Climate Change, Ethics and Responsibility: an interdisciplinary approach
Lead Research Organisation:
University of Leeds
Department Name: Inter-Disciplinary Ethics Applied
Abstract
Talking at a conference at University College London, Professor John Broome stressed that, according to predictions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there is a non-negligible possibility (just under 5%) of a temperature change of 8 to 10 degrees. At that level of climate change, the extinction of the entire human race is a real possibility.
Nevertheless, while people are, increasingly, recognising that climate change is a serious problem, and that we need to reduce our carbon emissions, there is still considerable resistance to coercive legislation that would impose restrictions on people. Talking at a recent event about low carbon transport, Andy Eastlake, the managing director of the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, took it for granted that "forcing people to reduce mobility is politically unacceptable". Similarly, Lucinda Turner (presenting at a TEDx event about transport and the environment) stated that the majority of people considered car ownership to be a right, and only 2% considered their own car ownership to be a luxury.
An important part of the project is the interdisciplinary nature of the project, bringing together philosophers, historians and engineers. Increasingly, moral and political philosophers are focusing on the ethics of climate change, and climate ethics is establishing itself as vibrant area of study for philosophers. Historians also have much to offer, in relation to climate ethics, by considering examples of coercive and liberty-limiting regulations from the past, such as rationing in World War II. Engineers have played a significant role in climate change in the past and, more positively, will be at the heart of any responses to climate change in the future. However, there is relatively little collaboration between these disciplines.
My project will aim to rectify this, by encouraging and facilitating interdisciplinary collaboration, through events, publications, and steering group meetings.
The philosophical work, undertaken by myself, will focus on areas largely neglected by philosophers, focusing on the moral responsibility of individuals, and the responsibility of engineers and the engineering profession.
The historical work will be undertaken by a research assistant, who will explore parallels between historical examples of coercive legislation, such as rationing, and coercive regulation that may be required in response to climate change.
Regarding the engineering profession, I have been teaching engineering ethics for eight years, and have an established history of professional ethics consultancy work with the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) and the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET), and have connections with the Engineering Council, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE), the Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE). Representatives of the profession will be involved in the project from the start, contributing to the project's steering group, as well as contributing to the workshops and conference, and three of my six planned papers will have a specific engineering focus, and will be published in journals aimed at engineers, such as Science and Engineering Ethics.
Recognising that the current generation of engineering students will be working in an environment where climate change will be at the heart of many engineering decisions, the project will also focus on how the research should impact on the teaching of engineering ethics.
The project will benefit engineers, and engineering students (at Leeds and elsewhere), philosophers working on climate ethics, individual responsibility or professional ethics, and historians working on rationing or those interested in the moral relevance of the study of history, and the outputs of the project will be: 3 workshops and a conference, 7 academic papers, as well as non-academic papers aimed at non-academic audiences.
Nevertheless, while people are, increasingly, recognising that climate change is a serious problem, and that we need to reduce our carbon emissions, there is still considerable resistance to coercive legislation that would impose restrictions on people. Talking at a recent event about low carbon transport, Andy Eastlake, the managing director of the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, took it for granted that "forcing people to reduce mobility is politically unacceptable". Similarly, Lucinda Turner (presenting at a TEDx event about transport and the environment) stated that the majority of people considered car ownership to be a right, and only 2% considered their own car ownership to be a luxury.
An important part of the project is the interdisciplinary nature of the project, bringing together philosophers, historians and engineers. Increasingly, moral and political philosophers are focusing on the ethics of climate change, and climate ethics is establishing itself as vibrant area of study for philosophers. Historians also have much to offer, in relation to climate ethics, by considering examples of coercive and liberty-limiting regulations from the past, such as rationing in World War II. Engineers have played a significant role in climate change in the past and, more positively, will be at the heart of any responses to climate change in the future. However, there is relatively little collaboration between these disciplines.
My project will aim to rectify this, by encouraging and facilitating interdisciplinary collaboration, through events, publications, and steering group meetings.
The philosophical work, undertaken by myself, will focus on areas largely neglected by philosophers, focusing on the moral responsibility of individuals, and the responsibility of engineers and the engineering profession.
The historical work will be undertaken by a research assistant, who will explore parallels between historical examples of coercive legislation, such as rationing, and coercive regulation that may be required in response to climate change.
Regarding the engineering profession, I have been teaching engineering ethics for eight years, and have an established history of professional ethics consultancy work with the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) and the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET), and have connections with the Engineering Council, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE), the Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE). Representatives of the profession will be involved in the project from the start, contributing to the project's steering group, as well as contributing to the workshops and conference, and three of my six planned papers will have a specific engineering focus, and will be published in journals aimed at engineers, such as Science and Engineering Ethics.
Recognising that the current generation of engineering students will be working in an environment where climate change will be at the heart of many engineering decisions, the project will also focus on how the research should impact on the teaching of engineering ethics.
The project will benefit engineers, and engineering students (at Leeds and elsewhere), philosophers working on climate ethics, individual responsibility or professional ethics, and historians working on rationing or those interested in the moral relevance of the study of history, and the outputs of the project will be: 3 workshops and a conference, 7 academic papers, as well as non-academic papers aimed at non-academic audiences.
Planned Impact
The issues addressed in this project will be of significant importance not only in engineering, but in society more generally, and will be one of the most important considerations in social planning and public policy in the future.
As such, impact activities will not be a mere afterthought, but will be built in from the outset, and will be a core part of the project. This is an area in which the Inter-Disciplinary Ethics Applied (IDEA) centre and I are ideally placed to have impact.
