Authors: Cortney Holles (Colorado School of Mines); Ekaterina Rzyankina (University of Cape Town).

Topic: Critical digital literacy.

Engineering disciplines: Computer Science; Information Systems; Biomedical engineering.

Ethical issues: Cultural context; Social responsibility; Privacy.

Professional situations: Public health and safety; Working in area of competence; Informed consent.

Educational level: Intermediate.

Educational aim: Engaging in ethical judgement: reaching moral decisions and providing the rationale for those decisions.

 

Learning and teaching notes:

The case involves an engineering student whose personal choices may affect her future professional experience. It highlights both micro- and macro-ethical issues, dealing with the ways that individual actions and decisions can scale to create systemic challenges.

An ethical and responsible engineer should know how to work with and use digital information responsibly. Not all materials available online are free to use or disperse. To be digitally literate, a person must know how to access, evaluate, utilise, manage, analyse, create, and interact using digital resources (Martin, 2008). It is important to guide engineering students in understanding the media landscape and the influence of misleading information on our learning, our political choices, and our careers. A large part of critical digital literacy is evaluating information found on the web. For students working on a research project or an experiment, accessing accurate information is imperative. This case study offers several approaches to engaging students in the critique and improvement of their critical digital literacy skills. The foundations of this lesson can be applied in multiple settings and can be expanded to cover several class periods or simplified to be inserted into a single class.

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 dilemma in this case is presented in two parts. If desired, a teacher can use the Summary and Part one in isolation, but Part two develops and complicates the concepts presented in the Summary and 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:

Teachers have the opportunity to:

 

Learning and teaching resources:

News articles:

Educational institutions:

Legal regulations:

Non-profit organisations:

Business:

 

Summary:

Katherine is a biomedical engineering student in her 3rd year in 2022, and will have a placement in a community hospital during her last term at university. She plans to pursue a career in public health after seeing what her country went through during the Covid-19 pandemic. She wants to contribute to the systems that can prevent and track public health risks from growing too large to manage, as happened with Covid-19. She is motivated by improving systems of research and treatment for emerging diseases and knows that communication between a variety of stakeholders is of the utmost importance.

 

Optional STOP for questions and activities:

1. Discussion: What can you determine about Katherine’s values and motivation for her studies and her choice of career?

2. Discussion: How do you connect with her mission to improve diagnostic and treatment systems for public health threats?

3. Discussion: Who should be responsible for the messaging and processes for public health decisions? How are engineers connected to this system?

4. Activity: Research the Covid-19 vaccine rollout in the United Kingdom versus other countries – how did power, privilege, and politics influence the response?

5. Activity: Research current public health concerns and how they are being communicated to the public. In what ways might engineers affect how and what is communicated?

 

Dilemma – Part one:

As Katherine approaches the winter holiday season, she makes plans to visit her grandmother across the country. She hasn’t seen her since before the Covid-19 pandemic and is excited to be around her extended family for the holidays once again. However, she receives an email from her cousin informing everyone that he and his family are not vaccinated against Covid-19 because the whole vaccination operation was forced upon citizens and they refused to participate. Katherine is immediately worried for her grandmother – at 85 years old, she is at a higher risk than most – and for her brother, who suffers from Addison’s disease, an autoimmune disorder. Additionally, if Katherine comes into contact with Covid-19 while celebrating the holidays with her family, she could suffer repercussions at both her university and the hospital where she will work for her placement.

 

Optional STOP for questions and activities:

1. Discussion: How can Katherine communicate with her cousin about her concerns for her brother and grandmother? How might she use her expertise as a biomedical engineer in this conversation?

2. Discussion: What kind of information will be most convincing to support her decision? What sources would provide the evidence she is looking for, and which ones would provide counter arguments?

3. Discussion: What impacts might the decision have on Katherine’s position as a student or in the hospital?

4. Discussion: Do engineers, scientists, and medical professionals have more of an obligation to promote and adhere to public health guidance? Why or why not?

