Case Analysis Module: Risk Assessment

Module by: William Frey

Summary: This module is founded on two insights: the analogy between problem-solving in ethics and design methodology and the effectiveness of case analysis for practicing skills in ethical problem-solving. Students will practice using a four-stage decision-making framework developed on analogy from the software development cycle. They will also learn socio-technical system analysis and how to use this to formulate and solve ethical problems that arise in everyday engineering practice. This module has been developed to test the capacity of the EAC Toolkit to add value to engineering ethics modules and to draw together interdisciplinary teams in designing and modifying EAC modules. This module is being developed as a part of an NSF-funded project, "Collaborative Development of Ethics Across the Curriculum Resources and Sharing of Best Practices," NSF SES 0551779.

By William J. Frey

Case Analysis Module for Engineering Ethics

Risk Assessment and Nuclear Waste Sites

By William J. Frey (Based loosely on a scenario provided by Paul Davis)

Module Introduction:

This module consists of three components designed to provide you with an opportunity to practice decision-making in real world situations. The first component, the case presented below, Risk Assessment and Nuclear Waste Sites, actually happened although the particulars have been altered to protect the confidentiality of those involved. It provides you with a decision point. You must take on the role of one of the cases participants and make a decision from the standpoint of that participant.

Following the case is a four stage process designed to help you make a rigorous ethical decision. First, you will specify the problem by specifying the underlying socio-technical system and identifying its conflicting embedded moral and non-moral values. Second, you will brainstorm solutions to this problem in a solution generation stage. Third, you will evaluate each solution alternative using ethics tests and a global feasibility analysis. Finally, you will use a detailed feasibility test to identify underlying resource, interest, and technical constraints. This will provide guidance for developing a plan for implementing your solution.

Case Scenario:

You are an engineer working for a private laboratory with expertise in nuclear waste disposal and risk assessment. The DOE (Department of Energy) awarded your laboratory six years ago with a contract to do a risk assessment of various nuclear waste disposal sites. During the six years in which your team has been doing the study, new and more accurate calculations in risk assessment have become available. Your laboratory’s study, however, began with the older, simpler calculations and cannot integrate the newer without substantially delaying completion. You are the leader of a team of engineers working on this project.

You, as the leader of the team, propose a delay to the DOE on the grounds that it is necessary to use the more advanced calculations. Your position is that the laboratory needs more time because of the extensive calculations required; you argue that your group must use state of the art science in doing its risk assessment. The DOE says you are using overly high standards of risk assessment to prolong the process, extend the contract, and get more money for your company. They want you to use simpler calculations and finish the project; if you are unwilling to do so, they plan to find another company that thinks differently. Meanwhile, back at the laboratory, your supervisor (a high level company manager) expresses to you the concern that while good science is important in an academic setting, this is the real world and the contract with the DOE is in jeopardy.

You are the team leader. What should you do?

1. Identify key components of the STS

2. Specify the problem:

2a. Is the problem a disagreement on facts? What are the facts? What are cost and time constraints on uncovering and communicating these facts?

2b. Is the problem a disagreement on a critical concept? What is the concept? Can agreement be reached by consulting legal or regulatory information on the concept? (For example, if the concept in question is safety, can disputants consult engineering codes, legal precedents, or ethical literature that helps provide consensus? Can disputants agree on positive and negative paradigm cases so the concept disagreement can be resolved through line-drawing methods?

2c. Use the table to identify and locate value conflicts within the STS. Can the problem be specified as a mismatch between a technology and the existing STS, a mismatch within the STS exacerbated by the introduction of the technology, or by overlooked results?

3. Develop a general solution strategy and then brainstorm specific solutions:

3a. Is problem one of integrating values, resolving disagreements, or responding to situational constraints?

3b. If the conflict comes from a value mismatch, then can it be solved by modifying one or more of the components of the STS? Which one?

4. Test solutions:

5. Implement solution over feasibility constraints

Comments, questions, feedback, criticisms?

Send feedback

• E-mail the author of the module, Case Analysis Module: Risk Assessment

Footer

More about this content: Metadata | Version History

• How to reuse and attribute this content
• How to cite and attribute this content

This work is licensed by William Frey under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 2.0).

Last edited by William Frey on Mar 2, 2007 8:47 am US/Central.