I have considerable experience of working with the biggest professional bodies in engineering. I contributed to "Engineering ethics in practice: a guide for engineers" for the Royal Academy of Engineering; I am currently editing an e-book, "Engineering in Society", which will be endorsed by the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Engineering Council, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE), the Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE), the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) and the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET); and I am currently working with the president of ICE on ICE's president's apprentices scheme.
However, the impact of this project is not limited to the engineering profession. The centre is committed to integrating the three core elements of our work: research, teaching and consultancy. We have our own dedicated knowledge transfer staff, we have established our own Professional Ethics Network, and we have experience of developing work that reaches beyond academia. For example, our Real Integrity: practical solutions for organisations seeking to promote and encourage integrity, produced in partnership with the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW), was submitted as evidence to the Leveson Inquiry. In addition, my mentor Prof. Chris Megone was an expert witness in the Leveson enquiry, and has a career's worth of experience in working in applied ethics and maximizing impact, which will be an invaluable part of his contribution as my mentor.
Regarding the specific pathways to impact:
The project will be overseen by a steering committee, which will include representatives from the engineering profession. I have already discussed the project with the Head of Policy at the Royal Academy of Engineering, Natasha McCarthy, and she has said that she would be happy to be part of the steering group. I have also discussed the project with the Head of Corporate Governance at Marks and Spencer, Amanda Mellor, who has recently agreed to be an honorary Visiting Professor in the IDEA centre, and I am hopeful that she too will be involved in the steering group.
Events and publications will be aimed at the relevant audiences. The workshop on engineering ethics, and the two day conference, will be advertised to the engineering profession, as well as to academics, and I aim to have these events endorsed by the Royal Academy of Engineering. In addition, the conference will include an event open to the public and aimed at a non-academic audience (which will be promoted through our professional ethics network). Regarding publications, I will not only publish in philosophy journals, but will also publish in journals where they will be read by the relevant audience, such as Science and Engineering Ethics. In addition to the academic papers, the research assistant will submit a paper to History and Policy, which "creates opportunities for historians, policy makers and journalists to connect", and I will publish a non-academic summary of my work in a professional publication, such as The Royal Academy of Engineering's Ingenia.
Furthermore, given our commitment to academically-informed consultancy, and our commitment to teaching that is informed both by our research and our consultancy work, this project will continue to have an impact in the years after the project is complete, through the centre's teaching in engineering, business, and environment, as well as in our consultancy work.
As such, impact activities will not be a mere afterthought, but will be built in from the outset, and will be a core part of the project. This is an area in which the Inter-Disciplinary Ethics Applied (IDEA) centre and I are ideally placed to have impact.
I have considerable experience of working with the biggest professional bodies in engineering. I contributed to "Engineering ethics in practice: a guide for engineers" for the Royal Academy of Engineering; I am currently editing an e-book, "Engineering in Society", which will be endorsed by the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Engineering Council, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE), the Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE), the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) and the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET); and I am currently working with the president of ICE on ICE's president's apprentices scheme.
However, the impact of this project is not limited to the engineering profession. The centre is committed to integrating the three core elements of our work: research, teaching and consultancy. We have our own dedicated knowledge transfer staff, we have established our own Professional Ethics Network, and we have experience of developing work that reaches beyond academia. For example, our Real Integrity: practical solutions for organisations seeking to promote and encourage integrity, produced in partnership with the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW), was submitted as evidence to the Leveson Inquiry. In addition, my mentor Prof. Chris Megone was an expert witness in the Leveson enquiry, and has a career's worth of experience in working in applied ethics and maximizing impact, which will be an invaluable part of his contribution as my mentor.
Regarding the specific pathways to impact:
The project will be overseen by a steering committee, which will include representatives from the engineering profession. I have already discussed the project with the Head of Policy at the Royal Academy of Engineering, Natasha McCarthy, and she has said that she would be happy to be part of the steering group. I have also discussed the project with the Head of Corporate Governance at Marks and Spencer, Amanda Mellor, who has recently agreed to be an honorary Visiting Professor in the IDEA centre, and I am hopeful that she too will be involved in the steering group.
Events and publications will be aimed at the relevant audiences. The workshop on engineering ethics, and the two day conference, will be advertised to the engineering profession, as well as to academics, and I aim to have these events endorsed by the Royal Academy of Engineering. In addition, the conference will include an event open to the public and aimed at a non-academic audience (which will be promoted through our professional ethics network). Regarding publications, I will not only publish in philosophy journals, but will also publish in journals where they will be read by the relevant audience, such as Science and Engineering Ethics. In addition to the academic papers, the research assistant will submit a paper to History and Policy, which "creates opportunities for historians, policy makers and journalists to connect", and I will publish a non-academic summary of my work in a professional publication, such as The Royal Academy of Engineering's Ingenia.
Furthermore, given our commitment to academically-informed consultancy, and our commitment to teaching that is informed both by our research and our consultancy work, this project will continue to have an impact in the years after the project is complete, through the centre's teaching in engineering, business, and environment, as well as in our consultancy work.
