soundofheaven.info Fiction FUNDAMENTALS OF ETHICS FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS PDF

Fundamentals of ethics for scientists and engineers pdf

Saturday, April 13, 2019 admin Comments(0)

scientists and soundofheaven.info free download, fundamentals of ethics for scientists and engineers fundamentals ethics scientists engineers seebauer pdf ebook. ebook - fundamentals ethics scientists engineers seebauer pdf ebook minors - soundofheaven.info - iversit o cetrl lo errute ctlo minimum requirements for minors. cific professional responsibilities of engineers. Recently the VDI Executive Board passed the new document. „Fundamentals of Engineering Ethics“. They are.


Author: ANJELICA SNEARLY
Language: English, Spanish, French
Country: Mauritania
Genre: Personal Growth
Pages: 615
Published (Last): 26.02.2016
ISBN: 464-2-16781-724-1
ePub File Size: 22.49 MB
PDF File Size: 15.48 MB
Distribution: Free* [*Regsitration Required]
Downloads: 42864
Uploaded by: CARMEN

Request PDF on ResearchGate | On Jan 1, , E. G. Seebauer and others published Fundamentals of Ethics for Scientists and Engineers. Fundamentals of Ethics for Scientists and Engineers represents a new approach to introductory ethics that is both practical and accessible. Classical virtue. THE IMPORTANCE OF ETHICS IN FOOD SCIENCE. There are both ANTHROPOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF ETHICS. Ethical principles and.

Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony. The other wrote their opinion and hardly wrote down facts about the theories and philosophers. Read more. Robert L. For a somewhat dated review of codes of ethics adopted by the scientific and engineering societies, see Chalk et al.

Why software should be free. Retrieved from " https: A-level Computing. Namespaces Book Discussion. Views Read Latest draft Edit View history. Policies and guidelines Contact us. In other languages Add links. This page was last edited on 7 March , at By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

Some research laboratories serve as the proprietor of data and data books that are under the stewardship of the principal investigator. Others maintain that it is the responsibility of the individuals who collected the data to retain proprietorship, even if they leave the laboratory.

Concerns about misconduct in science have raised questions about the roles of research investigators and of institutions in maintaining and providing access to primary data. In some cases of alleged misconduct, the inability or unwillingness of an investigator to provide. Many scientists believe that access should be restricted to peers and colleagues, usually following publication of research results, to reduce external demands on the time of the investigator.

Others have suggested that raw data supporting research reports should be accessible to any critic or competitor, at any time, especially if the research is conducted with public funds. This topic, in particular, could benefit from further research and systematic discussion to clarify the rights and responsibilities of research investigators, institutions, and sponsors.

Institutional policies have been developed to guide data storage practices in some fields, often stimulated by desires to support the patenting of scientific results and to provide documentation for resolving disputes over patent claims.

Laboratories concerned with patents usually have very strict rules concerning data storage and note keeping, often requiring that notes be recorded in an indelible form and be countersigned by an authorized person each day. A few universities have also considered the creation of central storage repositories for all primary data collected by their research investigators.

Some government research institutions and industrial research centers maintain such repositories to safeguard the record of research developments for scientific, historical, proprietary, and national security interests.

In the academic environment, however, centralized research records raise complex problems of ownership, control, and access. Centralized data storage is costly in terms of money and space, and it presents logistical problems of cataloguing and retrieving data. There have been suggestions that some types of scientific data should be incorporated into centralized computerized data banks, a portion of which could be subject to periodic auditing or certification.

Some scientific journals now require that full data for research papers be deposited in a centralized data bank before final publication. Policies and practices differ, but in some fields support is growing for compulsory deposit to enhance researchers' access to supporting data.

Advances in electronic and other information technologies have raised new questions about the customs and practices that influence the storage, ownership, and exchange of electronic data and software.

And scientists fundamentals engineers pdf for of ethics

A number of special issues, not addressed by the panel, are associated with computer modeling, simulation, and other approaches that are becoming more prevalent in the research environment.

Computer technology can enhance research collaboration; it can also create new impediments to data sharing resulting from increased costs, the need for specialized equipment, or liabilities or uncertainties about responsibilities for faulty data, software, or computer-generated models. Advances in computer technology may assist in maintaining and preserving accurate records of research data.

