Engineering Ethics

Ibo van de Poel, TU Delft, Delft, The Netherlands, i.r.vandepoel@tudelft.nl

Abstract: Engineering ethics concerns the decisions and actions of engineers,

individually as well as collectively. It exists as a field of teaching and research since
the eighties. The professional approach to engineering ethics, that initially was
dominant in the field, is discussed and codes of ethics are explained. Various general
ethical issues in engineering like whistle-blowing, loyalty, conflicts of interests, risk
and safety, and the environment and sustainability are highlighted. Attention is also
paid to recent developments in engineering ethics, in particular to how new
technologies may give raise to new ethical issues, and to more pro-active approaches
to engineering ethics, like Value Sensitive Design and Responsible Innovation.

Keywords: engineering, ethics, technology, whistle-blowing, codes of ethics, loyalty,

conflict of interest, safety, risk, environment, sustainability, uncertainty, Value
Sensitive Design, Responsible Innovation

Introduction
Engineering ethics is the field of applied ethics that is concerned with the decisions
and actions of engineers, and the consequences of these actions and decisions, both
individually and collectively. Engineering may be roughly understood as the activities
that relate to the research, development, design, testing, maintaining, and scrapping
of technology.
Engineering ethics started off in the 1980s with a focus on teaching, and this is still an
important concern. Accreditation organizations like the ABET (Accreditation Board
for Engineering and Technology) in the US have included ethics as one of the student
outcomes that should be achieved by engineering course programs. In the course of
time, there has been an increasing amount of research on engineering ethics, both more
generally and with a focus on specific technologies.
Traditionally, engineering ethics often focused on engineering as a profession and the
responsibilities and obligations of engineers as laid down in codes of ethics. In the
course of time there has been a development from micro-ethical issues such as
integrity, honesty and loyalty towards more macro-ethical issues that concern the
impact of engineering and technology on society. More recently, there is also a
development towards more attention to proactive approaches that try to integrate
ethics from early in the process of technological development, engineering design and
innovation.

The professional approach to engineering ethics and codes of conduct

The central tenet of what might be called the professional approach to engineering
ethics is the idea that engineering is a profession, like for example medicine, and
accounting. A profession may be understood as an occupation with a number of
specific features. The features that are often mentioned in this respect include the use
of specialized knowledge and skills and a (legal) monopoly on the carrying out of the
1
occupation. The latter, for example, would mean that not everybody can call himself
an engineer or do engineering work. Exercising a profession is also usually connected
to a legal protection of titles, and of university or college degrees. The notion of a
profession is also connected to the idea that the evaluation of professional work and
the judgment that some professional has done his or her work (in)competently or
(im)properly can only be done by peers, as these are the only ones who possess the
knowledge and skills to apply the right standards of judgment. While engineering
without doubt possesses some of the above features, in most countries it does so clearly
to a lesser degree as for example medicine. For example in the United States, engineers
have to be licensed as an engineer to do engineering work, and this implies certain
checks on for example their knowledge and skills, but there is an exemption for
engineers working in the industry, which is arguably the largest portion of engineers.
In many other countries, there are no licensing or registration obligations, or only for
some quite specific groups of engineers. Whereas in medicine, most doctors are subject
to disciplinary law and have to go to a disciplinary court, for example in the case of
patient complaints, in engineering this is usually not the case (with some exceptions).
Most engineering work does not fall under disciplinary law.
In addition to these more descriptive features, a profession is often believed to be
committed to an ideal of serving society and certain moral ends. According to what
may be called the conceptualist approaches to professional ethics, each profession
corresponds with a specific end that is internally defined by that profession (Davis
1998). In the case of medicine, the end would be something like human health. In the
case of engineering, one might think of human well-being as end to be served.
However, one difference between medicine and engineering seems to be that whereas
doctors have specialized knowledge that helps to define health, engineers do not have
specialized knowledge about human well-being. Moreover, whereas medicine seems
to be the main profession concerned with human health, engineering certainly has not
such a privileged position in connection to human well-being.
As an alternative to conceptualist approaches, Michael Davis, one of the main authors
in the professional tradition in engineering ethics, has proposed a more historical
approach to defining a profession. He defines a profession as “a number of individuals
in the same occupation voluntarily organized to earn a living by openly serving a
certain moral ideal in a morally-permissible way beyond what law, market, and
morality would otherwise require” (Davis 1998: 417). According to this definition, the
main criterion whether an occupation amounts to a profession is whether there is a
voluntary commitment to a moral ideal. Consequently, for Davis the earlier mentioned
descriptive features are not relevant for calling engineering a profession.
Davis believes that in most countries engineering is a profession as engineers have
committed themselves to certain moral ideals, for example through engineering codes
of ethics. In many countries, engineers and engineering societies have indeed
formulated codes of ethics. The oldest one is probably the codes of ethics of the
Smeatonian Society in England that was formulated in 1771 (Van de Poel and
Royakkers 2011). In the early twentieth century, it were especially American
engineering societies, like that for civil engineering and mechanical engineering, that
formulated codes of ethics, also as part of their aspiration to be recognized as true
professions. While these earlier codes often stressed etiquette and proper behavior

