Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter traces the development of Engineering Ethics, Computer Ethics, and Environmental Technoethics. It also covers the topic of military technoethics as an important new development that deserves special attention. The story begins in the late 19th century with the development of various engineering professional bodies to ensure that engineers were responsible for potentially harmful constructions. This in turn, gave rise to the creation of codes of engineering ethics to help guide professional conduct. As the public demand for engineering increased throughout the 20th century, so did the ethical implications and demand for codes of engineering ethics. In the 1950s and 1960s, the continued expansion of industrial growth lead also to a number of human caused environmental disasters ranging from oil spills to nuclear explosions to the release of toxic chemicals into the air and water supply. This brought on a public reaction among environmental organizations and increased public attention to ethical implications of technology and the environment. These developments helped nurture in studies in environmental technoethics and the ethical concern over human involvement in technology related environmental change. Also in the 1950s and 1960s, the public use of mainframe computers, promising outlook for computer networking, and scholarly interest in systems research raised additional interest concerning the ethical implications connected to computer innovation in society. This chapter provides a review of background developments, challenges, and current directions in each of these areas. It uses examples to illustrate the potency of technology in reference to key areas (i.e., access equity, software design, computer navigation systems, construction, mining, and other areas of technology use and misuse). It concludes with insider interviews from leading experts working in the field and recommendations on how to use technoethical inquiry to leverage the ethical use of science and technology in areas where technological innovation has created ethical challenges and dilemmas.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".