Carl Mitcham

In the extensive literature on science policy, there is little discussion of engineering policy. Yet in many instances the science in science policy discourse is really engineering, and engineering is often as important for public policy formation and implementation as science. Science policy discourse commonly distinguishes between “science for policy” and “policy for science,” a distinction that can also be used to examine engineering policy. Engineering for policy includes both engineering advice to policy makers, such as where to construct a dam or what standards should be established to achieve a certain level of safety, and actual engineering to achieve policy goals, such as designing, constructing, and operating an electric power grid or public transport system. Policy for engineering focuses on such questions as how much to fund engineering education or to promote ethics in engineering. Reflection is extended by considering engineering policy related ideas in the work of engineer Henry Petroski and policy scholar Roger Pielke Jr., both of whom address issues in the American context. An appendix makes brief reference to engineering policy in the Chinese context.

This inclusive, cross-cultural study rethinks the nexus between engineering, development, and culture. It offers diverse commentary from a range of disciplinary perspectives on how the philosophies of today’s cultural triumvirate—American, European and Chinese—are shaped and given nuance by the cross-fertilization of engineering and development. Scholars from the humanities and social sciences as well as engineers themselves reflect on key questions that arise in this relational context, such as how international development work affects the professional views, identities, practice and ethics of engineers. The first volume to offer a systematic and collaborative study that cuts across continental boundaries, the book delineates the kinds of skills and competences that tomorrow’s engineering success stories will require, and analyzes fascinating aspects of the interplay between engineering and philosophy, such as how traditionally Chinese ways of thinking can influence modern engineering practice in the world’s most populous country. China’s problematic mix of engineering woes and wonders, from the high-profile crash on its high-profile rail network to its ‘bird’s nest’ Olympic stadium, adds to the urgency for reform, while Europe’s Enlightenment-informed legal frameworks are contrasted with Chinese mechanisms in their governance of the field of nanotechnology, a crucial element of future technical evolution. Fascinating and compelling in equal measure, this volume addresses one of the topics at the leading edge of humanity’s quest to survive, and to thrive.​

Educated initially in mathematics and science, Liu Dachun describes the important role books and literature played in his life and how they comforted him during the Cultural Revolution. Turning to his arrival at Renmin University of China during the Reform and Opening, he reviews contributions to the promotion of academic standards and development of the study of the dialectics of nature into the philosophy of science and technology. His own research focus during these years was on science as activity, complementary methodology, and the scientific-technological revolution. Many areas manifested tensions between adopting international scholarly norms and maintaining Chinese traditions. A lengthy concluding discussion considers relationships between science, technology, engineering, and industry, leading into an analysis of science policy challenges in China.

Who owns your genes? What does climate science imply for policy? Do corporations conduct honest research? Should we teach intelligent design? Humans are creating a new world through science. The kind of world we are creating will not simply be decided by expanding scientific knowledge, but will depend on views about good and bad, right and wrong. These visions, in turn, depend on critical thinking, cogent argument and informed judgement. In this book, Adam Briggle and Carl Mitcham help readers to cultivate these skills. They first introduce ethics and the normative structure of science and then consider the 'society of science' and its norms for the responsible conduct of research and the treatment of human and animal research subjects. Later chapters examine 'science in society' - exploring ethical issues at the interfaces of science, policy, religion, culture and technology. Each chapter features case studies and research questions to stimulate further reflection.

This study aims to identify the stance and distinctions proper to beginning to think about technology philosophically. It begins with a personal background and some historical events that have influenced the philosophy of technology. Chapter two then considers the historico-philosophical traditions of engineering and humanities philosophy of technology . With EPT, technological activity is primary, and other aspects of human experience are explained as aspects of a technological monism. With HPT, technology itself is placed within a pluralistic framework. Following arguments for HPT as the proper stance for beginning to think about technology, chapter three surveys the relevant philosophical issues. ;But the philosophy of technology must also be a philosophy of technology. Chapter four articulates such a transition, which is then pursued in chapters five and six by means of a series of detailed distinctions. Chapter five examines technology as object and as knowledge. Types of technology as object include structures, tools, machines, automata, etc. The engineering analysis of machines is contrasted with their general human experience. As knowledge, types of technology range from sensorimotor skills through maxims and rules to technological theories. Such distinctions in artifact and technical cognition suggest various conceptual, epistemological, ethical-political, and metaphysical issues echoing those surveyed by chapter three. ;Chapter six extends the exploration into technology as activity and as volition. Types of the former include the action of making and the process of using. With regard to making, there is an explication of engineering discussions of the nature design. With regard to using, there are analyses of maintaining and management. Analyses of technology as volition revive those historico-philosophical and ethical considerations from which the study began. All four models of the manifestation of technology point toward a fundamental distinction between ancient and modern technology in beginning to think about technology philosophically. ;A final chapter reviews the study and considers some objections while pointing out the centrality of the philosophy of technology for science-technology-society studies and for the humanities in a technological culture

