start would have overloaded them. Instead it was decided to get them to complete an ethical audit at the submission of the scheme design stage.
78 It was recognised that even though half of each team had already considered ethical principles in their earlier studies this was still going to be very challenging for them. The assignment had to be introduced in stages with considerable guidance.
The process adopted was to provide the students with a structured plan of exercises culminating in the ethical audit.
Very early on the students were told that the ethical audit would form a 5% component of the Scheme Design submission (which itself counted 15% of the total). These design projects are set at 40 credits which is one third of a year so students generally recognise that even a small percentage can have a significant effect on their final degree class.
About two weeks before give the students a set of indicative questions related specifically to their design project such as might be addressed at a public inquiry.
Plan a seminar at which the teams address specific questions under the headings of Stakeholders, Duty of care and informed consent, Trade-off or compromises in decisions over safety and risk, and Whistleblowing.
Student teams work on one or two of the 20 questions and then random teams presented their findings to the whole group so that all the main issues had been addressed.
Provide a structured framework for producing an ethical audit.
So by the time the students were at the point of addressing the ethical audit they had already been thinking about it for some time.
Dr Kent (
[email protected]) has developed a step by step approach to ethical audit (see appendix) which was provided together with a comprehensive guidance note.
For 2010-11 the specific design project involved the design of a Methyl Chloride plant at Dow Corning’s Cardiff plant. The plant is relatively close to the local town of Barry and employs workers from the town. One additional feature of the design involved changing an area of wasteland into a nature reserve and training facility which meant that parties of school children would frequently be brought close to the perimeter fence of the plant.
In this context the 20 questions that were presented to the students included:
79
The plant is operating normally and then develops a fault that engineers realise could be potentially dangerous. At what stage should we warn the local community? At what stage should we alert our office staff? Some of our office staff live locally....
Legislation controls much of what we do. If we discover a safer way of operating the plant that costs more to implement, and is not required by legislation, what should we do?
An operator on the plant has been complaining for a number of months to Dow Corning that part of a process is potentially dangerous, but management have disagreed and not taken any action. Having heard that you are one of the companies about to design the installation of a new plant she contacts you direct and requests a meeting to discuss the issue. What should you do?
We were pleased with the way all teams embraced the exercise. Inevitably in teams of that size only a few students really engaged, but generally all teams made a good attempt. The most professional team did their usual excellent job on the presentation but included the statement :
“Of the three major designs looked at for the plant, the liquid phase hydrochlorination of methanol had some major advantages from an economic and business point of view and as a result only this design’s ethical suitability is being looked at.”
….which sort of misses the point. Fortunately by embedding the exercise in the middle of the project we were able to provide feedback on this misconception while the students were still engaged with the design.
10. Embedding ethical ideas in a first year module. The first year design and professional skills module within which the Hyatt Regency Hotel case study is well-established involved no formal assessment. Accordingly there was very little evidence to show our professional accreditors to back up our claims that we embed ethical teaching.
Accordingly a new assignment was established with the twin aims of teaching students how to critically analyse and present technical data, and to assess students’ attempts at an ethical discussion.
The scenario was established of two young engineering students on placement.
One had been
challenged to write a report on the suitability of certain materials for use within a bridge structure. This involved analysing test data and drawing conclusions.
80
Each student was provided with slightly different data in the form of a short technical report as if written by one of the placement students. Each report contained errors in the way that the data had been analysed such as an incorrect allowance for the effects of different temperature on the test days. The report also contained errors in report style and presentation.
The second part of the scenario was as follows. The first placement student completed their report (with errors) and handed it to their colleague for checking before passing it on to their supervising engineer. The first student then went on holiday. The second student found errors and was then presented with the dilemma of what to do about it. Should they correct the errors and pass it on without comment?
Should they tell their supervising engineers that their colleague has made
fundamental mistakes of interpretation?
Although a handful of students engaged in some detail with this exercise the majority struggled with the idea that they should be worrying about ethics at all. A common comment was “this isn’t design, why are we doing it?”
This reinforces the idea that assessment of ethical understanding must be seen as a gradual progression through the degree programme. A-level subjects in maths and physics prepare students for first year technical assessments. So it is fair to assess their technical development in first year. However students have no preparation for ethical arguments in first year, so should not be formally assessed in them. A progression is required that culminates in summative assessment in the final stage. This is why the ethical audit was embedded within the third year design project.
Appendix A – Further useful links Introducing Case Studies Several universities have set up websites and a youtube presence to illustrate how they have included ethics in their engineering curriculum. University)
explanations
of
For example Dr Jeff Newcomer’s (Western Washington how
they
have
introduced
ethics
:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xIGDoZsKo8. This one mentions a number of possible case studies and
indicates
interesting
ways
to
use
them.
The
http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/showcase2004/newcomer/default.asp.
university
website
is
at
81 Bhopal The sad Bhopal chemical plant disaster raises a number of useful ethical issues associated with the location of hazardous substances and the transference of risk. The BBC Active video One Night In Bhopal is a bit disappointing, but students do like the role of the local policeman who arrests the chief executive of Union Carbide!
By contrast a series of three 9min clips which contain enough technical content is available at http://www.desivideonetwork.com/view/y2957g7lh/seismic-seconds-the-bhopal-gas-disaster-part-1-of3/ http://www.desivideonetwork.com/view/v88yb41z7/seismic-seconds-the-bhopal-gas-disaster-part-2of-3/ http://www.desivideonetwork.com/view/pg9l0503e/seismic-seconds-the-bhopal-gas-disaster-part-3-of3/
Flixborough None of the BBC videos is (legally) on youtube, but there are alternatives available under creative commons, such as : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WevjRH5fX98
Interestingly one of the better explanations of the run up to the disaster is in Portuguese. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRxkVni2kCo
Introducing Ethical Theories Engineering students do not easily relate to problems with multiple answers, and the use of ethical theories is a challenge. Fortunately there are some interesting ways of encapsulating the essence : “3-minute philosophy (Kant)” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwOCmJevigw
The more traditional approach takes much longer in a useful series from which in Ethics 6 Kant's Categorical
Imperative
is
explained
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9WCnZOa344
in
a
,
but
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-Crqbu5md4&feature=related .
slow
boring
fascinatingly
way
at
patiently
at
82 B – Framework for an ethical audit [© Dr Chris Kent University of Birmingham]: Introductory considerations 1. Stakeholders: Direct stakeholders; Indirect stakeholders. 2. Conflicts and Dilemmas 3. Ethical and Moral Values [List of Codes of Ethics and Company Ethos]
Step by Step Ethical Audit Step 1: Initial Questions Step 2: Focus on the following aspects of each alternative design (perhaps in matrix form): Hazards; Environmental Impact; Utility / Welfare / Profitability. Step 3: Analyse the alternative designs and plant locations from Different Ethical Perspectives: Consequentialism / Utilitarianism; Deontology; Virtue ethics. Step 4: Compare and Correlate Analysis Results. Choose or Recommend ways forward.
Students are also provided with a suggested matrix approach to mapping their design elements against the following three ideas:
Golden Rule: “Would I be happy working with this?” Informed consent: Has this been given? By whom? Utility: Is utility / welfare maximised in this area?
These can be linked directly to ethical theories of Kant and utilitarianism.
These should be
supplemented
of
with
issues
of
duty
care.
83
Section 3: Papers related to Biosecurity Education
OPPORTUNITIES FOR EDUCATION ABOUT DUAL USE ISSUES: USING THE FRAMEWORK OF RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT OF SCIENCE Jo L. Husbands Introduction1 This paper covers two topics related to education about dual use issues. The first topic is context, namely the growing attention to education and awareness as a fundamental component of WMD nonproliferation and disarmament strategies.
Education is not a new topic in international
nonproliferation and disarmament, but it is enjoying a revival.2 Some of the education is what I would call “professional” or “specialized,” intended for those whose work is directly relevant to proliferation risks or the implementation of treaties and agreements. There are also efforts aimed at the wider scientific and technical (S&T) community; in this case the goals are to (1) build general support for nonproliferation and disarmament and/or (2) raise awareness among those whose work is only indirectly or potentially relevant. The size of community #2 varies across the different types of WMD, with the largest arguably in the life sciences and the smallest in the nuclear arena3.
The second topic is framing and concerns the conceptual frameworks used as the basis for the education. For professional and specialized education, the framework is generally based on the legal regime to implement the core nonproliferation or disarmament agreements and the obligations that flow from it.
For education aimed at the wider S&T community, one sees at least two broad
frameworks. One follows the path of professional and specialized education with an emphasis on legal obligations and requirements. The other approach seeks to take advantage of growing international attention to issues related to “research integrity” and responsible conduct of science” to place nonproliferation and disarmament within the broader context of the social responsibility of science. In this case, the emphasis is more on responsibilities and may come as much from norms as laws and 1
This paper is largely based on two reports from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences: Challenges and Opportunities for Education About Dual Use Issues in the Life Sciences (NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL 2011a) and Research in the Life Sciences with Dual Use Potential: An International Faculty Development Project on Education About the Responsible Conduct of Science (NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL 2011b). Both are available as free pdfs (as are all reports from the National Academies) from the National Academies Press at http://www.nap.edu. I try to make it clear which are my own views and which are formal conclusions and recommendations of the NAS; my views may be found largely in the introduction and conclusions. 2 See, for example, the work of the United Nations on disarmament education, which may be found at http://www.un.org/disarmament/education/2002UNStudy/. It is interesting to note how much of the work has focused on weapons at extremes, that is, on nuclear weapons and small arms, particularly landmines and cluster munitions. 3 There are also differences between education in industry versus academia and other research settings, but those are not addressed in this paper.
84 regulations. They are not mutually exclusive – many laws have a normative basis – but in my experience different education programs tend to show a preference for one approach or the other. I also find that the instinctive reaction of the traditional BWC community is to emphasize obligations.4
The other part of this paper is a description of the efforts of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS)5 and its international partners to employ the responsible conduct framing in developing strategies and projects for education and awareness raising about dual use and biosecurity targeted toward the wider S&T community in the life sciences. A current example is a project to create network of life sciences faculty able to teach about dual use issues within this broader framework, based on the model of an NAS initiative to improve biology education in the United States 6.
Approaches to nonproliferation and disarmament education Examples from WMD Regimes As mentioned above, other international organizations and treaties related to WMD are showing an interest in education. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization is creating collaborations with academic and research institutions around the world; its goals is “building and maintaining the necessary capacity in the technical, scientific, legal and political aspects of the Treaty and its verification regime”7. One of the most ambitious projects is the International Nuclear Security Network (INSEN) of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which brings together several dozen universities and research institutes from all parts of the globe. In addition to workshops and other training and collaborative activities, the IAEA has supported the production of a guidance document that outlines a model masters-level graduate program in nuclear security (IAEA 2010)8. To increase general awareness of the Chemical Weapons Convention among industry and academia, the Scientific Advisory Board of
4
In my experience, the same is true for the CWC. The NAS is one of four institutions that also operate under the collective name of the “National Academies.” They include the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council. More information is available at http://www.nationalacademies.org . 6 The program is the Summer Institute organized by the NAS and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute for undergraduate biology faculty, which draws on insights from research about learning and its implications for effective teaching, as well as practical applications of the teaching methods. For more information see: Pfund, C., S. Miller, K. Brenner, P. Bruns, A. Chang, D.Ebert-May, A. F. Fagen, J. Gentile, S. Gossens, I. M. Khan, J. B. Labov, C. Mail Pribbenow, M. Susman, L. Tong, R. Wright, R. T. Yuan, W. B. Wood, and J. Handelsman. 2009. Summer institute to improve university science teaching. Science 324:470. And also see: http://www.academiessummerinstitute.org/. 7 CTBTO; http://www.ctbto.org/specials/ctbto-cdi/; accessed June 30, 2012 8 For more information, see http://www-ns.iaea.org/security/workshops/insen-wshop.asp. It has also inspired a proposal from Bradford University for an IBSEN, an International Biological Security Network. See: Novossiolova, T. and G. S. Pearson (2012) Biosecurity Education for the Life Sciences: Nuclear Security Education as a Model. Bradford Briefing Papers 3rd Series. No.5. Bardford, United Kingdom: Bradford Disarmament Research Centre. 5
85 the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has recently created a Temporary Working Group on Outreach and Education9.
The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) has longed recognized the importance of education as part of the “web of prevention” to counter biological threats. 10
Endorsements of
education are routinely included in the final documents of review conferences and education has featured as a major topic is several of the intersessional meetings. The number of projects and programs related to BWC-relevant education has grown substantially in recent years, largely but not exclusively as a result of the efforts of individuals and NGOs rather than government initiatives11. The 7th Review Conference in December 2011 again endorsed education and included it as part of the standing agenda items to be discussed each year during the new intersessional process (BWC 2011).
Responsible Conduct At the same time as this growing interest in education as a tool to support nonproliferation and disarmament, the international scientific community has been increasingly engaged in issues related to the responsible conduct of science. Like disarmament education, this is not a new issue, but it has attracted more attention in recent years. It reflects a fundamental assumption that science is not conducted in a social vacuum; as the most recent edition of On Being a Scientist, a widely used introduction to responsible conduct of research from the NAS notes:
The standards of science extend beyond responsibilities that are internal to the scientific community. Researchers also have a responsibility to reflect on how their work and the knowledge they are generating might be used in the broader society12.
9
For more information, see http://www.opcw.org/index.php?eID=dam_frontend_push&docID=15412. The term was coined by the International Committee for the Red Cross as part of its “Biotechnology, Weapons and Humanity” campaign in the early 1990s. More information is available at http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/5vdj7s.htm. 11 For a survey of these efforts as of late 2009, see Chapter 3 of NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL 2011a. A discussion of the national experiences of 10 countries prepared as a background paper for the BWC’s 7th review conference, see:. Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Republic of Korea and Switzerland (on behalf of the “JACKSNNZ”), and Kenya, Sweden, Ukraine, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America. 2011. Possible approaches to education and awareness-raising among life scientists. Paper submitted to the 7th Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention. Geneva. Available at http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/2F1ECC909AAD5AB0C125795E004965BB/$file/Switzerland +(et+al)+education+and+awareness-raising+revised.pdf 12 National Research Councils, 2009a. On Being a Scientist, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, p. 48. 10
86 The conduct of science itself may also be shaped by changing social attitudes. A clear example is the development of standards for the treatment of human subjects in experiments, which developed over time, particularly during the twentieth century in response to egregious abuses by researchers 13. The standards for the treatment of laboratory animals have continued to evolve as well14. More generally, the ability to conduct science depends on public trust and support, not least because a substantial portion of research funding comes from governments. The loss of public trust in particular areas of science could mean that research could not proceed or that its results would be the subject of controversy15.
The attention devoted to social responsibility by scientific societies, advocacy groups, and academic communities has helped to establish conventions and norms for scientific conduct, as well as a conceptual grounding for training and education. A number of high-level declarations and statements in recent years have reinforced the ethical imperatives involved in scientific research across the global scientific community. For example, the 1999 World Conference on Science, a collaboration of the International Council for Science (ICSU) and the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), produced the Declaration on Science and the Use of Scientific Knowledge, which proclaimed that:
The practice of scientific research and the use of knowledge from that research should always aim at the welfare of humankind, including the reduction of poverty, be respectful of the dignity and rights of human beings, and of the global environment, and take fully into account our responsibility towards present and future generations16.
In 2006, ICSU disbanded its Standing Committee on Freedom in the Conduct of Science and replaced it with a new standing Committee on Freedom and Responsibility in the Conduct of Science (emphasis added). Without in any way diminishing its commitment to the principles of the universality of science, such as the rights of scientists to travel, associate, and communicate freely, the new committee “differs significantly from its predecessors in that it has been explicitly charged with also considering the
13
IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2001. Preserving Public Trust: Accreditation and Human Research Participant Protection Programs. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 14 National Research Councils, 2010. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, 8th ed. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 15 Agre, P. and A.I. Leshner. 2010. Bridging Science and Society. Science 327(5968):921. 16 UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). 1999. Declaration on Science and the Use of Scientific Knowledge. World Conference on Science, Budapest, Hungary, June 26─July 1. Available at http://www.unesco.org/science/wcs/eng/declaration_e.htm .
