Science and Engineering Ethics最新文献

{"title":"Deliberative Lab Communication and the Practice of Ethical Science.","authors":"Dena K Plemmons, Kevin M Esterling, C K Gunsalus","doi":"10.1007/s11948-026-00607-x","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11948-026-00607-x","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We evaluate an intervention designed to give lab-based research teams an opportunity to intentionally discuss project-related data management practices within their labs, examining how such communication might inform perceptions of the relationship between formal data management plans and lab members' day-to-day data management practices. In an earlier study, we developed a lab-based intervention that encouraged a deliberative approach to discussions among lab members regarding the practices of data management and authorship, and an exploration of the ethical dimensions of those practices. This present study builds on this prior work, both as partial replication and extension. Here we show the significant effects of the intervention across several dimensions, but importantly and specific to this project, this deliberative communication approach enhances the likelihood that lab members share an understanding of and a commitment to its data management practices, in part because they have been actively involved in shaping those practices. Fostering shared understanding and commitment is crucial for maintaining rigor and responsibility across all aspects of a lab's work, and is essential for cultivating legitimate, defensible, and ethical approaches to producing scientific knowledge.</p>","PeriodicalId":49564,"journal":{"name":"Science and Engineering Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2026-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13473291/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148158778","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Graduate Students Find Content of Responsible Conduct of Research Coursework Useful.","authors":"Michael D Schaller, Peter H Mathers","doi":"10.1007/s11948-026-00605-z","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11948-026-00605-z","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Concerns about the integrity of scientific research and the erosion of public trust in science led to policy recommendations to improve the responsible conduct of research (RCR). One recommendation was to increase scientific integrity through training, and numerous funding agencies mandated training in RCR for graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. Many institutions implemented training on consensus recommended topics. While many reports describe RCR training and demonstrate the effectiveness at the end of training, they do not report on its usefulness to the trainees in the real world. This study was initiated to address this gap and evaluate graduate student perceptions of the utility of coursework in RCR during their subsequent dissertation research. The study consisted of two cross-sectional survey studies conducted at a mid-sized university in the United States. The first captured the responses of first-year doctoral students enrolled in a semester-long course in RCR (n = 83 respondents). The second captured the responses of past participants in the course (n = 74 respondents). The results demonstrate that students enrolled in the course gain knowledge and self-efficacy from the course. Past participants in the course identified lessons learned from the course that helped them navigate or avoid ethical challenges in their research. The results demonstrate that students appreciate the value of training in research integrity and that they are applying concepts from their coursework very early in their careers.</p>","PeriodicalId":49564,"journal":{"name":"Science and Engineering Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2026-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13500426/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148007238","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Discursive Ethics as a Normative Foundation for Integrating Ethics into AI Clinical Decision Support Systems.","authors":"José-Félix Lozano","doi":"10.1007/s11948-026-00603-1","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11948-026-00603-1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The rapid integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in critical sectors such as healthcare has raised significant concerns regarding human autonomy and the risk of delegating vital decisions to opaque artificial systems. This paper examines the normative foundations required for the responsible integration of ethical principles into AI-based Clinical Decision Support Systems. First, it reviews key descriptive models of human moral judgment-rationalist, intuitionist, and integrative approaches-and highlights their relevance for understanding how humans make ethical decisions under conditions of uncertainty. Particular attention is given to the Actor-Deed-Consequences (ADC) model, which captures the plural and intuitive structure of moral evaluation and offers a promising basis for informing ethical guidance functions in AI systems. Building on this analysis, the paper argues that descriptive models alone are insufficient to secure the legitimacy of AI-assisted clinical decisions. To address this gap, it proposes a discursive ethics framework grounded in the work of Karl-Otto Apel, Jürgen Habermas, and Adela Cortina. This framework emphasizes communicative rationality, stakeholder involvement, transparency, and accountability as essential conditions for ethically acceptable AI deployment. The paper concludes that AI-based CDSS should be developed as dialogical and process-oriented tools that support human judgment. Embedding discursive ethical procedures within AI architectures provides a robust normative pathway for ensuring that technological innovation in healthcare enhances human agency, safeguards dignity, and strengthens trust in clinical practice. Keywords: AI Ethics, Discursive Ethics, Clinical Decision Support Systems, Human Agency, AI Act, Communicative Rationality.