In developing the case studies and guidance articles for the EPC’s Engineering Ethics toolkit, the authors and advisory group took into account recent scholarship on best practices in teaching engineering ethics through case studies – examples of this can be found here. They also reviewed existing case study libraries in order to add to the growing body of material available on engineering ethics; examples of these can be found below:
Previously published cases of the Applied Ethics in Professional Practice Program (formerly known as the AEPP Case of the Month Club)
Many of the cases are based on real world situations and experiences of a consulting engineer. Ideas for other cases came from the program’s Board of Review, consisting of practicing engineers and throughout the US.
Examples include: The Leaning Tower: A Timely Dilemma; To Flush or Not to Flush: That’s the Question; and The Plagiarized Proposal.
Explore a variety of case studies and scenarios including: A Client Opts for a Less Secure System; Air Bags, Safety, and Social Experiments; and Anhydrous Ammonia Hose Failure.
All published opinions of the NSPE Board of Ethical Review. Cases are filterable e.g. by keyword and/or subject, and each case is broken down into several sections: Facts; Questions; NSPE code of ethics references; Discussion; and Conclusions.
Case examples include: Public Health, Safety, and Welfare—Drinking Water Quality; and Misrepresentation—Claiming Credit for Work of Former Employer.
This series of engineering ethics case studies were created after interviews of numerous engineers, with the cases anonymised and written in a way that highlights the ethical content from each interview. These cases are primarily targeted at engineering students and professionals for their continuing professional development.
The case studies can be sorted into categories including; Academic ethics, Bioengineering, Electrical engineering and Science/research ethics and so on.
Case examples include: To Ship or Not to Ship; Disclosure Dilemma; Unintended Effects; and Is the Customer Always Right?
Cases devised by researchers aiming to advance understanding of ethical issues in engineering and technology, in addition to material supporting their use e.g. a glossary of ethical concepts.
These cases are exercises for teaching ethics in engineering studies, especially at Bachelor’s and Master’s levels.
GEC Project – Scenario Index: “The Global Engineering Competency (GEC) project aims to help technical professionals learn to more effectively span cultural boundaries. At the heart of this project is a collection of 70+ global engineering work scenarios designed for instruction and assessment.”
These case studies were created in partnership with the Royal Academy of Engineering.
Authors: Dr Nik Whitehead (University of Wales Trinity Saint David); Dr Sarah Jayne Hitt SFHEA (NMITE); Professor Thomas Lennerfors (Uppsala University); Claire Donovan (Royal Academy of Engineering); Professor Raffaella Ocone OBE FREng FRSE (Heriot Watt University); Isobel Grimley (Engineering Professors’ Council).
Topic: Low earth orbit satellites for internet provision.
Ethical issues: Respect for environment, Public good, Future generations.
Professional situations: Communication, Management, Working cultures.
Educational level: Intermediate.
Educational aim: Practise ethical analysis. Ethical analysis is a process by which ethical issues are defined, affected parties and consequences are identified, so that relevant moral principles can be applied to a situation in order to determine possible courses of action.
Learning and teaching notes:
This case is about an experienced engineer leading a team at a tech start-up. The company has been awarded a contract to produce an innovative satellite that will be used in an internet constellation. While the team was initially excited about their work, some members are now concerned about the impact of the internet constellation. While mainly focused on environmental ethics, effects on human communities are also raised in this case study.
This case study addresses two of AHEP 4’s themes: The Engineer and Society (acknowledging that engineering activity can have a significant societal impact) and Engineering Practice (the practical application of engineering concepts, tools and professional skills). To map this case study to AHEP outcomes specific to a programme under these themes, access AHEP 4here and navigate to pages 30-31 and 35-37.
The dilemma in this case is presented in two parts. If desired, a teacher can use Part one in isolation, this section enables students to practise different types of analysis and to introduce aspects of environmental ethics. It highlights the challenges of making ethical decisions with global consequences, in scenarios where policy isn’t clear. Part two develops and complicates the concepts presented in Part one to provide for additional learning by focusing on the course of actions taken by an individual engineer based on the dilemma presented in Part one. The Challenge of Environmental Ethics linked below is recommended, though not required, for students engaging with this case. Additionally, throughout the case, there is the option to stop at multiple points for questions and / or activities as desired.
Learners have the opportunity to:
identify and define positions on an ethical issue;
learn fundamental concepts of environmental ethics;
practise applying moral theories such as consequentialism and justice;
consider short- and long-term consequences of engineering and technological development.
Teachers have the opportunity to:
integrate technical content on electrical or mechanical components of communications engineering;
address approaches to professional and / or interpersonal conflict;
introduce or reinforce life cycle analysis;
Informally evaluate critical thinking and analysis.
After years of working your way up the corporate ladder, you are now Head of Engineering for a tech start-up. The company has won a contract connected to a project creating a constellation of thousands of low Earth orbit satellites. This constellation has the potential to create a reliable system of internet access for areas of the world that are hard to reach by conventional infrastructure. Your company is one of those chosen to develop and build a low-cost, lightweight, efficient satellite that can be produced at scale. This is a huge accomplishment for you, as well as for your company.
Dilemma – Part one:
A conference that brings together various project partners is met by protesters whose message is that the internet constellation has several potential negative impacts for nature and human communities. Disparaging comments have been made about your company’s participation in the project on social media. Some members of your team seem quite rattled by the protests, and you convene at a coffee shop to discuss.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Discussion: Technical analysis – Undertake a technical activity in the areas of electronic and / or mechanical engineering related to internet constellations.
2. Activity: Position analysis – Divide students into three groups—constellation project managers; satellite engineers and protestors. Imagine how their positions are related to the internet constellation. What values might inform their positions? What knowledge might inform their position that the other groups do not have access to or understanding of?
3. Discussion: Environmental analysis – While nature cannot speak for itself, if it could, what might be its position on the internet constellation? What aspects of the natural world might be affected by this technology in both the short- and long-term? For example, are there any direct or indirect effects on the health of humans and the ecosystems around them? Should the natural world of space be treated the same way as the natural world on earth?
4. Discussion: Policy analysis – Who should make decisions about projects that affect nature on a global scale? What laws or regulations exist that govern internet constellations?
5. Discussion and Activity: Moral analysis – Use environmental ethics principles such as intrinsic value and anthropocentrism to debate the project. Beyond environmental concerns, how might other ethical approaches, such as consequentialism or justice, inform positions on the issue?
Dilemma – Part two:
You remind and explain to your team members that they, and the company, have a duty to the client. Everyone has been hired to deliver a specific project and been excited about overcoming the technical challenges to ensure the project’s success. The team agrees, but also expresses concern about aspects that aren’t in the project remit, such as how the satellite will be maintained and what will happen to it at the end of its life. They demand that you pause your work until an ethical review is conducted.
You report all of this to the CEO, who reacts with disappointment and unhappiness at your team’s actions. She argues that the only thing your company is doing is building the satellite: it’s not your responsibility what happens to it afterwards. She feels that it’s your job to get your team back in line and on task. How do you approach this situation?
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Discussion and Activity: How do you respond to this situation? What responsibilities do you have to your team, your boss, and the client? How will you balance these? Are the team’s engineers right to be concerned about the impact of their satellite within the wider constellation, or is it beyond their scope? Role-play an interaction between you and the engineering team, or between you and your boss.
2. Activity: Life cycle analysis – Research life cycles of satellites and their environmental impact.
3. Discussion and Activity: Debate if, and how, we have obligations to future generations. Is it possible to have a moral contract with a person that may never be born? How do we know that people in the future, will value the same things we do now? Both creating the internet constellation and preventing its implementation seem to potentially benefit future generations. How do we balance these ‘goods’ and make a decision on how to proceed? Who gets to decide?
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Authors: Professor Dawn Bonfield MBE (Aston University);Professor Sarah Hitt SFHEA (NMITE); Dr Darian Meacham (Maastricht University); Dr Nik Whitehead (University of Wales Trinity Saint David); Dr Matthew Studley (University of the West of England, Bristol); Professor Mike Bramhall (TEDI-London); Isobel Grimley (Engineering Professors’ Council).
Topic: Data centres’ impact on sustainable water resources.
Professional situations: Law or policy, Communication, Integrity.
Educational level: Intermediate.
Educational aim: Practise ethical judgement. Ethical Judgment is the activity of thinking about whether something has a moral attribute. Judgments involve reaching moral decisions and providing the rationale for those decisions.