87 responsibilities of scientists”17. More recently, the 2nd World Congress on Research Integrity, held in Singapore in 2010 produced a statement that, although focused primarily on issues related to professional conduct, included: “Societal Considerations: Researchers and research institutions should recognize that they have an ethical obligation to weigh societal benefits against risks inherent in their work”18. In May 2012, the leaders of 50 national research funding organizations gathered to launch the Global Research Council, a voluntary network aimed promoting common practices in funding and managing science and hence facilitating international scientific collaboration19. Its agenda includes issues such as peer review, data sharing, research integrity, open access, career development, and ethical conduct in research on humans.
Another example that provides a bridge to issues related to the life sciences is a project undertaken by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) and IAP─The Global Network of Science Academies to address issues of research integrity and scientific responsibility20.
In the first phase of the project, IAC and IAP
collaborated in developing a short policy report on research integrity 21. The report addresses research practices and management, the reward structure for scientists, principles of scientific integrity, and culture. The report is intended to be useful throughout the global science community, including the member academies of IAC and IAP, research institutions, government agencies, research sponsors, professional and scientific unions, and individual scientists. In the second phase, an expanded IAC Expert Committee will develop international educational materials for individual scientists, educators, and institutional managers, addressing principles and guidelines for scientific responsibility, including scientific ethics, integrity, and responsibility for avoiding misuse of science22. The products are intended for use throughout the global science community. As project co-chair Indira Nath of India explained during an address to the opening session of the 7th BWC Review Conference:
The launch of this project reflects the recognition on the part of science academies that we can and should play a leading role in promoting scientific integrity and good behavior. A number of academies are already actively playing such a role in their 17
(ICSU 2008:2 The ICSU statement on the universality of science may be found at http://www.icsu.org/5_abouticsu/INTRO_UnivSci_1.html . 18 More information is available at http://www.singaporestatement.org/. 19 Van Noorden, R. 2012. Global council aims to coordinate science. Nature 485(7399). 20 IAP is a global network of more than 100 of the world's science academies, launched in 1993. Its primary goal is to help member academies work together to advise citizens and public officials on the scientific aspects of critical global issues. More information is available at http://www.interacademies.net/. The IAC produces reports on scientific, technological, and health issues related to the great global challenges of our time to provide knowledge and advice to national governments and international organizations. More information is available at http://www.interacademycouncil.net/. 21 IAC and IAP 2012 IAC and IAP (IAP—The Global Network of Science Academies). 2012. Responsible Conduct in the Global Research Enterprise: A Policy Report. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: InterAcademy Council. 22 Dual use issues are expected to be addressed as part of the materials.
88 national and regional contexts. We expect that the IAC-IAP project will contribute to more robust dialogue and the development of needed educational programs and materials at the international level 23.
Education about dual use in the life sciences Routes to Education about Responsible Conduct Over time, the life sciences community has developed three strands of ethical and safety norms and practices to guide research. Researchers working with dangerous biological agents and toxins developed a set of biosafety practices to protect the health of laboratory workers and avoid accidental or inadvertent releases24. With a more explicitly normative focus, bioethics is a diverse, interdisciplinary field that includes several distinct areas, such as ethical issues related to the practice of medicine, or the ethical controversies brought about by advances in biology and medicine. Responsible conduct of research (RCR) is a U.S.-based approach that requires students at various levels who are funded by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation to receive education about professional standards in areas such as plagiarism and data fabrication, as well as wider societal issues and responsible conduct.
Depending on their field, where they are studying, and where they are in their education, students may learn about some or all of these norms and practices through formal coursework or more informal mechanisms, including mentoring by senior researchers. Taken together, these are the primary avenues by which life scientists acquire their knowledge of responsible conduct and broader community norms, which is often referred to as a “culture of responsibility.” It is important to note, however, that not all students in the life sciences receive education about responsible conduct and the quality and comprehensiveness of what is available varies widely.
Links to the BWC During the 2008 BWC Experts Meeting in August, the U.S. Government announced that the Department of State would sponsor a workshop, to be organized by the National Academies in cooperation with a 23
Nath, I. 2011. Statement by Professor Indira Nath. 7th Review Conference of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. December 5. Geneva. Available at http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/8A74EB4249C4742FC125795D00542430/$file/Indira+NAT H.pdf. 24 This is also the primary channel by which research technicians, who have access to and knowledge of dangerous pathogens that make them important participants in laboratory biosecurity, are included in the process of creating a culture of responsibility, see: NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL. 2009b. Responsible Research with Biological Select Agents and Toxins. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. .
89 group of international scientific organizations, including the IAP, to: (1) survey existing courses and resources; (2) identify gaps and needs; and (3) suggest potential remedies. The National Academies appointed an international committee to oversee the workshop and prepare a report on these issues. The workshop Promoting Education about Dual Use Issues in the Life Sciences was hosted by the Polish Academy of Sciences in Warsaw, Poland in November 2009. The report prepared by the international committee made one recommendation for a general approach and a number of specific recommendations. The general recommendation was:
An introduction to dual use issues should be part of the education of every life scientist.
Except in specialized cases (particular research or policy interests), this education should be incorporated within broader coursework and training rather than via standalone courses. Appropriate channels include biosafety, bioethics and research ethics, and professional standards (i.e., RCR), as well as inclusion of examples of research with dual use potential in general life sciences courses.
Insights from research on learning and effective teaching should inform development of materials, and approaches to teaching students and preparing faculty25.
One key finding was the lack of faculty able to teach on responsible conduct of research and dual use issues given the diversity of scientific fields, interests and experiences involved. The report made a recommendation to address this need:
Build networks of faculty and instructors through train-the-trainer programs, undertaking this effort if possible in cooperation with scientific unions and professional societies and associations26.
A full list of the report’s recommendations may be found in Attachment A.
The MENA Project Based on the recommendations from the Warsaw workshop, the U.S. State Department’s Biosecurity Engagement Program (BEP) agreed to support a two-year NAS project aimed at developing a network of faculty in the Middle East/North Africa (MENA) region able to teach on dual use issues within the framework of responsible conduct of research. The network is intended for faculty who teach graduate 25
National Research Councils, 2011a. Challenges and Opportunities for Education about Dual Use Issues in the Life Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, p. 8-9. 26 National Research Councils, 2011a. Challenges and Opportunities for Education about Dual Use Issues in the Life Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, p. 9-10.
90 students, post-docs and other laboratory personnel. A committee composed of experts in biosecurity, dual use issues, responsible conduct, and active learning as well as broader life sciences research was appointed by the NAS to oversee the project27. Several academics from the MENA are serving as informal consultants to the project.
The project is being implemented as a partnership between NAS and the Bibliotheca Alexandrina in Alexandria, Egypt. The continuing uncertainties in the MENA as a result of the Arab Spring have resulted in several changes of venue, a shift from a MENA-wide focus to single country and back to a focus on a limited number of countries, and an approximately seven month delay in implementation. Planning and discussions have continued throughout the period in spite of the delays.
As mentioned earlier, the MENA project is based on a model developed by the NAS to improve undergraduate biology teaching in the United States. The key features are an intensive 4-5 day residential program with hands-on experience by faculty working in teams who apply active learning principles and techniques to develop “teachable tidbits” about core topics in biology such as genetics. The faculty come in teams from their universities and commit to implementing what they learn on their home campuses. There is a strong emphasis on assessment during courses and after courses are completed. A reunion within 6 months to a year brings at least one member of the team to a meeting that allows them to reflect on what they learned and on their experiences with implementation. The MENA project is keeping the emphasis on active learning but adding information about dual use within the framework of responsible conduct, so that new substantive content is added to the program. It is hoped that the combination will serve nonproliferation goals but also appeal as a capacity-building for the overall quality of education for countries making investments in the life sciences as an important component of national development.
The first phase of the project centered on a planning meeting held in late spring 2011 at TWAS, the academy of sciences of the developing world, in Trieste, Italy to design the general framework for the first faculty development workshop28. The pilot workshop, with faculty from Egypt, Algeria, Yemen, Jordan, and Libya, took place in Jordan in September 2012. In the final phase of the project the participants will implement some of the methods learned at the pilot workshop at their home institutions and a final report will be produced that will assess the initial outcomes and draw lessons for future efforts. 27
The statement of task for the project as well as a list of committee members may be found at http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=49362. 28 The TWAS office for the MENA and Africa is housed at the Bibliotheca and the organizations collaborate frequently on programs. A letter report described the results and lessons of the planning meeting NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (2011b).
91
The outcomes of the planning meeting reflect several general considerations and underscore some of the findings from the Warsaw workshop. The full list of general considerations may be found in Attachment B; two of them are worth quoting at length:
Responsible conduct of research/Research integrity as core themes. Building on a prominent theme from the Warsaw workshop and other NRC reports about education related to dual use issues (NRC 2004, 2009b, 2011a), broader principles of responsible conduct and research integrity rather than the “dual use” or biosecurity – or the BWC – were chosen as the foundation for faculty development. By embedding the workshop in general discussions on professional conduct, participants accepted the idea that this more general approach would likely be more enduring and sustainable than focusing only on dual use issues. It also resonated with the participants … for whom a more comprehensive framework beyond research with dangerous pathogens or specific treaty obligations is a more realistic educational opportunity.
Importance of respecting and adapting to the national context of workshop host countries. One of the insights from earlier efforts to develop education programs on responsible conduct of science and dual use issues is the wide variation in higher education structure and process, and national education policy and how those differences could affect the design and implementation of programs 29.
One of the most sensitive areas for teaching about dual use and related issues is the political and historical context of different countries, under which certain words have additional underlying connotations. The word “security” is such a word and its use may make faculty reluctant to become involved in anything that may be associated with “security” even if far removed from politics. This supports the point already made above about the advantages of embedding dual use or biosecurity issues within the broader framework of responsible conduct. It also may affect the choice of the local partners, for example, understanding whether formal or informal endorsement by certain government or education officials is essential or how important it might be to
29
National Research Councils, 2011a. Challenges and Opportunities for Education about Dual Use Issues in the Life Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; Rappert, B., ed. 2010. Education and Ethics in the Life Sciences: Strengthening the Prohibition of Biological Weapons. Canberra: Australian National University E Press.
92 work with an institution that by virtue of its prestige or connections can provide flexibility for teaching new courses for its faculty 30.
Conclusions The new intersessional process adopted by the BWC’s 7th Review Conference will provide an opportunity to continue to monitor the implementation of the growing number of programs devoted to education about dual use issues. I expect the issue of the most appropriate and effective approach to framing the projects to be a source of lively discussion in the coming months and years. My personal view, based on the work of the NAS and its partners since the mid-2000s, is that engaging the broader S&T community in the life sciences is most effective when one begins with broad scientific responsibility. Adhering to the fundamental norms, as well as the legal requirements, of the BWC then become another part of what it means to be a responsible scientist. The discussions around this question, coupled with the lessons from the application of different framings in actual settings should provide opportunities to improve BWC-relevant education. They could also inform broader WMD nonproliferation and disarmament education more generally at a moment that seems particularly ripe for such exchanges.
Attachment A Recommendations from the NRC report Challenges and Opportunities for Education about Dual Use Issues in the Life Sciences
General Approach An introduction to dual use issues should be part of the education of every life scientist.
30
Except in specialized cases (particular research or policy interests), this education should be incorporated within broader coursework and training rather than via stand-alone courses. Appropriate channels include biosafety, bioethics and research ethics, and professional standards (i.e., RCR), as well as inclusion of examples of research with dual use potential in general life sciences courses. Insights from research on learning and effective teaching should inform development of materials, and approaches to teaching students and preparing faculty.
National Research Councils, 2011b. Research in the Life Sciences with Dual Use Potential: An International Faculty Development Project on Education About the Responsible Conduct of Science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, p. 12-13.
93 Specific Actions Achieving the broad goal of making dual use issues part of broader education will require a number of specific actions. They may be undertaken separately by different organizations but there will be substantial benefit if there is an effort to coordinate across the initiatives and share successful practices and lessons learned. Resources will be needed to ensure that the initiatives are carried out at an appropriate scale and scope.
The workshop participants and the committee did not explore the implementation of any specific recommendations in sufficient depth to prescribe a particular mechanism or path forward. Instead, reflecting the diversity and variety of situations in which education about dual use issues will be carried out, the final chapter lays out a number of options that could be used to implement each of the recommendations below.
Develop an international open access repository of materials that can be tailored to and adapted for the local context, perhaps as a network of national or regional repositories. o
o o o
The repository should be under the auspices of the scientific community rather than governments, although support and resources from governments will be needed to implement the education locally. Materials should be available in a range of languages. Materials should interface with existing databases and repositories of educational materials dedicated to science education. Additional case studies to address broader segments of the life sciences community should be developed, with a focus on making the case studies relevant to the student/researcher.
Design methods for commenting and vetting of materials by the community (such as an appropriately monitored Wikipedia model) so they can be improved by faculty, instructors and experts in science education. Build networks of faculty and instructors through train-the-trainer programs, undertaking this effort if possible in cooperation with scientific unions and professional societies and associations. Develop a range of methods to assess outcomes and, where possible, impact. These should include qualitative approaches as well as quantitative measures, for example, of learning outcomes.
Attachment B General Observations from the Planning Meeting
Responsible conduct of research/Research integrity as core themes. Building on a prominent theme from the Warsaw workshop and other NRC reports about education related to dual use issues, broader principles of responsible conduct and research integrity rather than the “dual use” or biosecurity‒or the BWC‒were chosen as the foundation for faculty development. By embedding the workshop in general discussions on professional conduct, participants accepted
94 the idea that this more general approach would likely be more enduring and sustainable than focusing only on dual use issues. It also resonated with the participants from Egypt for whom a more comprehensive framework beyond research with dangerous pathogens or specific treaty obligations is a more realistic educational opportunity.
Importance of respecting and adapting to the national context of workshop host countries. One of the insights from earlier efforts to develop education programs on responsible conduct of science and dual use issues is the wide variation in higher education structure and process, and national education policy and how those differences could affect the design and implementation of programs (NRC 2011a; Rappert 2010). o
The difficulty of introducing new material, especially beyond core science topics, into crowded curricula is a common concern among nations. In some countries introducing entire new courses into existing curricula can have a direct impact on the development and implementation of faculty networks both at an institutional and national level and efforts to develop nationwide approaches may be difficult. As also discussed during the Warsaw workshop, in some countries where institutions of higher education are largely autonomous (e.g., the United States), development of new courses can essentially result from an instructor’s initiative, with only limited approval needed from immediate supervisors. In nations with a centralized ministry of higher education, including a number in the MENA, a new course could require approval by national authorities, an often lengthy process.
o
One of the most sensitive areas for teaching about dual use and related issues is the political and historical context of different countries, under which certain words have additional underlying connotations. The word “security” is such a word and its use may make faculty reluctant to become involved in anything that may be associated with “security” even if far removed from politics. This supports the point already made above about the advantages of embedding dual use or biosecurity issues within the broader framework of responsible conduct. It also may affect the choice of the local partners, for example, understanding whether formal or informal endorsement by certain government or education officials is essential or how important it might be to work with an institution that by virtue of its prestige or connections can provide flexibility for teaching new courses for its faculty.
Advantages of a “science of learning” approach. The enthusiasm among participants
for their experience with active learning reinforced the message from the Warsaw workshop about the value of such approaches in education about dual use and related, broader issues. The relevance of adopting such methods for classrooms and laboratories across the world is
95 supported by the decision by the World Health Organization to revamp its biosafety train-thetrainer programs to adopt similar active learning methods 31.
Sustainability of efforts: Value of a network approach and institutional support. As
already mentioned, a continuing challenge for efforts to promote new concepts, materials, and pedagogical approaches is the competition for space in a crowded curriculum. It is essential that, from the beginning, the planning for any such effort include a focus on strategies to make the project sustainable. The lessons from efforts in many other areas reinforce the value of building networks of faculty who can share experiences and provide mutual reinforcement 32. Follow-up meetings and strong networks can more effectively facilitate true transformation in faculty teaching behaviors33. For example, creating opportunities for participants in a faculty development workshop to get together after their initial experience in implementing what they have learned has proved extremely valuable to sustaining commitment and momentum34. In a broader context, building institutional support for sustaining not only the network but the faculty’s ability to introduce others to these concepts as well as support for both teaching and research would help foster the culture of responsible science.
Assessment and evaluation. The “science of learning” approach emphasizes concrete goals and continual, measurable outcomes of student performance, whether qualitative or quantitative. Effective evaluation depends on incorporating assessment as an integral part of the follow-on activities and as such would inform any strategies to sustain these educational efforts.
