In developing the case studies and guidance articles for the EPC’s Engineering Ethics toolkit, the authors and advisory groupĀ 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 WelfareāDrinking Water Quality; and MisrepresentationāClaiming 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.
In developing the cases and articles for theEPC’s Engineering Ethics toolkitthe authors and advisory group took into account recent scholarship on best practices in teaching engineering ethics through case studies – see further information on this below. They also reviewed existing case study libraries in order to add to the growing body of material available on engineering ethics, examples of which can be foundhere.
Ā
Best practices for developing and using case studies in teaching engineering ethics:
Use a conceptual framework to make cases relevant, realistic, engaging, challenging, and instructional (Kim et al., 2006).
Use a narrative style; Provide the opportunity for students to consider, revisit, and refine their responses and perspectives (Herreid, 2007).
Move beyond a limited focus on ethics of duty and the corresponding emphasis on professional codes (Swan, Kulich, & Wallace, 2019).
Relate to realistic professional engineering situations and practice (Valentine et al., 2020).
Incorporate macro- and micro-ethical considerations; couple ethics and equity (Rottman & Reeve, 2020).
Provide opportunities to employ a range of activities and learning experiences (Herkert, 2000).
Ā
References:
Conlon, E. and Zandvoort, H. (2011) ‘Broadening ethics teaching in engineering: Beyond the individualistic approach’, Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(2), pp.217-232.
Davis, M. (2006) ‘Integrating ethics into technical courses: Micro-insertion’, Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(4), pp.717-730.
Herkert, J.R. (2000) ‘Engineering ethics education in the USA: Content, pedagogy, and curriculum’, European Journal of Engineering Education, 25(4), pp.303-313.
Herreid, C.F. (2007) Start with a Story: The Case Study Method of Teaching College Science. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Kim, S., Phillips, W.R., Pinsky, L., Brock, D., Phillips, K. and Keary, J. (2006) ‘A conceptual framework for developing teaching cases: a review and synthesis of the literature across disciplines’, Medical Education, 40(9), pp.867-876.
Lennerfors, T. T., Fors, P., and Woodward, J.R. (2020) ‘Case hacks: Four hacks for promoting critical thinking in case-based management education for sustainable development’, Hƶgre Utbildning, 10(2), pp.1-15.Ā
Rottman, C. and Reeve, D. (2020) ‘Equity as rebar: Bridging the micro/macro divide in engineering ethics education’, Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 20(1), pp.146-165.Ā
Swan, C., Kulich, A., and Wallace, R. (2019) A Review of ethics cases: Gaps in the engineering curriculum. Paper presented at 2019 Annual American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition.Ā
Valentine, A., Lowenhoff, S., Marinelli, M., Male, S. and Hassan, G.M. (2020) ‘Building studentsā nascent understanding of ethics in engineering practice’, European Journal of Engineering Education, 45(6), pp.957-970.
Walling, O. (2015) ‘Beyond ethical frameworks: Using moral experimentation in the engineering ethics classroom’, Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(6), pp.1637-1656.
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 Professorsā Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Authors: Dr Sarah Junaid (Aston University); Professor Mike Sutcliffe (TEDI-London); Jonathan Truslove (Engineers Without Borders UK); Professor Mike Bramhall (TEDI-London).
Keywords: Active verbs; Bloomās Taxonomy; learning outcomes; learning objectives; embedding ethics; project based learning; case studies; self-reflection; UK-SPEC; AHEP; design portfolio; ethical approval checklist and forms; ethical design.
Who this article is for?: This article should be read by educators at all levels in higher education who wish to integrate ethics into the engineering and design curriculum or module design. It will also help prepare students with the integrated skill sets that employers are looking for.
Ā
Premise:
Engineering can have a significant impact on society and the environment, in both positive and negative ways. To fully understand the implications of engineering requires navigating complex, uncertain and challenging ethical issues. It is therefore essential to embed ethics into any project or learning outcome and for engineering professionals and educators to operate in a responsible and ethical manner.
The fourth iteration of theAccreditation of Higher Education Programmes (AHEP) reflects this importance to society by strengthening the focus on inclusive design and innovation, equality, diversity, sustainability and ethics, within its learning outcomes. By integrating ethics into engineering and design curricula, graduates develop a deeper comprehension of the ethical issues inherent in engineering and the skill sets necessary to navigate complex ethical decision-making needed across all sectors.