Learning and teaching notes:
This case involves a situation where environmental damage may be occurring despite the mechanism causing this damage being permissible by law. The engineer at this centre of the case is to represent the company that is responsible for the potential damage, at a council meeting. It requires the engineer to weigh up various harms and goods, and make a decision that could seriously impact their own job or career. There is also a section at the end of this case study that contains technical information providing further details about the water cooling of ICT equipment.
This case study addresses two of AHEP 4’s themes: The Engineer and Society (acknowledging that engineering activity can have a significant societal impact) and Engineering Practice (the practical application of engineering concepts, tools and professional skills). To map this case study to AHEP outcomes specific to a programme under these themes, access AHEP 4here and navigate to pages 30-31 and 35-37.
The dilemma in this case is presented in two parts. If desired, a teacher can use Part one in isolation, but Part two develops and complicates the concepts presented in Part one to provide for additional learning. The case allows teachers the option to stop at multiple points for questions and/or activities as desired.
Students have the opportunity to:
apply their ethical judgement to a case study relating to environmental sustainability;
judge the societal impact of a technical solution to a complex problem;
identify and analyse objective and subjective risk;
consider the concept of consensus;
communicate the risks and judgements to technical and non-technical audiences.
Teachers have the opportunity to:
introduce environmental ethics concepts related to water;
highlight the components and processes of risk analysis;
integrate technical content related to heat transfer and flow;
informally evaluate students’ critical thinking and communication skills.
The company Data Storage Solutions (DSS) has built a large data centre on land that was historically used for agriculture and owned by a farming operation. DSS was incorporated as a subsidiary of the farming company so that it could retain the water rights that were attached to the property. This ensured access to the large amount of water needed to cool their servers. This centre manages data from a variety of sources including the local hospital and university.
When the property was used as a farm, the farming operation never used its full allocation of water. Now, the data centre always uses the maximum amount legally allotted to it. For the rainy half of the year, this isn’t a problem. However, in more arid months, the nearby river almost runs dry, resulting in large volumes of fish dying. Other farmers in the area have complained that the water level in their wells has dropped, making irrigation much more expensive and challenging.
Dilemma – Part one:
You are a civil engineer working for DSS and have been requested by your boss to represent the company at a forthcoming local council meeting where the issue will be discussed. Your employer is sending you to justify the company’s actions and defend them against accusations of causing an environmental hazard in the local area which is reducing the water table for farmers and affecting local biodiversity. Your boss has told you that DSS has a right to the water and that it does not intend to change its behaviour. This meeting promises to be a contentious one as the local Green party and farmers’ union have indicated that they will be challenging the company’s water usage. How will you prepare for the meeting?
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Discussion: Personal values – What is your initial position on the issue? Do you see anything wrong with DSS’s water use? Why, or why not?
2. Discussion: Professional responsibilities – What ethical principles and codes of conduct are relevant to this situation?
3. Activity: Define and identify the relevant data you should compile to take to the meeting. What information do you need in order to be prepared?
4. Activity: Stakeholder mapping – Who are all the characters in the scenario? What are their positions and perspectives? How can you use these perspectives to understand the complexities of the situation more fully? Examples include:
Data Storage Solutions
Farmers’ union
Local Green party
Local council
Member of the public
Stakeholders who use DSS’s data storage services (such as the local hospital and schools)
Non-human stakeholders – for example, the fish, birds and insects.
5. Activity: Undertake a technical activity such as civil and / or electronic engineering related to the measurement of stream flow and calculating data centre cooling needs.
Dilemma – Part two:
As you prepare for the meeting, you reflect on several competing issues. For instance, you are an employee of DSS and have a responsibility to represent its interests, but can see that the company’s actions are environmentally harmful. You appreciate that the data centre is vital for the local community, including the safe running of schools and hospitals, and that its operation requires sufficient water for cooling. Your boss has told you that you must not admit responsibility for any environmental damage or biodiversity loss. You also happen to know that a new green battery plant is planning to open nearby that will create more data demand and has the potential to further increase DSS’s water use. You know that obtaining water from other sources will be costly to DSS and may not be practically possible, let alone commercially viable. What course of action will you pursue?
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Activity: Debate what course of action you should take. Should you take the company line despite knowing about the environmental impacts? Should you risk your reputation or career? What responsibilities do you have to fellow employees, the community, and the environment?
2. Activity: Risk analysis – What are the short- and long- term burdens and benefits of each course of action? Should environmental concerns outweigh others? Is there a difference between the environment locally and globally?
3. Activity and discussion: Read Sandra Postel’s case for a Water Ethic, and consider New Zealand’s recent legislation that gives a rainforest the same rights as a human. With this in mind, does the stream have a right to thrive? Do the fish have a right to a sustainable environment? Are humans ultimately at risk here, or just the environment? Does that answer change your decision? Why?
4. Activity: Prepare a statement for the council meeting. What will you argue?
You could take the company line and refuse to consider any compromise. After all, you have the legal right to the water.
You could take the environmentalists’ side and go against your boss, admitting that the company is aware of the environmental damage, but that they refuse to do anything about it.
You could work up a proposal for obtaining the water from a different source, or alternative technical solutions, despite not having the backing of your boss.
Are there other alternatives available to you?
5. Activity: The students should interrogate the pros and cons of each possible course of action including the ethical, the practical, the cost, the local relationship and the reputational damage implications. They should decide on their own preferred course of action and explain why the balance of pros and cons is preferable to other options.The students may wish to consider this from other perspectives, such as:
What actions are available to individuals at each level of hierarchy in DSS – for example, a junior engineer compared to a senior manager?
What would the best outcome be if the business or cost considerations were of no consequence?
What course of action would be taken if different perspectives were taken as the priority – for example, if the environmental perspective were the main priority what action would be taken, compared with action taken if the cost to the local economy were the main priority?
What are the wider implications of data storage on the environment and how can these be mitigated?
What could be other direct and indirect benefits of data centres, other than being a place to house data – for example, is there an opportunity for the waste heat from DSS to become a benefit? (Use theThe city where the internet warms people’s homes article.)
What are the possible solutions open to you?
Are there any short-term solutions versus longer-term solutions?
7. Activity: Allow students to reflect on how this case study has enabled them to see the situation from different angles, and whether this has helped them to understand the ethical concerns and come to an acceptable conclusion.
Annex – Accompanying technical information:
ICT equipment generates heat and so most devices must have a mechanism to manage their temperature. Drawing cool air over hot metal transfers heat energy to that air, which is then pushed out into the environment. This works because the computer temperature is usually higher than the surrounding air. There are several different mechanisms for data centre cooling, but the general approach involves chillers reducing air temperature by cooling water – typically to 7–10 °C, which is then used as a heat transfer mechanism. Some data centres use cooling towers where external air travels across a wet media so that the water evaporates. Fans expel the hot, wet air and the cooled water is recirculated. Other data centres use adiabatic economisers – where water is sprayed directly into the air flow, or onto a heat exchange surface, thereby cooling the air entering the data centre. With both techniques the evaporation results in water loss. A small 1 MW data centre using one of these types of traditional cooling can use around 25.5 million litres of water per year. Data centre water efficiency deserves greater attention. Annual reports show water consumption for cooling directly paid for by the operator, so there is an economic incentive to increase efficiency. As the total energy share of cooling has fallen with improving PUEs (Power Usage Effectiveness metric), the focus has been on electricity consumption, and so water has been a low priority for the industry. However, the largest contributor to the water footprint of a data centre is electricity generation. Where data centres own and operate the entire facility, there is more flexibility for exploring alternative sources of water, and different techniques for keeping ICT equipment cool.
Enhancements:
An enhancement for this case study can be found here.
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Authors: Professor Sarah Hitt SFHEA (NMITE); Dr Nik Whitehead (University of Wales Trinity Saint David); Dr Matthew Studley (University of the West of England, Bristol); Dr Darian Meacham (Maastricht University); Professor Mike Bramhall (TEDI-London); Isobel Grimley (Engineering Professors’ Council).
Topic: Trade-offs in the energy transition.
Engineering disciplines: Chemical engineering, Electrical engineering, Energy.
Ethical issues: Sustainability, Honesty, Respect for the environment, Public good.
Professional situations: Communication, Bribery, Working cultures.
Educational level: Intermediate.
Educational aim: Practise ethical reasoning. Ethical reasoning applies critical analysis to specific events in order to consider, and respond to, a problem in a fair and responsible way.