2
towards other professionals, clients and employers, especially after the Second World
War, the engineering codes of ethics began also to stress obligations towards the public
and society.
Many, in particular US, codes of ethics now state that “engineers should hold
paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public” (NSPE 2007), suggesting that
this moral obligation overrides other moral obligations that engineers might have
towards, for example, clients or employers. This indeed seems to be the kind of moral
ideal that characterizes a profession according to Davis.
Most current codes of ethics address three main types of obligations and
responsibilities of engineers, namely 1) the competent and integer carrying out of the
profession, including upholding such moral values as honesty, integrity, competence,
independence and impartiality, 2) acting as faithful and trustworthy agents to their
clients and employers, including such values as loyalty, confidentiality and
faithfulness, 3) meeting certain obligations towards the public, including holding
paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public, serving the public interest,
sustainability and social responsibility.
The codes of ethics of engineering societies are usually aspirational or advisory in
nature. They express the values engineers are committed to, and they often also try to
provide advice to practicing engineers who want to behave ethically. In most cases,
they are not disciplinary, that is to say they usually do not have a (semi)legal status. In
most countries, engineering codes of ethics are also not actively enforced, in the sense
that people can be convicted for not following the code and for example be banned
from the professional society. Nevertheless, there have been some cases, in particular
in Anglo-Saxon countries, where engineers were banned from an engineering society
for (allegedly) breaking the code of ethics.

Some moral issues in engineering

Below five ethical issues are discussed that have received ample attention in
engineering ethics, in particular when a professional approach is followed: whistle-
blowing, loyalty, conflicts of interest, risk and safety, and environmental care and
sustainability. This list of issues is certainly not exhaustive of the ethical issues in
engineering but it is illustrative, as all issues are somehow characteristic of the ethical
issues that play in engineering, even if most of them also occur in other professions.

Whistle-blowing
Whistle-blowing could be defined as: the making public of certain abuses within in an
organization by an employee against the will (or order) of his or her direct superiors,
and with an eye to remedying these abuses or informing the proper authorities or the
public about these abuses. Whistle-blowing can be internal in the organization, for
example if the whistle-blower informs the upper management of the company of
certain abuses against the will of his or her direct superior; but also outside the
company; in the latter case, it can address for example regulatory authorities, the
media or the public.
Whistle-blowing is of course not unique to engineering, but there are a number of
reasons why it is relevant in engineering and has received quite some attention,
particularly in the early days of engineering ethics. One reason is that engineers may
due to their specialized knowledge and skills have knowledge of risks and adverse
3
effects of certain technologies or of certain engineering projects that others do not
possess. Secondly, engineers are often employed in hierarchical organizations (like
companies). This means that they may be caught in a conflict between serving the
interests of their employer and serving the public interest. Although codes of ethics of
engineering societies nowadays often stress the latter, legally their obligation is often
first and foremost to their employer. This can bring them in a situation in which they
have to blow the whistle to serve the public interest.
This situation has led to debates in engineering ethics, and has resulted in attempts to
improve the organizational and legal position of potential whistle-blowers. Some
companies have, for example, adopted internal procedures for whistle-blowing.
Countries have adopted laws to protect whistle-blowers. Still, in many cases whistle-
blowing has major disadvantages for the whistle-blower despite such attempts. The
solution probably is not to be sought in still better protection of whistle-blowers but
rather in reforms that avoid whistle-blowing, or make it into a strategy that is only to
be used as last resort.
Also more generally, whistle-blowing is not the best way to deal with ethical issues in
engineering. It would be much better to attempt for a situation in which ethical issues
can be openly and freely discussed within organizations and with the relevant
stakeholders. This may require further organizational and institutional reforms; in
addition it requires that engineers possess the skills to discuss ethical issues with
managers, clients, stakeholders and the public.