31
World Health Organisation (WHO), 2006. Biorisk Management: Laboratory Biosecurity Guidance. Geneva: World Health Organization; WHO, 2010, Biorisk Management Advanced Trainer Programme: Concept Sheet. Photocopy. 32 National Research Councils, 2011a. Challenges and Opportunities for Education about Dual Use Issues in the Life Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academies 33 Ebert-May, D., T. L. Derting, J. Hodder, J. L. Momsen, T. M. Long, and S. E. Jardeleza. 2011. What we say is not what we do: Effective evaluation of faculty professional development programs, BioScience 61(7):550-558. 34 Pfund, C., S. Miller, K. Brenner, P. Bruns, A. Chang, D.Ebert-May, A. F. Fagen, J. Gentile, S. Gossens, I. M. Khan, J. B. Labov, C. Mail Pribbenow, M. Susman, L. Tong, R. Wright, R. T. Yuan, W. B. Wood, and J. Handelsman. 2009. Summer institute to improve university science teaching. Science 324:470.
96
EXPERIENCES IN PROMOTING AWARENESS ON BIOSECURITY AND DUAL USE ISSUES IN EUROPEAN UNIVERSITIES Giulio M. Mancini and Alessandro Fasani
Situational Analyses and Collaborative Networking in Europe Education and awareness of life scientists on security and dual use issues have been increasingly indicated as possible useful tools to prevent and mitigate the risks of non-peaceful applications of biology and biotechnology. Statements supporting this claim have originated from a variety of sources in the security, scientific, medical and ethics communities, including, inter alia, the States Parties to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, the European Commission, the World Health Organization, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, member states of the G8 Global Partnership against the Spread of WMD, the Academies of Sciences, the British Medical Association, and the International Committee of the Red Cross 1. However, despite the general agreement, the implementation of programs of awareness raising and engagement of life scientists on biosecurity policy seems more complicated. The above calls raised a number of questions: what is the level of information among scientists of security issues, and what their opinions on security and science; what would be the content of education; how to address the need of educational resources; how to measure effectiveness and improve sustainability.
In recent years, a number of projects started collaborative networks of life scientists and security experts aimed to raise awareness and elicit answers to the above questions. These projects included those implemented by the Landau Network Centro Volta (LNCV) and partners in various regions, which focussed on the collaboration with science faculties to address education of students. Studies
1
I) Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), 2008. Report of the Meeting of States Parties. Geneva: States Parties of the BTWC; 2) AUSTRALIA, CANADA, JAPAN, NEW ZEALAND, REPUBLIC OF KOREA, SWITZERLAND (ON BEHALF OF THE ‘JACKSNNZ’), KENYA, SWEDEN, UKRAINE, UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2011. Possible Approaches to Education and Awareness Raising among Life Scientists. BWC/CONF.VII/WP.20. Working Paper submitted to the Seventh Review Conference of the BTWC. Geneva: Seventh Review Conference of the BTWC; 3) European Commission, 2009, EU Action Plan on Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Security (EU CBRN Action Plan), Brussels; 4) European Commission, 2010, Ethics of Synthetic Biology, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 5) World Health Organisation, 2006, Biorisk Management Laboratory Biosecurity Guidance. Geneva: World Health Organization; 6) Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 2007, Best Practice Guidelines on Biosecurity for BRCs. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; 7) G8 2011, G8 Summit 2011. The Global Partnership: Assessment and Options for Future Programming. Deauville; 8) Inter-Academy Panel (IAP), 2005. IAP Statement on Biosecurity. Trieste: InterAcademy Panel; 9) British Medical Association (BMA), 1999. Biotechnology, Weapons, and Humanity, Harwood Acad. Publ.; 10) International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), 2003. Biotechnology, Weapons and Humanity. Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross.
97 investigated the levels of awareness of scientists in universities, and the currently available educational opportunities on security and dual use issues. Examples include surveys on: biosecurity contents of life science and technology curricula in 29 European countries 2; biosecurity contents in life sciences and technologies curricula in Japan3; biosecurity education for life scientists in the Asia-Pacific region4; awareness on biosecurity of life science students in Pakistan 5; biosecurity and dual use contents of curricula in Morocco6; and biosecurity and dual use considerations in specialist life S&T curricula in seven EU Member States 7.
The differences among methods, scopes and samples of researches make it impossible to draw generalizable conclusions. Nevertheless, looking at the results of those studies, which cumulatively have surveyed hundreds of curricula, educators and students, we can sketch an illustrative picture. Courses including references to security issues are rare, and respondents familiar with security or dual use issues are rarely above one fourth of respondents. The situation also tends to self-sustain given that even the educators interested in the subject experience a lack of background, expertise, educational resources and teaching time. This despite attitudes of scientists and educators may look with favour to increasing awareness of younger generations and establishing educational opportunities8. The experience gained from projects may give possible answers to the questions on implementation. In 2008-2009, LNCV 2
Mancini, G. M. & Revill, J. 2008. Fostering the Biosecurity Norm. Biosecurity Education for the Next Generation of Life Scientists. Como and Bradford: Landau Network Centro Volta and the University of Bradford. 3 Minehata, M. & Shinomiya, N. 2009. Biosecurity Education: Enhancing Ethics, Securing Life and Promoting Science: Dual Use Education in Life Science Degree Courses at Universities in Japan. Saitama and Bradford: National Defence Medical College and University of Bradford. 4 Minehata, M. 2010. An Investigation of Biosecurity Education for Life Scientists in the Asia-Pacific Region. University of Exeter and University of Bradford. 5 Shinwari, Z. K., Mancini, G. M. & Pinard, W. J. 2011. An Introduction to Biorisk Management and Dual Use in Life Sciences. Islamabad, Como and Albuquerque: Quaid-i-Azam University, Landau Network Centro Volta and Sandia National Laboratories. 6 Benbouida, M. 2011. Education, Awareness to Biosafety, to Biosecurity and to dual use: State and Promotion in the Moroccan Universities. IWG-LNCV Workshop and Roudtable "Biosecurity, biosafety, human capital and the seventh review conference of the biological and toxin weapons convention", 18-19 November 2011. Como: Landau Network Centro Volta. 7 Mancini, G. M., Martellini, M. & Fasani, A. 2013. Final Report of the European Biosecurity Awareness Raising Network. Como: Landau Network Centro Volta. 8 National Research Council 2009b. A Survey of Attitudes and Actions on Dual Use Research in the Life Sciences: A Collaborative Effort of the National Research Council and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington DC:The National Academy Press; Minehata, M. & Shinomiya, N. 2009. Biosecurity Education: Enhancing Ethics, Securing Life and Promoting Science: Dual Use Education in Life Science Degree Courses at Universities in Japan. Saitama and Bradford: National Defence Medical College and University of Bradford; Shinwari, Z. K., Mancini, G. M. & Pinard, W. J. 2011. An Introduction to Biorisk Management and Dual Use in Life Sciences. Islamabad, Como and Albuquerque: Quaid-i-Azam University, Landau Network Centro Volta and Sandia National Laboratories.
98 carried a project (“Fostering the Biosecurity Norm”, co-funded by the Prevention of and Fight Against Crime Programme of the EC) in partnership with the University of Bradford to engage life science faculties in Europe; it included a survey on curricula contents; workshops with faculty; seminars with students; and joint presentations to diplomats at the BTWC. The engagement of science faculties also constituted the core for promoting a European network on awareness-raising. The project produced a number of lessons learned9, including that it may be easier to aim at the extension of existing courses on disciplines such as ethics rather than introducing new ones on security, as has been noted also in other contexts10; the need to always underline beneficial purposes and application of science when discussing the misuse potential11; the need to establish and promote resources of information available for educators, such as the Educational Module Resource (EMR) 12 and other educational initiatives on biosecurity offered by the University of Bradford; the importance to be flexible with formats and contents, to tailor them to local needs and contexts, and appreciate that biosecurity and dual use are multidisciplinary subjects crossing ethics, legislation, policy and science; the consideration of different and established meanings of terms such as “biosafety” and “biosecurity” outside the English speaking and pathogens containment contexts. In Europe, for example, many neo-Latin languages do not distinguish between the terms, and in some cases the same word indicates regulations on pathogens but also on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and protection from invasive species. More generally, the inception of a European network suggested that long term sustained impacts of awareness raising efforts would result from the engagement of scientists and the sediments of shared values, principles and practices; and that some passage of ownership of the “awareness raising on security” process would have to be generated from the security to the scientific community.
Measuring Effectiveness and Sustainability One of the key questions is the need for evaluating effectiveness and results, not least in front of promoters and funders of the awareness raising campaigns. In this regard, “raising scientists’ awareness as a component of a risk prevention and security policy” can be considered as a process (Revill, 2009b) in which consideration of issues leads to awareness of those issues, which in turn improves capacity to make decisions. Individuals experiencing this process can contribute to influence culture leading to a 9
Revill, J. & Mancini, G. M. 2010. Implementing and Measuring the Efficacy of Biosecurity and Dual Use Education. In: Rappert, B. (ed.) Ethics, Education, and the Life Sciences. Strengthening the Prohibition of Biological Weapons. Canberra: Australian National University Press. 10 National Research Council 2010. Challenges and Opportunities for Education about Dual Use Issues in the Life Sciences, Washington DC:The National Academy Press. 11 Mancini, G. M. 2011. Sustainable Awareness Raising on Biosecurity and Dual Use Issues in the Life Sciences: Possible Concrete Actions at the Seventh BWC Review Conference. 33rd Workshop of the Pugwash Study Group on the Implementation of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions: Achieving Realistic Decisions at the Seventh BWC Review Conference in 2011. Geneva. 12 http://www.brad.ac.uk/bioethics/educationalmoduleresource/
99 status where such culture contributes to security. Contributions from other disciplines and the science of learning may suggest measures to assess achievements in each phase of the process, blending qualitative and quantitative, short and long term indicators such as surveys, questionnaires, social network analysis, bibliometrics, content analysis and organizational practices.
Assessing Awareness Between 2009 and 2012, LNCV used questionnaires to assess feedback of life science and technology students post seminars on biosecurity and dual use issues. Such questionnaires kept a number of core questions and were based on similar ones used in universities to gain feedback from students on courses of life sciences13. As of 2012, over 300 students in six European countries have been surveyed post seminars. The evaluation by the students was generally positive, with over 80% judging the topics at least “interesting”, which is a prerequisite to have consideration, and that “would recommend the seminar to other students”. Also, two thirds of participating students felt that the biosecurity seminars touched upon “contemporary themes” of research and evaluated this feature positively. Social Network Analysis (SNA) is largely used when looking at relationships and flows, and applications have been extended to epidemiology14as well as considered by security literature (NRC, 2009a). Applied to assessing awareness on biosecurity and dual use issues, SNA could be used to determine information flows between actors and provide an indication on which aspects of any network are facilitating or hindering the flow of information. Bibliometrics could be used to determine trends in publications, and this could be useful in seeking to conduct broader assessments of cultural or attitudinal changes over time. The work on salience of synthetic biology for the BTWC by the HSP S&T Review Series could be a useful example applied to science policy 15. Another method could be content analysis, to look at the frequency of keywords in literature – for example using “biosecurity”, “dual use” and “biological weapons”. An example is the research of keywords related to bioethics on dual use in the life sciences in leading scientific journals, comparing them to major bioethics themes such as euthanasia and stem cells, performed by Revill16. Another example may come from what researchers at Harvard and Google have called “culturomics”. Michel et al 17 considered five millions digitized books, and constructed a corpus of digitized text of about 500 billion words. Authors define “culturomics”, “the application of massive scale 13
Specifically the evaluation survey was based on the questionnaire used by the Department of Life Sciences of the University of Milan (Italy), adapted to the biosecurity and dual use contents courtesy of Prof. Daniela Candia. 14 Christakis, N. 2010. How Social Networks Predict Epidemics. TEDTalk at TED@Cannes 2010. 15 Ilchmann, K., Revill, J., Mcleish, C. & Nightingale, P. 2011. Synthetic Biology & the BWC. HSP S&T Review Series. 16 Revill, J. 2009a. Biosecurity and Bioethics Education: A Case Study of the UK Comtext. Wellcome Trust Project on 'Building a Sustainable Capacity in Dual-Use Bioethics'. Bradford: University of Bradford. 17 Michel, J., Shen, Y. K., Aiden, A. P., Veres, A., Gray, M. K., Team, T. G. B., Pickett, J. P., Hoiberg, D., Clancy, D., Niorvig, P., Orwant, J., Pinker, S., Nowak, M. & Lieberman-Aiden, E. 2011. Quantitative Analysis of Culture Using Millions of Digitized Books. Science, 331, 176-182.
100 data collection and analysis to the study of human culture”
18
. Resulting N-grams could be useful to
assess the cultural awareness of biosecurity and dual use, and in looking at changes over time.
Assessing Understanding and Assimilation of Concepts Regarding Biosecurity and Dual Use Assessing assimilation of concepts is something generally done in educational programs, typically by the use of exams, essays or other methods. Experiences carried in projects on education on biosecurity and dual use could be useful to indicate how assessment on understanding objectives can be carried in this perspective. In the LNCV seminar questionnaires, participants were asked to rank if their understanding on key topics had been developed. A large majority of students self-assessed that their understanding at least developed, something illustrated in Figure 1. The AAAS-NRC survey19 asked scientists about the perceived “dual use potential” of their research, and 16 per cent of respondents thought that their research had dual use potential. Results also suggested “dual use as it is defined in the questionnaire was clearly interpreted more broadly than the seven categories of experiments specified by the NSABB”.
100% 90%
47
53
68
51
80% 70% 60% 50%
Yes, very much 172
150
140
162
Not very much
40%
Not at all
30% 20% 10% 0%
Yes
44 6 34 History of BW
45 3
58
52
2 35
50 2 38
BTWC
Dual Use
Biosecurity
N/A
Figure 1 – Answers from respondents to LNCV questionnaires to “Do you think that your knowledge on the following items developed after this seminar?”20
18
Aiden, E. L. & Michel, J. 2011. What We Learned from 5 Million Books. TEDTalks. TEDxBoston. National Research Council 2009b. A Survey of Attitudes and Actions on Dual Use Research in the Life Sciences: A Collaborative Effort of the National Research Council and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington DC:The National Academy Press; 20 Based on 304 participants to seminars (93 in the academic year 2009-2010, 79 in the academic year 2011-2012 and 131 in the academic year 2012-2013) in the University of Milan, University of Turin, University of Coimbra, University of Granada, Delft Technical University and University of Bradford. 19
101 Assessing Actions on Biosecurity and Dual Use In the framework of the process, understanding should lead to the elaboration of opinions and feedback on biosecurity issues, and to taking action on establishing/influencing biosecurity policy, including decision procedures on if and how to carry an experiment considering dual use; contributions to public outreach; and development of new training on biosecurity. The AAAS-NRC survey is of interest in looking at possible ways to assess changes in decision-making, where asked: “Have you made any changes in how you conduct or manage research because of concerns that knowledge, tools, or techniques from your research might be deliberately misused to facilitate bioterrorism?”. The establishment of bodies to promote and implement biosecurity practices, regulations and values, could also be an indicator of relevant actions, even if proliferation of organization not necessarily indicates qualitative change or improvement. One example may be the establishment of bodies such as Committees addressing biosecurity; bioethics committees addressing dual use; associations on biosecurity and biosafety 21.
Assessing Public Outreach At what state is public awareness on biosecurity and dual use? How could the scientific community contribute to a balanced and informed public opinion? It seems interesting to analyse the case of the debate over the H5N1 pathogenesis experiments grown in late 2011, a dual use dilemma case occurred in the “2.0 media” era, and maybe the first one that reached a broad audience. An analysis was carried in early 201222 of news articles and blog posts in the US and Europe just after the release of the news on the experiments in December 2011 and the advice of the NSABB against the publication of the scientific papers. Twenty sources, selected as those articles with most comments in US and four EU countries among the highest ranked in each Google News national editions, were considered among leading newspapers and science divulgation blogs in five languages, and an analysis of the readers’ comments to the journals and blogs posts was carried. This was useful to get some insights, of course not statistically representative, of public awareness and opinion regarding the case in particular. Results suggested that the majority of the readers were critical of the research and express against either conducting or publishing it. More interestingly among the reasons mentioned against the research, the most quoted was “being irresponsible and unethical”; followed by suspicions on “covert political and financial plots”; the risk of biocontainment failure; and only last the “terrorism threat” reason. There were some differences among American and European audiences: for example the risk of 21
Minehata, M. 2010. An Investigation of Biosecurity Education for Life Scientists in the Asia-Pacific Region. University of Exeter and University of Bradford. 22 Mancini, G. M. 2012. Public awareness and debate on dual-use issues: the case of debate to H5N1. European Biosecurity Awareness Raising Network Blog [Online]. Available from: http://www.eubarnet.eu/public-awarenessand-debate-on-dual-use-issues-the-case-of-debate-to-h5n1-transmission-experiments-in-mainstream-andscientific-divulgation-blog/ [Accessed February 5 2013].