Learning and teaching notes:
This case requires an engineer with strong convictions about sustainable energy to make a decision about whether or not to take a lucrative contract from the oil industry. Situated in Algeria, the engineer must weigh perspectives on environmental ethics that may differ from those informed by a different cultural background, as well as navigate unfamiliar workplace expectations. The engineer’s own financial wellbeing is also at stake, which may complicate decision-making. As a result, this case has several layers of relations and potential value-conflicts. These include values that underlie assumptions held about the environment and its connection to human life and services.
This case study addresses two of AHEP 4’s themes: The Engineer and Society (acknowledging that engineering activity can have a significant societal impact) and Engineering Practice (the practical application of engineering concepts, tools and professional skills). To map this case study to AHEP outcomes specific to a programme under these themes, access AHEP 4 here and navigate to pages 30-31 and 35-37.
The case is presented in two parts. If desired, a teacher can use Part one in isolation, but Part two develops and complicates the concepts presented in Part one to provide for additional learning. The case allows teachers the option to stop at multiple points for questions and/or activities as desired. To prepare for activities related to environmental ethics, teachers may want to read, or assign students to pre-read the following academic articles: ‘Environmental ethics: An overview’ or ‘Mean or Green: Which values can promote stable pro-environmental behavior?’
Learners have the opportunity to:
analyse value assumptions related to environmental ethics;
consider whether decisions made by an engineer are ethically acceptable or unacceptable;
undertake cost-benefit and value trade-off analysis in the context of an ethical dilemma;
practise argument and reasoning related to an ethical dilemma;
use heuristics to help ethical decision-making.
Teachers have the opportunity to:
introduce concepts related to values in environmental ethics;
informally evaluate students’ argument and reasoning skills;
integrate technical content in the areas of chemical and / or electrical engineering related to energy trade-offs;
highlight heuristics as tools for ethical decision-making;
address cultural and professional norms in different countries.
You are an electrical engineer who had a three-year contract with a charity in Algeria to install solar systems on remote houses and farms that were not yet connected to the grid. The charity’s project came to an end and you have set up your own company to continue the work. It has been difficult raising money from investors to fund the project and the fledgling business is in debt. It is doubtful that your company will survive for much longer without a high-profit project.
During your time in Algeria, you have made many local and regional contacts in the energy industry. Through one of these contacts, you learn of an energy company operating a large oil field in the region that is looking to convert to solar energy to power its injection pumping, monitoring, and control systems. In doing so, the oil field will eliminate its dependency on coal-fired electricity, increasing production while boosting the company’s environmental credentials. It also hopes to make use of a governmental tax credit for businesses that make such solar conversions.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Discussion: What is your initial reaction to using solar energy for oil and gas production? What might your initial reaction reveal to you about your own perspectives and values?
2. Discussion and activity: List the potential benefits and risks to implementing this technology. Are these benefits and risks the same no matter which country they are implemented in?
3. Activity: Research the trend for using solar energy in oil and gas production. Which companies are promoting it and which countries are using this technology?
4. Discussion and activity related to optional pre-readings: Consider how your perspective is related to the following environmental values, and pair/share or debate with a peer.
Anthropocentrism versus Biocentrism – are humans above or a part of the environment?
Intrinsic versus Instrumental – is nature inherently valuable or only valuable because of the use humans can make of it?
Holism versus Individualism – are certain elements of the environment more valuable than others, or does every part of the ecosystem have equal value?
Egoism versus Altruism – do we care about the environment as a result of what we gain from it, or regardless of human benefits?
Obligations to future generations: Do we have a responsibility to provide a safe and healthy environment for humans that don’t yet exist, or for an ecosystem that will eventually change?
Dilemma – Part one:
The following week you receive a phone call in your home office. It is a representative of the energy company named Sami. He asks you to bid for the solar installation contract for the oilfield. At first you are reluctant, it doesn’t seem right to use solar power to extract fuel that will contribute to the ongoing climate emergency. You explain your hesitation, saying “I got into the solar business because I believe we have a responsibility to future generations to develop sustainable energy.” Sami laughs and says “While you’re busy helping people who don’t exist yet, I’m trying to provide energy to the people who need it now. Surely we have a responsibility to them too?”
Sami then quotes a figure that the company is willing to pay you for the project work. You are taken aback at how large it is – the profit made on this contract would be enough to pay off your debts and give your business financial security moving forward. Still, you hesitate, telling Sami you need some time to think it over. He agrees and persuades you to attend dinner with him and his family later that week.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Discussion: Have you done anything wrong by accepting Sami’s dinner invitation?
2. Discussion: Environmental ethics deals with assumptions that are often unstated, such as the obligation to future generations. Like Sami, some people find that our obligation is greater to people who exist at this moment, not to those that don’t yet exist. Do you agree or disagree with this position? Why? Can we maintain an obligation to future generations while simultaneously saying that this must be weighed against the obligations in the here and now?
3. Activity: Both cost-benefit and value trade-off analyses are valuable approaches to consider in this case. Determine the possible courses of action and undertake both types of analysis for each position by considering both short- and long-term consequences. [use the Mapping actors and processes article to help with this activity].
4. Activity: Using reasoning and evidence, create arguments for choosing one of the possible courses of action.
5. Activity: Undertake technical calculations in the areas of chemical and / or electrical engineering related to carbon offset and solar installations.
Dilemma – Part two:
When you arrive at Sami’s house for dinner you are surprised to find you aren’t the only guest. Leila, a finance manager at the oil company is also present. During the meal, she suggests they are considering investing in your business. “After all,” she points out, “many of our employees and their families could really use solar at their homes. We have even decided to subsidise the installation as a benefit to them.”
You are impressed by the oil company’s commitment to their workers and this would also guarantee you an income stream for 3-5 years. Of course, to guarantee the investment in your company, you will have to agree to undertake the oil field installation. You comment to Leila and Sami that it feels strange to be having these formal discussions over a family meal. “This is how we do business here,” says Sami. “You become part of our family too.”
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Discussion: Do you accept the contract to complete the installation? Do you accept the investment in your company? Why, or why not?
2. Discussion: Is this bribery? Why, or why not?
3. Activity: Role-play the conversation between Sami, Leila, and the engineer.
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Authors: Professor Sarah Hitt SFHEA (NMITE); Professor Raffaella Ocone OBE FREng FRSE (Heriot Watt University); Johnny Rich (Engineering Professors’ Council); Dr Matthew Studley (University of the West of England, Bristol); Dr Nik Whitehead (University of Wales Trinity Saint David); Dr Darian Meacham (Maastricht University); Professor Mike Bramhall (TEDI-London); Isobel Grimley (Engineering Professors’ Council).
Professional situations: Communication, Honesty, Transparency, Informed consent.
Educational level: Intermediate.
Educational aim: Practise ethical analysis. Ethical analysis is a process whereby ethical issues are defined and affected parties and consequences are identified so that relevant moral principles can be applied to a situation in order to determine possible courses of action.
Learning and teaching notes:
This case involves a software engineer who has discovered a potential data breach in a smart home community. The engineer must decide whether or not to report the breach, and then whether to alert and advise the residents. In doing so, considerations of the relevant legal, ethical, and professional responsibilities need to be weighed. The case also addresses communication in cases of uncertainty as well as macro-ethical concerns related to ubiquitous and interconnected digital technology.
This case study addresses two of AHEP 4’s themes: The Engineer and Society (acknowledging that engineering activity can have a significant societal impact) and Engineering Practice (the practical application of engineering concepts, tools and professional skills). To map this case study to AHEP outcomes specific to a programme under these themes, access AHEP 4here and navigate to pages 30-31 and 35-37.
The dilemma in this case is presented in two parts. If desired, a teacher can use Part one in isolation, but Part two develops and complicates the concepts presented in Part one to provide for additional learning. The case allows teachers the option to stop at multiple points for questions and/or activities as desired
Learners will have the opportunity to:
analyse the ethical dimensions of an engineering situation;
identify professional responsibilities of engineers in an ethical dilemma;
determine and defend a course of action in response to an ethical dilemma;
practise professional communication;
debate possible solutions to an ethical dilemma.
Teachers will have the opportunity to:
highlight professional codes of ethics and their relevance to engineering situations;
address approaches to resolve interpersonal and/or professional conflict;
integrate technical content on software and/or cybersecurity;
informally evaluate students’ critical thinking and communication skills.