Loyalty
Codes of ethics of engineering societies often state that engineers should be loyal to
their employers and clients. For example, the code of conduct of the National Society
for Professional Engineers (NSPE) in the US states that engineers “shall act for each
employer or client as faithful agents or trustees” (NSPE 2007). This loyalty may conflict
with the obligation to serve the public interest. The NSPE code suggests that at least in
some situation the latter obligation is more important. It for example states that
“Engineers shall not complete, sign, or seal plans and/or specifications that are not in
conformity with applicable engineering standards. If the client or employer insists on
such unprofessional conduct, they shall notify the proper authorities and withdraw
from further service on the project” (NSPE 2007).
One may interpret this article as saying that sometimes the obligations to the public
override the obligation to be loyal to one’s employer. One might, however, also argue
that loyalty does not necessarily imply doing everything that an employer asks or
wants. The latter track is for example chosen by Harris, Pritchard and Rabins in their
book about engineering ethics. They make a distinction between what they call
uncritical and critical loyalty. They define uncritical loyalty as “placing the interests of
the employer, as the employer defines those interests, above any other consideration”
(Harris et al. 2005: 191). Such uncritical loyalty may, however, be misguided. One
might not only disagree about what exactly the interests of the employer are, so
making room for some critical reflection, it might also be doubted whether the interests
of the company should always override any other concerns, especially in cases when
the public is put at danger. Therefore, Harris, Pritchard and Rabins propose the notion
of critical loyalty which they define as “giving due regard to the interest of the

4
employer, insofar as this is possible within the constraints of the employee’s personal
and professional ethics” (Harris et al. 2005: 192).

Conflicts of interest
A conflict of interest occurs if a professional has an interest that, when pursued, would
conflict with meeting his or her professional obligations (including the obligations to
clients and employers) or would impair his or her professional judgement. A few
remarks about this definition are in place. First, the occurrence of a conflict of interest
does not imply actual wrong-doing or not fulfilling one’s professional obligations.
Harris et al. (2005) make a distinction between actual, potential and apparent conflicts
of interest; in an actual conflict of interest, the professional is guided by the distorting
interest; in a potential conflict of interest, the professional may acquire an interest that
conflicts with his or her professional obligations (e.g. by buying stock); and in an
apparent conflict of interest, the professional is not guided by the conflicting interest
but still has such a conflicting interest. Although apparent conflicts of interest do not
imply moral wrong-doing, they may still undermine the objectivity and
trustworthiness of professional engineers because the professional is in a situation that
his professional judgment may be compromised, even if this does not actually occur.
Also apparent conflicts of interest are therefore best avoided.
Second, not any case of conflicting interests is a conflict of interest in the sense of the
definition above. Rather the term refers to a potential impairment of someone’s
judgment or a compromising of someone’s obligations as a professional. Third, the
interest that can conflict with the professional judgment or obligations should be
understood broadly; it can be a professional interest, but also a personal interest; and
it can also include influences, loyalties or temptations that are perhaps strictly
speaking not interests but that nevertheless may impair someone’s professional
judgement.
Conflicts of interest can take different forms in engineering; an example of a clearly
unacceptable conflict of interest is bribery; but there are also less clear-cut cases, for
example when it comes to accepting gifts. Conflicts of interest may also occur if, for
example, company engineers serve on a standardization committee whereas the
company may have an interest in certain standards rather than others being accepted.
In general, it is best to avoid conflicts of interest, but that is not always possible; for
example in the case of standardization committees it may be desirable to involve
company engineers because of their competence and knowledge. In cases in which
conflicts of interest cannot be avoided, they should at least be disclosed to the relevant
parties. Apart from avoiding conflicts of interest and disclosure, there may be other
strategies to properly deal with conflicts of interest, like for example withdrawing
from the decision-making process or independent review of certain engineering
decisions or judgements.