Such records could help resolve questions about the timing or accuracy of specific research findings, especially when a principal investigator is not available or is uncooperative in responding to such questions. In principle, properly managed information technologies, utilizing advances in nonerasable optical disk systems, might reinforce openness in scientific research and make primary data more transparent to collaborators and research managers.

For example, the so-called WORM write once, read many systems provide a high-density digital storage medium that supplies an ineradicable audit trail and historical record for all entered information Haas, Advances in information technologies could thus provide an important benefit to research institutions that wish to emphasize greater access to and storage of primary research data.

But the development of centralized information systems in the academic research environment raises difficult issues of ownership, control, and principle that reflect the decentralized character of university governance. Such systems are also a source of additional research expense, often borne by individual investigators.

Moreover, if centralized systems are perceived by scientists as an inappropriate or ineffective form of management or oversight of individual research groups, they simply may not work in an academic environment.

Scientists communicate research results by a variety of formal and informal means. In earlier times, new findings and interpretations were communicated by letter, personal meeting, and publication. Today, computer networks and facsimile machines have sup-. Scientific meetings routinely include poster sessions and press conferences as well as formal presentations. Although research publications continue to document research findings, the appearance of electronic publications and other information technologies heralds change.

In addition, incidents of plagiarism, the increasing number of authors per article in selected fields, and the methods by which publications are assessed in determining appointments and promotions have all increased concerns about the traditions and practices that have guided communication and publication.

Journal publication, traditionally an important means of sharing information and perspectives among scientists, is also a principal means of establishing a record of achievement in science. Evaluation of the accomplishments of individual scientists often involves not only the numbers of articles that have resulted from a selected research effort, but also the particular journals in which the articles have appeared.

Journal submission dates are often important in establishing priority and intellectual property claims. Authorship of original research reports is an important indicator of accomplishment, priority, and prestige within the scientific community. Questions of authorship in science are intimately connected with issues of credit and responsibility. Authorship practices are guided by disciplinary traditions, customary practices within research groups, and professional and journal standards and policies.

A general rule is that an author must have participated sufficiently in the work to take responsibility for its content and vouch for its validity. Some journals have adopted more specific guidelines, suggesting that credit for authorship be contingent on substantial participation in one or more of the following categories: The extent of participation in these four activities required for authorship varies across journals, disciplines, and research groups.

Some scientists have requested or been given authorship as a form of recognition of their status or influence rather than their intellectual contribution. Some research leaders have a custom of including their own names in any paper issuing from their laboratory, although this practice is increasingly discouraged.

In some cases, noncontributing authors have been listed without their consent, or even without their being told. In response to these practices, some journals now require all named authors to sign the letter that accompanies submission of the original article, to ensure that no author is named without consent.

In these cases, a co-author may claim responsibility for a specialized portion of the paper and may not even see or be able to defend the paper as a whole. However, the risks associated with the inabilities of co-authors to vouch for the integrity of an entire paper are great; scientists may unwittingly become associated with a discredited publication. Another problem of lesser importance, except to the scientists involved, is the order of authors listed on a paper.

The meaning of author order varies among and within disciplines. For example, in physics the ordering of authors is frequently alphabetical, whereas in the social sciences and other fields, the ordering reflects a descending order of contribution to the described research.

Another practice, common in biology, is to list the senior author last. Appropriate recognition for the contributions of junior investigators, postdoctoral fellows, and graduate students is sometimes a source of discontent and unease in the contemporary research environment. Junior researchers have raised concerns about treatment of their contributions when research papers are prepared and submitted, particularly if they are attempting to secure promotions or independent research funding or if they have left the original project.

In some cases, well-meaning senior scientists may grant junior colleagues.

And pdf fundamentals ethics for engineers of scientists

In others, significant contributions may not receive appropriate recognition. Authorship practices are further complicated by large-scale projects, especially those that involve specialized contributions. Mission teams for space probes, oceanographic expeditions, and projects in high-energy physics, for example, all involve large numbers of senior scientists who depend on the long-term functioning of complex equipment.

Some questions about communication and publication that arise from large science projects such as the Superconducting Super Collider include: Who decides when an experiment is ready to be published?

How is the spokesperson for the experiment determined? Who determines who can give talks on the experiment?

How should credit for technical or hardware contributions be acknowledged? Apart from plagiarism, problems of authorship and credit allocation usually do not involve misconduct in science.