Smart homes have been called “the road to independent living”. They have the potential to increase the autonomy and safety of older people and people with disabilities. In a smart home, the internet of things (IoT) is coupled with advanced sensors, chatbots and digital assistants. This combination enables residents to be connected with both family members and health and local services, so that if there there are problems, there can be a quick response.
Ferndale is a community of smart homes. It has been developed at considerable cost and investment as a pilot project to demonstrate the potential for better and more affordable care of older people and people with disabilities. The residents have a range of capabilities and all are over the age of 70. Most live alone in their home. Some residents are supported to live independently through: reminders to take their medication; prompts to complete health and fitness exercises; help completing online shopping orders and by detecting falls and trips throughout the house. The continuous assessment of habits, diet and routines allows the technology to build models that may help to predict any future negative health outcomes. These include detecting the onset of dementia or issues related to dietary deficiencies. The functionality of many smart home features depends on a reliable and secure internet connection.
Dilemma – Part one:
You are the software engineer responsible for the integrity of Ferndale’s system. During a routine inspection you discover several indicators suggesting a data breach may have occurred via some of the smart appliances, many of which have cameras and are voice-activated. Through the IoT, these appliances are also connected to Amazon Ring home security products – these ultimately link to Amazon, including supplying financial information and details about purchases.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Activity: Technical analysis – Before the ethical questions can be considered, the students might consider a number of immediate technical questions that will help inform the discussion on ethical issues. A sample data set or similar technical problem could be used for this analysis.For example:
Is it possible to ascertain whether a breach has actually happened and data has been accessed?
What data may have been compromised?
Is a breach of this kind preventable, and could it be better prevented in the future?
Has the security been subject to a hack or is the data not secure?
Has the problem now been rectified, and all data secured?
2. Activity: Identify legal and ethical issues. The students should reflect on what might be the immediate ethical concerns of this situation. This could be done in small groups or a larger classroom discussion.
Possible prompts:
Is there a risk that the breach comprised the residents’ personal details, financial information or even allowed remote and secret control of cameras? What else could have been compromised and what are the risks of these compromises? Are certain types of data more risky when breached than others? Why?
What are the legal implications if there has been a breach? Do you, as a software engineer, have any duty to the residents at this point?
At the stage where the breach and its potential implications are unknown, should you tell the community and, if so, what should you say? Some residents aren’t always able to understand the technology or how it works, so they may be unlikely to recognise the implications of situations like this. Should you worry that it might cause them distress or create distrust in the integrity of the whole system if the possible data breach is revealed?
At the stage where the breach and its potential implications are unknown, is there anyone else you should inform? What should you tell them? Are there any risks you may be able to mitigate immediately? How?
Who owns the data collected on a person living in a smart home? What should happen to it after that person dies?
3. Activity: Determine the wider ethical context. Students should consider what wider moral issues are raised by this situation. This could be done in small groups or a larger classroom discussion.
Possible prompts:
When engineered products or systems go wrong, what is our responsibility to tell the people affected?
What is our right to privacy? Can, or should, it be traded away or sacrificed for another good? Who gets to decide?
Are smart homes a good thing if their technology is always going to present privacy risks? Should the technology be limited in some way?
The homes in this case are inhabited by senior citizens with disabilities. Do we owe a different level of care to these people than others? Why? Should engineers working on software for these homes employ a duty of care in a different way than they would in software for homes for young able-bodied professionals? Why? Should a duty of care be delivered by people who have the capacity to care in the emotional sense?
Should individuals have the ability to determine their own level of risk and choose what functionality to accept based on this risk? Should technology enable these kinds of choices?
Should engineers be held responsible for unsafe systems? If not, who is responsible?
Dilemma – Part two:
You send an email to Ferndale’s manager about the potential breach, emphasising that the implications are possibly quite serious. She replies immediately, asking that you do not reveal anything to anyone until you are absolutely certain about what has happened. You email back that it may take some time to determine if the software security has been compromised and if so, what the extent of the breach has been. She replies explaining that she doesn’t want to cause a panic if there is nothing to actually worry about and says “What you don’t know won’t hurt you.” How do you respond?
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Discussion: Professional values – What guidance is given by codes of ethics such as the Royal Academy of Engineering/Engineering Council’s Statement of Ethical Principles or the Association for Computing Machinery Code of Ethics?
2. Activity: Map possible courses of action. The students should think about the possible actions they might take. They can be prompted to articulate different approaches that could be adopted, such as the following, but also develop their own alternative responses.
Do nothing. Tell no one. Try to improve the security to avoid future breaches.
Shut down the smart home technology until any, and all, risks can be mitigated.
Explain the situation fully to the residents, detailing subsequent risks for the future and steps they should take to mitigate the risks themselves.
Offer a partial explanation of the situation, the solutions proposed (or carried out) and reassure them that everything is in order.
3. Activity: Hold a debate on which is the best approach and why. The students should interrogate the pros and cons of each possible course of action including the ethical, technical, and financial implications. They should decide on their own preferred course of action and explain why the balance of pros and cons is preferable to other options.
4. Activity: Role-play a conversation between the engineer and the manager, or a conversation between the engineer and a resident.
5. Discussion: consider the following questions:
What is the role of robotics and artificial intelligence in caring for people in the future?
Is there a limit to what data should be shared and is it justified to use other people’s data for profit?
Could people like Ferndale’s residents be exploited through access to their data? How?
What more could be achieved through the use of data and connectivity to care for older or ill people, in their homes or hospitals, and what additional safeguards should be put in place?
6. Activity: Change perspectives. Imagine that you are the child of one of Ferndale’s residents and that you get word of the potential data security breach. What would you hope the managers and engineers would do?
7. Activity: Write a proposal on how the system might be improved to stop this happening in the future or to mitigate unavoidable risks. To inform the proposal, the students should also explore the guidance of what might be best practice in this area. For example, in this instance, they may decide on a series of steps.
Use human care providers to inform and explain to residents (or their families) about digital security.
Deploy a more rigorous security protocol as well as a programme of regular testing and updates to minimise the risk of the situation occurring again.
Shut down systems where the risks outweigh the potential benefits.
Instigate a reporting procedure and a chain of command for decision-making in the future.
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Authors: Professor Thomas Lennerfors (Uppsala University); Nina Fowler (Uppsala University); Johnny Rich (Engineering Professors’ Council); Professor Dawn Bonfield MBE (Aston University); Professor Chike Oduoza (University of Wolverhampton); Steven Kerry (Rolls-Royce); Isobel Grimley (Engineering Professors’ Council).
Topic: Alternative food production.
Engineering disciplines: Energy; Chemical engineering.
Ethical issues: Sustainability; Social responsibility.
Professional situations: Public health and safety; Personal/professional reputation; Falsifying or misconstruing data / finances; Communication.
Educational level: Advanced.
Educational aim: Practise ethical reasoning. Ethical reasoning applies critical analysis to specific events in order to evaluate, and respond, to problems in a fair and responsible way.
Learning and teaching notes:
This case involves an engineer navigating multiple demands on a work project. The engineer must evaluate trade-offs between social needs, technical specifications, financial limitations, environmental needs, legal requirements, and safety. Some of these factors have obvious ethical dimensions, and others are more ambiguous. The engineer must also navigate a professional scenario in which different stakeholders try to influence the resolution of the dilemma.
This case study addresses two of AHEP 4’s themes: The Engineer and Society (acknowledging that engineering activity can have a significant societal impact) and Engineering Practice (the practical application of engineering concepts, tools and professional skills). To map this case study to AHEP outcomes specific to a programme under these themes, access AHEP 4here and navigate to pages 30-31 and 35-37.
The dilemma in this case is presented in two parts. If desired, a teacher can use Part one in isolation, but Part two develops and complicates the concepts presented in Part one to provide for additional learning. The case allows teachers the option to stop at multiple points for questions and / or activities as desired.
Learners have the opportunity to:
determine if an engineering situation / technological development has ethical dimensions and identify what these are;
identify where tensions might arise between professionals;
practise stakeholder mapping;
debate possible solutions to an ethical dilemma.
Teachers have the opportunity to:
highlight professional codes of ethics and their relevance to engineering situations / technological development;
address approaches in order to resolve interpersonal and/or professional conflict;
integrate human and animal consumption industry codes and/or specifications;
integrate technical aspects of biochemical engineering;
informally evaluate students’ critical thinking and communication skills.
