Transcript AME Awards - Sustainable Nanotechnology Organization

Teaching Ethics through Role Playing
in a Nanotechnology Class for First
Year College Students
Kurt Winkelmann
Sustainable Nanotechnology Organization Conference
November 4, 2012
The need for nanoethics training
• Students need practice so they can apply it as
professionals
• Scientists & engineers should consider ethical
issues before starting research
• Understanding societal impacts helps them
engage public
• Increasingly important to funding agencies
Case studies
• Students role play characters involved in an
ethical dilemma
• Case studies provide experience that students
can draw upon later
• Examples illustrated in Nanotechnology: The
Power of Small
The Power of Small TV show
• powerofsmall.org
• PBS broadcast
• Panelists:
Science experts
Policy makers
Journalists
Intro to Nanotech lab ethics activity
• Intro to Nanotech lab designed for freshmen
• 1-credit lab with synthesis experiments and
instrumentation (STM, AFM) use
• Final exam addresses societal issues or
applications of nanotech
• Spring 2012 students participated in case
study activity similar to Power of Small
Activity details
• 22 students divided into 3 panels
• Each panel debates a topic
– Does a student want to carry an RFID card that
monitors his shopping habits?
– Should Florida Tech allow local police to monitor
people on campus?
– Will Florida Tech support a local company building
a nanofilm manufacturing plant near campus?
Student responsibilities
• Read background info about scenario and
character to role play
• Perform research to backup character’s views
• Participate in debates, act in character
• Listen to other panels, ask questions
• Write reflection paper about their own views
before and after research and activity
Learning objectives
• Perform research
– Provide citations from reliable sources
• Constructively and actively participate as
member of panel and audience
– Debate scored by instructors using rubric
• Reflect on any change of their views
– Reflection paper scored by instructors using rubric
Structure of panel debate
• Emotionally rich, relevant topics
• Students given character background and
views to act out
• Balanced number of advocates for each side
• Fictitious but realistic scenarios
• Debate precedes action in scenario
Achievement of learning objectives
• Perform research
– All provided sources were reliable
– Information sources were easy to find
– Some reflection papers did not contain or cite
sources
Achievement of learning objectives
• Constructively and actively participate as
member of panel and audience
– Most students received high score using rubric
– Debates lasted twice as long as expected
– Students acted in character
– Audience asked many good questions
– Students debated same issues as in Power of Small
Achievement of learning objectives
• Reflect on any change of view
– Students clearly explained their views of debate
topics before and after activity
– Most initially in favor of nanotechnology
– 30% changed view of their panel’s topic
– 20% changed view of other panel’s topics
– Most changes shifted opinions to less favorable
view of nanotechnology
Student opinion
• Frustrated by speculation of nanotechnology’s
societal impacts
• Enjoyed opportunity to actively participate
– Better than individual presentations
• Benefited from learning about non-technical
issues related to nanotechnology
Ethical frameworks
• Analysis based on reflection papers
– RFID shopping: Utilitarianism or egoism
Voluntarily trading privacy for financial gain
– Campus security: Rights based or utilitarianism
Privacy vs. security
– Nanofilm facility: Utilitarianism or egoism
Community financial benefit but possible
environmental problems
Future work
• Will perform activity in spring 2013
• Include information about ethical frameworks
for student reflection
Acknowledgements
Jim Brenner, Florida Tech course co-instructor
Spring 2012 Intro to Nanotech Lab students
Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation
NSF NUE in Engineering