Scientists fundamentals of engineers and for pdf ethics

Many research groups have found that the best method of resolving authorship questions is to agree on a designation of authors at the outset of the project. The negotiation and decision process provides initial recognition of each member's effort, and it may prevent misunderstandings that can arise during the course of the project when individuals may be in transition to new efforts or may become preoccupied with other matters.

Plagiarism is using the ideas or words of another person without giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism includes the unacknowledged use of text and ideas from published work, as well as the misuse of privileged information obtained through confidential review of research proposals and manuscripts.

As described in Honor in Science, plagiarism can take many forms: The misuse of privileged information may be less clear-cut because it does not involve published work. But the general principles. The use of ideas or information obtained from peer review is not acceptable because the reviewer is in a privileged position.

Additional Concerns. Some institutions, such as Harvard Medical School, have responded to these problems by limiting the number of publications reviewed for promotion.

Others have placed greater emphasis on major contributions as the basis for evaluating research productivity. As gatekeepers of scientific journals, editors are expected to use good judgment and fairness in selecting papers for publication.

Although editors cannot be held responsible for the errors or inaccuracies of papers that may appear in their journals, editors have obligations to consider criticism and evidence that might contradict the claims of an author and to facilitate publication of critical letters, errata, or retractions. Should questions be raised about the integrity of a published work, the editor may request an author's institution to address the matter. Editors often request written assurances that research reported conforms to all appropriate guidelines involving human or animal subjects, materials of human origin, or recombinant DNA.

In theory, editors set standards of authorship for their journals. In practice, scientists in the specialty do. Editors may specify the. For example, the New England Journal of Medicine has established a category of prohibited contributions from authors engaged in for-profit ventures: Editors can clarify and insist on the confidentiality of review and take appropriate actions against reviewers who violate it. Journals also may require or encourage their authors to deposit reagents and sequence and crystallographic data into appropriate databases or storage facilities.

Peer review is the process by which editors and journals seek to be advised by knowledgeable colleagues about the quality and suitability of a manuscript for publication in a journal.

Peer review is also used by funding agencies to seek advice concerning the quality and promise of proposals for research support. The proliferation of research journals and the rewards associated with publication and with obtaining research grants have put substantial stress on the peer review system. Reviewers for journals or research agencies receive privileged information and must exert great care to avoid sharing such information with colleagues or allowing it to enter their own work prematurely.

Although the system of peer review is generally effective, it has been suggested that the quality of refereeing has declined, that self-interest has crept into the review process, and that some journal editors and reviewers exert inappropriate influence on the type of work they deem publishable. At some level, all scientific reports, even those that mark profound advances, contain errors of fact or interpretation.

In part, such errors reflect uncertainties intrinsic to the research process itself —a hypothesis is formulated, an experimental test is devised, and based on the interpretation of the results, the hypothesis is refined, revised, or discarded.

Each step in this cycle is subject to error. The precision and accuracy of the measurements. These in turn depend on available technology, the use of proper statistical and analytical methods, and the skills of the investigator.

Generality of the experimental system and approach. Experimental design—a product of the background and expertise of the investigator. Interpretation and speculation regarding the significance of the findings—judgments that depend on expert knowledge, experience, and the insightfulness and boldness of the investigator.

Viewed in this context, errors are an integral aspect of progress in attaining scientific knowledge. They are consequences of the fact that scientists seek fundamental truths about natural processes of vast complexity. In the best experimental systems, it is common that relatively few variables have been identified and that even fewer can be controlled experimentally. Even when important variables are accounted for, the interpretation of the experimental results may be incorrect and may lead to an erroneous conclusion.

Such conclusions are sometimes overturned by the original investigator or by others when new insights from another study prompt a reexamination of older reported data. In addition, however, erroneous information can also reach the scientific literature as a consequence of misconduct in science.

What becomes of these errors or incorrect interpretations? This implies that errors will generally not long confound the direction of thinking or experimentation in actively pursued areas of research. Clearly, published experiments are not routinely replicated precisely by independent investigators. However, each experiment is based on conclusions from prior studies; repeated failure of the experiment eventually calls into question those conclusions and leads to reevaluation of the measurements, generality, design, and interpretation of the earlier work.

Thus publication of a scientific report provides an opportunity for the community at large to critique and build on the substance of the report, and serves as one stage at which errors and misinterpretations can be detected and corrected. Each new finding is considered by the community in light of what is already known about the system investigated, and disagreements with established measurements and interpretations must be justified. For example, a particular interpretation of an electrical measurement of a material may implicitly predict the results of an optical experiment.