Power-to-X (P2X) describes a number of pathways for the transformation of electricity to alternative forms. This can be utilised for storing energy for later use, in order to balance periods of excesses and deficits resulting from the use of renewable energy technologies. It can also be used in applications that do not use electricity, such as through the transformation of electricity to hydrogen or other gases for industrial use.
One area that has seen significant development in recent years is power-to-food (PtF). This pathway results in CO2 being transformed, through chemical or biological processes powered by renewable energy, into food. One such process uses electrolysis and the Calvin cycle to create hydrocarbons from CO2, water and bacteria. The end result is a microbial protein, a substance that could be used in animal feed. Ultimately, the technology could produce a meat alternative suitable for human consumption, further reducing the carbon emissions produced by intensive animal farming.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Activity: Identify the potential harms and risks of this technology, both objective and subjective. For example, could the shift of food production from soil to chemical industries concentrate power in the hands of a few? What public perceptions or cultural values might impact the acceptance or uptake of the technology?
2. Discussion: Wider context – What social, technological, economic, environmental, political, or legal factors might need to be considered in order to implement this technology?
3. Activity: Research companies that are currently developing P2X technologies. Which industries and governments are promoting P2X? How successful have early projects been? What obstacles exist in upscaling?
4. Activity: Undertake a technical activity in the area of biochemical engineering related to the storing and transforming of renewable energy.
Dilemma – Part one:
You are the Chief Technical Officer at a company that has developed PtF technology that can convert CO2 to edible fatty acids (or triglycerides). The potential of CO2 capture is attractive to many stakeholders, but the combination of carbon reduction tied in with food production has generated positive media interest. The company also intends to establish its PtF facility near a major carbon polluter, that will reduce transport costs. However, some nearby residents are concerned about having a new industrial facility in their area, and have raised additional concerns about creating unsafe food.
As part of the process to commercialise this technology, you have been tasked with completing an ethical assessment. This includes an analysis of the technology’s short and long-term effects in a commercial application.
2. Discussion: What cultural values might impact the ethical assessment? Does trust play a role in our ethical and consumption decisions? What internal logics / business goals might steer, or influence, the acceptance of various ethical considerations?
3. Discussion: Which areas of the ethical assessment might stakeholders be most interested in, or concerned about, and why?
4. Discussion: Does the choice of location for PtF facilities influence the ethical assessment? What problems could this PtF technology solve?
5. Discussion: What competing values or motivations might come into conflict in this scenario? What codes, standards, or authoritative bodies might be relevant to this? What is the role of ethics in technology development?
6. Activity: Assemble a bibliography of relevant professional codes, standards, and authorities.
7. Activity: Research the introduction of novel foods throughout history and / or engineering innovations in food production.
8. Activity: Write up the ethical assessment of the business case, and include findings from the previous questions and research.
Dilemma – Part two:
You deliver your ethical assessment to your manager. Shortly afterwards you are asked to edit the report to remove or downplay some ethical issues you have raised. The company leadership is worried that potential investors in an upcoming financing round may be dissuaded from investing in the company if you do not edit these sections.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Discussion: Professional and ethical responsibilities – What are the ethical implications of editing or not editing the report? What consequences could this type of editing have? Think about stakeholders such as the company, potential investors and society.
2. Discussion: Wider considerations of business ethics – How would you recognise an ethical organisation? What are its characteristics? What is the role of ethics in business?
Enhancements:
An enhancement for this case study can be found here.
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Authors: Professor Sarah Hitt SFHEA (NMITE); Professor Chike Oduoza (University of Wolverhampton); Emma Crichton (Engineering Without Borders UK); Professor Mike Sutcliffe (TEDI-London); Dr Sarah Junaid (Aston University); Isobel Grimley (Engineering Professors’ Council).
Topic: Monitoring and resolving industrial pollution.
Engineering disciplines: Chemical engineering; Civil engineering; Manufacturing; Mechanical engineering.
Ethical issues: Environment, Health, Public good.
Professional situations: Bribery, Whistleblowing, Corporate social responsibility, Cultural competency.
Educational level: Advanced.
Educational aim: To encourage ethical motivation. Ethical motivation occurs when a person is moved by a moral judgement, or when a moral judgement is a spur to a course of action.
Learning and teaching notes:
This case requires an engineer to balance multiple competing factors including: economic pressure, environmental sustainability, and human health. It introduces the perspective of corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a lens through which to view the dilemma. In this case study, the engineer must also make decisions that will affect their professional success in a new job and country.
This case study addresses two of AHEP 4’s themes: The Engineer and Society (acknowledging that engineering activity can have a significant societal impact) and Engineering Practice (the practical application of engineering concepts, tools and professional skills). To map this case study to AHEP outcomes specific to a programme under these themes, access AHEP 4here and navigate to pages 30-31 and 35-37.
The dilemma in this case is presented in two parts. If desired, a teacher can use Part one in isolation, but Part two develops and complicates the concepts presented in Part one to provide for additional learning. The case allows teachers the option to stop at multiple points for questions and/or activities as desired.
Learners have the opportunity to:
practise preparing for a business presentation;
engage in problem definition in order to elicit ethical components of an issue;
investigate technical components of pipeline design and groundwater pollution;
evaluate CSR motivations and practices;
consider risks and obligations related to whistleblowing.
Teachers have the opportunity to:
highlight professional situations related to working in new countries or companies;
evaluate students’ ability to present and defend technical decisions;
address business approaches to CSR;
integrate technical content on pipelines and flow.
Yasin is a pipeline design engineer who has been employed to manage the wastewater pipeline for MMC Textile Company in Gujarat. The company has a rapidly growing business contributing to one of India’s most important industries for employment and export. Yasin was hired through a remote process during the pandemic – he had never been to the industrial site or met his new colleagues in person until he relocated to the country. For 10 years, Yasin worked for the Water Services Regulation Authority in the UK as a wastewater engineer; this is the first time he has been employed by a private company and worked within the textile industry.
The production of textiles results in highly toxic effluent that must be treated and disposed of. A sludge pipeline takes wastewater away from MMC’s factory site and delivers it to a treatment plant downstream. On arrival at MMC, Yasin undertakes an initial inspection of the industrial site and the pipeline. He conducts some testing and measurements, then reviews the company’s documents and specifications related to the pipeline. This pipeline was built 30 years ago when MMC first began operations. In the last five years, MMC has partnered with a fast fashion chain and invested in advanced production technologies, resulting in a 50% increase in its yearly output. Yasin soon realises that as production has increased, the pipeline sometimes carries nearly double its registered capacity. Yasin was hired because MMC’s managers were aware that the pipeline capacity might be stretched and needed his expertise to develop a solution. However, Yasin suspects they are unaware of the real extent of the problem, and is nervous about how they will react to confirmation of this suspicion. Yasin is due to provide an informal verbal report on his initial inspection to the factory managers. This will be his first official business meeting since arriving in India.
2. Discussion: What preparation does Yasin need to make for this informal meeting? What data or evidence should he present?
3. Activity: Role-play Yasin’s first meeting with the factory managers.
4. Activity: Research the environmental effects of textile production and / or India’s policies on textile waste management.
Dilemma – Part one:
At the meeting, Yasin is tasked with developing a menu of proposals to mitigate the problem. The options he puts forward include retrofitting the original pipeline, replacing it with a new one, eliminating the pipeline entirely and focusing on on-site water treatment technology, as well as other solutions. He is directed to consider the risks and benefits of the alternatives. These include the economic burdens, both the cost of the intervention as well as the decline in production necessitated while the intervention takes place, and the environmental consequences of action or inaction.
During his research, Yasin discovers that informal housing has sprung up in the grey zone between the area’s formal zoned conurbation and the MMC industrial site. This is because there is little local regulation or enforcement as to where people are allowed to erect temporary or permanent dwellings. He estimates that there are several thousand people living in impoverished conditions on the edges of MMC’s property. Indeed, many of the people living in the informal settlement work in the lowest-skilled jobs at the textile factory. The informal settlement is located around a well that Yasin suspects may be polluted by effluent that seeps into the soil and groundwater when the pipeline overflows. He can find no information in company records about data related to this potential pollution.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Discussion: Does Yasin have a responsibility to do anything about the potential groundwater pollution at the informal settlement?
2. Discussion: Should Yasin advocate for the solution with the lowest cost?
3. Activity: Practise problem definition. What are the parameters and criteria Yasin should use in defining the issues at stake? What elements of the problem is he technically or ethically obligated to resolve? Why?