102 “biocontainment failure” was more quoted in Europe than in the US. Among those in favour of the research (who are themselves a minority in the sample), a relative majority quoted the “public health benefit” reason, followed by transparency and openness towards the public; openness and independence of scientific research; and biodefence (“we should be prepared to biological weapons”). Even if the public health reason was the most quoted in both regional groups, European readers quoted more often principles of openness, research freedom and right to be informed.
Measuring Increased Security and Sustainability Assessing the impact of education and awareness-raising on the situation of security of life sciences would be the most difficult task of an evaluation framework. While theoretically there may be cases of a proved causality, most probably the link between being more cognizant of the security environment and actual prevention of misuse would remain difficult to demonstrate. However, positive impacts of education on prevention of non-deliberate actions may be easier to determine, for example looking at relative trends in accidents, losses or thefts occurring in facilities and/or regarding sensitive agents and equipment. Furthermore, to have impacts awareness raising campaigns should be sustained over time, to allow legacy of projects to continue and new students to receive education in subsequent academic years.
In this regard, sustainability of education in life science faculties can take place through an active engagement of universities, where the involvement in collaborative networks and the implementation of education becomes the initiative of the academic community. Experience from LNCV projects suggests that engagement initiatives initially promoted from the civil society may succeed in promoting ownership of education on biosecurity in science academia. All European faculty members which cohosted seminars within the 2008-2009 project by LNCV and the University of Bradford, for example, repeated lectures on biosecurity and dual use in following academic years. Some universities that participated to the project promoted the insertion of biosecurity and dual use considerations into newly established international curricula (the ISIS Euro-Mediterrean Master of Neuroscience and Biotechnologies, which groups 11 universities in Europe and North Africa 23). A number of European universities partnered in the “European Awareness Raising network” to analyse the multidisciplinary nature of biosecurity and provide European students with information on scientific, policy, legal and environmental aspects.
23
www.isis-master.org
103 The European Biosecurity Awareness Raising Network The European Biosecurity Awareness Raising network (EUBARnet) started in 2011 based on a co-funding from the Prevention of and Fight Against Crime Programme of the EC. It connects universities working on raising awareness of young life scientists on biosecurity and dual use issues. It aims to promote information of students on multidisciplinary aspects of biosecurity and appraise the EC on the status of education, implementing the EU CBRN Action Plan. Among the tasks completed in 2011-2012, which involved universities in seven EU countries, we mapped educational opportunities, the collection of informational multidisciplinary materials, and the organization with universities of seminars with students. The life science faculty partners of the project aimed to address various aspects of the biosecurity and dual use discourse and, also in the light of the experience matured in previous LNCV projects, this implied a “holistic approach” to possible threats and risks, either natural or deliberate, not limiting strictly to pathogens but also GMOs; invasive species; and ecotoxicology issues. This approach allowed to more easily integrating biosecurity (intended as “misuse/militarization prevention”) and dual use discussions into the existing disciplinary contexts, as well as better coping with terminology issues.
The assessment on educational opportunities included investigation on the online available materials (such as syllabi, learning objectives, textbooks, statements or organized events) of 184 university curricula in three scientific areas particularly interesting for biosecurity (neuroscience, ecotoxicology and synthetic biology), and 13 professional associations and academic societies in seven EU Member States. Among the surveyed curricula, 7,1% clearly included references to “security”, 30,6% to “ethics” and 18,2% to “safety”. Examples of references ranged from mentions in learning objectives of considering “ethical, technical and legal issues” in the development of biotechnologies; course readings including contents on chemical or bio terrorism; or bioethics modules. A wider considerations of items related to biosecurity and dual use was found among the online available materials of surveyed professional associations and academic societies in the EU, among which two thirds included materials on security and ethics such as risk mitigation standards and explicit statements of refusal of biological weapons, however it is not always clear how statements are translated into the formation of, or outreach to, young scientists which is the EUBARnet focus 24.
EUBARnet produced a number of monographs on various aspects related to biosecurity from “thematic working groups” on policy and security aspects (including the history of biological and toxin weapons and prevention regimes or the role of codes of practice), ethical issues (on dual use but also on
24
Mancini, G. M., Martellini, M. & Fasani, A. 2013. Final Report of the European Biosecurity Awareness Raising Network. Como: Landau Network Centro Volta.
104 applications of neuroscience and synthetic biology in civilian and military enhancements), legal and environmental aspects (EU legislations and impacts of accidental or deliberate release of toxic chemicals, GMOs, invasive species). A website25 aimed primarily to inform young scientists collects monographs but also external reference materials, news, and video lectures from seminars.
The series of seminars organized by universities participating to the network was one of the key experiences in 2012. The network organized seven seminars with students, and no one event was identical to the others, as in each occasion it was tailored by the hosting professors both in terms of contents and of format, to the interests and practices of different academic contexts. In order to favour the implementation and sustainability of new educational opportunities, the ownership and the design of seminars have been entirely with local educators, who could access the materials collected by the network and at the same time be able to more easily engage their students and decide on the most relevant topics to address, as well as on ways to integrate and link the topics with the existing subjects and programmes. The membership to the Network allowed local faculties to invite experts and speakers on subjects related to biosecurity and dual use, from other European countries; collect multimedia materials and share them online with colleagues and students; gather and access feedback from students and colleagues from other European countries.
Feedback from participating students has been positive, and it is integrated in the results mentioned in the previous. A majority of students completing questionnaires post seminars responded positively to “Had you any prior knowledge about the potential “hostile use” of life sciences?” (72,8% replying “yes”26), even if only 35,6% per cent of them mentioned that topics of the seminars were somehow mentioned in other regular courses. These results are in line with responses from students participating to 2009 LNCV seminars in Europe, when 75%27 of students mentioned a previous knowledge and only 15% that biosecurity and dual use issues were touched in previous courses. Interestingly this may suggest that young scientists do have some awareness of non-peaceful application and security issues, but discussions revealed it may come from generalist media and non-academic sources. Life science faculties in this regard may be missing an opportunity to integrate social, ethical and legal considerations to form not only capable scientists but also scientists that can critically assess possible threats and contribute to risk communication and roles in society.
25
www.eubarnet.eu 180 students from University of Milan, University of Turin, University of Coimbra, Delft Technical University and University of Granada 27 93 students from University of Milan, University of Turin, University of Coimbra 26
105 Some students provided structured comments both on the contents and on the seminar formats. Among the former category, comments were generally supportive of the need to build a “culture of responsibility” as a tool to prevent misuse, for example:
“Knowledge means power, and everything can be used for good or bad issues, it’s just the way of thinking and your personal principles. So in order to avoid a hostile application work should be done in the basic level, that means changing the way people think.” (Participant from Technical University of Delft, June 2012)
Regarding practical and organizational issues, students, especially those from the academic contexts where interaction and debates are widely used called for interactive formats, and for practical references:
“Less presentations about organizations and terminology and more interaction...” (Participant from Technical University of Delft, June 2012)
“More practical case studies…” (Participant from Universidade de Coimbra, April 2012)
Conclusions Projects aiming to raise awareness of life scientists on biosecurity and dual use issues, including networks of universities in Europe coordinated by LNCV, suggested that content linked with security implications of life science and technology and potential misuse is rarely integrated in the university education of life scientists. A number of issues seem key when implementing such projects, and a very important one is the one of evaluating initiatives’ success and sustainability. “Raising scientists’ awareness as a component of a risk prevention and security policy” can be considered as a process in which consideration leads to awareness, which in turn improves capacity to make decisions and may influence culture, leading contributions to the security status. Methods to be applied in various phases of the process may include surveys, questionnaires, social network analysis, bibliometrics, content analysis and organizational practices, on which there are examples of possible application in the biosecurity education context. In terms of sustainability, experience with networks between science faculties and the civil society in Europe suggests that some passage of ownership of the awareness raising process could be generated from the security to the scientific community.
106 Experiences like the European Biosecurity Awareness Raising network fostered the principle that biosecurity is a multidisciplinary subject, with different expertise and information crossing: from the technical and scientific sides to the legal, ethical, historical and environmental ones. It was also suggested how a strict security policy perspective focusing on weapons and terrorism prevention may be limiting and counterproductive when engaging scientists. This not least regards terminology, as “biosecurity”, “biosafety” and “dual use” are not only differently translated, but often have already established meanings which refer to risks not connected with weaponization or infectious disease. The engagement of local faculty is possible, if the proponents of the biosecurity priority are ready to merge it with other thematic interests according to local needs; and it is recommended to improve sustainability of awareness.
There are reasons to be positive on the expansion and sustainability of university engagement and awareness raising activities. A number of universities in Europe expressed interest and wish to be engaged in similar activities of the network in future academic years, including hosting seminars for their students. The European network has been also a model for a project launched by the EU CBRN Risk Mitigation Centres of Excellence28. This is the initiative that the EU designed to mirror the EU CBRN Action Plan activities outside the Union and implement joint projects in over 65 countries in the world. The project “International Network of Universities and Research Institutes to Raise Awareness on dual use in bio-technology”, starting in January 2013, is coordinated by LNCV in partnership with 19 institutes in 15 countries from North Africa to South East Asia.
28
www.cbrn-coe.eu
107
DEVELOPING ETHICS EDUCATION FOR NEUROSCIENTISTS: AN ONGOING PROJECT Catherine Rhodes
Introduction The Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) funded Interdisciplinary Network on Teaching of Ethics for Neuroscientists is a joint project of the Bradford Disarmament Research Centre (BDRC) and the Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation (iSEI) at Manchester University. It has four core aims:
1. Understand the present state of ethics teaching in neuroscience 2. Define what the ideal state of ethics teaching should be 3. Assess priorities in achieving change from the present to the ideal state, and 4. Produce a strategy for implementing change.
Despite increasing attention to the societal and ethical implications of neuroscience research by academics and various scientific and policy bodies29, the media and the public, ethics education is underdeveloped in this area30. The Network brings together neuroscientists with individuals and groups interested / involved in teaching ethics within the life sciences31 to begin addressing this deficit and should, inter alia, lead to:
29
Reports on the four workshop themes (see below)
Development of several modules
Online collation of materials and resources for both students and teachers
Development of a peer review group to assist development of modules and materials, and
Ongoing interactions between participants in the design, development and delivery of modules.
See for example: the Royal Society’s BrainWaves Project, http://royalsociety.org/brainwaves; the Nuffield Council on Bioethics project on novel neurotechnologies, www.nuffieldbioethics.org/neurotechnology; the journal Neuroethics, launched in 2008; and the Oxford Handbook of Neuroethics, published in 2011. 30 See: Morein-Zamir & Sahakian (2009) “Neuroethics and public engagement training needed for neuroscientists” Trends Cogn Sci 14(2):49-51; Walther, G. (2011) “Where is the ethics? Ethical training in neuroscience curricula in UK universities” BDRC Dual-Use Bioethics Monograph Series, www.brad.ac.uk/bioethics/media/SSIS/Bioethics/Walther_Where-is-the-Ethics.pdf. 31 For example both of the Network’s coordinating groups have substantial experience both in scholarly work examining the ethical, legal and social implications of scientific advances, including in neuroscience, and in the practice of teaching ethics to life scientists.
108 The Network’s activities began with surveys examining the extent of ethics teaching within neuroscience courses, firstly within the UK, then also Australia, Canada, Germany and the US 32. The surveys are being followed up with visits to key institutions to interview individuals involved in course development and delivery. These visits feed into the workshops that form a central activity of the Network. There is also a website (www.neuroethicseducation.net) which will be used for further interaction, dissemination of reports, and collation of resources.
Surveys The survey work involved online research to identify neuroscience courses and get an indication of their content, followed by short questionnaires to course directors. The surveys confirmed the findings of Morein-Zamir and Sahakian33 that so far there has been limited development of ethics education in neuroscience. In the UK, of 26 courses for which responses were provided, 10 indicated that they included some ethics component, but only one that this was in the form of a stand-alone ethics module (this compares to 83% of ethics teaching where present in US courses). The scoping visits (detailed below) revealed more about the scope and content of this teaching. There was also some indication from the questionnaire results, which provided a list of potential topics from the contents of On Being A Scientist34. More than half of the courses for which responses were provided included the topics of: human participants and animal subjects in research; research misconduct; treatment of data; and authorship and allocation of credit. However, On Being A Scientist concentrates on internal scientific responsibilities and excludes some other areas relevant to science ethics, it is also non-specific to a particular discipline. The surveys also picked up on some constraints on ethics teaching, including limited time and expertise.
Scoping Visits These visits are designed to supplement the survey work with more detailed information on current practice. They involve face-to-face interviews which, while not extensive enough to provide statistically representative data, give valuable insights into the present situation and practical steps that might be taken to improve it. So far visits have been made to Sweden (Uppsala University) and the East Coast of the US (University of Pennsylvania, Harvard University, Yale University and various visits around Washington D.C.). Further visits are planned to Germany, Poland and the US (to coincide with the annual conferences of the International Neuroethics Society and the Society for Neuroscience).
32
The survey work was conducted by Gerald Walther. Preliminary findings are detailed in “Where is the Ethics?” (see footnote 2 for full reference); more detailed findings will be reported in a forthcoming journal article. 33 See footnote 2 for full reference. 34 National Academies Press, (2009), On Being A Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research, 3rd Edition, Washington D.C.
109 Findings Sweden A key difference (likely to be significant to the necessary content of ethics modules) between Sweden and other countries is that ethics education is obligatory for all students in higher education – all undergraduate science students thus have some exposure to the subject. Uppsala University has a specific module in neuroethics for postgraduate neuroscientists (developed and led by Kathinka Evers). This module combines three elements (all felt to be necessary and mutually supportive):
Applied Neuroethics – ethical questions arising in connection with developments in neuroscience and neurotechnology
Fundamental Neuroethics – questions concerning how knowledge of the brain’s functional architecture and its evolution can deepen our understanding of moral thinking and judgement
Clinical Perspectives – ethical questions arising in a clinical context. 35
In regard to content and skills development in ethics modules the following points were raised in discussions:
Ethical awareness (i.e. the ability to identify issues) is necessary but insufficient
Ethics is not just about awareness of guidelines, nor simply a matter of common sense
Need to develop individual ethics competency and a culture of responsibility
In terms of dual-use issues, the emphasis should remain on responsibility rather than threat, but contextual information, e.g. on threat assessments, is also needed.
In terms of benefits stemming from ethics education – it was felt that it can:
Contribute to demonstrating responsibility, both of individuals and the community, and the ability to effectively self-regulate
Benefit the reputation of science as it, for example, demonstrates recognition of the seriousness of issues that are of societal concern
35
Form the basis of better communication
Help individuals deal with moral stress
Taken from the neuroethics course outline, available at www.medfarm.uu.se/utbildning/forskarniva/for_doktorander/kurs76.html.
110 United States While there is some ethics teaching available, its extent, content and mode of delivery are highly variable across and within institutions and it tends to be led by individuals rather than at the institutional level. Most ethics teaching concentrates on ‘survival’ ethics i.e. that which is necessary for obtaining research ethics approval – with some extension into responsible conduct of research. There was interest expressed in going beyond this, but many barriers would be faced in doing so.
The most commonly mentioned constraints were: limited staff and student time; institutional constraints such as lack of space in course structures; lack of expertise; and lack of resources (both financial and in terms of materials). Suggestions for what might help included: increased awareness of existing resources; development and / or collation of materials such as case studies, reading lists, background papers, essays, and examples of best practice and of a system for their exchange (online); and training.
Workshops The Network activities are structured around four workshops:
1. Present state of ethics education in neuroscience (11-12 June 2012) 2. The ideal state of ethics education for neuroscientists in 2015 (17-18 September 2012) 3. What needs to be done to fill the gaps between the ideal state and the present state of ethics education (January 2013) 4. Getting from here to there (spring / summer 2013)
These allow discussion and interaction between the network coordinators, neuroscientists and others with an interest in the development of ethics education.