People |
ORCID iD |
| Robin Lawlor (Principal Investigator / Fellow) |
Publications
Chance S
(2021)
Above and beyond: ethics and responsibility in civil engineering
in Australasian Journal of Engineering Education
LAWLOR R
(2015)
Freezing Eggs in a Warming World
in Utilitas
Lawlor R
(2017)
Climate Change and Professional Responsibility: A Declaration of Helsinki for Engineers.
in Science and engineering ethics
Lawlor R
(2021)
Teaching engineering ethics: a dissenting voice
in Australasian Journal of Engineering Education
Lawlor R
(2015)
Questioning the significance of the non-identity problem in applied ethics.
in Journal of medical ethics
Lawlor R
(2015)
Questioning the significance of the non-identity problem in applied ethics: a reply to Tony Hope.
in Journal of medical ethics
Lawlor R
(2016)
The Absurdity of Economists' Sacrifice-free Solutions to Climate Change
in Ethics, Policy & Environment
Lawlor R
(2017)
Rejecting Amanda Machin's Complacent Democracy
in Environmental Ethics
Lawlor R
(2015)
Delaying obsolescence.
in Science and engineering ethics
Wood N
(2023)
Rationing and Climate Change Mitigation*
in Ethics, Policy & Environment
| Description | In terms of the original objectives of the project: 1) The project did successfully facilitate and encourage collaboration between academics from different disciplines. a) The collaboration between philosophers and historians was a key part of this project. As planned, this focused on parallels between rationing and climate change, leading to fruitful results. In fact, after Josie Freear presented her historical research, Tina Fawcett (an academic who works on the idea of personal carbon allowances) commented that Freear's paper had basically provided what she had been looking for for years. In addition to the rationing focus, the project also developed a new focus on history, exploring parallels between the abolition of slavery and movements to mitigate climate change. Videos from events with a focus on slavery can be found here (under the short videos) - https://ahc.leeds.ac.uk/ethics-research-innovation/dir-record/research-projects/990/climate-change-ethics-and-responsibility. The focus on slavery was also a key element of my paper: "Rejecting Amanda Machin's Complacent Democracy", published in 2017. Finally, the historical perspective also became a focus of the project in relation to professional responsibilities, the development of professions in the past, and in particular the example of the Declaration of Helsinki, in the medical profession. These collaborations were important in the development of my work on climate change. The comparison with the Declaration of Helsinki is central to the paper "Climate Change and Professional Responsibility: A Declaration of Helsinki for Engineers", published in Science and Engineering Ethics. (My work on rationing and climate change is still ongoing. I am also working on an additional paper on slavery and climate change, and another paper on the role of the engineering professional institutions, also drawing on historical research.) I also had a letter published in The Guardian, highlighting lessons that we can learn from the history of rationing: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/09/letters-rationing-save-world b) The collaboration between philosophers and engineers was another area of success. Not only did this involve collaborations with the Royal Academy of Engineering, as planned, but has also led to a new collaboration with Engineers without Borders UK. And this collaboration with engineers was a key part of "Climate Change and Professional Responsibility: A Declaration of Helsinki for Engineers". And EWB have taken up the idea of a declaration for engineers, expanding the idea to global responsibilities generally - see https://www.ewb-uk.org/our-initiatives/inspiring-change-in-engineering-education/declaration-of-global-responsibility-for-engineers/ c) In addition to the collaborations noted above (with historians and engineers), this project led directly to collaborations between Inter-Disciplinary Ethics Applied and the Sustainability Research Institute, co-supervising two PhD students, and more recently developing a project on the ethics of climate services, which received £30,000 pump-priming funding (from the University of Leeds) to support the further development of the project, potentially looking to explore and support the professionalisation of climate services and the development of a code of ethics for the emerging profession. 2) In relation to the question of what governments should do about climate change, Josie Freear and I have argued that a response to climate change requires stricter regulation, and cannot rely on voluntarism or market based solutions such as taxation. Also coming (loosely) under this heading, I have also argued against particular proposals made by economists, and have argued that public policy needs to be less dominated by (neoclassical) economics, and needs to be informed more by other social sciences and history. "The Absurdity of Economists' Sacrifice Free Solutions to Climate Change" was published in Ethics, Policy and Environment. (Other work on economics still in progress.) 3) My research assistant also wrote a historical paper discussing the planned idea to ration fuel for homes, asking the question of why the plan was not actually put into place. (the recording of her presentation can be found here: https://ahc.leeds.ac.uk/ethics-research-innovation/dir-record/research-projects/990/climate-change-ethics-and-responsibility - under the heading "longer videos".) Unfortunately, she decided to leave academia to study medicine (and is now working as a doctor) and it looks like this paper will not be published. 4) Regarding the question of what individuals should do about climate change, one paper argued that moral argument would be a crucial part of moving towards effective action on climate change, and argued against the view that the focus should instead be on political negotiation (without ethics). This paper was published in 2017: "Rejecting Amanda Machin's Complacent Democracy". I also have other work in progress relating to this aspect of the project. 5) I argued that the engineering profession is in some ways too conservative and is not doing enough to play a part in addressing climate change. In relation to obsolescence, one plausible view that designers and engineers should plan for obsolescence, making judgements about the use of a product, and the likely life of a project, so that they can design for obsolescence, panning for it to be recycled for example. I argued that this view was too conservative, accepting the status quo and not paying enough attention to the fact that designers and engineers are able to shape and influence the world (and in particular the way that individuals consume goods), and argued therefore that designers and engineers should be doing more to prolong the life of products, therefore delaying obsolescence and reducing waste. ("Delaying Obsolescence", published in Science and Engineering Ethics.) More broadly, addressing the responsibilities of the profession, I have argued that the engineering profession is particularly well placed to deal with climate change, in that climate change involves a co-ordination problem and a professional institution is something that is well placed to provide a co-ordinated response. Furthermore, professional institutions