4. Activity: Create a tether diagram mapping the effects of each potential solution on the company, the local people, and the environment.
5. Activity: Undertake a technical activity in the areas of chemical, civil, manufacturing and / or mechanical engineering related to groundwater pollution.
Dilemma – Part two:
As Yasin learns more about MMC, he discovers that as the company grew rapidly in the last five years, and has boosted its CSR initiatives, MMC started a programme to hire and upskill local labourers and began a charitable foundation to make donations to local schools and charities. For these activities, MMC has recently received a government commendation for its community commitments. Yasin is concerned about how to make sense of these activities on the one hand, and the potential groundwater contamination on the other. He speaks to his supervisor about MMC’s CSR initiatives and learns that company directors believe that their commendation will pave the way for an even better relationship with the government and perhaps enable a favourable decision on a permit to build another textile factory site nearby. At the end of the conversation, his supervisor indicates that if a new factory is built, it will need a chief site engineer. “That position would be double your current salary,” the supervisor says, “a good job on fixing this pipeline situation would make you look like a very attractive candidate.” Yasin is due to formally present his proposal about the pipeline next week to the factory manager and company directors.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Discussion: How should Yasin respond to the suggestion of a job offer?
2. Discussion: Should Yasin report any of MMC’s actions or motivations to an external authority?
3. Activity: Research CSR and its ethical dimensions, both in the UK and in India.
4. Activity: Undertake a technical activity in the areas of chemical, civil, manufacturing and / or mechanical engineering, related to pipeline design and flow rates.
5. Activity: Debate whether or not Yasin should become a whistleblower, either about the groundwater pollution or the job offer.
Enhancements:
An enhancement for this case study can be found here.
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Authors: Dr Sarah Jayne Hitt (NMITE); Dr Matthew Studley (University of the West of England, Bristol); Dr Darian Meacham (Maastricht University); Dr Nik Whitehead (University of Wales Trinity Saint David); Professor Mike Bramhall (TEDI-London); Isobel Grimley (Engineering Professors’ Council).
Educational aim: To develop ethical awareness. Ethical awareness is when an individual determines that a single situation has moral implications and can be considered from an ethical point of view.
Learning and teaching notes:
This case concerns a construction engineer navigating multiple demands. The engineer must evaluate trade-offs between technical specifications, historical preservation, financial limitations, social needs, and safety. Some of these issues have obvious ethical dimensions, while others are ethically more ambiguous. In addition, the engineer must navigate a professional scenario in which different stakeholders try to influence the resolution of the dilemma.
This case study addresses two of AHEP 4’s themes: The Engineer and Society (acknowledging that engineering activity can have a significant societal impact) and Engineering Practice (the practical application of engineering concepts, tools and professional skills). To map this case study to the AHEP outcomes specific to a programme under these themes, access AHEP4here and navigate to pages 30-31 and 35-37.
The dilemma in this case is presented in two parts. If desired, a teacher can use Part one in isolation, but Part two develops and complicates the concepts presented in Part one to provide for additional learning. The case allows teachers the option to stop at multiple points for questions and / or activities as desired.
Learners have the opportunity to:
determine if an engineering situation has ethical dimensions and identify what these are;
identify where tensions might arise between professionals;
practise stakeholder mapping;
debate possible solutions to an ethical dilemma.
Teachers have the opportunity to:
highlight professional codes of ethics and their relevance to engineering situations;
address approaches to resolve interpersonal and / or professional conflict;
integrate technical content on glass – such as strength, failure, and manufacture;
integrate construction industry codes and / or specifications;
informally evaluate students’ critical thinking and communication skills.
Krystyna is a construction engineer working as part of a team that is retrofitting a Victorian-era factory into multi-unit housing. As an amateur history buff, she is excited to be working on a listed building for the first time in her career after finishing university three years ago. However, this poses additional challenges: she must write the specification for glass windows that will maintain the building’s heritage status but also conform to 21st century safety standards and requirements for energy efficiency. In addition, Krystyna feels under pressure because Sir Robert, the developer of the property, is keen to maximise profits while maintaining the historic feel valued by potential buyers. He also wants to get the property on the housing market as soon as possible to help mitigate a housing shortage in the area. This is the first of many properties that Dave, the project’s contractor who is well-regarded locally and has 30 years of experience working in the community, will be building for Sir Robert. This is the first time that Krystyna has worked with Dave.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Discussion: What competing values or motivations might conflict in this scenario?
2. Discussion: What codes, standards and authority bodies might be relevant to this scenario?
3. Activity: Assemble a bibliography of relevant professional codes, standards, and authorities.
4. Activity: Undertake a technical project relating to testing glass for fire safety and / or energy efficiency.
5. Activity: Research the use of glass as a building material throughout history and / or engineering innovations in glass production.
Dilemma – Part one:
On her first walk through the property with Dave, Krystyna discovers that the factory building has large floor-to-ceiling windows on the upper stories. Dave tells her that these windows were replaced at some point in the past 50 years before the building was listed, at a time when it wasn’t used or occupied, although the records are vague. The glass is in excellent condition and Sir Robert has not budgeted either the time or the expense to replace glass in the heritage building.
While writing the specification, Krystyna discovers that the standards for fire protection as well as impact safety and environmental control have changed since the glass was most likely installed. After this research, she emails Dave and outlines what she considers to be the safest and most responsible form of mitigation: to fully replace all the large windows with glass produced by a supplier with experience in fire-rated safety glass for heritage buildings. To justify this cost, she highlights the potential dangers to human health and the environment of not replacing the glass.
Dave replies with a reassuring tone and refers to his extensive experience as a contractor. He feels that too many additional costs would be incurred such as finding qualified installers, writing up new architectural plans, or stopping work altogether due to planning permissions related to historic properties. He argues that there is a low probability of a problem actually arising with the glass. Dave encourages Krystyna not to reveal these findings to Sir Robert so that “future conflicts can be avoided.”
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Discussion: What ethical issues that can be identified in this scenario?
2. Discussion: What interpersonal dynamics might affect the way this situation can be resolved?
3. Discussion: If you were the engineer, what action would you take, if any?
4. Activity: Identify all potential stakeholders and their values, motivations, and responsibilities using the SERM found in the Learning and teaching resources section.
5. Activity: Role-play the engineer’s response to the contractor or conversation with the developer.
6. Discussion: How do the RAEng/Engineering Council Statement of Ethical Principles and the Society of Construction Law Statement of Ethical Principles inform what ethical issues may be present, and what solutions might be possible?
Dilemma – Part two:
After considerable back and forth with Dave, Krystyna sees that she is unlikely to persuade him to make the changes to the project that she has recommended. Now she must decide whether to go against his advice and notify Sir Robert that they have disagreed about the best solution. Additionally, Krystyna has begun to wonder whether she has a responsibility to future residents of the building who will be unaware of any potential dangers related to the windows. Meanwhile, time is moving on and there are other deadlines related to the project that she must turn her focus to and complete.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
The Society of Construction Law’s Statement of Ethical Principles advises “provid[ing] information and warning of matters . . . which are of potential detriment to others who may be adversely affected by them.”
2. Discussion: If Krystyna simply warns them, is her ethical responsibility fulfilled?
3. Activity: Map the value conflicts and trade-offs Krystyna is dealing with. Use theMapping Actors and Processes article in the Learning and teaching resources section.
4. Discussion: If you were Krystyna, what would you do and why?
5. Discussion: In what ways are the professional codes helpful (or not) in resolving this dilemma?
6. Discussion: ’Advises’ or ‘requires’? What’s the difference between these two words in their use within a code of ethics? Could an engineer’s response to a situation based on these codes of ethics be different depending on which of these words is used?
Enhancements:
An enhancement for this case study can be found here.
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Authors: Dr Nicola Whitehead (University of Wales Trinity Saint David); Professor Sarah Hitt (NMITE); Emma Crichton (Engineers Without Borders UK); Dr Sarah Junaid (Aston University); Professor Mike Sutcliffe (TEDI-London), Isobel Grimley (Engineering Professors’ Council).
Topic: Development and use of a facial recognition system.
Professional situations: Rigour, Informed consent, Misuse of data, Conflicts with leadership / management.
Educational level: Advanced.
Educational aim: To encourage ethical motivation. Ethical motivation occurs when a person is moved by a moral judgement, or when a moral judgement is a spur to a course of action.
