AC 2011-1501: A CASE STUDY-BASED GRADUATE COURSE IN ENGI- NEERING ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines in detail the development of a graduate-level course in engineering ethics and professional responsibilities. Case studies covering the field from the Texas A&M Bonfire to Bhopal, the Quebec Bridge to the Kansas City Hyatt Regency, and many other notable incidents are used extensively to give the students insight into how a lack of ethics or an abrogation of professional responsibility has resulted in some of the major engineering failures for which we have records. Students prepare in advance for a discussion of the day’s topics through researching the historical record. The class leader then guides the class through a close examination of cultural, managerial, commercial, governmental and human factors in the context of the time in which the failures occurred. In one 3-hour class, as an example, aerospace and aviation was the topic as seen through the stories of Apollo 1 (1967), TWA Flight 800 (1996) and the Concorde crash (2000). In Apollo 1, faulty wiring in an explosive atmosphere led to loss of the capsule and crew. (Three years later, Apollo 13 was almost lost due to faulty wiring in an explosive atmosphere.) Almost thirty years later, TWA Flight 800 was lost with all aboard due to faulty wiring in an explosive atmosphere. The Concorde, which had a long history of tire failures causing wing and fuel tank damage, was lost when it hit debris and a tire failed, fatally damaging the wing and fuel tank. Disasters rarely happen without a string of warnings. The manner in which these warnings are handled is a fertile ground for class discussion of how professional responsibilities were or were not handled in an ethical way. The course uses as a text the book “Truth, Lies, and O-Rings: Inside the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster” by Allan J. McDonald. This is a first-hand account of the events leading up to and following the loss of Challenger. It is written in a very readable style, and students in the course have expressed a keen interest in the story, both as a “good read” and as one of the best, most detailed accounts of ethics, professional responsibility and even management politics to be found anywhere. Additionally, research papers and presentations explore cultural views on these topics and more detailed personal analyses and applications of the material.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".