are self-regulating (having a code of ethics), and the professional institutions recognise a duty of responsible leadership, and recognise a duty to protect the public (including future generations). Yet, engineers continue to enable the activities that contribute to our carbon emissions, and they do not appear to be using the tools of self-regulation to manage this. I argue that the engineering profession needs to recognise that the principles that it is already committed to requires the profession to do more to very clearly set higher standards for engineers, and to make it clear that engineers will be held accountable for whether or not they meet these standards. In essence, the engineering profession ought to respond to the challenge of climate change in a way that is similar to the World Medical Association's response to unethical research on humans, when they produced the Declaration of Helsinki. "Climate Change and Professional Responsibility: A Declaration of Helsinki for Engineers", published in Science and Engineering Ethics. Also see the videos available here: https://ahc.leeds.ac.uk/ethics-research-innovation/dir-record/research-projects/990/climate-change-ethics-and-responsibility and also http://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/4019/call_for_engineers_to_act_on_climate_change 7) In the paper focused on the teaching of engineering ethics, I argue against the common view that the best way to teach ethics is to use case studies, focusing teaching around a discussion of the case. I argue that, while there can certainly be a place for case studies, I defend more traditional teaching methods, with a focus on teaching content, presenting students with ideas and arguments. (Work in progress - a video of me presenting this paper is available on line, here: https://mymedia.leeds.ac.uk/Mediasite/Play/d3d4b2e7b686431bb4c3f281caddb6031d At the time of writing, March 2021, I have a request to revise and resubmit my paper from The Australasian Journal of Engineering Education.) 8) Finally, by visiting academics in America and the Netherlands, I have helped to develop connections which I hope will be valuable both for my individual career and for the ethics centre at the University of Leeds. Beyond the stated objectives: In the course of the period, the focus of the research shifted slightly taking me in a slightly different direction - while still remaining within the spirit of the original objectives. As stated above, I became interested in the history of the abolition of slavery, and parallels that could be drawn between that movement and the movement to address climate change. (work in progress. But also see the videos available here, under "short videos": https://ahc.leeds.ac.uk/ethics-research-innovation/dir-record/research-projects/990/climate-change-ethics-and-responsibility And, in addition, the project focused more on economics than I had originally intended. "The Absurdity of Economists' Sacrifice Free Solutions to Climate Change" was published in Ethics, Policy and Environment. And I hope to publish more in this area in the future. Also see my videos here https://ahc.leeds.ac.uk/ethics-research-innovation/dir-record/research-projects/990/climate-change-ethics-and-responsibility In addition, I also considered population issues as they relate to climate change, particularly in relation to the medical profession and reproductive ethics. I argued that ethical issues relating to climate change have implications for arguments about the permissibility of egg freezing, presenting a new argument in favour of allowing women to freeze their eggs for social reasons. "Freezing Eggs in a Warming World" in Utilitas, 2015. As an offshoot of this paper, I also did work on the non-identity problem (which many people worry about in relation to climate change), which has led to one publication in the Journal of Medical Ethics. Please Note: Below, the form asks "Have you met your original objectives?" The guidance with the question suggests that I should pick the "most appropriate" answer (implying that there may not be a perfect match). As I stated above, the focus of the research shifted slightly taking me in a slightly different direction. However, given that 1) this is inevitable to some extent when doing research, and 2) I certainly remained within the spirit of the original objectives, it didn't seem appropriate to choose "no". The process of academic publishing is a lengthy process. Journals can take a year to give a decision, and they might then ask for further revisions. Or they might reject a paper, and you might send it somewhere else. Or indeed, you might start again from scratch (albeit still having their origin in the original research funded by the project). As a result, even at this stage, and even after publishing the papers I have published, I do still have papers under review, waiting for a revise and resubmit, and I still have work in progress. I answered "yes" below to the question "have you met your original objectives" because although I haven't done exactly what I said (in terms of the exact papers or the exact focus), my work was still very much in the spirit of the original objectives, and has been more or less comparable in terms of outputs etc and I have published in areas which clearly relate to the project (on economics and on the non-identity problem) which go beyond what I said I would do. |
| Exploitation Route | There are two main ways in which this research could be taken forward. 1) In the academic arena, philosophers and other academics may engage with the arguments presented furthering the academic debate. 2) Outside the academic arena, I would hope that my arguments could influence individuals or organisations, particularly (but not only) within engineering and in politics. The research is already being taken forward, in that Dr Helen Morley has received funding from the AHRC cultural fund to collaborate with Engineers without Borders (EWB), to further explore the idea of a Declaration of Helsinki for Engineers. EWB have now taken this idea on, though expanding it to be a declaration of global responsibilities more generally. In 2019 EWB lead a project on the global responsibility of engineers, funded by the Royal Academy of Engineering. This will lead to a report and an academic paper. (At the time of writing, March 2021, Shannon Chance - the lead author - has just submitted a revised version of the paper to the Australasian Journal of Engineering Education). See https://www.ewb-uk.org/research-global-responsibility-engineering/ More generally, EWB UK have made the focus of the global responsibility of engineers a core part of their mission: https://www.ewb-uk.org/global-responsibility-in-engineering/ As noted above, along with colleagues in the Sustainability Research Institute, I am developing a new project on the ethics and professionalisation of climate services, which to a large extent draws on work that I originally did focusing on the ethical responsibilities of the engineering profession. |
| Sectors | Construction,Creative Economy,Education,Energy,Environment,Government, Democracy and Justice,Manufacturing, including Industrial Biotechology,Retail,Security and Diplomacy,Transport,Other |
| URL | https://ahc.leeds.ac.uk/ethics-research-innovation/dir-record/research-projects/990/climate-change-ethics-and-responsibility |