Safety and risk

Ensuring safety is often seen as one of the main professional responsibilities of
engineers. In fact in many engineering disciplines like chemical engineering,
mechanical engineering, civil engineering, electrical engineering but also for example
biotechnology safety, and the protection of human health, is a prime concern.
Although safety is a prime concern in engineering it is not always obvious how the
5
notion of safety is best understood. One possible definition is that safety is the absence
of risk. The disadvantage of such a definition is that technical installations are never
fully safe in the sense that there is no risk. Zero risk is impossible, and, in as far it can
be approached, it is often undesirable because it will increase costs or come at the cost
of other values in engineering like sustainability (or privacy).
Safety may therefore perhaps be better understood in terms of a reduction of risks as
far as practically feasible and morally desirable (given trade-offs with other values in
engineering). In engineering, risk is usually defined as the product of the probability
of an undesirable event times the consequences of that event, although there are also
other definitions of risk, also in the engineering literature (Hansson 2009). Engineers
often believe that the (moral) acceptability of risks is linearly related to the magnitude
of risks (defined as probability times consequences). However, the ethical literature on
risk has shown that a host of other considerations are relevant when it comes to
deciding about the moral acceptability of technological risks.
The following considerations have been articulated as being relevant when deciding
about the moral acceptability of risk (e.g. Van de Poel and Royakkers 2011). A first
consideration is the ratio or balance between risks and benefits, which is mainly a
utilitarian concern. A second concern is whether the risks are taken voluntarily and
whether people have given their informed consent to a certain risk. A third
consideration is the distribution of risk and benefits and to what extent that
distribution may be concerned fair or just. A fourth concern is whether there are
alternatives technologies available that achieve the same end with lower risk. Finally,
it may also be relevant whether the ones causing or introducing the risk have good or
bad intentions, with possibly intermediary cases of risks that are due to negligence or
recklessness. Here the distinction between safety risks and security risks may be
relevant. Whereas safety risks are due to unintentional harm (like natural causes or
unintentional human error), security risks are due to intentional harm (like terrorism,
hacking or theft).

Environmental care and sustainability

Whereas safety (and the protection of human health) has long been recognized in
engineering codes of ethics, attention for environmental care and sustainability is of a
more recent date, at least in codes of ethics. One reason may be that also in society at
large environmental care and sustainability became prominent concerns at a later
point in time than safety. One may say that they have received increased societal
attention since roughly the seventies and eighties, and perhaps engineering codes of
ethics are just lagging behind. In connection to this, it also seems that whereas
engineers perceive safety as a value that is internal to engineering already for quite
some time, sustainability was long seen as a more political issue and therefore also as
somewhat more controversial. However, this now seems to be changing and
environmental care and sustainability are increasingly included in codes of ethics of
engineering societies and considered important values in engineering.
The relation between engineering and the environmental is obviously ambivalent.
Engineering and technology have been, and still are, a source of unsustainability in
many areas. At the same time, engineering and technology may contribute to