Philosophy has not paid sufficient attention to engineering. Nevertheless, engineers should not use this as an excuse to ignore philosophy. The argument here is that philosophy is important to engineering for at least three reasons. First, philosophy is necessary so that engineers may understand and defend themselves against philosophical criticisms. In fact, there is a tradition of engineering philosophy that is largely overlooked, even by engineers. Second, philosophy, especially ethics, is necessary to help engineers deal with professional ethical problems. A case study of ethics requirements for U.S. engineering curricula substantiates this point. Third, because of the inherently philosophical character of engineering, philosophy may actually function as a means to greater engineering self-understanding

This co-edited volume compares Chinese and Western experiences of engineering, technology, and development. In doing so, it builds a bridge between the East and West and advances a dialogue in the philosophy of engineering. Divided into three parts, the book starts with studies on epistemological and ontological issues, with a special focus on engineering design, creativity, management, feasibility, and sustainability. Part II considers relationships between the history and philosophy of engineering, and includes a general argument for the necessity of dialogue between history and philosophy. It continues with a general introduction to traditional Chinese attitudes toward engineering and technology, and philosophical case studies of the Chinese steel industry, railroads, and cybernetics in the Soviet Union. Part III focuses on engineering, ethics, and society, with chapters on engineering education and practice in China and the West. The book’s analyses of the interactions of science, engineering, ethics, politics, and policy in different societal contexts are of special interest. The volume as a whole marks a new stage in the emergence of the philosophy of engineering as a new regionalization of philosophy. This carefully edited interdisciplinary volume grew out of an international conference on the philosophy of engineering hosted by the University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing. It includes 30 contributions by leading philosophers, social scientists, and engineers from Australia, China, Europe, and the United States.

This article describes and accounts for variable interests in engineering ethics in France, Germany, and Japan by locating recent initiatives in relation to the evolving identities of engineers. A key issue in ethics education for engineers concerns the relationship between the identity of the engineer and the responsibilities of engineering work. This relationship has varied significantly over time and from place to place around the world. One methodological strategy for sorting out similarities and differences in engineers’ identities is to ask the “who” question. Who is an engineer? Or, what makes one an engineer? While engineering ethics has attracted little interest in France and formal education in the subject might be seen as redundant, German engineering societies have, since the conclusion of World War II, demanded from engineers a strong commitment to social responsibility through technology evaluation and assessment. In Japan, a recent flourishing of interest in engineering ethics appears to be linked to concerns that corporations no longer function properly as Japanese “households.” In each case, deliberations over engineering ethics emerge as part of the process through which engineers work to keep their fields in alignment with changing images of advancement in society.

Abstract The strength of a discipline is reflected in the development of a set of concepts relevant to its practice domain. As an evolving professional discipline, nursing requires further development in this respect. Over the past two decades in North America there have emerged three different approaches to concept analysis in nursing scholarship: Wilsonian-derived, evolutionary, and pragmatic utility. The present paper compares and contrasts these three methods of concept in terms of purpose, procedures, philosophical underpinnings, limitations, guidance for researchers, and ability to contribute to nursing knowledge and disciplinary advancement. This work extends prior criticisms of concept analysis methods, especially as formulated by Morse and colleagues, by promoting further critical discussion regarding the direction and effectiveness of nursing efforts to meet the basic needs of disciplinary development. Its central thesis is that nursing concept analysis must advance beyond the Wilsonian-derived methods of Walker and Avant by devoting greater attention to understanding the domain of concepts to be analysed and deriving features from these contexts.

This essay aims to rectify a failure on the part of Western philosophers of technology to attend to the creative philosophical work of Li Bocong at the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing. After a brief account of Li Bocong’s personal contacts with the West and some remarks on his relationship to Marxism, we take up three aspects of his philosophy that can contribute to enlarging Western philosophical thinking about engineering and technology: (1) Li’s analysis of engineering as more than design, (2) his argument for the relevance of the sociology of engineering, and (3) his conceptualization of engineering ethics as more than professional ethics.

The article analyzes the integration of a module on nanotechnology, ethics, and policy into a required second-year social science course at a technological university. It investigates not simply the effectiveness of student learning about the technical aspects of nanotechnology but about how issues explored in an interdisciplinary social science course might influence student opinions about the potential of nanotechnology to benefit the developing world. The authors find a correlation between student opinions about the risks and benefits of nanotechnology for the developing world with their judgment of whether nanotechnology fits comparative, historical models for development