Some Lessons from a Decade of Teaching Ethics to Undergraduate Engineering Students

Full text

133
Some Lessons from a Decade of Teaching
Ethics to Undergraduate Engineering
Students*
Iain Skinner, Iain MacGill, Hugh Outhred
University of New South Wales
1. Introduction
Engineering was defined as ‘the art of directing the great Sources of Power in
Nature for the use and convenience of Man’ in Thomas Tredgold’s opening address at
the foundation of the British Institution of Civil Engineers in 1824. A more recent
definition, adapted from Wikipedia (2006) reflects the greater emphasis now placed
on the social context of engineering:
The application of scientific and technical knowledge to solve human problems.
Engineers use imagination, judgment and reasoning to apply science, technology,
mathematics, socio-economic factors and practical experience in a systematic
process of designing, creating and operating socio-technical systems to meet
practical human needs.
Engineers work at the interface between knowledge of the physical universe
and the needs and desires of people. This is their special skill. How ought they to use
it? Circumscribed by appropriate ethical guidance, of course.
We begin our discussion by considering whether engineering ethics is a
special case of professional ethics that therefore requires specific attention by the
engineering profession. Having argued that it does require such attention, we
consider engineering ethics from the perspective of its professional associations and
those studying to be engineering professionals. We conclude by introducing one
course in which ethics is taught to undergraduate engineering students and briefly
review how it has been received.
2. Engineering Ethics: A Special Case of Professional Ethics?
Engineers share with other professionals the characteristic, amongst other
things, of being in a position of public trust. Engineering generally ranks reasonably
high in public surveys about the trustworthiness of professions (see, for example,
NSF, 2006). A profession possesses and can, in some ways, be said to guard a special
body of knowledge, meaning it alone can determine how to use this knowledge; that
is, what constitutes correct professional practice. This means that the members of the
profession must be guided not only by externally imposed rules, but also be engaged
in significant self-regulation. We see the need for specific professional ethics to
provide guidance to the individual practitioner making a judgment in a unique
situation. On one hand, engineering ethics is merely another example of professional
ethics; on the other, it does have some very distinctive features.
In the medieval period, fields now called engineering fell within what were

Some Lessons from a Decade of Teaching Ethics
134
known as the Mechanical Arts. The Seven Mechanical Arts, intended as a
complement to the Seven Liberal Arts, included weaving, black-smithing, war,
navigation, agriculture, hunting, medicine and the ars theatrica. The engineering
profession has a particularly military origin – civil engineering was so called to
distinguish it from military applications – and its relationship with society continues
to evolve.
The Victorian Engineers were superstars of their day and champions of
techno-optimism. The term ‘engineer’ originated from the Latin ingeniator, meaning
‘the ingenious one’. Leonardo da Vinci bore the official title of Ingenere Generale
(Auyang, 2004). This driving role in technical innovation, and technology’s driving
role in our society, qualifies engineering as social experimentation (Martin &
Schinzinger, 1996), raising questions about society’s consent for engineering. For
example, in the practice of medicine there are quite strict legal procedures applying to
the conduct of experiments and the introduction of new therapies. This differs from
the case of engineering, wherein practitioners usually have considerably more
freedom to develop new technologies and face a minimum of legal constraints on their
subsequent introduction. As all innovation necessarily proceeds with incomplete
knowledge, any new technology may have an unexpected consequence. With limited
legal controls, this uncertainty imposes a high moral responsibility on engineers.
Periodically, with particular technologies, the public has expressed concerns about
what it perceives as unaccountable technical elites. Nuclear power is a pertinent
example. For example, the troubled French Superphoenix fast-breeder reactor
program had:
an incredible series of ‘impossible’ accidents … two of which had been allotted an
official [engineering] probability of occurring ‘not more than once in 10,000 to
100,000 years’ (Marcellus, 1992).
Engineering innovation can also have far more positive outcomes: Google was
founded by a computer engineer and a computer scientist with the informal corporate
motto ‘Don’t be evil.’ Even so, however, there are many ethical questions raised by
such search engines.
Furthermore, the breadth and complexity of engineering continues to grow.
For example, The University of New South Wales offers a Bachelor of Engineering in
some twenty areas. Engineers can end up in a wide range of roles during their
careers. A recent survey of Australian engineers found them working in management
(35%), design (13%), project study and analysis (11%), production (11%), research
and development (9%), and sales and marketing (2%) (APESMA, 2006). Such a wide
range of activities differs from many other professions - for example, dentistry or
pharmacy - in which there is a very limited variation in jobs. This makes it more
difficult to provide specific, prescriptive guidance about an engineer’s behaviour.
Finally, engineers often play a complex role in decision-making within
organizations. Many engineers are not the final authorities on technologies. They
devise, they advise, but they generally neither finance nor authorize; and particularly
not in organizations based around the ‘management imperative’. In practice,
therefore, the engineering decision is usually about ‘how’, but not often about ‘ought’.
Nevertheless, an ‘ought’ decision necessarily precedes any resolution on ‘how’,