5. Activity: Talk to people in your life about their experience of navigating the Covid-19 vaccine. Did they choose to get it as soon as it was available? Did they avoid getting the vaccine for particular reasons? Were there impacts on their personal relationships or work because of their choices about the vaccine?

6. Activity: Research some of the impacts on individuals with health concerns and comorbidities in regard to Covid-19 and other viruses or public health concerns. How do these experiences match with or differ from your own?

7. Activity: Investigate the different ways that engineers were involved in vaccination development and response.    

 

Dilemma – Part two:

Katherine went back to university after a lengthy break for the holidays and immediately registered for an account on Facebook as a brand-new user. She was in such a hurry to have her profile up that she did not take the time to configure any privacy settings. She stayed up late reading an article about Covid-19  that had been posted on the website of one of the online newspapers. Before she posted this report on her own Facebook page, she did not verify the accuracy of the information or the source of the information.

 

Optional STOP for questions and activities:

1. Discussion: What kind of impact might this social media activity have on Katherine’s position as a student or in the company/organisation/hospital she is working for as an intern? What should Katherine be worried or concerned about after posting information?

2. Discussion: Do social media companies collect or ask for any other non-essential information from you? Why does the website claim that they are collecting or asking for your information? Does the website share/sell/trade the information that they collect from you? With whom does the website share your collected information? How long does the website keep your collected information? Does the website delete your information, or simply de-personalise it?

3. Discussion: Regarding question 2, how are engineers involved with products, processes, or services that enable those choices and actions?

4. Discussion: What is real and fake news? How do you know? What do you look for to know if it is real or fake news (share guidelines)? Do you expect it to be easy to spot fake news? Why should we care if people distribute and believe fake news?

Students are particularly susceptible to being duped by propaganda, misleading information, and fake news due to the significant role that information and communication technology which is problematic to verify plays in their everyday life. Students devote a significant portion of their time to participating in various forms of online activity, including watching television, playing online games, chatting, blogging, listening to music, posting photos of themselves on social networking sites, and searching for other individuals with whom they can engage in online conversation. Students owe a significant portion of what they know about the world and how they perceive reality to the content that they read online. While many people share reliable and positive information online, others may engage in negative impact information sharing:

5. Discussion: What are some other examples of how engineering might fall prey to negative impact information sharing?

6. Discussion: How might engineers help address the problem of fake news and negative impact information sharing?

 

References:

Martin, A. (2008). ‘Digital Literacy and the “Digital Society”’, in Lankshear C. and Knobel M. (eds.), Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies, and Practices. New York: Peter Lang,  (pp. 151-176).

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

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.

Author: Onyekachi Nwafor (KatexPower).

Topic: A country-wide energy transition plan.

Engineering disciplines: Energy; Electrical.

Ethical issues:  Sustainability; Social responsibility; Risk.

Professional situations: Public health and safety,

Educational level: Beginner.

Educational aim: Engaging in Ethical Judgement: reaching moral decisions and providing the rationale for those decisions.

 

Learning and teaching notes:

At COP26, H.E. President Muhammadu Buhari announced Nigeria’s commitment to carbon neutrality by 2050. This case involves an engineer who is one of the stakeholders invited by the president of Nigeria to implement an Energy Transition Plan (ETP). It requires the engineer, who is a professional and well experienced in renewable energy and energy transition, to deliver a comprehensive decarbonisation roadmap that will ensure net zero emissions.

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 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:

Teachers have the opportunity to:

 

Learning and teaching resources:

UK website:

Think tank:

Nigeria government site:

Industry publication:

Business:

 

Dilemma – Part one:

You are an electrical engineer working as a technical consultant in an international organisation aiming to  transform the global energy system to secure a clean, prosperous, zero-carbon future for all. The organisation is one of the stakeholders invited by the federal government of Nigeria to implement the country’s new Energy Transition Plan (ETP) and you are given the task of creating a comprehensive decarbonisation roadmap and presenting it at the stakeholder meeting.

 

Optional STOP for questions and activities:

1. Discussion: In what ways could an electrical engineer bring needed expertise to the ETP? Why are engineers essential to ensuring a zero-carbon future? Should engineers be involved in policy planning? Why or why not?

2. Activity: Wider context research: Nigeria is currently an oil-producing country. What might policy makers need to consider about this reality when implementing an ETP? How strongly should you advocate for a reduction of the use of fossil fuels in the energy mix?

3. Discussion and activity: List the potential benefits and risks to implementing the ETP. Are these benefits and risks the same no matter which country they are implemented in?

4. Activity: Research and outline countries that have attained a zero emission target. What are their energy distribution mixes? Based on this information, what approach should Nigeria take and why?

5. Activity: What will be your presentation strategy at the stakeholder meeting? What will you advocate for and why? What ethical justifications can you make for the plan you propose?

 

Dilemma – Part two:

At the stakeholder meeting, you were given the opportunity to present your decarbonisation roadmap and afterwards faced serious opposition by the chief lobbyist of the Fossil Fuel and Mining Association, Mr. Abiola. Mr. Abiola is of the opinion that because Nigeria contributes less than 1% to the global emissions, it should not be held accountable for climate change, and therefore no country-wide climate policy is necessary. Furthermore, he fears the domestic market for coal that is used to produce electricity as well as the global market for fossil fuels will shrink because of the new policy. He also argues that a shift away from coal and fossil fuels could result in challenges to the security of supply, since renewables are by definition unreliable and volatile. Other stakeholders, such as activists and environmental experts, also voiced different concerns and opinions. They argue that time has already run out, and no country can delay decarbonisation plans no matter how small their impact on the global total. This conflict has resulted in disagreements in the negotiation.

 

Optional STOP for questions and activities:

1. Debate: Do different countries have different ethical responsibilities when it comes to decarbonisation? Why or why not? If so, for what reasons?

2. Discussion: How should countries weigh the short-term versus long-term benefits and burdens of the energy transition? What role do governments and corporations play in managing those? What role should citizens play?

3. Discussion: How will you prepare for and handle opposing questions to your roadmap plan? 

4. Activity: Create a participatory stakeholder engagement plan embedded in the overall decarbonisation strategy.

5. Activity: How will you utilise the different renewable energy mix to provide 100% access to electricity and ensure security of supply as an electrical engineer?

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

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: Diana Martin (Eindhoven University of Technology); Sarah Jayne Hitt, Ph.D. SFHEA (NMITE, Edinburgh Napier University).

Topic:  Participatory approaches for engaging with a local community about the development of risky technologies. 

Engineering disciplines: Nuclear engineering; Energy; Chemical engineering. 

Ethical issues: Corporate Social Responsibility; Risk; Accountability; Respect for the Environment. 

Professional situations: Conflicts of interest; Public health and safety; Communication. 

Educational level: Advanced.  

Educational aim: Engaging in ethical judgement: reaching moral decisions and providing the rationale for those decisions.  

 

Learning and teaching notes:  

This case study involves an early career engineer tasked with leading the development of plans for the construction of the first nuclear plant in a region. The case can be customised by instructors when specifying the name of the region, as to whether the location of the case study corresponds to the location of the educational institution or if a more remote context is preferred. The case incorporates several components, including stakeholder mapping, participatory methods for assessing risk perception and community engagement, qualitative risk analysis, and policy-making.  

The case study asks students to identify and define an open-ended risk problem in engineering and develop a socially acceptable solution, on the basis of limited and possibly contradictory information and differing perspectives. Additionally, students can gain awareness of broader responsibilities of engineers in the development of risky technologies, as well as the role of engineers in public debates and community engagement related to the adoption or development of risky technologies. 

This case study addresses two of the themes from the Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes fourth edition (AHEP4): 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 dilemma in this case is presented in three parts. If desired, a teacher can use Part one in isolation, but Part two and Part three develop and complicate 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: 

Teachers have the opportunity to:  

 

Learning and teaching resources: 

Journal articles: 

Community engagement organisations: 

 

Dilemma – Part one:

You are an early career engineer working in the civil nuclear industry for Ultra Nuclear. This is a major company overseeing the construction of new power stations that has a strong reputation as a leader in the field with no controversies associated with its activity. Indeed, you have been impressed with Ultra Nuclear’s vision that the transition to using more nuclear energy can significantly reduce carbon emissions, and their development of next-generation nuclear technologies. After two years of working on the strictly technical side of the business, you have been promoted to a project manager role which requires you to do more public engagement. Your manager has assigned your first major project which involves making the plans for the development of a new power plant.  

 

Optional STOP for questions and activities: 

1. Activity: Societal context – What is the context in which Ultra Nuclear operates? Identify the national and supranational policies and regulation in your country related to the adoption of nuclear energy. Reflect on the broader rationale given for the adoption of nuclear energy. Research the history of nuclear technological developments (including opposition and failures) in your country. When tracing the context, you may consider:

2. Discussion: Personal values – What is your initial position on the adoption of nuclear energy? What are the advantages and disadvantages that you see for the adoption of nuclear energy in your country? What alternatives to nuclear energy do you deem more suitable and why?

3. Discussion: Risk perception – How do you perceive the risk of nuclear energy? How do your family and friends see this risk? How is nuclear energy portrayed in the media? Do you see any differences in how people around you see these risks? Why do you think this is so?

4. Activity: Risk mapping – Using a qualitative risk matrix, map the risks of a nuclear power plant.

 

Dilemma – Part two:

As it happens, this will be the first power plant established in the region where you were born, and your manager counts on your knowledge of the local community in addition to your technical expertise. To complete your project successfully, you are expected to ensure community approval for the new nuclear power plant. In order to do this, you will have to do some research to understand different stakeholders and their positions.  

 

Optional STOP for questions and activities:

1. Activity: Stakeholder mapping – Who are all the groups that are involved in the scenario? 

1.a. Activity: Read the article by Sven Ove Hansson, which puts forward a method for categorising stakeholders as risk-exposed, beneficiaries, or decision-makers (including overlaps of the three categories). Place each stakeholder group in one of these categories.

1.b. Discussion: Why are some groups risk-exposed, others beneficiaries, and others decision-makers? Why is it undesirable to have stakeholder groups solely in one of the categories? 

1.c. Discussion: What needs to change for some stakeholder groups to be not only in the category of risk-exposed, but also in the category of beneficiaries or decision-makers?  

2. Activity: Stakeholder mapping – How does each stakeholder group view nuclear energy? For each stakeholder group identified, research the arguments they put forward, their positions and preferences in regard to the adoption of nuclear energy. In addition to the stakeholder groups previously identified, you may consider:

For your research, you may consult the webpage of the stakeholder group (if it exists); any manifesto they present; mass media features (including interviews, podcasts, news items or editorials); flyers and posters. 

3. Discussion: How convincing are these arguments according to you? Do you see any contradictions between the arguments put forward by different groups? 

3.a. Discussion: Which group relies most on empirical data when presenting their position? Which stakeholders take the most extreme positions, according to you (radical either against or for nuclear energy), and why do you think this is so?  

3.b. Discussion: In groups of five students, rank the stakeholders from those that provide the most convincing to the least convincing arguments, then discuss these rankings in plenary. 

3.c. Roleplay (with students divided into groups): Each group is assigned a stakeholder, and gets to prepare and make the case for why their group is right, based on the empirical data and position put forward publicly by the group. The other groups grade on different criteria for how convincing the group is (such as 1. reliability of data, 2. rhetoric, 3. soundness of argument). 

4. Guest speaker activity: The instructor can invite as a guest speaker a representative of one of the stakeholder groups to talk with students about the theme of nuclear energy. Students can prepare a written reflection after the session on the topic of “What I learned about risks from the guest speaker” or “What I learned about my responsibility as a future engineer in regard to the adoption of nuclear energy.” 

 

Dilemma – Part three:

You arrive at the site of the intended power plant. You are received with mixed emotions. Although you are well liked and have many friends and relatives here, you are also warned that some residents are against the plans for the development of nuclear energy in the area. Several people with whom you’ve had informal chats have significant concerns about the power plant, and whether their health or safety will be negatively affected. At the same time, many people from the surrounding area do not yet know anything about the plans for building the nuclear site. In addition, in the immediate vicinity of the power plant site, the community hosts a small number of refugees who, having just arrived, are yet to be proficient in the language, and whose communication relies mostly on a translator. How will you ensure that this community is well informed of the plans for developing the power plant in their region and approves the plans of Ultra Nuclear? How will you engage with the community and towards what aims? 

 

Optional STOP for questions and activities: 

1. Activity: Research empirical data on the risk awareness and risk perception of public attitudes about nuclear energy, and sum up any findings that you find interesting or relevant for the case study. 

1.a. Discussion: According to you, is risk awareness and perception the same thing? How do they differ as concepts? Considering the research you just did, is there a relation between people’s risk awareness and perception? What does this imply? 

1.b Discussion: Do you identify any differences in the risk perception of the public (based on gender, age, geographical location, educational level)? Why do you think this is so?  

1.c. Discussion: Does the public see the same risks about nuclear energy as technical experts do? Why is this so? 

1.d. Activity: Read Sheila Jasanoff – The political science of risk perception. What is the key takeaway message for you?

2. Group activity: Compose a survey to understand the risk awareness and risk perception of members of the local community.

2.a. Discussion: What are the key questions for the survey? 

2.b. Discussion: How will you distribute the survey and to how many people? 

2.c. Discussion: Do you need to make any special arrangements to ensure that the views of all relevant groups are represented in the survey? 

2.d. Discussion: How will you use the data from the survey and how do you plan to follow-up on the survey?

3. Group activity: Develop a method for engaging with the community in the stages of developing and operating the nuclear plant.

3.a. Discussion: What values and principles do you highlight by engaging with the community? 

3.b. Discussion: How do you choose which participatory methods to use? 

You can use the following resources: Participation toolkit  or Performing Participatory Foresight Methods, Mazzurco and Jesiek, Bertrand, Pirtle and Tomblin. 

 

Annex:  

Localised case study: The development of Nuclear Energy in Ireland. 

Context description: Wikipedia entry for Nuclear power in Ireland and the Carnsore Point protests. 

Summary: 

The entire island of Ireland, comprising The Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland (part of the UK), has never produced any electricity from nuclear power stations. Previous plans have been opposed as early as the 1970s through large public rallies, concerts, and demonstrations against the production of nuclear energy on the island. At the time, Carnsore Point was proposed as a site for the development of four nuclear reactors by the Electricity Supply Board. Public opposition led to the cancelling of this nuclear project and its replacement with a coal burning power station at Moneypoint. Since the 2000s there has been a renewed interest in the possibilities for producing nuclear energy on the island, in response to climate change and the need to ensure energy security. Surveys for identifying public acceptance and national forums have been proposed as ways to identify current perceptions and prospects for the development of nuclear energy. Nevertheless, nuclear energy in the Republic of Ireland is still prohibited by law, through the Electricity Regulation Act (1999). Nuclear energy is currently a contentious topic of debate, with many involved parties holding varying positions and arguments. 

Example of stakeholders: The Irish government; the UK government; political parties; electricity supply board (state owned electricity company); BENE – Better Environment with Nuclear Energy (lobby group); Friends of the Irish Environment (environmental group), Friends of the Earth – Ireland (environmental group); The Union of Concerned Scientists; Wind Aware (lobby group); local community (specified further based on demographic characteristics, such as the Traveller community); scientists in the National Centre for Plasma Science & Technology at Dublin City University (university researchers). 

Sources used for the description of the roles: Policy documents; official websites; institutional or group manifestos; news articles, editorials and other appearances in the media. 

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

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.

Case enhancement: Water wars: managing competing water rights

Activity: Role-play the council meeting, with students playing different characters representing different perspectives.

Author: Cortney Holles (Colorado School of Mines, USA).

 

Overview:

This enhancement is for an activity found in the Dilemma Part two, Point 6 section: “Role-play the council meeting, with students playing different characters representing different perspectives.” Below are several prompts for discussion questions and activities that can be used. Each prompt could take up as little or as much time as the educator wishes, depending on where they want the focus of the discussion to be.

 

Prompts for questions:

After discussing the case in class, and completing the stakeholder mapping activity (Dilemma Part one, Point 4 – repeated below) from the Water Wars case study, this lesson guides teachers through conducting a role-play of the council meeting scenario.

1. Discuss the stakeholder mapping activity: 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?

2. To prepare for the council meeting role-play activity, assign students in advance to take on different stakeholder roles (randomly or purposefully), or let them self-assign based on their interests.  Roles can include any of the following:

Suggestions from Stakeholder mapping activity:

Additional stakeholders to consider:

3. Before the class session in which the role-play will occur, students should research their stakeholder to get a sense of their values and motivations in regard to the case. Where no information is available, students can imagine the experiences and perspectives of the stakeholder with the goal of articulating what the stakeholder values and what motivates them to come to the council meeting to be heard on this issue. Students should prepare some statements about the stakeholder position on the water use by DSS, what the stakeholder values, and what the stakeholder proposes the solution should be. Students assigned to be council members will prepare for the role-play by learning about the conflict and writing potential questions they would want to ask of the stakeholders representing different views on the conflict.

4. In class, students prepare to role-play the council meeting by first connecting with others in the same stakeholder role (if applicable – you may have few enough students to have only one student assigned to a stakeholder) and deciding who can speak (you may want to require each student to speak or ask that one person be nominated to speak on behalf of the stakeholder group).

5. As the session begins, remind students to jot down notes from the various perspectives’ positions so there can be a debrief conversation at the end.  Challenge students to consider their personal biases and position at the outset and reflect on those positions and biases at the end of the council meeting. If they were a lead member of the council, what solution would they propose or vote for?

6. As the Council Meeting begins, the teacher should act as a moderator to guide students through the session. First the teacher will briefly highlight the issue up for discussion, then pass it to the students representing the Council members.  Council members will open the meeting with their description of the matter at hand between DSS and other local parties. They set the tone for the meeting with a call for feedback from the community members. The teacher can help the Council members call up the stakeholders in turn. Each stakeholder group will have a chance to state their argument, values, and reasons for or against DSS’ water use.  Each stakeholder will have an opportunity to suggest a proposed solution and Council members can engage in discussion with each stakeholder to clarify anything about their position that was unclear.

7. At the end of the meeting, the council members privately confer and then publicly vote on a resolution for the community.  All students, no matter their role, end the class by reflecting on the outcome and their original position on the case. Has anything shifted in their position or rationale after the council meeting? Why or why not?

8. The whole class could then engage in a discussion about the outcome of the council meeting. Teachers could focus on an analysis of how the process went, a discussion about the persuasiveness of different values and positions, and/or an exploration of the internal thinking students went through to arrive at their positions.

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

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.

Engineering disciplines: Civil engineering, Electronic engineering.

Ethical issues: Sustainability, Respect for environment, Future generations, Risk, Societal impact.

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 4 here 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:

Teachers have the opportunity to:

 

Learning and teaching resources:

 

Summary:

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

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?

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:

6. Activity: Role-play the council meeting, with students playing different characters representing different perspectives.

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.

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

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.

 

Let us know what you think of our website