</p>","PeriodicalId":49564,"journal":{"name":"Science and Engineering Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2026-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13478023/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147943536","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Tragedies of Technology: An Exploration of Such Narratives.","authors":"Jan Grossarth, Armin Grunwald","doi":"10.1007/s11948-026-00597-w","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11948-026-00597-w","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Technologies such as AI, autonomous drones, gene-editing tools, and climate engineering are profoundly transforming human life in the third decade of the 21st century. Experience of previous technological leaps points to ambivalent effects that at times may be considered \"tragic.\" This paper examines the relationship between technology and tragedy, contributing to the fields of technology ethics, technology assessment, and the philosophy of the human-environment relationship. The relationship between technology and tragedy is double-edged. On the one hand, technology can serve to eliminate tragedy, e.g. by ensuring safety by design, albeit never with guaranteed success. On the other hand, tragic experiences of technological consequences may result from the discrepancy between initial expectations and actual outcomes. A technological consequence is often framed as \"tragic\" if it was initially associated with high expectations of existential improvement (first necessary condition). Furthermore, a consequence can be labeled \"tragic\" in perspective only. Tragic is a personal or cultural narration, experiences that a technology's promise of progress is at least partially reversed to produce the opposite (second necessary condition). As elaborated in this paper, tragic consequences can manifest in two ways: First-order tragedy refers to direct reversals of intended effects (e.g. a technology designed to alleviate hunger exacerbates it). Second-order tragedy involves gradual qualitative changes in life, such as diminished human agency or reduced participation - as if humankind were to become \"part of a techno-economical system\" and lose the freedom to shape life. This is the \"tragic of the machine\". Ultimately, some \"tragic technologies\" narrations may also reflect the one-sided projection of experiences of tragedy onto technology.</p>","PeriodicalId":49564,"journal":{"name":"Science and Engineering Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2026-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13309422/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147943490","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Engineering Ethics, Risk, and Islamic Values in Contemporary Technologies.","authors":"Zohreh Shaghaghi, Shahram Hosseinzadeh","doi":"10.1007/s11948-026-00602-2","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11948-026-00602-2","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Debates in science and engineering ethics increasingly focus on how professionals should act under conditions of uncertainty, especially when essential technologies may pose low-probability but non-negligible risks to human health or the environment. A normative framework for engineering decision-making is developed, grounded in Islamic ethical concepts, and applied to four contemporary technological domains: electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure from high-voltage power infrastructure, radiofrequency (RF) exposure from mobile phones, water use in hydrogen fuel production, and hazardous waste from end-of-life solar photovoltaic (PV) panels. Drawing on the Qur'an and Hadith literature, as well as contemporary discussions of the higher objectives of Islamic law and professional engineering codes, the moral significance of public interest, harm prevention, stewardship, justice, and trusteeship is elaborated. The analysis shows how these values support precautionary yet innovation-friendly responses to uncertain risk, emphasizing transparency, distributional fairness, long-term environmental responsibility, and accountability to affected communities. By articulating points of convergence and complementarity between Islamic ethics and mainstream engineering ethics, a faith-informed framework is contributed that can guide engineers working in Muslim-majority contexts and in culturally diverse societies toward more responsible design, regulation, and deployment of emerging technologies. Read through the lens of the five ethical principles articulated in this framework-harm prevention, public interest, stewardship, justice, and trusteeship-the hadith metaphor emphasizes that ethical engineering consists of small but responsible actions taken with awareness of risk, care for others, and accountability to both present and future generations.</p>","PeriodicalId":49564,"journal":{"name":"Science and Engineering Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2026-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13337953/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147864623","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Research Misconduct in Academia: Examining the Views of Academics in a Public University in Ghana.","authors":"Fred Yao Gbagbo, Percival Delali Agordoh, Esmeranda Manful, Lisa Kearns, Barbara K Redman","doi":"10.1007/s11948-026-00604-0","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11948-026-00604-0","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The motivations for research misconduct (RM) among Ghanaian academics are likely multifaceted but poorly studied. In this pilot exploratory descriptive case study, we thematically explored institutional policies and conducted thirty (30) in-depth interviews of purposively selected Ghanaian academics in a public university in Ghana by examining their views on RM causes, enablers, inhibitors and preventive strategies. We found diverse views about RM among the academics interviewed. For instance, the majority of academics perceived RM in Ghanaian universities as a common practice, fueled by the 'publish-or-perish' phenomenon whilst a few thought RM may not always be intentional. Two important views of RM were also observed: (a) regulatory definitions of fabrication, falsification, manipulation and plagiarism (FFMP) and (b) professional definitions of not meeting scientific standards but not falling into FFMP. We also observed that the common practice of RM among Ghanaian academics may slow scientific progress, dent institutional reputation, harm researchers and participants. The university's policies provided guidelines on conducting research responsibly but no explicit references were made to what constitutes RM and its related consequences. Our study thus highlights the need for increased awareness and education on ethical research conduct in the university and recommend a policy decision from the University management to publicize research integrity and build the Institutional capacity to prevent and manage research misconduct and the damaging effects on the reputation of academics and the university that can follow. A nationwide study is also recommended for broader empirical evidence for policy impact.</p>","PeriodicalId":49564,"journal":{"name":"Science and Engineering Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2026-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13337626/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147857535","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Scientific Objectivity and the Pursuit of the Public Good.","authors":"Sadie Hundemer, Jamie Loizzo, Anna L Peterson, Stephanie Stoutamire, S B Paxson","doi":"10.1007/s11948-026-00601-3","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11948-026-00601-3","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Scientists are increasingly expected to not only produce objective science but also to use their science and expertise to support the public good. Prior studies indicate that scientists see both responsibilities as important; however, it is not clear how scientists manage these responsibilities when they are perceived to be in tension. In this study, scientists at land-grant institutions (n = 87) were presented with binary choices to identify where tensions may exist and how scientists make decisions between competing responsibilities. We examined nine categories of potential tensions: direct conflicts between objectivity and public impact, engagement in public outreach, communication priorities and approach, political engagement and perceived bias, the media, funding and disclosure, supporting/protecting specific causes, diversity, and ethical decision making. Results indicate that scientists belong to three cultures of ethical thought: arbiters, advocates, and brokers. These cultures roughly align with the scientist roles described by Pielke and suggest different prioritizations of commitment to public service relative to commitment to objective science, though both commitments were valued. There was variation across cultures of thought on whether scientists should openly support policies based on their research. Broad areas of agreement across cultures of thought were also identified. Scientists of all cultures of thought indicated a willingness to see themselves in a public role, communicating openly with non-experts on issues where scientific research intersects with the public good. There was also an expressed need for scientists to receive better training and tools to manage conflicting responsibilities.</p>","PeriodicalId":49564,"journal":{"name":"Science and Engineering Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2026-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13337584/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147822901","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Complexities of AI for Social Good: An Explorative Study on Adversarial Machine Learning to Facilitate Deliberative Decision-Making in Elections.","authors":"Syafira Fitri Auliya, Olya Kudina, Aaron Yi Ding, Ibo Van de Poel","doi":"10.1007/s11948-026-00598-9","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11948-026-00598-9","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The proliferation and pervasive use of artificial intelligence (AI) pose significant challenges to our democracies. In particular, AI leverages microtargeting political campaigns by constructing detailed user profiles and inferring people's individual susceptibilities from their data. This capability enables highly targeted political messaging that can substantially influence voting decisions, potentially undermining citizens' ability to make deliberative decisions in elections. While existing research has proposed interventions to mitigate the negative impacts of political micro-targeting, many of these interventions may become less effective as AI continually yields more powerful and subliminal forms of micro-targeting. Assuming that technologies can play a role in mitigating these negative impacts of AI, we conducted an explorative study to identify the design principles of technological tools that could facilitate citizens' deliberative decision-making in elections in the continuously levelaged AI-based political campaigns. Using Indonesia's 2024 elections as a case study, we interviewed twenty citizens and four political actors to gain critical insights into how such technologies might be developed. Initially, we anticipated that privacy-enhancing AI, used to counterattack profiling AI used by political actors, might suffice to facilitate election deliberation. However, our findings reveal a more complex reality: addressing societal issues through technology is inherently challenging; no single solution can serve as a silver bullet. Instead, facilitating election deliberation requires integrating privacy with other conditions, including self-reflection, education, access to diverse information, critical thinking, and openness to others. These design principles might serve as concrete, actionable design principles to guide the development of technologies to enhance election deliberation.