| Description | As stated in the collaboration and engagement sections, my research, and the event associated with the project, played a role in prompting the Royal Academy of Engineering to reconvene their ethics working group, and to consider whether or not there was a need to update the Statement of Ethical Principles. In addition, Engineers Without Borders UK have actively taken on my idea of a declaration for engineers - though they have gone beyond climate change to focus on the global responsibilities of engineers. In 2018, their website flagged up their collaboration with me/Leeds, highlighting their research into the possibility of a Declaration of Global Responsibilities for engineers. In 2019, their website highlighted new research on the global responsibilities of engineers, funded by the Royal Academy of Engineering: https://www.ewb-uk.org/research-global-responsibility-engineering/ I was an advisor for this project. In addition, the EWB website also states their own global responsibilities policy: https://www.ewb-uk.org/global-responsibility-policy/ To an extent, the project was also a catalyst for the University of Leeds creation of a vision for engineering ethics, which involved collaborations with the Engineering Council, The Royal Academy of Engineering, and a number of professional institutions in engineering, as well as EWB. https://ahc.leeds.ac.uk/engethics2028 |
| First Year Of Impact | 2015 |
| Sector | Environment,Other |
| Impact Types | Societal |
| Description | Engineers Without Borders UK |
| Organisation | Engineers Without Borders (UK) |
| Country | United Kingdom |
| Sector | Charity/Non Profit |
| PI Contribution | I felt that the collaboration with the Royal Academy of Engineering had been positive, and a valuable collaboration, engaging with engineers, with some impact. However, I also felt that the RAEng were quite conservative, and perhaps a bit resistant to at least some of my arguments. (Though this isn't to say that my arguments had no impact. Even if people are not persuaded to adopt a particular view, an argument can still have an impact by pushing people further in a particular direction, even if they don't go as far as embracing the position being argued for.) After the event at the RAEng, however, I met with Engineers Without Borders UK (EWB). When discussing the RAEng event with them, and explaining my arguments, it became clear that EWB were a much less conservative organisation, and much more enthusiastic about my research, and about the idea of changing/influencing the engineering profession, prompting the engineering profession to take on a greater responsibilities in relation to climate change. As a direct result of this meeting, my colleague Helen Morley and I decided to collaborate with EWB to apply for a £9000 AHRC cultural engagement fund. (Helen Morley was the person applying for the funding, but I was a key part of the application and a key part of the project 1) because I am Helen Morley's mentor for the project and 2) because the project is based on my research from my previous AHRC grant and 3) because, more specifically, the project is an offshoot of work that Helen and I were collaborating on, which ultimately led to the publication of "Climate Change and Professional Responsibility: A Declaration of Helsinki for Engineers" in Science and Engineering Ethics. This new project essentially has two parts: 1) Helen Morley and I worked to develop the idea of a declaration of Helsinki for engineers, focusing on climate change, and global responsibilities more broadly. (This work pre-dated the collaboration with EWB.) Engineers from EWB (and from outside EWB, but invited by EWB) helped us by providing a wider range of engineering expertise which will be very helpful. But of course it was Helen and I who ultimately developed this into a paper for publication. 2) Helen Morley worked with EWB to develop their new strategy plan, thus supporting the establishment of EWB as advocates and campaigners in this arena. (Helen became ill during the project, which imposed some limits. Nevertheless, Helen was still able to make a significant contribution to EWB development of their new strategy. See the URL below for more details of EWB's perspective. |
| Collaborator Contribution | As stated above, the input of people at EWB has been very valuable in the development of my research, providing expertise (in engineering) that I don't have on my own. As stated above, the input of engineers at EWB, and other engineers at the events we ran with EWB, had a direct impact on our paper "Climate Change and Professional Responsibility: A Declaration of Helsinki for Engineers". In addition, following the launch of their new strategy in 2016, EWB will be organising a number of communication opportunities within which the outputs of this project (and the output of my original AHRC project on climate change) can be disseminated. More generally, this collaboration with EWB has the potential, over the coming years, to be presented through various events and public engagement activities. As such, this collaboration is likely to help to help my research in this area to have a greater reach, and greater impact on engineers - and particularly young engineers. Also note therefore that, while I have stated that the collaboration ceased in 2016 - because this is when the "formal" collaboration relating to this particular project came to an end - the partnership is still active in that we continue to have good relations with EWB UK and it is very likely that we will collaborate again in the future. In terms of financial contributions, without this collaboration, I assume that we (Helen Morley and I) would not have been successful in our application for the AHRC cultural engagement fund. IMPORTANT NOTE: I apologise if I have not provided the details of this in the right place. In the guidance, it said not provide "Details of funding that have been gained through a successful application, this should be reported in the further funding section." However, I wasn't sure if I should include this in the further funding as, strictly speaking, the funding is in Helen Morley's name, and is paying primarily for her time, even though the funding is "further funding" in the sense that the project as a whole developed out of, and is a continuation of, work that I did for my original AHRC project on climate change. As the "further funding" section didn't allow me to provide these details - e.g. explaining that the funding is primarily to Helen Morley - I have removed it from the further funding section, and have instead included details here, and in the engagement activities (in relation to the event). I hope this was correct. |
| Impact | 1) We held an initial event at EWB to explore the idea of a declaration of global responsibilities for engineers. 2) Helen and I write a draft of a declaration (drawing on the Declaration of Helsinki). This was never intended to be a final product, that could just be published. Rather, the aim was to use the document to facilitate debate at the following event. 3) We held a second event at EWB, to explore the question of what engineers, and the professional institutions, could do to move towards making a declaration of global responsibilities a reality. 4) Helen helped EWB to develop their new strategy plan 5) Helen and I published "Climate Change and Professional Responsibility: A Declaration of Helsinki for Engineers" in Science and Engineering Ethics. This is a paper we had been working on before the collaboration with EWB. However, the involvement of the EWB certainly influenced our work, and helped us to improve the paper. So far, we have had 1 event (detailed in the engagement section) - but there are no other outputs just yet. But this project has only just started. |