Workshop 1 The first workshop was held in Manchester in June 2012. Participants included individuals involved in ethics education within the Faculty of Life Sciences at Manchester University, individuals involved in delivering and directing neuroscience courses in the UK, and current and recent postgraduate neuroscience students. Presentations covered the survey findings, scoping visits and case studies of current practice.
111 Findings Ethics teaching in neuroscience in the UK also tends to have a limited focus on ‘survival’ ethics, particularly in courses accredited by the British Psychological Society. This focus tends to reinforce perceptions that ethics is about form-filling, compliance with rules, avoidance of liability and is a burden on time. The move to more procedural ethics (i.e. the focus on the process of gaining ethics approval for projects) is felt to have reduced the emphasis on professionalism and responsibility. The same constraints as those reported during the scoping visits are experienced in the UK – particularly limited time and expertise, and institutional constraints.
Ideas Suggested ways forward include:
Creating a national database of good examples
Developing and collating materials
Aiming to have ‘complete researchers’ with a broad range of skills, tools to work on issues independently and critically, and the ability to use appropriate analytical approaches
Having a practical emphasis to assist students in understanding the move from the abstract to application and using problem-based studies.
Discussion Points Some additional questions raised during the workshop, which need further consideration were:
How much tailoring to discipline (even within neuroscience) is needed?
Would incorporating ethics into the core curriculum remove flexibility in development of modules?
What starting point will engage students (and staff) best?
How appropriate / effective are web-based modules likely to be?
What are the minimum standards that should be aimed for? And what extension mechanisms can be used for those interested in learning more?
Next Steps These combine ideas from the workshop participants and the project coordinators:
Production of a consensus statement based on workshop 1 to be tabled at workshop 2
Development of ideal course outlines for workshop 2
Collation and sharing of resources for students and teachers
Textbook proposal, papers, and a list of journals in which articles might be published
112
Further consideration of appropriate methods of delivery and forms of assessment and collation of experiences in these areas
Building the Network
Exploring further funding opportunities
Plans from Here The immediate focus for the coordinators is completion of the scoping visits and writing up the findings from them in preparation for workshop 2. We intend to hold a larger symposium towards the end of the current funding period, which would bring the Network’s findings to a broader audience. We could potentially do this alongside the 2013 conferences of the International Neuroethics Society and Society for Neuroscience. We will continue Network activities beyond the current funding period including through: a peer review group to assist individuals in developing modules; work to annotate online modules and provide guidance for teachers; and looking into the possibility of developing an EU-wide system for exchange of modules and resources.
Conclusion The AHRC Interdisciplinary Network on the Teaching of Ethics for Neuroscientists was formed in response to a clear need for further development of ethics education within neuroscience courses, as an essential foundation for equipping neuroscientists to identify and evaluate ethical implications of their work and respond effectively to societal concerns throughout their careers.
Activities of the Network so far (at four months into the 18 month grant period) have highlighted interest in extending ethics education beyond the merely procedural (though that will necessarily remain an area of interest), but also a number of significant barriers to doing so – most notably institutional constraints, limits on staff and student time, and lack of resources and expertise.
The surveys, scoping visits and discussion in Workshop 1 have already begun to identify several practical contributions that the Network might make (or encourage others to make) to overcoming some of these constraints. A major starting point for this will be the collation of resources and exchange of ideas and experiences to be facilitated through the Network website (www.neuroethicseducation.net).
113
Note:
The author would like to express thanks for the contribution of ideas that form the basis of this paper by the other Network coordinators (Malcolm Dando, Sarah Chan, Ania Pacholczyk and Gerald Walther) as well as by those who participated in the surveys, scoping visit interviews and first workshop.
Contact
details
for
the
Network
are:
[email protected];
www.neuroethicseducation.net. Contact details for the author:
[email protected]; Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation, Williamson Building, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
114
THE ETHICS TOOLKIT: A FRAMEWORK FOR RECOGNISING ETHICAL ISSUES AND PLANNING EFFECTIVE RESPONSES Judi Sture
The Ethics Toolkit is a short guide for scientists and science educators produced by Judi Sture for a workshop in Ottawa, Canada, in 2012. This workshop was provided for biosafety officers and other biosafety and biosecurity stakeholders within the Public Health Agency Canada (PHAC) and a number of Bradford colleagues contributed to the delivery of the event. A clear message coming from participants was the lack of practical guidance and of a clear framework on which to “hang” ethical questions when trying to apply ethics to real work.
The original booklet is produced here in a shortened format to illustrate some key aspects of the application of an applied research ethics approach to science and research activities. The Ethics Toolkit was, in fact, a shortened version of a longer monograph, Dual Use Awareness and Applied Research Ethics: A Brief Introduction to a Social Responsibility Perspective for Scientists which has been available on the Bradford Disarmament Research Centre website for some time.
115
The Ethics Toolkit
This document provides you with a guide to applying ethics to any work or research-related scenario that you are likely to be faced with as a scientist, technician, principal investigator, junior researcher, facility manager, or other stakeholder in biosafety and biosecurity.
Although this represents something of a “cookbook” approach to applying ethics to your daily work, it is intended to be just that. This process does not claim to provide specific answers to the specific issues you may face in your facility, but it does serve to make you aware of the ethical principles you need to consider, and to get you used to thinking from the ethical perspective on a daily basis. Once you become familiar with the ideas presented here, you will find that you become as adept at considering ethics-as-biosecurity as you already are at science-as-bisafety on a daily basis. From that point, you will be able to “do” biosecurity through the ethics doorway almost automatically.
By following the steps outlined here and applying them to the various stages of your research or day to day work in a systematic way, you will be able to recognise potential or actual ethical issues. The questions and suggestions presented here will set you off in the right direction to solve the challenging situation (especially if it does not actually look like a challenging situation at first). Even if you cannot deal with the entirety of the situation alone, you can work with other colleagues to apply the steps advocated here, and as a team, set out to achieve a successful conclusion.
116 By considering ethics from the very start of each and every work initiative, whether it be a major grant proposal, the start of research work, or simply a new “job” at the laboratory bench, you will find that the time spent on “getting the ethics right” will save you considerable time and money in the future, by helping you to avoid or minimise challenges to your work based on ethical concerns. By identifying and addressing the ethical issues first, you will avoid mistakes or activities that may be costly later in terms of time, money and goodwill among colleagues, and between your facility and those associated with it. Given that this can include research funding bodies and journal editors, not to mention your professional peers, this is an exercise worth spending some time on.
Do I really need to consider ethics in my work? My work is not contentious…… Do you, or the outcomes of your research, come into contact with people during or after the process of your research? This may be at the planning stage, grant application stage, recruitment or materials‐gathering stage, the data collection and analysis phases, revision phases, the publication/dissemination phase, or the “end‐user” stage where products of your research, or outcomes of it, are launched into society. If the answer to any of these is “Yes”, then you have ethical issues in your research. This toolkit will help you to identify them and work out ways in which to address and manage them.
If you think the answer is “No”, then you just need to dig a little deeper. Try to think of any occasions when you or your work do come into contact with people apart from your colleagues in the immediate research or work environment. These interactions all raise standard ethical issues. They may include issues around telephone, personal or other forms of communication about your work as well as the contact it has with end‐users. You may still need to accommodate anonymity, for example, in some circumstances, or to ensure that consent to use data‐generating materials has been satisfactorily acquired. Once dual use risk assessment and ethical consideration are incorporated into your daily ethics approach, you may need to also consider issues around the dissemination of your findings in the press or elsewhere, for example. Don’t assume that because you are only working with computers, laboratory materials or engineering development in a research context that you do not need to identify and address any dual use issues. This booklet will help you to consider the wide‐lens perspective beyond your own immediate research and work, considering such issues as the effect your research and work may have on certain groups of people, what generally unforeseen outcomes may arise later, and so on. This wide‐lens perspective is key in the dual use biosecurity context and to assuming an ethically responsible approach to work, as is the shorter focus on what is going on right there in your laboratory or facilities.
117 Remember – good ethics is simply a “principled sensitivity to the rights of others” (N. Gilbert (2001) Researching Social Life London: Sage p.45). This means your principles and your responsibilities to the rights (safety, privacy, well-being and so on) of other people, both directly and indirectly.
So “ethics” is about relationships between you as a science stakeholder, through your work colleagues, right up to the wider public. Think of a stone thrown into a still pool of water – your work is the stone – how far do the ripples spread?
THE TOOLKIT Like any professional worker, you need a good toolkit. The Ethics Toolkit will help you to make ethically sound decisions about your plans and actions, and will provide you with a framework around which you can design any work or research project that will reflect a principled sensitivity to the rights of others. To help you to start thinking about ethics in terms of biosafety and biosecurity, here is a table comparing the principles of both concepts. Consider how you may, as an ethically-sound scientist, or person with oversight of scientific activity, frame your responsibilities to meet the needs of these two concepts.
It can be helpful to consider biosecurity as a containment exercise, rather like biosafety.
Whereas biosafety contains pathogens and other hazardous substances, biosecurity contains these and information, knowledge and equipment.
Biosafety
Biosecurity as managed through a social responsibility/ethics approach
Biocontainment Facilities Biocontainment Practices
Biocontainment Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Decontamination & Disposal Emergency Response & Biosecurity Shipment and Transfer of Biological Materials Strategies for Effective Biosafety Management & Communication
Physical and IT security of premises, equipment and facilities – what ethical issues does this raise? Physical, IT and intellectual security of data collection, processing, analysis and review of materials and research activities - what ethical issues does this raise? Personnel reliability - what ethical issues does this raise? Security of physical and IT data/findings deletion processes - what ethical issues does this raise? A plan of what to do in case of a biosecurity breach what ethical issues does this raise? Security of data/findings/processes etc when being transferred between legitimate parties/places - what ethical issues does this raise? A robust plan to manage the containment or restricted dissemination of data/findings/processes and so on - what ethical issues does this raise?
Table 1: The convergence of biosafety and biosecurity
118 IDENTIFYING DUAL USE POTENTIAL IN YOUR WORK The Fink Report36 of 2004 identified seven categories of research or scientific work that can be defined as “of concern” or to have dual use potential. These categories are those experiments or scientific activities that: 1. Would demonstrate how to render a vaccine ineffective. This would apply to both human and animal vaccines. Creation of a vaccine-resistant smallpox virus would fall into this class of experiments. 2. Would confer resistance to therapeutically useful antibiotics or antiviral agents. This would apply to therapeutic agents that are used to control disease agents in humans, animals, or crops. Introduction of ciprofloxacin resistance in Bacillus anthracis would fall in this class. 3.Would enhance the virulence of a pathogen or render a nonpathogen virulent. This would apply to plant, animal, and human pathogens. Introduction of cereolysin toxin gene into Bacillus anthracis would fall into this class. 4. Would increase transmissibility of a pathogen. This would include enhancing transmission within or between species. Altering vector competence to enhance disease transmission would also fall into this class. 5. Would alter the host range of a pathogen. This would include making non-zoonotics into zoonotic agents. Altering the tropism of viruses would fit into this class. 6.Would enable the evasion of diagnostic/detection modalities. This could include microencapsulation to avoid antibody-based detection and/or the alteration of gene sequences to avoid detection by established molecular methods. 7. Would enable the weaponization of a biological agent or toxin.
It is our responsibility as scientists to satisfy ourselves that our work does not fall under one or more of these categories. If it does, then we have a responsibility to show how we are taking steps to mitigate the risks of the work being misused. By using a research ethics approach, we can go a long way to achieving the minimisation of risks of misuse.
THE ETHICAL PRINCIPLES These principles provide a framework for you to follow.
The framework encompasses your
responsibilities to the rights of other people – and some of the principles, of course, may also apply to your work as it affects animals or plant life as well.
-determination) of those involved in or associated with the scientific activity…… o Voluntary participation o Consent o Privacy – anonymity, confidentiality, in time, place and publication
36
National Research Council (2004) Biotechnology Research In an Age of Terrorism, see: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10827
119 – here, there, now, in the future o Minimising the potential for harm to occur…… o Doing good – beneficence o Scholarship issues – honesty, reliability and validity o
Responsible dissemination of your work and findings.
When looking at dual use biosecurity ethics, we need to also add this principle under “Do no harm”: o
Responsibility for the outcomes of your work…..as far as you can reasonably foresee at the time of carrying out and/or publishing the work. [This carries the implication that you may decide not to publish, or fully publish, your work if you recognise dual use potential in it during the course of the work].
THE FOUR GATEWAYS INTO ETHICAL PRACTICE
You can consider the ethical principles above in at least four different ways as a means of employing the framework in the context of your research or work activities:
1. By looking at each ethical principal in turn and applying them to each stage of the research process and work-related practices.
2. By looking at the stages of the research process or work-related practices first and then considering what ethical principles may require accommodation at each stage.
3. By starting with an ethical problem that you know of and then seeing how it may affect/is affecting your research, research design or work-related practices, from the beginning – you then design the research or work in such a way as to avoid or minimise the ethical problem you identified before starting.
4. By taking a relationship approach – how will your research or work-related practices affect other people/animals/plant life?
120 APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK – using the toolkit
Until you are familiar with the ethical principles, and familiar with applying them, the easiest way to consider them and to apply them is by asking questions about each principle in relation to the work you or those under your oversight are about to carry out, or are already working on. [You may also find it useful to apply the toolkit retrospectively to see where things went wrong in the past].
Each of the following questions relates to your relationship with other people in terms of either your responsibilities, their rights, or both. I have divided the questions up into sections, each focusing on one ethical principle. Once you get used to asking such questions, and of course, with your familiarity with your own work and that of your colleagues, you will be able to come up with even more relevant questions in your own context.
Think of all these questions in terms of people, materials and
information. This is because biosafety looks after pathogens and dangerous agents, and biosecurity looks after both these and information.
Some general voluntary participation questions: -be participants/research colleagues know that they do not have to take part in my research if it has dual use potential? arch is about and its potential implications?
-be participants or research colleagues? onship here?
-givers acceptable and is their consent-giving relationship to the participant recognised as legitimate? guidance from more experienced colleagues if necessary? al for my research from one of the ethics panels? -be participants or research colleagues? How would you answer these questions in a dual-use risk assessment?
121
Some general consent questions:
eague get a copy of the signed consent?
-obtained consent was obtained appropriately? study? ent records?
How would you answer these questions in a dual-use risk assessment?
Some general privacy questions: colleagues?
research? hem?
field to the record store? -use of the data in the future and how this may impact on anonymity and retention of key lists? How would you answer these questions in a dual-use risk assessment?
122
Some “No Harm” questions: research?
about this should I give out and in what form? something about it? ts or associates who may be affected by harm? -UK communities and individuals? How would you answer these questions in a dual-use risk assessment?
Some Beneficence questions: „h Do I need to offer direct benefits to participants/research colleagues/the wider public? „h When? „h How? How much? „h Why? „h How may these be best managed (offered, limited, being appropriate)? „h Do they amount to coercion to participate or to permit the work to continue? „h Will the benefits actually lead to further problems to the recipients? „h How will I, or they, know this? „h Who resources (pays for, supplies, takes the credit for) the benefits? „h Is there a conflict of interest? How would you answer these questions in a dual-use risk assessment?
Some Scholarship and Continuing Professional Development questions: n order to work more effectively?
123
responsibility to maintain the CPD of my colleagues/staff, including passing on my increased knowledge and understanding of ethics? How would you answer these questions in a dual-use risk assessment?
Some Responsible Dissemination questions: „h Am I aware of any current, recent or future potential for the misuse of my research? „h If so, how do I recognise it, and how may I minimise the risk of such misuse through my dissemination methods? „h Are there options to be explored about how I could disseminate my work in other ways than the traditional routes at this time? „h Who can advise me on alternative dissemination methods? „h Who will potentially be affected by any dual use of my work? Should they be warned? „h What impact would publication of my work have at a different time or place? „h Should I consider holding back some of my findings from certain types of publication or from certain groups? „h How would I disseminate those withheld findings to ¡§safe¡¨ destinations? How would you answer these questions in a dual-use risk assessment?