</p>","PeriodicalId":49564,"journal":{"name":"Science and Engineering Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2026-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13337672/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147787399","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"An Integrative Review of Engineering Ethics Education at Delft University of Technology: Contexts, Assumptions, and Practices.","authors":"Daniel M Phoenix, Qin Zhu, Andrea Gammon, Rockwell Clancy","doi":"10.1007/s11948-026-00594-z","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11948-026-00594-z","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Engineering ethics education has undergone significant development across institutions worldwide over the last three decades. While earlier analyses have examined aspects of this development, few integrated accounts have traced the evolution of a leading institution's approach to engineering ethics education across this period. This paper addresses this gap. It presents an integrative review of engineering ethics education at Delft University of Technology (TU Delft), one of Europe's most influential institutions in this field. Drawing on peer-reviewed articles, books, book chapters, conference papers, and institutional documents published by TU Delft scholars over three decades, we trace the historical development of the institution's approach, analyze its core theoretical assumptions and examine its learning goals and evolving pedagogical practices. The review identifies two distinct stages in the institution's development. It reflects a deepening of learning goals and, most notably, a shift toward experiential and non-cognitive pedagogical approaches. These findings offer a reference point for discussing how ethics should be taught to engineers, how to integrate it into technical curricula, and which kinds of normative stances institutions should adopt in their ethics programs.</p>","PeriodicalId":49564,"journal":{"name":"Science and Engineering Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2026-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13275519/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147787377","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Developing an Integrity Policy for a Technical University: The Case of TU Delft.","authors":"Sabine Roeser, Samantha Copeland","doi":"10.1007/s11948-026-00596-x","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11948-026-00596-x","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Integrity is an increasingly important topic at universities, due to more awareness as well as due to internal and external challenges. This paper tells the story of the development of the integrity infrastructure at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, a leading engineering university, We write this paper as academics and philosophers working at TU Delft and as members of the committees and working groups that, over the previous decade, took up the question of how to ensure integrity within our university. Thereby we also engaged with the question of what integrity at a university ought to be like as well as who has which responsibilities to support it. In this paper we will discuss key narrative themes that arose from the insights gained through this process. The intention in sharing this story is to guide fellow academics in similar positions, struggling to identify the needs of faculty, staff and students, who wish to act with integrity but who require institutional support and clear guidance to do so. In particular, we wish to highlight a key tension, between the need to formalise general basic requirements and the wish to have clear thresholds for good and bad behaviour, and the daily practice of integrity which requires context-sensitive awareness, respect, diversity, open-mindedness and continuous engagement with any principles laid down. We present our case through narrative form in order to trace both the points where and how this tension took form, and to note potential leverage points in such processes for others. The process of creating an integrity infrastructure, that is, both embodies and illustrates this tension as well as offering some ways to ease or accommodate it. Further, we present in this paper a key contribution of the integrity policy developed at TU Delft: the creation of an infrastructure and Code of Conduct that attend not only to academic integrity, but draw out and enact the responsibility frameworks and duties entailed by social and organizational integrity as well, which together constitute the three pillars of TU Delft’s integrity policy. As academic integrity relates to issues such as research ethics, social integrity relates to behavior between people (employees and students), and organizational integrity relates to issues such as conflicts of interest and collaborations with external parties. Of course, challenging situations will often involve aspects that fall under more than one of these pillars, but the pillars help to provide conceptual clarity. In this way the integrity infrastructure developed at TU Delft is richer and more ambitious than policies that focus primarily on what we call ‘academic integrity’.</p>","PeriodicalId":49564,"journal":{"name":"Science and Engineering Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2026-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13230284/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147718865","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}