If the reported optical results are in disagreement with the electrical interpretation, then the latter is unlikely to be correct—even though the measurements them-. It is also possible, however, that the contradictory results are themselves incorrect, and this possibility will also be evaluated by the scientists working in the field.

It is by this process of examination and reexamination that science advances. The research endeavor can therefore be viewed as a two-tiered process: In fact, the two tiers are interrelated, and the goals and traditions of science mandate major responsibilities in both areas for individual investigators. Importantly, the principle of self-correction does not diminish the responsibilities of the investigator in either area.

Scientists for engineers fundamentals and pdf of ethics

The investigator has a fundamental responsibility to ensure that the reported results can be replicated in his or her laboratory. The scientific community in general adheres strongly to this principle, but practical constraints exist as a result of the availability of specialized instrumentation, research materials, and expert personnel.

Other forces, such as competition, commercial interest, funding trends and availability, or pressure to publish may also erode the role of replication as a mechanism for fostering integrity in the research process.

The panel is unaware of any quantitative studies of this issue. The process of reevaluating prior findings is closely related to the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

A-level Computing/CIE/Theory Fundamentals/Ethics and ownership

In that setting, the precise replication of a prior result commonly serves as a crucial control in attempts to extend the original findings. It is not unusual that experimental flaws or errors of interpretation are revealed as the scope of an investigation deepens and broadens. If new findings or significant questions emerge in the course of a reevaluation that affect the claims of a published report, the investigator is obliged to make public a correction of the erroneous result or to indicate the nature of the questions.

Occasionally, this takes the form of a formal published retraction, especially in situations in which a central claim is found to be fundamentally incorrect or irreproducible.

More commonly, a somewhat different version of the original experiment, or a revised interpretation of the original result, is published as part of a subsequent report that extends in other ways the initial work.

Such behavior is, at best, a questionable research practice. Clearly, each scientist has a responsibility to foster an environment that en-. Much greater complexity is encountered when an investigator in one research group is unable to confirm the published findings of another. In such situations, precise replication of the original result is commonly not attempted because of the lack of identical reagents, differences in experimental protocols, diverse experimental goals, or differences in personnel.

Under these circumstances, attempts to obtain the published result may simply be dropped if the central claim of the original study is not the major focus of the new study. Alternatively, the inability to obtain the original finding may be documented in a paper by the second investigator as part of a challenge to the original claim. In any case, such questions about a published finding usually provoke the initial investigator to attempt to reconfirm the original result, or to pursue additional studies that support and extend the original findings.

In accordance with established principles of science, scientists have the responsibility to replicate and reconfirm their results as a normal part of the research process. The cycles of theoretical and methodological formulation, testing, and reevaluation, both within and between laboratories, produce an ongoing process of revision and refinement that corrects errors and strengthens the fabric of research.

The panel defined a mentor as that person directly responsible for the professional development of a research trainee. The relationship of the mentor and research trainee is usually characterized by extraordinary mutual commitment and personal involvement.

A mentor, as a research advisor, is generally expected to supervise the work of the trainee and ensure that the trainee's research is completed in a sound, honest, and timely manner. The ideal mentor challenges the trainee, spurs the trainee to higher scientific achievement, and helps socialize the trainee into the community. Research mentors thus have complex and diverse roles. Many individuals excel in providing guidance and instruction as well as personal support, and some mentors are resourceful in providing funds and securing professional opportunities for their trainees.

The mentoring relationship may also combine elements of other relationships, such as parenting, coaching, and guildmastering. Many students come to respect and admire their mentors, who act as role models for their younger colleagues.

However, the mentoring relationship does not always function properly or even satisfactorily. Almost no literature exists that evaluates which problems are idiosyncratic and which are systemic. However, it is clear that traditional practices in the area of mentorship and training are under stress. In some research fields, for example, concerns are being raised about how the increasing size and diverse composition of research groups affect the quality of the relationship between trainee and mentor.

As the size of research laboratories expands, the quality of the training environment is at risk CGS, a. Large laboratories may provide valuable instrumentation and access to unique research skills and resources as well as an opportunity to work in pioneering fields of science.