6
environmental care and to sustainable development, and are perhaps even
indispensable to achieve such goals.
The notion of sustainability can be understood and defined in many different ways,
but the most prominent definition is probably the Brundtlandt definition of
sustainable development: “Sustainable development is development that meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs” (WCED 1987: 43). As this definition already witnesses, the notion of
sustainability is broader than the notion of environmental care, also referring to social
justice issues. In particular, it can be argued that sustainability in addition to the value
of environmental care refers to the values of intragenerational justice (justice within
the current generation) and intergenerational justice (justice between generations).
The various value dimensions of sustainability may in fact sometimes conflict with
each other, as in the case of biofuels. It can be argued that biofuels are a positive
development from the viewpoint of intergenerational justice, as they may be a means
to ensure the availability of fuels also for future generations. From an environmental
or intragenerational point of view, their desirability is much more open to debate, as
their total environmental impact may sometimes be worse than traditional fuels and,
by competing with food stocks, they may lead to rising food prices, and so negatively
impact food security in especially developing countries.
There are now various tools and approaches that can be used to integrate sustainability
and environmental considerations in engineering and technological development and
design, like for example environmental impact assessments, life cycle analysis, circular
economy and so-called design for sustainability and eco-design approaches.

Recent developments in engineering ethics

Next, a number of more recent developments in engineering ethics are described to
show some of the trends in the field. Again the overview is more illustrative than
exhaustive. The two main developments that will be discussed are how new
technological developments have led to new ethical issues in engineering, and the
development of a more pro-active approach to engineering ethics.

New technologies and new ethical issues

New technologies may raise new ethical issues that did not exist before. It has for
example been suggested that information and communication technology and
software engineering have raised ethical issues like privacy that did not exist in this
form before; although other authors have suggested that these issues are not really
new (Tavani 2002). Similarly, it has been suggested that technologies like
nanotechnologies raise new ethical issues, for example with respect to the possibilities
of human enhancement that did not exist before, although again others have denied
that these are really new ethical issues (Bacchini 2013).
More important than the question whether the ethical issues raised by new
technologies are really and completely new is perhaps the observation that different
technologies raise different specific ethical issues that need attention. So apart from the
quite general ethical issues in engineering that were discussed before, there is large
array of much more specific ethical issues raised by different technologies. What also
needs mentioning in this respect are the issues raised by technologies that (more or
less) autonomously make decisions; think for example of unmanned drones or self-
7
driving cars. These technologies raise important ethical questions about how to design
the relevant decision algorithms (e.g. when to attack an enemy, or where to steer the
car in case of an accident), and about responsibility.
In addition to these more technology-specific issues there is perhaps a more general
ethically relevant issue that is raised by many new technologies, i.e. how to deal with
uncertainty. This issue is particularly important for a range of new technologies of
which the consequences and risks are still largely unknown or contested, think of
nanotechnology, synthetic biology, neurotechnology, and the Internet of Things, for
example. For many of these new technologies, there is uncertainty not only with
respect to what the exact (social) impacts and risks of these technologies will be, but
also about the very ethical issues that these technologies will raise. An important
principle that has been proposed to deal with uncertainty is the precautionary
principle.
A well-known formulation of the precautionary principle is the so-called Wingspread
Statement: “When an activity raises threats to the environment or human health,
precautionary measures should be taken, even if some cause-and-effect relationships
are not fully established scientifically” (Raffensberger and Tickner 1999: 354-355),
There are, however, also other formulations. Sandin (1999: 891) has suggested that the
various formulations of the precautionary principle as a prescriptive principle can be
caught in the following formula: “If there is (1) a threat, which is (2) uncertain, then
(3) some kind of action (4) is mandatory.” Depending on how these four dimensions
are filled out, the principle becomes more or less stringent.
There is no agreement on the issue whether the precautionary principle is a good way
to deal with uncertainty. Some authors have argued that the principle basically
expresses prudence (Hansson 2009). Others believe the principle is incoherent because
“it forbids the very measures it requires” (Sunstein 2005: 366). Partly the controversy
seems to be based on different understandings of the ‘precautionary principle.’ Those
who believe that the principle is basically a form of prudence see as the core of the
principle that decisions are not only to be based on scientifically established risks but
also on uncertain or debated risks and impacts. Those who argue that the principle is
incoherent have in mind a strong version of the principle that forbids any activity that
potentially brings risks that have not yet been established scientifically. Since such
potential risks are often inherent both to doing something and refraining from that
something, they consider the principle as incoherent.
Another way to deal with the uncertainties that are inherent to the introduction of new
technologies into society is to argue that when these technologies enter into society
they amount to a kind of social experiment. Martin and Schinzinger (1996) have
proposed the principle of informed consent to decide about the ethical acceptability of
such experiments.