Ā
Policy:
There is growing advocacy for bringing engineering ethics to the fore in engineering programmes. At the policy level, this is evident in three general areas:
UK-SPEC and accreditation bodies are identifying ethics as one of the core learning outcomes and competencies in accreditation documents.
The inclusion of more descriptive competencies that expand on engineering ethics.
The fourth iteration of AHEP standards reflecting the importance of societal impact in engineering.
However, to translate the accreditation learning outcomes and their intentions to an engineering programme requires a duty of care by those responsible for programme design and development. The following are points for consideration:
Embedding ethics more readily into technical subjects. A demarcation of engineering ethics in accreditation documents has the purpose of emphasising the importance of ethics and societal impact in engineering programmes. However, this demarcation can implicitly lead to the exclusion of ethics within the other core competencies. It is important that engineering ethics competencies operate across the other core competencies. An example of how this could be done is suggested in Gwynne-Evans et al. (2021) and Davis (2006).
Using active verbs and higher-level learning outcomes. Competencies relating to ethics are often limited to lower cognitive learning levels, such as āknowā and āawareness ofā. When considering the accreditation competencies in programme design, it is important to engage verbs at higher learning levels (Junaid et al., 2021). Verbs such as ādesignā and āexerciseā inBloom’s Taxonomy would help in designing assessments that reflect this.
Use of other policy documents and resources beyond accreditation. It is useful to review other resources at the policy level that can be used to refine or reinforce the programme design such as theInternational Engineering Alliance, theWashington Accord and theEthics Explorer (see additional resources below).
Ā
Curriculum structure:
In the UK-SPEC (4th edition) guidance the Engineering Council states: āEngineering professionals work to enhance the wellbeing of society. In doing so they are required to maintain and promote high ethical standards and challenge unethical behaviour.ā
In AHEP 4, students must meet the following learning outcome: āIdentify and analyse ethical concerns and make reasoned ethical choices informed by professional codes of conductā
So, when designing a new programme, ethics should ideally be built into the learning outcomes of the programme and modules at the early design stage and consistently be emphasised throughout. To ensure ethics are embedded, students should be required to consider the outputs of their project work through a societal or community lens, especially if they are undertaking projects with a practical delivery of ethics such as, say, designing for older people in care homes.
For existing programmes, ethics could be most readily introduced through a stand-alone ethics module. It is better, however, for ethics to be embedded across the whole programme, encouraging a holistic āethical considerations mindsetā as a āgolden threadā across, and within, all student project work (Hitt, 2022). Minor or major modifications could be made to programmes to ensure that ethics is considered and emphasised, such as through the use of active verbs that embed critical reflections of design. For programmes with a large project-based learning component, ethical considerations should be required at the initial stage of all projects.
Ā
Learning and teaching activities:
In all efforts to embed ethics in engineering education, there should be a focus on constructively aligning teaching activity to learning outcomes. Examples include: employing user-centred design and/or value-sensitive design approaches and case studies for technical and non-technical considerations, using empathy workshops for ethical design, and ensuring ethical considerations are included in problem statements and product design specifications for decision-making. The use of self-reflection logs and peer reflections for team working can also be useful in capturing ethical considerations in a team setting and for addressing conflict resolutions.
A pragmatic step for programmes that use project-based learning is to encourage these ethical discussions at the beginning of all project work and to return to these questions and considerations during the course of the project. Reflecting on ethics throughout will lead to an ethical mindset, a foundation that students will build on throughout their subsequent careers.
One way of ensuring this for students is to complete an ethical scrutiny checklist, which, when completed, is then considered by a departmental ethics committee. The filter questions at the start of an ethics scrutiny submission would help determine the level of review required. Projects with no human participants could be approved following some basic checks. In some universities it has become policy for ethical scrutiny to be required for all group and individual project work such as problem-based learning projects, final year degree projects, and MSc and PhD research projects. For projects that collaborate with the Health Research Authority (HRA), it is a requirement that scrutiny is through their own HRA committee and it is good practice to put these types of projects initially through a departmental and/or university ethics committee as well. Having students go through this process is a good way of revealing the ethical implications of their engineering work.