USING AN ETHICS CONTINUUM APPROACH It can also be helpful to consider the two potentially conflicting approaches to making ethical decisions that are encapsulated in the deontological and teleological perspectives in ethics. Deontology is the approach that states that some actions are always wrong, therefore they should not be carried out, even if good may result from that action being implemented. The teleological approach, on the other hand, says that the outcome is what matters, and that a “bad” action is acceptable if a good outcome will result from it. Of course, this is a very black and white summary of these two complex approaches, and there are arguments on both sides. However, just for now, let’s use these as a guide in considering the application of the ethical principles. Where do your answers to these questions sit on the continuum? Why?
Don’t ever do this Deontological view
(always) do this if the outcome is good Teleological view
The examples of two opposing views (below) are not necessarily associated with deontological or teleological perspectives, but do sit at opposite ends of a continuum nevertheless. Sometimes thinking about options like this can help you to reach a decision on what actions to take:
124
Participation is mandatory
Do not ever seek consent Do not ever implement privacy/security
Promise total “no harm” to everyone
Benefit nobody Do not disseminate any of your research
Participation is voluntary.
Always seek fully informed consent Always implement full privacy/security (of people, People, materials and information)
Ensure the greatest possible minimisation of risk in time and space
Benefit everyone, now and in the future Disseminate everything
Do not make efforts to keep up to date or to engage in CPD... .....Engage in regular CPD and learning from students or others.
What considerations do you need to take into account when deciding where on the continuum your proposed answer lies?
INTERVENTION POINTS These “Intervention Points” may help you to make a decision on how and when to implement a response to an ethical problem by applying an ethical principle: Intervention Point 1: You, or scientists/technicians under your oversight are working on benign research that may have dual use potential and you need to look out for this and take steps to minimise the risk of dual use being implemented by others. How can ensuring voluntary participation, consent, and privacy, along with doing no harm, offering benefit, carefully considering the dissemination of your work, and ensuring that you and those under your oversight keep up to date with relevant Continuing Professional Development, be tools in supporting this aim? Intervention Point 2: You, or scientists under your oversight do not know that you or they are working on projects that are being used for dual use purposes. Is this a tenable position? Do you think (or not) that it is your responsibility to ensure that the work you are engaged in is not being used, or has the potential to be used, for malign purposes? How can ensuring voluntary participation, consent, and privacy, along with doing no harm, offering benefit, carefully considering the dissemination of your work, and ensuring that you and those under your oversight keep up to date with relevant Continuing Professional Development, be tools to avoid this situation occurring and/or to protect yourself and others?
125 Intervention Point 3: You, or scientists under your oversight discover that you and/or they have been working on projects that could be, or are being used for dual use purposes. How can ensuring voluntary participation, consent, and privacy, along with doing no harm, offering benefit, carefully considering the dissemination of your work, and ensuring that you and those under your oversight keep up to date with relevant Continuing Professional Development, be used to avoid this or to mitigate the ill-effects of this knowledge causing harm to the individual? Intervention Point 4: You, or scientists under your oversight are pressured to engage in dual use activities. How can ensuring voluntary participation, consent, and privacy, along with doing no harm, offering benefit, carefully considering the dissemination of your work, and ensuring that you and those under your oversight keep up to date with relevant Continuing Professional Development, be used to avoid this? What other employment systems could be used to support you and your colleagues, give advice and provide alternatives? Is any of this possible?
THE RESEARCH OR WORK PROJECT: A PLAN OF ACTION Identifying a possible research topic -set topic by a funding body seeking researchers to carry out the work o An ethics assessment will have been done but you should also carry out your own ethical review before accepting to do the work hat is of interest to you/and colleagues o You can start by applying the toolkit to the general area of interest as follows. Staff and associated people Who will be involved in the project? her laboratory staff, management staff of the facility, administrative staff, cleaning and maintenance staff, catering staff, IT people, delivery people, waste disposal people, others visiting or bringing people or materials to or from the facility, families and friends of these, others (identify), the wider public, locally, regionally and nationally. Bear in mind that all of these people, and indirectly, those with whom they are in contact, will be associated with the work even when they are not on the premises where the work is carried out. Any association is a potential risk, even indirectly. People may carry pathogens or information with them deliberately or by accident to any place they go, at any time. Where will they be located during and after the work? storage facilities, postal premises, other open public places locally, regionally, nationally and internationally. They may also have a cyber-presence that could be global in minutes (social media, email, blogs etc.). When will they be associated with the project? -of-hours, on their vacations, when traveling away, at weekends and in evenings. In other words, all of the time.
126 Materials or human sources of data Who or what is the source of the project data? a. Can we access the relevant people without harming them? b. Can we gather relevant data from them without harming them? c. Can we involve them in the research/work in a meaningful way that will benefit them during the research/work? d. What are our plans to inform them of the results of the research and to enable them to benefit from the results? e. What role can they play in the formation of the research/work plans and the carrying out of the project? f. What representation will they have on our project board/team? g. What role will they have in making decisions during and after the project?
a. Can we acquire these in an ethical manner without harming the source(s)? b. Are there any ownership issues that we need to address before, during or after the research/work? c. What permissions do we need to acquire prior to accessing the materials? d. From whom? e. What processes and people will this involve? If necessary, when working people as owners or sources, refer to the list above on “People”. f. Will the materials be returned to the original owners/source(s) after the research/work is complete? g. What are our plans to store the materials during and after the research/work? h. What are our plans to dispose of the materials during and after the research/work? i. What actions do we need to take to ensure that the sources of the materials benefit from the research/work?
Identifying a Research Question What question(s) can we ask of the data, bearing in mind the ethical rights and sensitivities of the sources? People: The Research Question must respect: o the sources of the data – the people o the people involved from the workplace o the people o the people involved from the workplace o people indirectly linked to the workplace, including the local community o the people – anonymity or confidentiality, in time and in place o the people involved from the workplace o people indirectly linked to the workplace, including the local community The Research Question must not lead to actions causing harm to the people in the process of the research/work or to the people involved in the workplace.
127 The Research Question must achieve, wherever possible, some benefit for the people during and after the research/work. If this is not possible, at least we can show how benefit will be offered to some people in the future. The Research Questions must be such that it will be possible to give a scholarly, honest and open account of the research/work to the relevant audiences, bearing in mind the needs of biosafety and biosecurity. If we cannot publish in full, is it worth doing the research? What sections may we not be able to publish? The Research Questions must give rise to research/work that is reportable in an appropriate and acceptable way to relevant audiences. The Research Questions must be such that the researchers, especially the PI, can accept responsibility for the outcomes as far as is reasonably foreseeable at the time of the research being carried out and completed.
Inanimate materials, pathogens or tissues: The Research Question must respect:
o the sources/owners of the materials in providing them as sources of materials – people o the people involved from the workplace o people indirectly linked to the workplace, including the local community
o the sources of the materials for the research to be carried out o the people involved in the workplace o people indirectly linked to the workplace, including the local community of o the sources of the materials – anonymity or confidentiality for the sources if necessary, in time and in place o the people involved in the workplace o people indirectly linked to the workplace, including the local community The Research Question should not usually lead to actions causing un-agreed harm or damage or destruction to the sources of the materials – agreement must be reached with the people who are the source or owners wherever possible. The Research Question must achieve, wherever possible, some benefit for the people who are the owners or sources of the materials during and after the research/work. The Research Questions must be such that it will be possible to give a scholarly, honest and open account of the research/work to the relevant audiences, bearing in mind the needs of biosafety and biosecurity. The Research Questions must give rise to research/work that is reportable in an appropriate and acceptable way to relevant audiences.
128 The Research Questions must be such that the researchers, especially the PI, can accept responsibility for the outcomes as far as is reasonably foreseeable at the time of the research being carried out and completed. Planning a data generation strategy Ask yourself these questions about the people who are supplying you with the data, or who are supplying you with the materials from which you will gather data.
source of the data through issues to do with: o Their voluntary participation? o Their reasonably informed consent? o Their privacy – anonymity or confidentiality in time and space? Confidentiality of work and materials?
o o o o o o
s a researcher/worker: Am I acting in such a way as to reduce, minimise or avoid harm for the people involved and for the people involved from the workplace and beyond? Am I at least attempting to offer some benefit for the people who are the source of the data, or who are providing materials from which I will collect data? Am I practising good scholarship skills in my notes, report-writing and other forms of accounting for the data I am generating? Am I reporting my work correctly, in a timely manner and to the right audiences/authorities? Am I prepared to stand by my data generation methods if they are criticised and justify them ethically and methodologically? Am I prepared to take responsibility to justify the outcomes of my data generation methods?
Planning a Data Analysis Strategy Ask yourself these questions about the people who are supplying you with the data, or who are supplying you with the materials from which you will gather data:
source of the data through issues to do with: o Their voluntary participation? o Their reasonably informed consent? o Their privacy – anonymity or confidentiality in time and space?
o
o
o o o o
Am I acting in such a way, in analysing my data, as to reduce, minimise or avoid harm for the people from whom the materials were acquired and for the people involved in the workplace or beyond where the analysis is taking place? If my data analysis produces some negative findings in the eyes of the people who provided me with the data (or in the eyes of other people) or the materials from which I gathered data, am I at least attempting to support them in this situation and attempting to find some benefit for them? Am I practising good scholarship skills in my notes, report-writing and other forms of accounting for the data I am analysing? Am I reporting my work correctly, in a timely manner and to the right audiences/authorities? Am I prepared to stand by my data analysis methods if they are criticised and justify them ethically and methodologically? Am I prepared to take responsibility to justify the outcomes of my data analysis methods?
129 Publication and post-publication stages What reasonable steps do we need to take to ensure that publication of the work does not cause harm to people/animals/plant life now or in the reasonably foreseeable future? The answer to this question depends on the nature and scope of your work, your skills as a scientist or person having oversight of scientific work, the skills of those involved in the work, their personal and professional approaches to the work, and the potential applications to which the work may be put. o o
o o o
Have we considered how the work may affect people in different geographical areas as well as at different times? Do we need to consider redacting some information in reports, papers or presentations? How? Why? Will the redactions need to be the same in all publications, or just some? Will a time come when the redactions could be opened to allow full open access to the work? What other outlets are open to us to disseminate the work to those who need access to it? How will we know who needs access to it? What steps, if any, can we take to keep track of what is being done with our published or unpublished work?
Conclusions This short paper has shown you some methods through which you can apply ethical principles to your research and work, and to that of other researchers and workers. Take the approaches that you find most suitable, or easiest, for you to use. Don’t worry about the other approaches at first. You can come back to them later when you are more familiar with your favoured methods. You do not have to go through all of the methods presented here in order to be satisfied that you have applied suitable and appropriate ethical consideration to the work or scenario in question. This booklet is a supplement to the larger monograph Dual Use Awareness and Applied Research Ethics: A Brief Introduction To A Social Responsibility Perspective For Scientists by Judi Sture. You can download the monograph at no cost from here: http://www.brad.ac.uk/bioethics/monographs/
130
BIOSECURITY TRAINING AND COMPETENCE: PRESERVING LIFE SCIENCE RESEARCH INTEGRITY AND ENSURING COMPLIANCE Tatyana Novossiolova and Simon Whitby
Introduction The rapid advancement of modern biotechnology offers tremendous prospects for human betterment by promoting health and food security and responding to environmental challenges. Yet along with these considerable benefits, the progress of the life sciences over the past few decades has raised significant security concerns, not least because of its potential to facilitate the development of novel highly sophisticated biological weapons. Given the rapid pace of scientific and technological advancement, the integration of the life sciences with other related disciplines and the increasing diffusion of life science research capacity, both internationally and outside traditional research institutions1, states have confronted substantial obstacles to devising effective policies and governance mechanisms to ensure that the life sciences are not misused for hostile purposes. Despite the efforts dedicated to strengthening the international legal framework that prohibits the development, stockpiling and acquisition of biological weapons, the cornerstone of which is the 1975 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), to date the engagement of practising life scientists with initiatives to improve the governance of biotechnology has been limited. Still worse, the level of awareness of the legal, social and ethical implications of modern biotechnology among researchers remains low which hinders them from contributing their expertise to improving the existing regulations and policies2.
The need for enhancing the awareness of the potential security risks posed by the on-going development of biotechnology among life scientists has been acknowledged in several fora. For instance, at the Seventh Review Conference of the BTWC in 2011 State Parties, when discussing the national implementation of the Convention, agreed that
13. The Conference notes the value of national implementation measures, as appropriate, in accordance with the constitutional process of each State Party, to: (a) implement voluntary management standards on biosafety and biosecurity;
1
NRC, Life Sciences and Related Fields: Trends Relevant to the Biological Weapons Convention (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2011), available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13130 (accessed 1 June 2013). 2 See, for example, Malcolm Dando and Brian Rappert ‘Codes of Conduct for the Life Sciences: Some Insights from UK Academia’, Bradford Briefing Paper No 16 (Second Series, 2005); Brian Rappert, Experimental Secrets: International Security, Codes, and the Future of Research, (New York: University of America Press, 2009).
131 (b) encourage the consideration of development of appropriate arrangements to promote awareness among relevant professionals in the private and public sectors and throughout relevant scientific and administrative activities and; (c) promote amongst those working in the biological sciences awareness of the obligations of States Parties under the Convention, as well as relevant national legislation and guidelines; 3[Emphasis added]
Similarly, other internationally-mandated legally-binding regulatory regimes such as the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1540, also called upon States to
a) Develop and maintain appropriate effective measures to account for and secure [items that may facilitate the development of biological weapons and/or their means of delivery] in production, use, storage or transport; b) Develop and maintain appropriate effective physical protection measures; and
d) To develop appropriate ways to work with and inform the industry and the public regarding their obligations under [international and domestic] laws. 4
Finally, the revised International Health Regulations issued by the World Health Organisation in 2005 require States to develop, in compliance with Core Capacity 8, laboratory quality services regarding ‘communication, specimen collection and transport, financial resources, biosafety and biosecurity best practices, trained personnel [emphasis added], suitable infrastructure, appropriate equipment and reagents, and the delivery of reliable results’5.
It is therefore evident that biosecurity education and training constitute essential for the implementation of all three key international legally-binding agreements prohibiting the hostile misuse of the life sciences. The following sections of the paper look into the efforts to promote awareness and responsible conduct of research among those engaged in the life sciences and elucidates the role of 3
United Nations, The Seventh Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction, Geneva, 5-22 December 2011, Final Declaration in Final Document, BWC/CONF.VII/7, 13 January 2012. Available at www.unog.ch (accessed 1 June 2013). 4 Full text of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 is available at http://daccess-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/328/43/PDF/N0432843.pdf?OpenElement (accessed 1 June 2013). 5 Lela Bakanidze, Paata Imnadze and Dana Perkins, ‘Biosafety and Biosecurity as Essential Pillars of International Health Security and Cross-Cutting Elements of Biological Non-Proliferation’, BMC Public Health, vol.10 (Suppl. 1): S12 (2010), available at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/10/S1/S12 (accessed 1 June 2013).
132 competency standards both in preserving the integrity of life science and ensuring compliance with domestic and international regulations.
Building Sustainable Capacity: Train-the-Trainer Programme in Biosecurity Before focusing on biosecurity education, it is important to clarify what the concept of ‘biosecurity’ encompasses. To do so, here we distinguish between three types of threat to public health, namely naturally occurring diseases, accidental release of pathogens and deliberate release of disease. 6 The risk of naturally occurring diseases is mitigated through public health policies and disease surveillance; the risk of accidental release of pathogens is tackled through effective laboratory biosafety measures and policies; the risk of deliberate release of pathogens by either state or non-state actors is addressed through biosecurity measures. Within this context, ‘biosecurity’ is a concept related to the web of preventive policies that focuses on the General Purpose Criterion, as defined by Article 1 of the BTWC. Thus, biosecurity is the objective of the whole range of policies mechanisms, regulations and initiatives that are designed to prevent life sciences from being used for hostile purposes, including export controls, bio-defence, and national implementation of the BTWC.
In order to enhance the level of awareness of the security concerns resulting from the rapid advancement in the life sciences, the University of Bradford has been actively involved in the development and dissemination of accredited biosecurity training for life scientists. Together with colleagues from the Landau Network-Centro Volta in Italy and the National Defence Medical College in Japan, we developed Educational Module Resource (EMR), a set of 21 lectures accompanied by lecture notes, essay questions and references. The EMR is freely available online in ten languages 7.