| Start Year | 2016 |
| Description | Engineers Without Borders UK (2018 - 2021) |
| Organisation | Engineers Without Borders (UK) |
| Country | United Kingdom |
| Sector | Charity/Non Profit |
| PI Contribution | Building on my idea of a declaration of Helsinki for engineers (or a declaration of action on climate change) Engineers Without Borders UK (EWB UK) expanded on this (beyond climate change) to develop an ongoing project on the global responsibilities of engineers. In 2018, EWB's website included a "Declaration of Global Responsibilities for engineers." (No longer on their website.) As they acknowledged, this idea came out of collaboration with the Inter-Disciplinary Ethics Applied centre - and in particular my project and the paper "Climate Change and Professional Responsibility: A Declaration of Helsinki for Engineers" (which has now been downloaded over 6000 times - and going up). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-017-9884-4 In 2019, EWB UK received funding from the Royal Academy of Engineering to research this idea further: https://www.ewb-uk.org/research-global-responsibility-engineering/ I was a part of the research team as an ethics consultant on the advisory committee - and also contributed to the literature review (and a co-author of the resulting paper). This particular part of the collaboration started in 2018, but my relationship with EWB dates back to 2016. In 2020, with EWB, I applied for a PhD scholarship on the global responsibilities of engineers, as part of the WRoCAH Collaborative Doctoral Awards. We got through stage 1, were not successful at stage 2, as the PhD candidate for the project wasn't considered strong enough. We may try again in the future. |
| Collaborator Contribution | EWB UK took on the idea of a declaration of global responsibilities (as noted above) and went on to hire someone to do further research (primarily empirical research using interviews) to support this, ultimately resulting in a publication: Chance S, Lawlor R, Direito I, Mitchell J. (2021). Above and beyond: ethics and responsibility in civil engineering. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, This project were funded by the Royal Academy of Engineering (£23,825). As noted above, EWB remain interested in this area of research, and we are looking for further opportunities for collaboration. |
| Impact | The following paper was published, based primarily on the interviews conducted as part of this project, and with some contributions from myself: Chance S, Lawlor R, Direito I, Mitchell J. (2021). "Above and beyond: ethics and responsibility in civil engineering." Australasian Journal of Engineering Education |
| Start Year | 2018 |
| Description | RAEng collaboration |
| Organisation | Royal Academy of Engineering |
| Country | United Kingdom |
| Sector | Charity/Non Profit |
| PI Contribution | I organised an event on professional ethics and professional responsibilities, as they relate specifically to climate change, in order to prompt the engineering profession to rethink their responsibilities, and their approach, in relation to climate change. At this event, we brought together a number of engineers - many of whom were fellows of the Royal Academy - and a number of academics, not only from ethics and moral philosophy, but also from other disciplines, such as history and social sciences. In addition, I also presented my own work at the event, arguing that the engineering profession needed to do more - as a profession - to respond to climate change. In particular, I argued that groups like the RAEng and Professional institutions need to be more pro-active in their leadership role, campaigning and arguing, rather than merely listening and informing, and I also argued that professional institutions needed to take self-regulation more seriously - in relation to climate change - and be willing, for example, to revoke the chartered status of engineers who who not acting responsibly in relation to activities that impact on the climate. I wrote "Climate Change and Professional Responsibility: A Declaration of Helsinki for Engineers" (co-authored with Helen Morley), which has been published in Science and Engineering Ethics, and which is a significant contribution to the debate about the role that the Royal Academy of Engineering (RAEng) and other professional institutions should play in combating climate change. Finally, Alan Walker (Head of Policy) was also on the steering group for the project, and therefore he got a bit of an overview of the project as a whole, while Andrew Chilvers (policy advisor) became increasingly interested and involved - and presented at Leeds, shortly after the project had finished, discussing the Royal Academy's work with me on the project. As a result, I was able to have some philosophical/ethical input into the academy, presenting my research to key staff in policy at the academy. |
| Collaborator Contribution | The RAEng collaborated in the organisation of the event, and provided the venue (the event was held at the RAEng), and therefore gave us a valuable opportunity to engage with important players outside of academia. Ultimately, this contribution from professional engineers had a huge impact on my paper "Climate Change and Professional Responsibility: A Declaration of Helsinki for Engineers" (co-written with Helen Morley). In the introduction we write: "As well as engaging with the academic literature, both in relation to the ethics of climate change and in relation to engineering ethics, this paper also engages directlywith the community that the paper is addressing: the engineering profession.Aversion of this argument was presented at the Royal Academy of Engineering (RAEng) on the 12th of June 2015, at an event which we organised with the RAEng ''Engineers and Climate Change: Leadership, Ethics and Responsibilities'',1 bringing together academics and engineers from the Academy's Fellowship.2 In addition, a version of the argument was also presented at an event at Engineers Without Borders UK on the 26th of February 2016 (and discussed further in a follow upmeeting on the 6th of May 2016). Therefore, as well as engaging with the academic literature, we also respond to objections and concerns from the Fellows of the RAEng, providing philosophical responses to real world discussions that are occurring within the engineering profession." About 1/2 of the paper is made up of our responses to challenges and objections - many of which came from professional engineers from this event. Also, after the event, Andrew Chilvers (Policy Adviser) came to Leeds (for the ethics centre's 10 year anniversary conference) to give the Royal Academy's perspective on the event and what the Royal Academy had taken from the event. (The event was in June 2015, but planning for the event, and discussions that led to the organisation of the event, started in 2014. We have an ongoing relationship with the RAEng. For example, we have an ebook which we edited, which is distributed primarily through the RAEng website. And it is likely we would collaborate with the RAEng again in the future. Below, however, I stated that the collaboration ended in 2015, as that was when this particular collaboration ended.) |