Learning and teaching notes:
This case involves an engineer hired to manage the development and installation of a facial recognition project at a building used by university students, businesses and the public. It incorporates a variety of components including law and policy, stakeholder and risk analysis, and both macro- and micro-ethical elements. This example is UK-based: however, the instructor can adapt the content to better fit the laws and regulations surrounding facial recognition technology in other countries, if this would be beneficial.
This case study addresses two of AHEP 4’s themes: The Engineer and Society (acknowledging that engineering activity can have a significant societal impact) and Engineering Practice (the practical application of engineering concepts, tools and professional skills). To map this study to AHEP outcomes specific to a programme under these themes, access AHEP4here and navigate to pages 30-31 and 35-37.
This case is presented in three parts. If desired, a teacher can use Part one in isolation, but Part two (focusing on the wider ethical context of the case) and Part three (focusing on the potential actions the engineer could take)develop and complicate the concepts presented in Part one to provide for additional learning. The case study allows teachers the option to stop at multiple points for questions and / or activities as desired.
Learners have the opportunity to:
apply their ethical judgement to a case study relating to privacy and consent;
judge the societal impact of a technical solution to a complex problem;
make and justify an ethical decision;
analyse risks associated with micro-ethical and macro-ethical concerns;
communicate these risks and judgements to both technical and non-technical audiences.
Teachers have the opportunity to:
highlight a range of ethical considerations within the scope of a complex engineering project;
introduce methods for risk analysis and ethical decision-making;
evaluate critical thinking, argumentation, and communication skills;
Metropolitan Technical University (MTU), based in the UK, has an urban campus and many of its buildings are located in the city centre. A new student housing development in this area will be shared by MTU, a local college, and medical residents doing short rotations at the local hospital. The building has a public café on the ground floor and a couple of classrooms used by the university.
The housing development sits alongside a common route for parades and protests. In the wake of demonstrations by Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter, students have raised concerns to the property manager about safety. Despite an existing system of CCTV cameras and swipe cards, the university decides to install an enhanced security system, built around facial recognition technology that would enable access to the building and cross-reference with crime databases. To comply with GDPR, building residents will be required to give explicit consent before the system is implemented. Visitors without a student ID (such as café customers) will be buzzed in, but their image will be captured and cross-referenced before entry. A side benefit of the system is that MTU’s department of Artificial Intelligence Research will help with the installation and maintenance, as well as studying how it works, in order to make improvements.
Dilemma – Part one:
You are an engineer who has been hired by MTU to take charge of the facial recognition system installation project, including setting policies and getting the system operational. With your background in AI engineering, you are expected to act as a technical advisor to MTU and liaise with the Facilities, Security and Computing departments to ensure a smooth deployment. This is the first time you have worked on a project that involves image capture. So as part of your preparation for the project, you need to do some preliminary research as to what best practices, guidance, and regulations apply.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Discussion: What are the legal issues relating to image capture? Images allow for the identification of living persons and are therefore considered as personal data under GDPR and theData Protection Act (2018).
2. Discussion: Sharing data is a legally and ethically complex field. Is it appropriate to share images captured with the police? If not the police, then whose crime database will you use? Is it acceptable to share the data with the Artificial Intelligence Research group? Why, or why not?
3. Discussion: Under GDPR, individuals must normally consent to their personal data being processed. How should consent be handled in this case?
4. Discussion: Does the fact that the building will accommodate students from three different institutions (MTU, the local college, and the hospital) complicate these issues? Are regulations related to students’ captured images different than those related to public image capture?
5. Activity: Undertake a technical activity that relates to how facial recognition systems are engineered.
Dilemma – Part two:
The project has kicked off, and one of its deliverables is to establish the policies and safeguards that will govern the system. You convened a meeting of project stakeholders to determine what rules need to be built into the system’s software and presented a list of questions to help you make technical decisions. The questions you asked were:
Should students be able to opt in or out of image capture?
Should visitors be told that their image will be captured?
What happens if a student living in the housing development decides that they no longer wish to take part in the image recognition project?
What you had thought would be a quick meeting to agree basic principles turned out to be very lengthy and complex. You were surprised at the variety of perspectives and how heated the discussions became. The discussions raised some questions in your own mind as to the risks of the facial recognition system.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
The following activities focus on macro-ethics. This seeks to understand the wider ethical contexts of projects like the facial recognition system.
1. Activity: Stakeholder mapping – Who are all the stakeholders and what might their positions and perspectives be? Is there a difference between the priorities of the different stakeholders?
2. Activity: There are many different values competing for priority here. Identify these values, discuss and debate how they should be weighed in the context of the project.
3. Activity: Risks can be understood as objective and / or subjective. Research the difference between these two types of risk, and identify which type(s) of risks exist related to the project.
4. Discussion: Which groups or individuals are potentially harmed by the technology and which potentially benefit? How should we go about setting priorities when there are competing harms and benefits?
5. Discussion: Does the technology used treat everyone from your stakeholders’ list equally? Should the needs of society as a whole outweigh the needs of the individual?
6. Activity: Make and defend an argument as to the appropriateness of installing and using the system.
7. Discussion: What responsibilities do engineers have in developing these technologies?
Dilemma – Part three:
A few days later, you were forwarded a screenshot of a social media post that heavily criticised the proposed facial recognition system. It was unclear where the post had originated, but it had clearly been shared and promoted among both students and the public raising concerns about privacy and transparency. Your boss believes this outcry endangers the project and has requested that you make a public statement on behalf of MTU, reaffirming its commitment to installing the system.
You share the concerns, but have been employed to complete the project. You understand that suggesting it should be abandoned, would most likely risk your job. What will you tell your boss? How will you prepare your public statement?
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
Micro-ethics concerns individuals and their responses to specific situations. The following steps are intended to help students develop their ability to practise moral analysis by considering the problem in a structured way and work towards possible solutions that they can analyse critically.
1. Discussion: What are the problems here?
You are an employee of MTU and have a responsibility to be a representative for its interests. However, you can see that the university’s actions create significant problems relating to privacy and consent and may be ethically or legally questionable.
2. Discussion: What are the possible courses of action you can take as an employee?
Students can be prompted to consider what different approaches they might adopt, such as the following, but can also develop their own possible responses.
You could take the university line and refuse to consider any compromise. After all, you have a duty of care towards the students.
You could act as a whistleblower and contact the Information Commissioner’s Office,or the press, with the university’s plans.
You could look for changes in the hardware setup for the system. Can the cameras be placed so that they only capture people coming into the building without recording anyone else?
You could look for changes in the software setup for the system. What level of accuracy is needed to declare a match between the image and the reference image before the doors will open?
You could look to make changes in the data management processes. How long will the data be stored? Which database(s) will images be checked against? What are the data security implications of implementing this system?
Are there other alternatives available to you?
3. Discussion: Which is the best approach and why? – Interrogate the pros and cons of each possible course of action including the ethical, practical, cost, local relationship and the reputational damage implications. Students should decide on their own preferred course of action and explain why the balance of pros and cons is preferable to other options. The students may wish to consider this from other perspectives, such as:
What would the best outcome be if cost was no object?
What course of action would be taken if different perspectives were chosen as the priority. For example, if the personal privacy perspective was the main priority, what action would be taken, compared with action taken if the cost to the university were the main priority?
What are the wider implications of the use of image recognition in public spaces and how can these be mitigated?
Are there any other technologies that would solve the security problem without the ethical implications?
What are the possible solutions open to you?
Are there any short-term solutions versus longer-term solutions?
4. Activity: Public Communication – Students can practise writing a press release, giving an interview, or making a public statement about the case and the decision that they make.
5. Activity: Reflection – Students can reflect on how this case study has enabled them to see the situation from different angles. Has it motivated them to understand the ethical concerns and to come to an acceptable conclusion.
Enhancements:
An enhancement for this case study can be found here.
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Authors: Professor Sarah Hitt SFHEA (NMITE); Professor Raffaella Ocone OBE FREng FRSE (Heriot Watt University); Professor Thomas Lennerfors (Uppsala University); Claire Donovan (Royal Academy of Engineering); Isobel Grimley (Engineering Professors’ Council).
Topic: Developing customised algorithms for student support.
Engineering disciplines: Computing, AI, Data.
Ethical issues: Bias, Social responsibility, Risk, Privacy.
Professional situations: Informed consent, Public health and safety, Conflicts with leadership / management, Legal implications.