Having developed an extensive educational resource, our next goal was to facilitate efficient and effective engagement across a range of life-science constituencies worldwide. In order to fulfil this ambitious undertaking, we developed an expert-level online distance-learning Train-the-Trainer Module in Applied Dual-Use Biosecurity. The module is unique insofar as it adopts an active learning approach to the issues of dual use and biosecurity. As such, it combines interactive discussion-based lectures, expertlevel seminar scenarios and group-work presentations. Whilst there is a focus on real-world dual-use life-science dilemmas, the module also has a philosophical element which seeks to facilitate the
6
Malcolm Dando, (2011) ‘Life scientists and the BTWC 7th Review Conference’, Lecture delivered as part of Science and Global Security Series, Princeton University, New Jersey. Available from: http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/video/index.xml?vid=20101203_globsec_dando.mp4 (accessed 14 June 2012). 7 More information about the Educational Module Resource is available at: http://www.brad.ac.uk/bioethics/educationalmoduleresource/englishlanguageversionofemr/ (accessed 1 June 2013).
133 appraisal and review of ethical approaches of relevance to biosecurity, the extent to which they resolve ethical questions, and the extent to which they provide a defence for ethical decisions or recommendations regarding the dilemmas in question. In order to maximise its global dissemination amongst the life science community, the Train-the-Trainer module utilises a range of interactive webbased e-learning platforms including Blackboard (VLE), Collaborate (formerly Elluminate) and Ning. Working in a fully supported online learning community, participants are able to communicate and interact with peers, developing their practice through sustained reflection and involvement in a range of activities and scenarios. Members are encouraged to bring their own ideas and experiences to the course, sharing these with peers to contextualise their knowledge and understanding in ways that will help them, as life science professionals, to meet the ethical challenges thrown up by dual use. Participants benefit from a supportive and interactive online web-based learning community and work both independently to produce a coursework assignment, as well as in online groups to produce a group-work course assignment.
Underpinning the development of the Train-the-Trainer Programme is the recognition of the potentially significant role that the establishment of networks in different countries and regions could play in closing the education gap. E-learning offers an excellent opportunity for reaching out to life scientists globally. Our participants join live training sessions from various parts of the globe, including Kenya, Egypt, Morocco, Russia, The Philippines, Pakistan, Uganda, Iraq, Qatar, Ukraine, to name a few. The dissemination of research on dual-use bioethics and biosecurity has proven instrumental in promoting collaboration on related projects among Bradford alumni and has informed the development of policies on the governance of biotechnology8.
8
See Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Republic of Korea and Switzerland (on behalf of the “JACKSNNZ”2), Kenya, Sweden, Ukraine, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America, The Seventh Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction, Geneva, 5-22 December 2011, Possible Approaches to Education and Awareness-Raising among Life Scientists, BWC/CONF.VII/WP.20, 1 November 2011. Available at http://daccess-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G11/643/57/PDF/G1164357.pdf?OpenElement (accessed 20 May 2013); Canada, Meeting of State Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction, Geneva, 10-14 December 2012, Item 7 of the Provisional Agenda, Standing Agenda Item: Review of Developments in the Field of Science and Technology Related to the Convention, Considerations and Recommendations to Inculcate Awareness of the Dual-Use Challenge into Biosafety and Biosecurity Training and Education for Life Scientists in State Parties, BWC/MSP/2012/WP.4, 3 December 2012. Available at: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G12/638/45/PDF/G1263845.pdf?OpenElement (accessed 20 May 2013).
134 Formalising Biosecurity: Toward Competency Standards While biosecurity education and awareness-raising programmes constitute an essential ingredient to fostering culture of responsibility among life science practitioners, the implementation of such programmes per se does not presuppose ethical conduct of scientific research. On the contrary, a growing body of evidence shows that even after life scientists have passed an extensive training in ethics, instances of non-compliance with ethical principles and formal regulations still pervade their professional practice9. Such discrepancies can potentially have a detrimental impact on biotechnology research, not least because they increase the risk of possible misapplication of life science knowledge. For biosecurity education to achieve the desired outcomes therefore it is necessary to be both formalised and standardised, that is, to be embedded in the training of life scientists at every level of study, including continuing professional development, and to be targeted at established and commonly recognised learning outcomes. To this end, the endorsement of biosecuirty training by professional associations and learned societies is crucial, for it could facilitate the development of a biosecuirty norm in the life sciences, thus serving as a robust self-regulatory mechanism for preserving research integrity and mitigating security concerns. Indeed, the complementary role of professional associations in promoting and sustaining a culture of responsibility among the life science community is significant, insofar as ‘professional societies are expected to support ethical [scientists’] behaviour and to hold them to account when they deviate from it’10.
Competency standards can play a fundamental role in the harmonisation of the type and quality of biosecuirty qualification awarded by different institutions in different countries. They would provide a common platform for identifying gaps in practical knowledge, training limitations and lack of expertise, which in turn would facilitate policy-making and the implementation of action plans and recommendations as to how such deficiencies can be effectively addressed taking into account local context and contingencies. Underscoring the social responsibility of researchers will further help create a normative expectation for ethical behaviour, thus raising the costs of professional misconduct and dubious practices and paving the way for the effective self-regulation of biotechnology research. Thus, the introduction of an officially recognised yardstick by which to assess the level of competence of life science practitioners could tremendously help enhance their mobility and employability, while at the same time, minimising the risks of hostile misuse of pathogens or toxins.
9
See Tatyana Novossiolova and Judi Sture, ‘Towards the Responsible Conduct of Scientific Research: Is Ethics Education Enough?’, Medicine, Conflict and Survival, vol.28:1, pp.73-84; Tatyana Novossiolova, ‘Dual-Use Biosecurity Education beyond the Class Room: Continuing Professional Development for Life Scientists’, Research Report for the Wellcome Trust Project ‘Building Sustainable Capacity in Dual-Use Bioethics’, University of Bradford (2011), available at http://www.brad.ac.uk/bioethics/monographs/ (accessed 1 June 2013). 10 Richard Rosenberg, ‘Beyond the Code of Ethics: The Responsibility of Professional Societies’, ACM Computers and Society, vol.28:2 (1998), p.20.
135 When discussing the promotion of biosecurity competency standards it may be useful to look into the efforts to develop such standards in other related areas. The case of laboratory biosafety is indicative in this regard. Two internationally agreed non-legally binding documents are largely recognised as setting the criteria for evaluating bio-risk management systems and the core capacities and competencies that biosafety officers should demonstrate. Those are the CEN Workshop Agreement on Laboratory Biorisk Management (CWA 15793) and the CEN Workshop Agreement on Biosafety Professional Competence (CWA 16335). CWA 15793 is a performance-based agreement that ‘sets out the requirements for and places responsibility on organisations to demonstrate that appropriate and validated risk reduction procedures have been established and implemented” 11. By contrast, CWA 16335 is much more narrow in scope, insofar as it focuses on ‘the broad range of competences and abilities required by individuals who advise management and personnel on the safe and secure use of biological material and who manage and support the development and implementation of relevant management programmes or systems.’ 12 To assist States with the implementation and enforcement of the standard thus defined, CWA 16335 outlines ‘a model role profile and model tasks of a biosafety professional in an organisation’ and ‘provides model training specifications for reaching competence’ 13.
Building upon the CEN initiatives to promote biosafety competency standards, the International Federation of Biosafety Associations (IFBA) has launched a major project aimed at developing joint competency standards covering cross-disciplinary theoretical and technical expertise in biosafety, biosecuirty and bioethics. The primary objective of the project is to ‘ensure quality biorisk management through the certification of professionals’ 14. To this end, the initiative seeks to ‘create a certification scheme that establishes levels of technical competency in a number of key biorisk management technical disciplines’, including bioethics/biosecurity. Qualifications would be granted once individuals have successfully completed ‘certified training programmes delivered by certified trainers’ and have demonstrated achievement of the required teaching objectives and learning outcomes. Certification in all disciplines would be offered at three progressive levels, namely Apprentice, Practitioner and Master Practitioner. While Apprentice-level certificates would have lifetime validity, those at Practitioner- and 11
CEN Workshop Agreement, CWA 15783:2008 – Laboratory Biorisk Management, p.8. See http://www.cen.eu/CEN/sectors/technicalcommitteesworkshops/workshops/Pages/ws31.aspx (accessed 1 June 2013). 12 CEN Workshop Agreement, CWA 16335:2011 – Professional Biosafety Competence, p.5. See http://www.cen.eu/CEN/sectors/technicalcommitteesworkshops/workshops/Pages/ws53-bsp.aspx (accessed 1 June 2013). 13 Ibid, p.7. 14 See International Federation of Biosafety Associations, IFBA Certification Programme: Ensuring Quality Biorisk Management through Certification of Professionals, November 2012, available at http://www.internationalbiosafety.org/Organizations/fde5681c-ca94-4a20-827a0716f524babc/Resources/IFBA%20Programs%20and%20Projects/IFBA%20Certification%20Program/Certification% 20Program%20-%20Briefing.pdf (accessed 1 June 2013).
136 Master Practitioner-level would be valid for a set period of 5 and 2 years, respectively. The limited duration of the advanced-level certificates implicitly could provide incentives for those engaged in the life sciences to pursue additional qualifications and attend continuing professional development courses, allowing them to receive up-to-date information of the most recent advances and policies in various fields. The initiative of the IFBA is certainly to be welcomed. The implementation of internationally recognised certification programme possess significant potential to synchronise biosafety and biosecurity guidelines and policies across different regions and countries; enable stakeholders and employers alike to ‘distinguish between qualified workers from those with lower quality credentials’15; create incentives for those engaged in the life sciences to constantly improve their skills and technical competencies, thus fostering culture of excellence; and will enhance the expertise in the field of biorisk management globally, thus reducing the risk of both accidental and deliberate release of harmful pathogens.
Conclusion The paper has sought to fulfil a two-fold objective. First, it has stressed the importance of engaging life scientists in the development of governance mechanisms for preventing the hostile misuse of the life sciences. To this end, the role of education and awareness-raising programmes was reviewed using the Train-the-Trainer online-distance learning programme in Applied Dual-Use Biosecurity developed by the University of Bradford as a case-study. As the success of this programme demonstrates, sensitising life scientists to the social, ethical and legal implications of their work could enormously empower them, equipping them with the skills and capacity they require to adopt a proactive role in devising effective strategies and policies for extending the culture of responsibility among their peers and colleagues. Second, the paper has argued that quality biosecurity education requires formalisation and standardisation. One way of attainting this goal is by the articulation and development of biosecuirty competency standards. Such standards could provide incentives for those engaged in the life sciences to take active part in education and awareness-raising initiatives. When endorsed and promoted by professional associations and learned societies, such standards also could serve as powerful selfregulatory mechanism for ensuring the integrity of life science research and discouraging attempts at the hostile exploitation of the knowledge and materials generated therein.
15
Ibid, p.2.
137
THE BRADFORD “NATIONAL SERIES” Masamichi Minehata
Background Work prior to the development of the National Series Bradford Disarmament Research Centre (BDRC), part of the University of Bradford, UK, has developed a project website (http://www.brad.ac.uk/bioethics) with a view to helping assist in awareness-raising among life scientists about dual-use issues – the situation in which peacefully-developed scientific research can be applied for destructive purposes. The BDRC project team includes research experts from Australian National University, Landau Network Centro Volta (LNCV) in Italy, National Defense Medical College (NDMC) in Japan and the Universities of Bath, Exeter, Manchester and Newcastle in the UK. The website is constructed to disseminate information on the following key stages of our strategy to promote dual-use education.
International surveys BDRC has taken several steps in recent years to help promote education for life scientists on biosecurity issues. The first step was to survey the current state of life science degree courses in the global higher education sector in order to identify existing obstacles to the introduction of dual-use education and possible solutions to the dual use dilemma. The surveyed regions to date include Europe , Japan, Israel, and the Asia-Pacific, and the surveys are being expanded into Latin American and Africa in the near future 16 Additionally, a large-scale survey was conducted in the United States by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and National Research Council (NRC) in 2009 17
The Education Module Resource (EMR) The second step was the development of a set of easily-accessible education resources on dual-use issues. The Education Module Resource (EMR) was produced in cooperation with the National Defense Medical College in Japan and the Landau Network Centro Volta in Italy. The EMR offers a brief but comprehensive content covering the history and national implementation of the Biological Weapons Convention, dual-use issues in the contemporary life sciences and the responsible conduct of scientific research. Being mindful that there is “no one-size-fits-all” approach to the education of scientists, the EMR is freely available online and the content can be tailored in order to fit the module resource into various local educational contexts to suit local needs. It is currently available in English, Japanese, 16
A series of monographs on 'Building a Sustainable Capacity in Dual-Use Bioethics' is available from: http://www.brad.ac.uk/bioethics/Monographs/ 17 Ibid.
138 Russian, French and Romanian/Moldovan, and will shortly be available in Spanish, Urdu, Polish, Portuguese, Arabic and other languages. In order to facilitate the development of best practice so that biosecurity education can be assimilated and implemented in different academic contexts in different regions, we have tested the EMR at local universities in Italy, Japan, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands and the UK.
The Train-the-Trainer Programme The third step was to launch an expert-level “Train-the-Trainers” programme (TTT), supporting educators in their own educational development and in the provision of dual-use training for their own students and other practising scientists. This UK Masters-accredited course (30 UK M-level credits) is delivered as a 12-week online programme. Critical components of the programme are the 21 real-life dual-use scenarios included, drawn from a range of life science contexts. As part of the sustainability aspect of the module, students must demonstrate how they will incorporate the use of the entry-level EMR into their own existing teaching and the continuing professional development of their students and colleagues.
International Dissemination/Sharing Best-Practices The fourth step was, in cooperation with international partners, to evidence the implementation of education about the dual-use problem at the university level in life science degree courses internationally. Work by BDRC has noted a nascent but a growing desire to address the dual-use problem in university contexts once the problem has been introduced and discussed 18 19 20 21. 18
National Research Council. (2009) A survey of Attitudes and Actions on Dual Use Research in the Life Sciences: A Collaborative Effort of the National Research Council and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Available from: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12460. 19 Train the trainer website offers detailed description of the course. See http://www.brad.ac.uk/bioethics/TraintheTrainer/30CreditBiosecurityModule/; see also Bollaert, C and Whitby, S. (2011), Applied Dual-Use Biosecurity Education: An Online Train-the-Trainer Module in Developing Capacity in Dual-Use Bioethics and Biosecurity, in Millet, Piers (ed). The 2007-2010 BWC Intersessional Process: Turning International Obligations into Effective National Action. United Nations, Geneva. 20 The BDRC held a meeting in Bradford, UK, in July 2010, on Dual-Use Education for Life Scientists: Mapping the Current Global Landscape and Developments, sponsored jointly by the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. Around 35 biosecurity experts, educators, and researchers from a range of institutions and government bodies from around the world, including AAAS and US National Academies of Science and delegates of the Biological Weapons Convention, presented evidence from research and experience in around 20 countries. The seminar report is available from: http://www.brad.ac.uk/bioethics/media/SSIS/Bioethics/docs/ESRC_JSPS_Report.pdf 21 An international workshop sponsored by the InterAcademy Panel (IAP), the International Union of Microbiological Societies and the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology was hosted by Polish Academy of Sciences in Warsaw in November 2009, focusing on Promoting Dual Use Education in the Life Sciences. Over 60 participants from around 25 countries attended, including representatives from UNESCO, the Implementation Support Unit of the BTWC, experts in biosecurity, bioethics and the responsible conduct of
139 A clear message here is that education for life scientists, policy-makers and other stakeholders about social responsibility on dual-use issues is achievable and need not be expensive, time-consuming or over-burdening. A useful degree of success can be achieved by using accessible educational resources and harnessing the goodwill of interested educators.
Biosecurity Education = “No One Size Fits All” but it is Feasible
A next step: the National Series In 2011, with support from the UK’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, BDRC launched a new project to develop the National Series. This was achieved by building on the essential content of the current EMR but designing the themes, contents and learning outcomes for educational contexts in specific countries. The main objective of this project is to provide user-friendly educational resources which can be utilised for the immediate introduction of short educational programmes for higher education in specific countries. By providing detailed teaching guidelines (MS Word) and teaching material (MS Power Point) for a facilitator (who may not necessarily be an expert in biosecurity issues), the National Series helps to implement active learning in the form of a biosecurity education programme. This eliminates the need for countries to produce their own materials and expert deliverers in the early stages of their engagement with biosecurity education.