| Impact | My paper (co-written with Helen Morley) "Climate Change and Professional Responsibility: A Declaration of Helsinki for Engineers" has been published in Science and Engineering Ethics. And this paper was very clearly influenced by this collaboration. While this paper (or at least a paper like it) may have been published even without this collaboration, it definitely would have been a different paper without this collaboration, and it would have been a paper that demonstrated much less engagement with the profession and with practicing engineers. As such, this paper was really strengthened by this collaboration. After the event, the RAEng produced a report, summarising the discussion and conclusions coming out of the event. This report has not - and will not - be made public. However, I have been given permission to quote from the summary of the report: Chair's summary and further actions The chair thanked participants and presenters for a very stimulating set of discussions across the day. He noted that the output summary of the discussions would go to the Academy's Engineering Policy Committee for its consideration. In addition, the chair noted that following immediate actions would be considered by the Academy: • the Academy's Engineering Ethics Working Group will revisit the Statement of Ethical Principles and consider how it might be revised to incorporate new developments in the area of climate change • the possibility of a review of the activities across the profession relating to climate change • actions to reinforce the value of the engineering method to government and to policymakers • actions to broaden the discussion to include other expert groups such as economists. In an email explaining that the report would not be made public, Alan Walker (Head of Policy) commented: "In terms of what actually happened, the report on climate change was presented to our Engineering Policy Committee who commended the report and were keen that it should be used to support any future work done by the Academy on energy or climate change, but the decision was taken not to make it publically available." Following the event, the RAEng reconvened the Ethics Working Group that had produced the original Statement of Ethical Principles in 2005. As with the report on the event, the minutes of the Ethics Working Group are not made public - but I have been given permission to quote parts for the purpose of this report. "[The chair] reported that the group had been in a state of semi-hibernation but that the Chair and Academy staff had maintained a watching brief on whether actions were needed by the group. The present meeting had been called in reaction to recent Academy events on the subjects of autonomous systems and climate change, both of which had ethical dimensions to the discussions." One of the things discussed at this meeting - as promised in the summary comments of the event - was the possibility of updating the Statement of Ethical Principles. "It was suggested that explicit reference to climate change should be considered and would be significant. Others preferred to introduce reference to 'global risks' - an umbrella term into which climate change fits." And considering the issue more generally - beyond the specific question of updating the Statement of Ethical Principles - the minutes also referred to the report on our event and how it might inform further reforms: "The report on Engineers and climate change discussed the need for engineers to be proactive and creative in their search for solutions. This aspect of practice could be better written into the ethics of engineering and should include how engineers should see their role as helping people realise capabilities." Final Note: It could be argued that this impact does not highlight a very specific change of policy that can be demonstrated to have followed - by direct causation - from my research. Writing on the abolition of slavery, David Brion Davis wrote: "The abolition of New World slavery depended in large measure on a major transformation in moral perception - on the emergence of writers, speakers, and reformers... who were willing to condemn an institution that had been sanctioned for thousands of years and who also strove to make human society something more than an endless contest of greed and power." The phrasing of this is significant. David did not identify a single author, or even a small number of authors, whose contribution was so significant that their work alone could have been enough, even if no one else has added their weight to the push for change - or whose contribution was so significant that the work of all the other writers would not have been enough if you removed the work of these one or two individuals. This should not be ignored when considering the impact of academic work. To me, it is enough that I am adding my weight to others working in this area - and that I have managed to present a particular challenging perspective to a significant organisation to whom my argument is directly relevant. |
| Start Year | 2014 |
| Description | A Declaration of Climate Change Action (EWB) |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | Following our engagement with the Royal Academy of Engineering, I talked to people at Engineers without Borders UK (EWB) about working together in developing my ideas - about the role of engineers, and about a Declaration of Helsinki for Engineering - in order to develop the argument further, and to influence the engineering profession. I had felt that we had engaged the engineers at the event at the Royal Academy of Engineering (in June 2015), but also felt that they were a largely conservative organisation who showed significant resistance to my arguments. (Although I was also pleased by the engagement that we did provoke, and the reconvening of their ethics group etc.) Talking to EWB, however, it became clear that they were much less conservative. While many of the engineers at the RAEng event had resisted some of the key ideas - calling my proposals "Draconian" - EWB were clearly excited by the idea, and were much more sympathetic to my suggestions. Indeed, they agreed with the basic idea that the engineering profession needed something like a Declaration of Helsinki for engineers. This led to myself and Helen Morley applying (successfully) for an AHRC cultural engagement fund in order to collaborate with EWB in developing the idea further, giving some indication of what a Declaration of Helsinki for engineers would look like, and to work with EWB to promote the idea within the profession. This meeting was the first event as part of the project. In fact, it was two meetings really, as we ran the meeting twice, once in the morning, and once - with a new set of people - in the afternoon. (With about 20+ people in each session.) I started by presenting my idea of a Declaration of Helsinki for engineers, addressing climate change, talking for about 20 minutes, and then we had an open discussion for about 2 hours. (And this was repeated with different individuals in the afternoon.) From our point of view, our main aim with this meeting was to present the idea to a number of engineers and to get their feedback to help to inform our research, such that it is grounded in the realities of engineering practice, rather than being too abstract/purely academic. Of course, at the same time, we were also promoting the idea of a Declaration of Climate Change Action for engineers, and also engaging engineers on the issue of what the engineering profession ought to be doing in relation to climate change. We plan to work with EWB to develop this further. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2016 |