From reactive to proactive engineering ethics

Traditionally, ethical reflection on technology and engineering has often been reactive,
i.e. after a technology was already developed and designed. In recent years, attempts
have been made to integrate ethics already proactively from early on in the design,
development and innovation process of technology. In such approaches, ethics is
constructively used to improve new technologies, rather than that ethics is used to

8
decide whether a technology is as such acceptable or not. Moreover, the emphasis is
also increasingly on doing good through technology, rather than on avoiding harm as
traditionally was often the focus. Below, two approaches for proactively integrating
ethical concerns in technological development are elaborated, namely Value Sensitive
Design and Responsible Innovation.
Value Sensitive Design (VSD) was developed in information and communication
technology as a systematic approach to integrating values of ethical importance into
the design of new technologies. The approach aims at integrating empirical,
conceptual and technical investigations on values into design (Friedman et al. 2006).
The empirical investigations aim at understanding the concerns and experiences of the
stakeholders that are affected by a technology; the conceptual investigations aim at
clarifying the values at stake conceptually and making trade-offs; technical
investigations are relevant for including the values into the technological design itself
but also to reveal what values may already be (tacitly) built into the design of a
technology. The overarching aim of VSD is to integrate values from the start in the
design process. Values that have been articulated in the VSD literature include: human
welfare, property, privacy, freedom from bias, universal usability, trust, autonomy,
informed consent, accountability, courtesy, identity, calmness, and environmental
sustainability.
Whereas VSD may be seen as a specific approach for integrating values into design,
similar efforts have been undertaken under somewhat different headings including
Values at Play, Design and Values, and Design for Values. Design for Values may in
fact be seen as a variety of Design for X approaches that have become popular in
engineering, where X can stand for a certain virtue or value or for a phase of the
product life cycle like production, maintenance, recycling or scrapping. Such
approaches have been developed for a broad range of values (including safety,
sustainability, privacy, justice, trust, responsibility, accountability, inclusiveness) and
for a large variety of domains (including engineering, nanotechnology, biotechnology,
military technology, medical technology, water technology). For a recent overview, see
van den Hoven et al. (2015)
The notion of Responsible Innovation has become popular in recent years to denote
innovations, and innovation processes that meet certain (ethical) values. The notion
has been popularized through the Horizon 2020 Research Program of the European
Union in which what is called Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is a main
cross-cutting theme. The notion also finds its background partly in the National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) in the US in which the idea of responsible
development of nanotechnology is an important theme.
The Rome Declaration on Responsible Research and Innovation in Europe has defines RRI
as an “on-going process of aligning research and innovation to the values, needs and
expectations of society” (European Union 2014). It requires attention for the process of
innovation that should meet such criteria as being anticipatory, reflective, deliberative
and responsive (Owen et al. 2013). It also requires attention for the products or
outcomes of innovation that should meet deeply held moral values; in the latter case
it becomes more similar to VSD or Design for Values.