Here, it is useful to illustrate how the National Series was developed in order to further improve the utility of BDRC’s existing EMR and TTT Programmes, and how these three projects are mutually complementary in the process of promoting biosecurity education.
Main Objectives
The EMR provides a freely available and openly accessible teaching material resource (21 lectures) on legal, ethical and scientific aspects encompassing the broader concept of biosecurity issues;
The Train-the-Trainer (TTT) programme is a course that develops experts who can go on to develop their own education programme(s) at their own research/academic institutions, focusing on a broader conception of biosecurity issues, partly through informing life scientists about how they can best use the EMR;
research, NGOs, and government representatives. See National Research Council. (2010) Challenges and Opportunities for Education about Dual Use Issues in the Life Sciences, Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Available from: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12958
140
The National Series (NS) offers the immediate introduction of an education programme for a specific country, by providing detailed teaching guidelines and materials based on the EMR but which includes elements related to that country itself, including information highlighting that country’s engagement (or lack of it) with international regimes and biosecurity education practices.
EMR
TTT
NS
A Mutually-Complementary Triangle 1.
EMR-TTT
Active learning: Participation in the TTT builds on the learning opportunities offered in the EMR by providing an active learning environment in which face to face(online) peer-learning and interactions with lecturers can enhance knowledge and understanding;
Promotion of best practices: TTT is one of the best approaches to train professionals about how to use the EMR as part of education programmes in different institutions. In order to successfully complete the TTT, participants are required, as part of their assessment, to develop their own education programme using the EMR. In this way the implementation of the TTT promotes the best practical use of the EMR;
Sustainable networking: Participants in the TTT can continuously communicate with each other through the online alumni network using Ning Software. This provides a platform where alumni can further exchange details on the progress of their own education programmes and give feedback in order to develop the existing EMR.
2.
TTT-NS
Common learning outcomes: the NS and the TTT programme share some learning outcomes
141 which include the understanding of legal, ethical and scientific aspects surrounding the broader concept of biosecurity; these learning outcomes are directly informed themselves by the key themes of the EMR; in turn, the learning outcomes developed by the TTT can help set out learning outcomes for the country-specific education material in the NS;
Model teaching material: the NS has 5 general teaching guidelines and tailored teaching material for specific countries (for 5 lectures), both of which can be utilised by the participants of the TTT when the participants are required to develop their own education programmes in order to complete the TTT;
Knowledge transfer: Participants in the TTT are able to share their own experiences from their own countries with other students and lecturers, which feeds into the development of further learning materials such as the NS.
3.
NS-EMR
Immediate implementation of the EMR: the NS provides user guidelines (detailed illustrations of how to set out the learning outcomes, deliver the content and measure the impact of education programmes) in order to support the tailored teaching material using the basic structure (essential content of Section A –E) of the EMR;
Model EMR use for other short courses: the 5 general teaching guidelines and tailored teaching materials for specific countries within the NS can be utilised to develop different teaching material for different countries or institutions by using the EMR;
Sense of ownership: The specific nature of the National Series offers a high degree of userengagement by providing country-specific details to users; this enhances users’ sense of ownership of the materials enabling them to work through the EMR in a more informed manner; there is also considerable value in the localised nature of the National Series lectures, as participants in specific countries tend to want to find out where they are in relation to other countries in terms of alignment with international prohibition regimes, biosecurity education and general dual use awareness levels. By accessing versions of the National Series that focus on other countries, information about neighbours is also freely available for comparative and collaborative purposes;
Support for policy makers: the freely available nature of the NS and EMR provides further useful educational and reference resources to the policy making community, both in relation to their own national interests and to those of other countries.
142 Themes: From the original EMR to the National Series The original EMR focuses on four key themes to raise awareness among life scientists and other stakeholders on the issues of: 1. Threats of biological warfare and biological terrorism (Lectures 2-6), and the international prohibition regimes that deal with those threats (Lectures 7-10); 2. The dual-use dilemma and the responsibilities of life scientists (Lectures 11-17); 3. National implementation of the BTWC (Lectures 18-20); and 4. Building an effective web of prevention to ensure the benign development of scientific research (Lecture 21). The key themes of the EMR were constructed based on the understanding that biological risks and threats are much broader than those at laboratories, as illustrated by the spectrum below.
Threat Spectrum
Naturally
Re-
Unintended
Lab
Lack of
Policy
Crime &
Sabot
BW
occurring
emerging
Outcomes
Accidents
Aware-
Choices
Counter-
-age
Non-state/
pandemic
Infectious
of Research
Diseases
ness
feit
State
Drugs
actors
Reference: Terrence Taylor 22
The EMR emphasises the strong need to broaden the concept of biosecurity from the laboratory level to that of a multifaceted approach to deal with the wider spectrum of risks and threats. Such efforts have been conceptualised as the Web of Prevention (WoP) including consideration of and action on export controls; international and national responsive measures to biological and toxin weapons; biodefense capability; management of pathogens and toxins; public health; education and awareness-raising of life scientists, and international prohibition regimes, such as the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) of 1972, the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 and the Geneva Protocol of 1925.
With this in mind, the educational purpose of the EMR was designed to incorporate themes such as, inter alia, the potential for dual-use risks in the contemporary life sciences; the responsible conduct of research and ethical approaches among life scientists; the history of biological-warfare programmes and biological terrorism; the role of international prohibition regimes and their national implementation; the intersection of public health and national security; and the building of an effective set of preventative policies to ensure the security of benign developments in the life sciences. 22
Taylor, T. (2006) Safeguarding Advances in the Life Sciences, EMBO Reports. 7. pp. s61-s64
143 The National Series echoes the values of the EMR (especially the need for a wider recognition of biosecurity and the WoP) and distils some essential content from each key section of the EMR into specifically-designed educational resources suitable for use by individual countries.
So the transition from the EMR to the National Series looks like this:
EMR (21 lectures) A. B. C. D. E.
National Series
Introduction Threats and prohibition regimes Web of prevention National measures Responsibility of life scientists
A. B. C. D. E.
Lec 1 Lec 2 Lec 3 Lec 4 Lec 5
Keeping the basic structure (essential content of Section A –E) of the EMR;
Adding country specific backgrounds in relation to biosecurity issues;
Saving time and resources for professionals to newly develop educational material;
Aiming an immediate introduction of educational programme at a targeted educational context;
Facilitating the international sharing of best practices of the EMR;
Providing additional resources for train-the-trainer programmes.
Learning Outcomes of the National Series Decisions of the Biological Weapons Convention Key learning outcomes of National Series are based on clearly stated requirements as stated in the Final Report of the Meeting of States Parties of the BTWC in 2008. The National Series aims to develop scientists’ and stakeholders’ awareness and understanding of:
“the risks associated with the potential misuse of the biological sciences and biotechnology”, “the moral and ethical obligations incumbent on those using the biological sciences”, and to provide “a guidance on the types of activities which could be contrary to the aims of the Convention and relevant national laws and regulations and international law”.
144 The Train-the-Trainer Model Bradford’s Train-The-Trainer programme further developed and detailed these key themes into a range of specific learning outcomes for dual-use biosecurity education in higher education (boxed in orange below).i By adopting the Train-The-Trainer model, the National Series tailors the learning outcomes for country-specific contexts, again based on the requirements of the BWC (2008):
“Developing scientists’ and stakeholders’ awareness and understanding of the wider concept of ‘biosecurity' and its relationship to the concept of ‘ethics'”… and “a range of dual-use ethical dilemmas that arise due to the impact of science and technology on society;”... and “ethical approaches which provide a rationale for ethical decisions or recommendations regarding dual-use technologies;” ...
Regardless of the countries selected for the National Series, these requirements will be adopted into the NS lectures.
“Developing scientists’ and stakeholders’ awareness and understanding of approaches to the responsible conduct of research and other work and be able to provide justification for decisions or recommendations regarding dual-use technologies”... and “facilitate further research into ‘dual-use' biosecurity issues and develop policies and practices that will enhance responsible conduct of research and other work to prevent the misuse of knowledge generated by life and associated sciences.”
These are the elements which need to be adapted by users of the National Series through consideration of their particular socio-cultural as well as legal-political backgrounds.
The County Specific Approach By taking into consideration the needs of the learning outcomes, the National Series provides, where possible (if there is any accessible information), country-specific information on the following elements in order to develop tailored lectures, such as:
Science trends in life sciences and technology in higher education
Brief history and potential concerns for non-proliferation, terrorism and state level BW development or use
National legislation/regulations of the BTWC, CWC and export control provisions
Laboratory biosafety and biosecurity and other public health measures, and
Existing biosecurity education programmes, and codes of conduct
145 The theme and content of the National Series are a mixed product of the EMR, the Train-the-Trainer programme (in the development of NS learning outcomes) and specific background information drawn from the focus countries as illustrated below.
TTT Learning outcomes
Original EMR
Country specific information
National Series
Key questions and assessment After completion of lectures in the National Series, students are expected to be able to answer the questions set out in the pre-assessment, including:
Name three major states that had offensive biological weapons programmes during the 20 th Century;
Name a bacterium, a virus and a toxin which were weaponized in the 20th Century;
Name a non-state (terrorist) use of biological weapons in recent decades;
What is an export control regime?
Does your country have a biological defence programme?
What do the WHO Biosafety Guidelines cover?
What are the national measures for implementation of the BTWC and CWC in your country?
Does your country have a biosafety standard for laboratories?
Does your country have a code of conduct for life scientists on biosecurity?
What is the dual-use dilemma?
What is the precautionary principle and how is it relevant to the dual-use dilemma?
146
What are the options for ethical decision-making in the dual-use context?
These pre-course questions are asked again at the very end of the education programme in order to measure the progress of understanding of the participating students.
Content Format and outline In order to facilitate the introduction of the dual-use biosecurity topic at the level of higher education, the National Series has been developed according to the following structure. Five lectures are developed in PowerPoint format. Each lecture consists of around 30 slides (20 for Lecture 1. Introduction) with explanatory notes and references for the tutor and group exercises for the class. Explanatory notes for each slide are detailed and expanded into the form of a transcript for presentation, so as to help facilitate the direct use of slides by lecturers/facilitators who deliver the programme. The outline of the entire series consists of these themes:
1. Introduction (Lecture 1); 2. The threats of biological warfare, biological terrorism, natural outbreaks of infectious disease, laboratory risks and the unpredictable future of the life sciences (Lecture 2); 3. Biosecurity: the Web of Prevention (WoP) (Lecture 3); 4. National implementation of international agreements (Lecture 4); and 5. The responsibilities of life scientists (Lecture 5).
Facilitation notes: User Guide For each lecture, there is a two-page set of facilitation notes. The aim of the facilitation notes is to give detailed instructions for the lecturers/facilitators who will deliver the lectures. Because of the detail in the facilitation notes and in the notes sections alongside the Powerpoint slides, those delivering the lectures do not need to be experts in biosecurity issues. It is perfectly possible to effectively implement this education programme via non-experts. The facilitation notes include the following elements:
Illustrations of the objective of the lecture and learning outcomes;
In-class group exercises (what questions are to be discussed before reporting back to the class);
Preparatory readings;
A lecture plan (detailing the role of lecturers/facilitators; time allocated for each sections of the lecture etc.)
147 With the combination of the pre and post-course questions and in-class group exercises, the National Series is designed to provide an effective learning experience, with a good grasp of the learning outcomes among the participating students on the key aspects of dual-use biosecurity.
The National Series to date So far the National Series has extended to 16 editions, focusing on the following countries:
Algeria
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Egypt
Georgia
Iraq
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyz Republic Libya
Morocco
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Tajikistan
Tunisia
Ukraine
The materials have been presented in some of these countries and are being distributed or otherwise disseminated via a range of other organisations or individuals. For example, national academies, national biosafety organisations and regional biosafety organisations are involved in assisting with this task. Some have been translated into local languages and this is pending for those remaining. Further editions are planned and the programme can be followed at the BDRC website on the National Series pages at http://www.brad.ac.uk/bioethics/nationalseries/ .
It is the plan of BDRC to maintain the original (occasionally updated) versions of each edition on the BDRC website as an open resource, but each edition is actually handed over to local partners so that incountry colleagues may update, change, adapt or otherwise develop the materials in ways which best suit local needs over time. The National Series is therefore a growing and developing resource that simply draws together a range of relevant material and information to help in-country colleagues begin a local, national or regional capacity in biosecurity without having to start from scratch themselves.
148
LOOKING AHEAD BEYOND 2012 Malcolm Dando
Some (many!) years ago when I was doing my PhD, some joker put up on the laboratory tearoom notice board a cartoon of a snail with a long line of academic papers and an occasional book spread out behind it. We students and staff naturally debated the meaning of this cartoon among ourselves and I eventually sided with those who thought that the rush to publish as much as possible might well end up obscuring what was useful to publish. Along this line of thinking, the question has to be asked of the intending author or editor: “Why are you producing this material?” And further, “What is significant about it for this field?”
The key idea of the Yearbook of Biosecurity Education is that after many years of neglect, biosecurity education is now a topic of considerable attention amongst State Parties to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention23. This is facilitating rapid change in its theory and practical application. It makes sense, therefore, to institute an annual publication that takes stock of these important developments and contributes both to the cumulative evolution of best practice and to the easier and faster spread of such practice. It is also useful in that the Yearbook will be in a position to clarify the nature and scope of biosecurity itself, for example, in exemplifying the comprehensive inclusion of biosafety and biorisk management within it. Without effective biosafety and biorisk management activities, we cannot achieve comprehensive biosecurity or effectively promote biosecurity education itself.
There can be little doubt about the crucial importance of better biosecurity education when virologists criticise their colleagues for deciding amongst themselves to lift their moratorium on Gain of Function experiments24 on avian influenza viruses. Last May, the former President of the Royal Society called such research “appallingly irresponsible”25. Yet, as the papers in this volume demonstrate, there is a lot of useful best practice being developed in the work on biosecurity (and increasingly on chemical security
23
Whitby, S. and Dando, M. (2010) Effective Implementation of the BWC: The Key Role of Awareness Raising and Education Review Conference Paper No. 26, University of Bradford. See: http://www.brad.ac.uk/bioethics/media/ssis/bioethics/educationand7threvcon/The-Key-Role-of-AwarenessRaising-and-Education--(RCP-26).pdf 24 Wain-Hobson, S. (2013) H5N1 viral engineering dangers will not go away. World View column. Nature¸ 495 (7442). See: http://www.nature.com/news/h5n1-viral-engineering-dangers-will-not-go-away-1.12677 25 Connor, S. (2013) “Appalling Irresponsibility”: Senior scientists attack Chinese researchers for creating new strains of influenza virus in veterinary laboratory. Independent 2 May 2013. See: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/appalling-irresponsibility-senior-scientists-attack-chineseresearchers-for-creating-new-strains-of-influenza-virus-in-veterinary-laboratory-8601658.html
149 under the CWC26); there is a great deal that we can learn from other scientific and technological disciplines, where responsible conduct of research and ethical behaviour have been seen as critical over a longer period of time. In this edition, we see a range of extremely useful approaches drawn from engineering, and we look forward in future years to drawing on other disciplines in a similar way. Indeed, the 2013 Bradford meeting will be a combined conference with international colleagues focusing on the increasing convergence of biological and chemical research, resulting, I am certain, in further new and productive directions for biosecurity education.
Perhaps the most important point that needs to be made in this conclusion is that we are just at the start of this process of developing and implementing best practice in biosecurity education. As “bottomup” development of models by civil society begins to more effectively link to “top-down” action by States, we can anticipate the eventual adoption of a much-needed comprehensive approach similar to that which has produced the International Nuclear Security Education Network (INSEN) – in our case, in the form of an International Biosecurity Education Network (IBSEN) 27. In my opinion, the papers in the second meeting in the Bradford series make a significant contribution to that objective.
Yearbook of Biosecurity Education 2012 ISBN 978 1 85143 271 4 26
Conference of the States Parties 2013) Report of the Third Special Session of the Conference of the States Parties to Review the Operation of the Chemical Weapons Convention. RC-3/3*, The Hague, 19 April 2013. See: http://www.opcw.org/documents-reports/conference-states-parties/third-review-conference/ 27 Novossiolova, T. and Pearson, G. (2012) Biosecurity Education for the Life Sciences: Nuclear Security Education Experience as a Model. Briefing Paper No. 5 (Third Series), University of Bradford.