| Description | Presentation to the Royal Academy of Engineering |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | In a sense, there were two activities. First, I collaborated with the Royal Academy of Engineering, to organise an event on climate change and engineering, which was held at the Royal Academy. The aim was to bring together professional engineers and academics from a range of disciplines to discuss the professional responsibility of engineers, and to discuss what the engineering profession could do - and should be doing - in response to climate change. Second, at this event, I presented my own research on this, arguing the professional institutions ought to be doing more in relation to climate change, particularly in relation to the leadership role, and in relation to being a self-regulating profession with the potential to provide a co-ordinated response to climate change, arguing that the engineering profession need to produce something comparable to the Declaration of Helsinki. After the event, the Royal Academy produced a report. This was not made public, but I have been given permission to quote from it. The following is from the report's notes about the chairman's summary at the end of the event: Chair's summary and further actions The chair thanked participants and presenters for a very stimulating set of discussions across the day. He noted that the output summary of the discussions would go to the Academy's Engineering Policy Committee for its consideration. In addition, the chair noted that following immediate actions would be considered by the Academy: • the Academy's Engineering Ethics Working Group will revisit the Statement of Ethical Principles and consider how it might be revised to incorporate new developments in the area of climate change • the possibility of a review of the activities across the profession relating to climate change • actions to reinforce the value of the engineering method to government and to policymakers • actions to broaden the discussion to include other expert groups such as economists. As promised in the chair's summary, the Royal Academy did reconvene the Ethics Working Group in response to this event to consider in more detail what the Royal Academy could do, in relation to climate change, with a particular focus on considering whether there was a need to update the Statement of Ethical Principles. The minutes of this meeting are not made public, but I have been given permission to quote from the minutes: "The Chair welcomed everyone and gave the background to the group and itspast work on the Statement of Ethical Principles, produced jointly with the Engineering Council. He reported that the group had been in a state of semi-hibernation but that the Chair and Academy staff had maintained a watching brief on whether actions were needed by the group. The present meeting had been called in reaction to recent Academy events on the subjects of autonomous systems and climate change, both of which had ethical dimensions to the discussions." Commenting on discussions about the Statement of Ethical Principles, the minutes reported: "It was suggested that explicit reference to climate change should be considered and would be significant. Others preferred to introduce reference to 'global risks' - an umbrella term into which climate change fits." Referring to the report about the event, the minutes reported: "The report on Engineers and climate change discussed the need for engineers to be proactive and creative in their search for solutions. This aspect of practice could be better written into the ethics of engineering and should include how engineers should see their role as helping people realise capabilities." |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| Description | Public Event on Climate Change |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Local |
| Primary Audience | Public/other audiences |
| Results and Impact | The day before the main conference for my climate change project, we had an event in the evening, in the upstairs room of a pub, where the speakers at the conference gave a significantly shorter, and more accessible, presentation of their research. This was then followed by a panel discussion with questions from the audience. In addition, the event was filmed, and the videos will be put on the website, and on youtube, where hopefully they will be able to reach a wider audience. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| Description | Rationing - radio 4 interview |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A broadcast e.g. TV/radio/film/podcast (other than news/press) |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Public/other audiences |
| Results and Impact | Following the press release about "Rationing and Climate Change Mitigation", BBC Radio 4 asked me to appear on the PM programme, a prime time radio show, interviewed by Evan Davis. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2023 |
| URL | https://leeds365-my.sharepoint.com/personal/extms_leeds_ac_uk/_layouts/15/stream.aspx?id=%2Fpersonal... |
| Description | Rationing Press release |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A press release, press conference or response to a media enquiry/interview |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Media (as a channel to the public) |
| Results and Impact | Following the acceptance of the paper, "Rationing and Climate Change Mitigation", I worked with the University of Leeds press office to prepare a press release about the paper. This led to a number of newspapers and other publications reporting on the publication of the paper, and the arguments in the paper. This was picked up by a significant number of publications, including major national newspapers, including The Times and the Daily Mail. It was also picked up internationally, including for example Fox News and The New Republic. It also led to me appearing on national radio, with BBC radio 4 and BBC radio 5. Considering the number of readers and listeners of these major media outlets, we have been able to present our arguments to, potentially, millions of people. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2023 |
| URL | https://www.leeds.ac.uk/main-index/news/article/5247/rationing-a-fairer-way-to-fight-climate-change |
| Description | rationing - radio 5 interview |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A broadcast e.g. TV/radio/film/podcast (other than news/press) |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Public/other audiences |
| Results and Impact | Following the press release for "Rationing and Climate Change Mitigation" I was asked to appear on the morning show on BBC radio 5 for their "in my opinion" section. This involved recording a 50 second recording stating the outline of my argument. The listeners were then able to tweet or text responses. And then I came on for a live interview to respond to some of the comments and challenges. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2023 |