9
Conclusions
Engineering ethics started off as a field of applied ethics teaching and research in the
eighties. The initial approach was based on the idea that engineering is a profession,
similar to other professions like medicine and law. Such professions are believed to be
committed to a certain moral ideal, which in the case of engineering may be
understood as “holding paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public”, as it
is expressed in several engineering codes of ethics. A number of ethical issues in
engineering which are typical for a professional approach were discussed: whistle-
blowing, loyalty, conflicts of interest, safety and risk, and the environment and
sustainability. Of these, the later have only more recently been included in engineering
codes of ethics. Although the discussed ethical issues are neither exhaustive of the
ethical issues in engineering nor unique to engineering, they give a good impression
of some of the main ethical issues that have drawn attention in engineering ethics.
Also two more recent developments in engineering ethics were discussed. One is the
growing attention for specific ethical issues raised by specific technologies. Although
it is questionable whether the ethical issues raised by new technologies are completely
new or unique to certain technologies, there is little doubt that they deserve attention.
Moreover, it is clear that for different technologies, different ethical issues are relevant
that require due attention. This also suggests an approach that pays explicitly attention
to the specific technologies developed in the different domains of in engineering rather
than just focusing on engineering as a profession. It also requires attention for the
uncertainty surrounding new technologies, which may require new approaches such
as the precautionary principle or conceiving of the introduction of new technology in
society as a social experiment. Another important development in engineering ethics
is a growing emphasis on proactive approaches, like Value Sensitive Design and
Responsible Innovation that integrate ethical concerns from the start in the
development process of new technology.

Cross references
Codes of Conduct
Conflict of Interest
Consent: Informed
Environmental Ethics
Information Technology: Ethics
Integrity: Professional
Nanotechnology
Precautionary Principle
Professional Ethics
Risk
Synthetic Biology
Whistle-blowing

References
Bacchini, F. 2013. Is nanotechnology giving rise to new ethical problems? NanoEthics 7
(2): 107-19.
Davis, M. 1998. Thinking like an engineer. Studies in the ethics of a profession. New York
and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10
European Union 2014. Rome declaration on Responsible Research and Innovation in Europe.
https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/rome_declaration_RRI_final_21_N
ovember.pdf. Accessed 13 November 2015.
Friedman, B., P. H. J. Kahn and A. Borning 2006. Value Sensitive Design and
information systems. In Human-computer interaction in management information
systems: Foundations, edited by Ping Zhang and Dennis Galletta, 348-72.
Armonk, NY: M.E, Sharpe.
Hansson, S. O. 2009. Risk and safety in technology. In Handbook of the philosophy of
science. Volume 9: Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences, edited by
Anthonie Meijers, 1069-102. Oxford: Elsevier.
Harris, C. E., M. S. Pritchard and M. J. Rabins 2005. Engineering ethics: Concepts and
cases. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
Martin, M. W. and R. Schinzinger 1996. Ethics in engineering. New York etc.: McGraw-
Hill.
NSPE 2007. NSPE code of ethics for engineers.
http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html (accessed 30 October,
2015).
Owen, R., J. R. Bessant and M. Heintz 2013. Responsible Innovation: Managing the
responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Chichester: John Wiley.
Raffensberger, C. and J. Tickner (eds.) 1999. Protecting public health and the environment:
Implementing the precautionary principle. Washington, DC.: Island Press.
Sandin, P. 1999. Dimensions of the precautionary principle. Human and Ecological Risk
Assessment 5 (5): 889-907.
Sunstein, C. R. 2005. Cost-benefit analysis and the environment. Ethics 115 351-85.
Tavani, H. T. 2002. The uniqueness debate in computer ethics: What exactly is at issue,
and why does it matter? Ethics and Information Technology 4 (1): 37-54.
Van de Poel, I. and L. Royakkers 2011. Ethics, technology and engineering. Oxford: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Van den Hoven, J., P. E. Vermaas and I. Van de Poel (eds.) 2015. Handbook of ethics and
values in technological design. Sources, theory, values and application domains.
Dordrecht: Springer.
WCED. (1987). Our Common Future. Report of the World Commission on Environment and
Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Further readings
Harris, C. E., Pritchard, M. S., & Rabins, M. J. (2013). Engineering ethics : concepts and
cases (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth -- Cengage.
Martin, M. W., & Schinzinger, R. (2005). Ethics in engineering (4th ed.). Boston:
McGraw-Hill.
Van de Poel, I., & Royakkers, L. (2011). Ethics, technology and engineering. Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell.
van den Hoven, J., Vermaas, P. E., & Van de Poel, I. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of ethics
and values in technological design. Sources, theory, values and application domains.
Dordrecht: Springer.

11
12