Ā
Assessments:
Closing the constructive alignment triangle requires assessments that are designed to utilise learning and teaching activities and to demonstrate the learning outcomes. The challenging question is: How can ethics be evaluated and assessed effectively? One solution is through using more active verbs that demonstrate ethical awareness with outputs and deliverables. Examples where this could be applied include:
demonstrating ethical considerations in a design portfolio
in a project thesis or viva
incorporating ethical practice into the marking matrix
developing a conducive team environment through conflict resolution tools
reflection logs and mid-project peer reviews
incorporating ethical enquiry into engineering processes.
Using accreditation documentation to develop effective engineering programmes requires engaging beyond the checklists, thereby becoming more accustomed to viewing all competencies through an ethical lens. At programme design and module level, it is important to focus on constructively aligning the three key elements: learning outcomes written through an ethical lens, learning and teaching activities that engage with active verbs, and assessments demonstrating ethical awareness through a product, process, reflection and decisions.
Ā
References:
Davis, M. (2006) āIntegrating ethics into technical courses: Mirco-insertion’, Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(4), pp.717-730.
Gwynne-Evans, A.J, Chetty, M. and Junaid, S. (2021) āRepositioning ethics at the heart of engineering graduate attributesā, Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 26(1), pp. 7-24.
Hitt, S.J. (2022) ‘Embedding ethics throughout a Master’s in integrated engineering curriculum’, International Journal of Engineering Education, 38(3).
Junaid, S., Kovacs, H., Martin, D. A., and Serreau, Y. (2021) āWhat is the role of ethics in accreditation guidelines for engineering programmes in Europe?ā, Proceedings SEFI 49th Annual Conference: Blended Learning in Engineering Education: challenging, enlightening ā and lasting?, European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), pp. 274-282.
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 Professorsā Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Authors: Professor Sarah Hitt SFHEA (NMITE) and Professor Raffaella Ocone OBE FREng FRSE (Heriot-Watt University).
Keywords: Engineering education; assessment methods and tools; ethics assessment and evaluation; AHEP; ABET; ethics learning assessment aims and outcomes.
Who is this article for?: This article should be read by educators at all levels in higher education who wish to integrate ethics into the engineering and design curriculum or module design. It will also help prepare students with the integrated skill sets that employers are looking for.
Ā
Premise:
Educators who integrate ethics into their activities and modules may be unsure how to assess student learning in this area. Yet assessment of ethics learning is not only crucial for evaluating learning, but also for identifying ways to improve the teaching of ethics within engineering education. This is becoming increasingly important as accreditation bodies such as the AHEP (UK) and ABET (US) have revised standards to emphasise the context of engineering practice ā of which ethics is a key component. Professional and industrial organisations like the Royal Academy of Engineering and the IET are prioritising ethical principles within their activities too.
Ā
The challenge of assessment:
The challenges of assessing ethics learning can seem difficult to overcome. Many of these challenges are summarised by Davis and Feinerman (2012) as āpractical limits on assessmentā. These include demands on time, pressure from other instructors or administrators, difficulty in connecting assessment of ethics with assessment of technical content, and instructorsā unfamiliarity or lack of confidence in ethics teaching.
Furthermore, as Keefer et al. (2014, p.250-251) point out, ārealistic ethical problems are what cognitive scientists refer to as āill-structured problemsā, because there is no clearly specified goal, usually incomplete information, and multiple possible solution paths . . . good student responses can lead in quite different directions, providing emphases on a diversity of values and issues that are difficult to predictā.
However, scholars of engineering ethics have been studying assessment methods and practices for decades, and have shown ways of overcoming these challenges. Informed by other areas of practical and professional ethics, including business or medical ethics, their work has tried to formalise evaluation and measure studentsā learning after ethical interventions in the curriculum. Whether these interventions occur in the context of a single course or module on engineering ethics, as part of a defined design project, or integrated within technical lessons, scholars agree that ethics learning can, and should, be assessed as a best practice in engineering education (Benya, 2012).
Ā
Assessment aims and methods:
Most educational institutions promote a variety of assessment methods as good educational practice. As such, both quantitative and qualitative assessment methods can be used in ethics education; many of these are described in Watts et al.ās (2017) systematic review and analysis of best practices. These include: pre- and post-tests, experimental and control groups, interviews to elicit descriptive data, or written essays from which themes can be identified and extracted.
No matter which method is chosen, the key to assessing student progress in ethics learning is for the educator to align the content that is taught, with the outcomes that are desired (Bairaktarova and Woodcock, 2015). These outcomes can be informed by other module or programme learning outcomes and accreditation standards.