Educational level: Beginner.
Educational aim: Develop ethical sensitivity. Ethical sensitivity is the broad cognisance of ethical issues and the ability to see how these might affect others.
Learning and teaching notes:
This case study involves the employees of a small software start-up that is creating a customised student support chatbot for a Sixth Form college. The employees come from different backgrounds and have different perspectives on the motivations behind their work, which leads to some interpersonal conflict. The team must also identify the ethical issues and competing values that arise in the course of developing their algorithm.
This case study addresses two of AHEP 4’s themes: The Engineer and Society (acknowledging that engineering activity can have a significant societal impact) and Engineering Practice (the practical application of engineering concepts, tools and professional skills). To map this case study to AHEP outcomes specific to a programme under these themes, access AHEP 4here and navigate to pages 30-31 and 35-37.
The dilemma in this case is presented in two parts which build in complexity and navigate between personal, professional, and societal contexts. If desired, a teacher can use Part one in isolation, but Part two develops and complicates the concepts presented in Part one to provide for additional learning. Pre-reading ‘Ethics of Care and Justice’ is recommended, though not required, for engaging with Part two. The case allows teachers the option to stop at multiple points for questions and / or activities as desired.
Learners have the opportunity to:
identify ethical and legal issues related to emerging technologies;
apply codes of ethics to an engineering ethics dilemma;
consider different perspectives on an ethical issue and what values inform those perspectives;
practise professional communication related to ethical dilemmas.
Teachers have the opportunity to:
introduce ethics of care and ethics of justice;
integrate technical content for developing software and algorithms;
highlight strategies to deal with conflicts between management, clients, and employees;
explore wider contexts and implications of engineering technologies;
informally evaluate students’ critical thinking and communication skills.
Exaba is a small, three-person software startup. Like all small businesses, it has been struggling with finances during the pandemic. The company began selling its services across a variety of industry sectors but is now trying to expand by developing software solutions for the growing education technology sector.
Ivan, Exaba’s founder and CEO, was thrilled to be contracted by a growing local Sixth Form College in North West England, NorthStar Academy, to create a chatbot that will optimise student support services. These services include ensuring student safety and wellbeing, study skills advice, careers guidance, counselling, and the identification for the need and implementation of extra learning support. It is such a large project that Ivan has been able to bring in Yusuf, a university student on placement from a computer systems programme, to help Nadja, Exaba’s only full-time software engineer. Ivan views the chatbot contract as not only a financial windfall that can help get the company back on track, but as the first project in a new product-development revenue stream.
Nadja and Yusuf have been working closely with the NorthStar Academy’s Principal, Nicola, to create ‘Alice’: the custom student-support chatbot to ensure that she is designed appropriately and is fit for purpose. Nicola has seen growing evidence that chatbots can identify when students are struggling with a range of issues from attendance to anxiety. She has also seen that they can be useful in helping administrators understand what students need, how to help them more quickly, and where to invest more resources to make support most effective.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Discussion: What moral or ethical issues might be at stake or arise in the course of this project?
2. Discussion: What professional or legal standards might apply to the development of Alice?
3. Discussion: What design choices might Nadja and Yusuf have to consider as they build the chatbot software in order for it to conform to those standards?
4. Discussion: is there anything risky about giving cognitive chatbots human names in general, or a female name specifically?
6. Activity: Research any codes of ethics that might apply to AI in education, or policies / laws that apply to controlling and processing student data.
After undertaking work to ensure GDPR compliance through transparency, consent, and anonymisation of the data harvested by interactions with Alice, Nadja and Yusuf are now working on building the initial data set that the chatbot will call upon to provide student support. The chatbot’s information to students can only be as good as the existing data it has available to draw from. To enable this, Nicola has agreed to provide Exaba with NorthStar Academy’s existing student databases that span many years and cover both past and present students. While this data – including demographics, academic performances, and interactions with support services – is anonymised, Yusuf has begun to feel uncomfortable. One day, when the entire team was together discussing technical challenges, Yusuf said “I wonder what previous students would think if they found out that we were using all this information about them, without their permission?”
Ivan pointed out, “Nicola told us it was okay to use. They’re the data controllers, so it’s their responsibility to resolve that concern, not ours. We can’t tell them what to do with their own data. All we need to be worried about is making sure the data processing is done appropriately.”
Nadja added, “Plus, if we don’t use an existing data set, Alice will have to learn from scratch, meaning she won’t be as effective at the start. Wouldn’t it be better for our chatbot to be as intelligent and helpful as possible right away? Otherwise, she could put existing students at a disadvantage.”
Yusuf fell silent, figuring that he didn’t know as much as Ivan and Nadja. Since he was just on a placement, he felt that it wasn’t his place to push the issue any further with full-time staff.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Discussion: Expand upon Yusuf’s feelings of discomfort. What values or principles is this emotion drawing on?
2. Discussion: Do you agree with Yusuf’s perspective, or with Ivan’s and Nadja’s? Why?
3. Discussion: Does / should Yusuf have the right to voice any concerns or objections to his employer?
4. Discussion: Do / should previous NorthStar students have the right to control what the academy does with their data? To what extent, and for how long?
5. Discussion: Is there / should there be a difference between how data about children is used and that of adults? Why?
6. Discussion: Should a business, like Exaba, ever challenge its client, like NorthStar Academy, about taking potentially unethical actions?
7. Technical activity: Undertake a technical activity such as creating a process flow diagram, pieces of code and UI / UX design that either obscure or reinforce consent.
8. Activity: Undertake argument mapping to diagram and expand on the reasoning and evidence used by Yusuf, Nadja, and Ivan in their arguments.
9. Activity: Apply ethical theories to those arguments.
10. Discussion: What ethical principles are at stake? Are there potentially any conflicts or contradictions arising from those principles?
Dilemma – Part two:
Nicola, too, was under pressure. The academy’s Board had hired her as Principal to improve NorthStar’s rankings in the school performance table, to get the college’s finances back on track, and support the government efforts at ‘levelling up’ This is why one of Nicola’s main specifications for Alice is that she be able to flag students at risk of not completing their qualifications. Exaba will have to develop an algorithm that can determine what those risk factors are.
In a brainstorming session Nadja began listing some ideas on the whiteboard. “Ethnic background, family income, low marks, students who fit that profile from the past and ultimately dropped out, students who engaged with support services a lot, students with health conditions . . .”
“Wait, wait, wait,” Yusuf said. “This feels a little bit like profiling to me. You know, like we think kids from certain neighbourhoods are unlikely to succeed so we’re building this thing to almost reinforce that they don’t.”
“The opposite is true!” Ivan exclaimed. “This algorithm will HELP exactly those students.”
“I can see how that’s the intention,” Yusuf acknowledged. “But I’ve had so many friends and neighbours experience well-intentioned but not appropriate advice from mentors and counsellors who think the only solution is for everyone to complete qualifications and go to university. This is not the best path for everybody!”
Nadja had been listening carefully. “There is something to what Yusuf is saying: Is it right to nudge students to stay in a programme that’s actually not a best fit for them? Could Alice potentially give guidance that is contrary to what a personal tutor, who knows the student personally, might advise? I don’t know if that’s the sort of algorithm we should develop.”
At this point Ivan got really frustrated with his employees: “This is the proprietary algorithm that’s going to save this company!” he shouted. “Never mind the rights and wrongs of it. Think of the business potential, not to mention all the schools and students this is going to help. The last thing I need is a mutiny from my team. We have the client’s needs to think about, and that’s it.”
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Activity: compare an approach to this case through the ethics of care versus the ethics of justice. What different factors come into play? How should these be weighed? Might one approach lead to a better course of action than another? Why?
2. Discussion: what technical solutions, if any, could help mitigate Yusuf and Nadja’s concerns?
3. Activity: imagine that Ivan agrees that this is a serious enough concern that they need to address it with Nicola. Role play a conversation between Ivan and Nicola.
4. Activity: undertake a classroom debate on whether or not Alice has the potential to reinforce negative stereotypes. Variations include alley debate, stand where you stand, adopt and support opposite instinct.
Enhancements:
An enhancement for this case study can be found here.
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
In developing the case studies and guidance articles for the EPC’s Engineering Ethics toolkit, the authors and advisory group took into account recent scholarship on best practices in teaching engineering ethics through case studies – examples of this can be found here. They also reviewed existing case study libraries in order to add to the growing body of material available on engineering ethics; examples of these can be found below: