A Model For Integrating Ethics Into An Engineering Curriculum

Ethics education is currently of major concern in higher education and in engineering in particular. There are many reasons for this, such as the seeming increase of cheating and plagiarism among students. Simultaneously, the level of trust in public and private institutions, in terms of the honesty and integrity of those in leadership, is dwindling. For engineers, whose occupation allows them potential for positive or negative societal impacts, it is critical that their decisions involve sound ethical judgment. Despite this obvious need, the amount of time given to ethics in an engineering curriculum is minimal. With all the knowledge and skills needed in engineering, it seems as if there is neither time nor space to teach ethics. Consequently, the results are predictable. During a recent meeting of engineering students, the students were asked what kinds of ethical questions they encountered at work or in their studies. The majority indicated they had never encountered any ethical issues at all. When questioned further, it was clear that they considered ethics merely a “set of rules” – do’s and don’ts for specific situations. If they encounter no situation precisely described by these rules, then no ethical issue existed. Ethics, however, is not a “set of rules”. Ethics is an inquiry into how to create a good life. Thus, ethics is a necessary part of every human decision. How can we convey the importance of ethics to our students? Our approach is based upon a problem involving communication skills. The ability to communicate effectively is fundamental and has also been deteriorating among undergraduates. In response, Drexel University instituted a Writing Intensive (WI) program, by which all undergraduates are required to take at least three WI classes for graduation. These classes are a standard part of their curricula but contain specific writing components. Specially trained student-tutors work with their fellows to ensure writing skills are being developed. We propose a similar idea with ethics education. The critical part of our program is a three-phase tutor-training program for upper division and graduate students. In Phase I, students are introduced to the major ethical philosophies by instructors playing the leading thinkers of those traditions. For example, an instructor might play Socrates or Confucius or Augustine or Kant, thus providing a more personal introduction to each philosophy. In Phase II, students are given a set of ethical issues and P ge 1.60.2 asked to address those issues as these philosophers might have done. For each issue, a student would use one persona’s perspective, thinking as Aristotle about one issue and as Buddha about another. In Phase III, each student would write a paper for submission to a professional journal or conference. Once trained, tutors would be assigned as ethics consultants to undergraduate engineering design teams. At Drexel, there are freshman and senior design projects. The tutors would work with those teams on matters of ethical concern. Eventually, we hope to expand this program to other disciplines within the curriculum. Introduction Recently, a student organization at my university, Drexel University in Philadelphia, sponsored a movie night. The movie was The Island, a 2005 film about a group of individuals who are maintained on an island as living spare body parts for the original individuals from whom they were derived. The film centers around selected individuals on the island who discover their actual purpose and identities and the conflicts this raises between the world of the island and the world outside. I (DLM) was asked to lead a discussion on the film and, sensing the opportunity for a broad consideration of ethical and moral issues, asked the mixed graduate and undergraduate audience the following question: Who has encountered an ethical issue of any kind either at work or on campus? To my stunned amazement, no hands when up. Not a single student indicated that they had encountered any ethical questions of any kind. When I pressed the matter – Drexel incorporates a co-operative education program in its engineering degree, so I knew students had been out in industry – one student spoke up and stated that he did not seek out any ethical situations at work since he felt that to do so would cost him his position. His attitude was mildly incredulous that the question could even be asked, indicating that it was unreasonable for anyone to expect them (the students) to take a stand contrary to that of their employer. Like Saul on the road to Damascus, this event changed my attitude towards the teaching of ethics and morality as part of engineering education. I had always known that more could be done to bring ethics into engineering education but I had no idea how little students understood about ethical behavior and worse, how little they seem to think about it. This is hardly an isolated incident. Slobogen 1 reported one student interviewed as stating that ‘ honor is a passé thing – no one really believes in it any more’. Thompson 2 reported that many students engaging in plagiarism do not consider such behavior as unethical and Zernike 3 reported in the New York Time article student survey results indicating that 27% falsifying laboratory results happened ‘often or very often’, 41% engaged in plagiarism, 30% cheated on examinations and 60% collaborated on assignments when their instructor specifically indicated that they should work alone. In a recent presentation Harding and colleagues 4 reported that up to 96% of students surveyed indicated they had cheated at some point in their academic careers. Honor does indeed seem to have become passé. If this is a common experience among educators, it is their responsibility to reverse this trend. The foundation of any free society is based upon the ethical behavior of the majority of its members. If the situation arises when that majority no longer operates in a morally appropriate manner, there are only two logical alternatives – anarchy or tyranny. Freedom simply cannot survive without a common set of basic values and an ethical system to which individual P ge 1.60.3 community members can commit. One recognition of this is the ABET student learning outcome ‘an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility’. However, there is a world of difference between stating a student learning outcome and actually achieving it. In this paper, we propose a possible method by which this outcome could be attained Definitions and Propositions Defining ethics and morality as terms is always a difficult proposition since there is no consensus definition. However, it is important to have definitions all the same to ensure that when the terms are used, the context is readily understood. For the purposes of this paper, we will define morality as the determination of right and wrong behavior while ethics is the process by which morals are synthesized into a coherent system. Furthermore, we adopt three primary propositions: 1. Morality is intimately involved with everyday experiences; 2. Morality and Ethics can, and should be taught; 3. Moral reflection is an important daily occurrence – Socrates The first proposition is in responses to students (and faculty, administrators, staff, etc.) who consider their daily activities to be outside the range of activities to which moral judgments should be applied. This is what allows students to excuse plagiarism – it is a common activity to which such esoteric philosophical musings as considerations of morality need not apply. Let us provide two examples to illustrate how such beliefs allow the justification of behavior which under other circumstances would never be tolerated. Some years ago, one of the authors was visiting a local medical school where the daughter of a colleague worked in the graphics department. As the author stood watching, the young woman began to darken selected lines on a DNA gel prior to taking a photograph of the gel to be included in a manuscript for submission to a professional medical journal. The author was surprised and mentioned to the girl that this was ethically questionable, tantamount to scientific fraud. The young woman’s reply was instructive. No, it could not be fraud, she replied, because no one was changing the actual numbers or statistics – she was just making the pictures look better. When the author inquired further about how many research medical faculty made use of this ‘improvement’ technique for their gels, the answer was also quite enlightening. ‘All of them’ came the reply. Upon reflection, we hope that the reader understands that this alteration of the gels was highly suspect ethically. Individuals use vision as their primary data collection devices and visual impressions can outweigh statistical analyses in a scientist’s mind as he or she reads a paper. A marginally statistically significant result becomes far more convincing in the light of clear differences ascertained through visual inspection of results, especially if the scientist reader is unaware that the results were selectively altered to produce just such a result. A more prosaic result can be culled from the driving habits of American commuters. How many of you reading this paper have engaged in the practice of ‘tail-gating’, driving less than a 2 second distance of the vehicle in front of you at high speed? How many of you consider this an act of terrorism? Far fewer, we imagine, than have engaged in the practice itself. P ge 1.60.4 However, consider the act and its repercussions. By tail-gating, you are attempting to inspire fear in the driver in front of you in order to obtain a behavioral change – they should either speed up or get out of your way. If they do not do this immediately, you continue to tail-gate as an act of intentional aggression. You threaten the lives of those in the vehicle in front of you – regardless of their age or gender. In fact, it i