A good practice is to use outcomes informed by scholars in moral development and teaching ethics, who have described ways to identify and then measure defined elements of ethics learning. For example, theEngineering Ethics ExplorerĀ identifies pedagogical focus at different learning levels with corresponding outcomes and content.
In ethics education more generally, Davis and Feinerman (2012) describe these learning aims which can be applied to engineering ethics:
Improve studentsā sensitivity (the awareness and recognition of ethical dilemmas).
Increase studentsā knowledge (ethics resources such as codes, standards, theories, and/or decision-making tools).
Enhance studentsā judgement (the analysis and reasoning required to make and justify ethical choices).
Reinforce studentsā commitment (the motivation to act based on ethics learning).
These aims correspond to a taxonomy of moral development such as that described by James Rest (1994) which increases in complexity at different learning levels. For this reason, the Royal Academy of Engineering/Engineering Professorsā Councilās Engineering ethics case studies are designated as Beginner, Intermediate, and Advanced, where:
Beginner cases focus on ethical Awareness, Sensitivity, and Imagination
Intermediate cases focus on ethical Analysis, Reasoning, and Judgement
Advanced cases focus on ethical Motivation, Action, and Commitment.
Ā
Developing assessment tools in engineering ethics:
Educators may use these ethics learning aims / outcomes as guidance for developing assessments. For example, in an intermediate case that focuses on making a decision about an ethical dilemma, students might be assessed on their ability to:
identify stakeholders affected by the dilemma and describe their perspectives
define the problem and explain why it is an ethical dilemma
identify possible courses of action in response to the dilemma
propose a course of action that is justified by drawing on codes or standards.
After outcomes are identified, educators can design assessment tools. In the case described above, multiple choice questions would ask students to identify stakeholders, choose among options that correctly define the problem, or identify potential courses of action.
A matching question could link stakeholders and their perspectives. Students would be asked to explain the dilemma and propose a course of action and a narrative could be evaluated against a rubric that scores studentsā proficiency on a scale of Less Proficient to Expert in categories such as:
the ability to anticipate ethical concerns of stakeholders
the ability to recognise competing ethical demands
the ability to refer to resources that support ethical action.
These tools could be used in formative assessments, where students are given checklists, rubrics, or scoring guides to evaluate their learning as it is happening and prior to the completion of final exams or projects. Keefer et al. (2014) show formative assessment to be effective in engineering ethics learning situations not only because of its benefit to students, but also in its ability to reveal gaps in instruction that can be used to improve teaching.
Sindelar et al. (2003) describe the use of a summative assessment tool where students provided written responses to questions about two engineering ethics scenarios and were scored using a rubric designed to evaluate their response to an ethical dilemma. Both of these examples were also used in both pre- and post-test scenarios. These could also be useful in measuring the effectiveness of ethics instruction.
Finally, Davis and Feinerman (2012) demonstrate how slight adjustments to technical questions can elicit responses that also reveal studentsā ethics learning. This can be done by using the example of a question about the technical capabilities of a micro-fluidic device and its advantages or disadvantages to society.
Ā
Conclusion:
We should be encouraged that, as Watts et al. (2017, p.225-226) also demonstrate, āmultiple meta-analyses examining the effectiveness of ethics courses in the sciences and businessā show that ethics instruction does improve studentsā ability to make ethical decisions, and that ethics education has āimproved significantly in the last decadeā. With that in mind, educators should feel confident that they can identify what aspect of ethics learning needs to be assessed, and then measure it with an appropriately designed assessment tool.
Ā
References:
Bairaktarova, D. and Woodcock, A. (2015). āEngineering ethics education: Aligning practice and outcomesā, IEEE Communications Magazine, 53(11), pp.18-22.
Benya, F.F., Fletcher, C.H. and Hollander, R.D., (2013) āPractical Guidance on Science and Engineering Ethics Education for Instructors and Administrators: Papers and Summary from a Workshop December 12, 2012ā, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Davis, M. and A. Feinerman. (2012). āAssessing graduate student progress in engineering ethics’, Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(2), pp. 351-367.
Keefer, M.W., Wilson, S.E., Dankowicz, H. and Loui, M.C., (2014) āThe importance of formative assessment in science and engineering ethics education: Some evidence and practical adviceā, Science and Engineering Ethics, 20(1), pp. 249-260.