But as only one contribution to the efforts of a large research team, a graduate student's work may become highly specialized, leading to a narrowing of experience and greater dependency on senior personnel; in a period when the availability of funding may limit research opportunities, laboratory heads may find it necessary to balance research decisions for the good of the team against the individual educational interests of each trainee.

Moreover, the demands of obtaining sufficient resources to maintain a laboratory in the contemporary research environment often separate faculty from their trainees. When laboratory heads fail to participate in the everyday workings of the laboratory—even for the most beneficent of reasons, such as finding funds to support young investigators—their inattention may harm their trainees' education.

Although the size of a research group can influence the quality of mentorship, the more important issues are the level of supervision received by trainees, the degree of independence that is appropriate for the trainees' experience and interests, and the allocation of credit for achievements that are accomplished by groups composed of individuals with different status.

Certain studies involving large groups of 40 to or more are commonly carried out by collaborative or hierarchical arrangements under a single investigator. These factors may affect the ability of research mentors to transmit the methods and ethical principles according to which research should be conducted.

Problems also arise when faculty members are not directly rewarded for their graduate teaching or training skills. Although faculty may receive indirect rewards from the contributions of well-trained graduate students to their own research as well as the satisfaction of seeing their students excelling elsewhere, these rewards may not be sufficiently significant in tenure or promotion decisions.

Oxford University Press; 1 edition June 22, Language: English ISBN Tell the Publisher! I'd like to read this book on Kindle Don't have a Kindle? Share your thoughts with other customers. Write a customer review.

Code of Ethics for Engineers (2007)

Customer images. See all customer images. Read reviews that mention natural law divine command fundamentals of ethics command theory virtue ethics easy to read double effect robert adams moral motivation psychological and ethical social contract hedonism nor desire-satisfaction ethical egoism chapter on natural primary sources religious belief doctrine of double name is missing desire-satisfaction theory error theory.

Top Reviews Most recent Top Reviews. There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later. Paperback Verified Purchase. A pretty good introduction to ethics, it does a good job of showing that every ethical theory has it's benefits and it's problems. I especially enjoyed the chapters on Egoism psychological and ethical versions as well as the chapters on consequentialism and the entire 3rd part of the book on the status of morality.

Code of Ethics for Engineers () | Ethics Codes Collection

That being said his chapter on morality and religion is really bad. He relies heavily on the Euthyphro dillemma and is seemingly unaware of answers to it offered by contemporary philosophers. Is something good because God wills it or does God will something because it is good?

If it's good because he wills it then it is arbitrary, he could will rape is good, and that would be absurd. If he wills it because it is good, then there is a higher standard which God is subservient to, Schaffer takes this path and offers to theists a God who is not the ground of morality, but who is maximally well informed when it comes to morality who helps guide us. But if there is a greater good then God, by definition that would be God, God is that which no greater comes.

However we need not take this route as the Euthyphro dillemma is a false dillemma. Now some may object that I am making a tautology, that God is good because God is good, but that would be to misunderstand me. God is good because good ultimately is God.

He is what Plato called "The good". He proceeds to use the Euthyphro in his chapter on Natural Law. Indeed his chapter on Natural Law besides the continuation of the Euthyphro is mostly a straw man and does not interact with the strongest arguments from the natural law tradition or contemporary answers to the problems he poses.

A little better is his chapter on virtue ethics, but again the Euthyphro shows up, it was disappointing that he would place that much importance on it. All in all it's an ok introduction to ethics, but pretty biased against ethical theories associated with religion, so just be prepared for that.

This review is mainly directed at the printing of the book rather than its content, as the book itself is fantastic and Shafer-Landau offers a wonderful introduction to mainstream moral theories.

The problem with the edition I've bought Fourth Edition is that Chapters 14 and 15 are repeated.

Looking for other ways to read this?

Literally the exact same chapters but the page numbers kept going. Luckily this didn't affect my coursework since we never discussed those two chapters, but I assume it might be confusing for other courses or a casual reader. Good thing the chapters themselves aren't missing at least that I've noticed but for a Fourth Edition you'd think something as obvious as repeated chapters would be ironed out.

One person found this helpful. My class required the text book but I couldn't make sense of the content so I ended up not reading it.

The other wrote their opinion and hardly wrote down facts about the theories and philosophers. Russ Shafer-Landau's The Fundamentals of Ethics was just one of the books assigned in a semester's worth of reading for my graduate studies. Philosophy texts are usually a chore to read, and many of them are quite boring.