Rest, J. R., (1994) āBackground: Theory and researchā, in Rest, J. and Narvaez, D. (eds.), Moral Development in the Professions: Psychology and Applied Ethics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 1-26.
Sindelar, M., Shuman, L., Besterfield-Sacre, M., Miller, R., Mitcham, C., Olds, B., Pinkus, R. and Wolfe, H., (2003) āAssessing engineering studentsā abilities to resolve ethical dilemmas’, Paper presented at the ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Boulder, CO, 5-8 November 2003.
Watts, L.L., Todd, E.M., Mulhearn, T.J., Medeiros, K.E., Mumford, M.D. and Connelly, S., (2017) āQualitative evaluation methods in ethics education: A systematic review and analysis of best practicesā, Accountability in Research, 24(4), pp. 225-242.
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 Professorsā Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Authors: Professor Dawn Bonfield MBE (Aston University); Johnny Rich (Engineering Professorsā Council); Professor Chike Oduoza (University of Wolverhampton).
Who is this article for?: This article should be read by educators at all levels in higher education who wish to integrate ethics into the engineering and design curriculum or module design. It will also help to prepare students with the integrated skill sets that employers are looking for.
Ā
Premise:
The Statement of Ethical Principles published by the Engineering Council and the Royal Academy of Engineering in 2005 (revised in 2017) contains the recommendations to which all UK engineers should comply. It sets out four fundamental principles that all engineering professionals should aspire to follow in their working habits and relationships.
At the launch of the revised document, the Chair of the Engineering Council said āThe profession needs to ensure that the principles are embedded at all stages of professional development for engineers and those technicians, tradespeople, students, apprentices and trainees engaged in engineering.ā
These principles are based on the premise that engineering professionals work to enhance the wellbeing of society, and in so doing they are required to maintain and promote high ethical standards, as well as to challenge unethical behaviour. The principles are the foundation for making decisions when faced with an ethical dilemma in engineering.
Ā
The four principles:
The code defines four fundamental principles of ethical behaviour: Honesty and integrity; Respect for life, law, the environment and public good; Accuracy and rigour; and Leadership and communication.
The requirement for engineers to embody honesty and integrity is based on the expectation that engineers can be trusted. It seeks to position the engineering community as one that possesses the respect and confidence of the public. People should feel confident that the word of an engineer is a reliable one, and that decisions taken by engineers are fair and without compromise or conflict.
Respect for life, law, the environment and public good demands that engineers are law-abiding and have the publicās best interests at heart. This allows people to feel safe when they drive over bridges, fly in aircrafts, and use electrical equipment. It reassures them that engineering designs have been tested, are legally compliant, and that the engineer puts, above all else, the wellbeing of the public, future generations, other members of the profession, and the environment in which we live. This principle also covers the protection of data and privacy of the public.
Accuracy and rigour ensures that engineers are trained, competent and knowledgeable, and that they do not pass themselves off as experts in areas where they are not competent. It requires that engineers keep their knowledge up-to-date, and share their knowledge and understanding with others in their profession. It calls for engineers to take a broad approach to problem-solving, considering a variety of external factors which may influence the risks of any project.
And finally, the principle of leadership and communication ensures that engineers lead by example, that diversity and inclusion are valued, and that people are treated fairly and with respect. It is concerned with the impact of engineering on society in the broadest sense ā with how the public sees engineering and how engineering addresses public, social and environmental justice concerns. It requires engineers to be considerate and truthful when acting in a professional capacity, and to raise concerns where necessary.
These four principles underpin professional codes of conduct for engineers, and they provide guidance on how ethical decisions should be made, giving a set of values against which engineers can behave.
Ā
Using the principles to unpick right from wrong and make the best decision:
While these principles can form a useful basis for ethical decision-making within engineering, it is often the case that conflicts arise that prevent the decision pathway from being straightforward, when there is no obvious right or wrong answer. There may be other principles that need to be considered, relating to the organisation or the institution that the engineer is working for. Furthermore, there may be other considerations associated with a personās religion, culture or belief system. We shouldnāt forget that other constraints such as cost and time will also impact on the possible options available.
So, decision-making in engineering is rarely straightforward. It is not like a mathematical equation with right and wrong answers, but rather with degrees of rightness, balances of pros and cons and, often, with some costs incurred for the sake of a greater good. Various tools and frameworks exist to help the decision-maker with ethical problems. Probably the simplest logical method considers each of the possible solutions against the ethical principles that are to be complied with. These can then be considered in relation to the stakeholders affected, and a list of pros and cons can be developed. They can even be scored and weighted.
What if a decision is required quickly? How do we ensure that we are likely to make the best one? These questions are partly due to the values that we subscribe to as engineers, and as individuals. They become embedded in our subconsciousness through our training and practice. When decisions need to be made in a hurry, we rely on heuristics, or simple rules or instincts that feel consistent with the ethical knowledge and expertise that we have built up during our career. These heuristics, however, are subject to cognitive biases ā psychological patterns of thought that divert us from purely rational approaches. Being aware of these biases can help to minimise or compensate for them.
Ā
Conclusion:
Engineers should utilise the Statement of Ethical Principles and knowledge of the specific context they are working in, to make the best decisions on the situation or dilemmas at hand. Ultimately, decisions that we make as a professional engineer are our individual responsibility, and whatever decision results, we should be prepared to justify and stand by them, knowing that we have taken these in good faith and for the right reasons. Ethical decision-making can be practised throughout an engineerās education by using a variety of case studies to explore a range of scenarios an engineer could face. The Royal Academy of Engineering and Engineering Professorsā Councilās Engineering ethics case studies can be used for this.
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 Professorsā Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
The IPO has provided us with a guide to patents, trade marks, copyright or design: how intellectual property applies to the work of engineering academics.(Intellectual Property Office is an operating name of the Patent Office.)
Innovation is at the heart of everything engineers do. This innovation has value, which may be protected by intellectual property rights. Appropriate use of intellectual property rights can ensure that your innovation has the opportunity to succeed. Whether it is a new method which solves an existing problem or a new tool which opens up new possibilities.
Intellectual Property (IP) in broad terms covers the manifestation of ideas, creativity and innovation in a tangible form. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), the legal forms of IP, helps protect your creativity and innovation.
The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) created a series of resources to help people in universities understand how IP works and applies to them.
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 Professorsā Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
The IPO has provided us with a guide to patents, trade marks, copyright or design: how intellectual property applies to the work of engineering academics.
Intellectual Property Office is an operating name of the Patent Office.
Intellectual Asset Management Guide for Universities helps vice-chancellors, senior decision makers and senior managers at universities set strategies to optimise the benefits from the intellectual assets created in their institutions.
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 Professorsā Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
The IPO has provided us with a guide to patents, trade marks, copyright or design: how intellectual property applies to the work of engineering academics.
Intellectual Property Office is an operating name of the Patent Office.
Lambert Toolkit assists academic or research institutions in collaboration with business. The Lambert toolkit includes a series of model research agreements to help facilitate negotiations between potential partners and reduce the time, effort and costs required to secure an agreement.
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 Professorsā Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
The IPO has provided us with a guide to patents, trade marks, copyright or design: how intellectual property applies to the work of engineering academics.
Intellectual Property Office is an operating name of the Patent Office.
IP for Research highlights the relevance of IP in PhD students and researchers work. IP for Research includes 6 quick guides on IP and commercialisation as well as a half day face-to-face workshop.
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 Professorsā Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
The IPO has provided us with a guide to patents, trade marks, copyright or design: how intellectual property applies to the work of engineering academics.
Intellectual Property Office is an operating name of the Patent Office.
IP Tutor Plus supports university lecturers in engaging with their students on IP. IP Tutor Plus helps highlight the relevance of IP in a studentās future career, and the situations where IP should be considered. IP Tutor Plus includes lecture slides, notes, case studies, talking points and FAQ.
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 Professorsā 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 groupĀ 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:
Innovation is at the heart of everything engineers do. This innovation has value, which may be protected by intellectual property rights. Appropriate use of intellectual property rights can ensure that your innovation has the opportunity to succeed. Whether it is a new method which solves an existing problem or a new tool which opens up new possibilities.
The IPO has provided us with a guide to patents, trade marks, copyright or design: how intellectual property applies to the work of engineering academics.
The IPO has provided us with a guide to patents, trade marks, copyright or design: how intellectual property applies to the work of engineering academics.
The IPO has provided us with a guide to patents, trade marks, copyright or design: how intellectual property applies to the work of engineering academics.
The IPO has provided us with a guide to patents, trade marks, copyright or design: how intellectual property applies to the work of engineering academics.