Iain Skinner, Iain MacGill, Hugh Outhred
135
because it is part of the design process. For the decisions that are solely for engineers
to make, another challenge for general professional ethics is that engineering often
involves considerable teamwork and shared responsibility for decision-making,
raising group ethics questions. Potential problems here include:
• The technical knowledge hierarchy may not coincide with the
organizational hierarchy, leading to difficulties in reaching appropriate
assessments of risk (as perhaps demonstrated in the lead-up to the first
space shuttle disaster).
• Ambiguity in accountability may dilute individual feelings of
responsibility for the outcomes (as might be seen with members of a team
working on different aspects of military hardware).
3. Engineering Ethics: The Role of the Profession
All of the above reasons argue for engineering ethics being a special case of
professional ethics. The Institution of Engineers Australia (IEAust, trading as
Engineers Australia) represents the engineering profession within this country. One
of its roles is to ‘champion professional and ethical conduct’ and it has a formal code
of ethics (IEAust, 2000), the preamble of which reads:
All members of the IEAust, in the practice of the discipline of engineering, are
committed and obliged to apply and uphold the cardinal principles of the Code of
Ethics, which are:
• to respect the inherent dignity of the individual;
• to act on the basis of a well-informed conscience, and
• to act in the interest of the community.
We shall return to this code later. In practice, Engineers Australia can only
have a limited role in encouraging ethical behaviour as it has much less control over
employment within the profession than do numerous other professional bodies.
Typically, organizations do not require their engineers to be members, only that they
be eligible for membership. Part of this reflects engineering’s truly international
focus. Perhaps IEAust’s key role in promoting engineering ethics is through its role
as the accrediting professional body for engineering education.
From the 1980s, there has been a recognized need for ethics to be integrated
into the syllabus of an engineering degree. This is identified by the documentation of
the accrediting professional bodies, both in Australia and elsewhere, that talks of
students needing to develop ‘an ethical awareness’. Ethics is seen as intrinsic to the
self-regulation of a profession and, hence, a necessary part of any Bachelor of
Engineering (BE) syllabus. Ethics is also seen as a convenient vehicle to introduce
engineering students to non-technical patterns of thought and so improve their
capacity for interactions in the community where they serve. IEAust’s accreditation
policy states:
A typical four-year professional engineering program should have the following
elements:
• maths, science, engineering principles skills and tools (40% or more of course
content),
• engineering design and projects (20%),

Some Lessons from a Decade of Teaching Ethics
136
• engineering discipline specialisation (20%),
• integrated exposure to professional engineering practice, including management
and professional ethics (10%,)
• more of above elements or other elective studies (10%) (IEAust, 2006)
With regard to professional ethics,
The students must be exposed to professional engineering practice integrated
throughout their program to enable them to develop an engineering approach and
ethos, and to gain an appreciation of professional engineering ethics. The purpose of
this is to facilitate their entry into the profession and to better prepare them to be able
to develop the attributes … it must include:
• use of staff with industry experience,
• practical experience in an engineering environment outside the teaching
establishment,
• mandatory exposure to lectures on professional ethics and conduct. (IEAust,
2006)
However, after more than two decades of such thinking and a push for the
implementation of such policies, it seems reasonable to say that there has been only
mixed progress. When one looks at many engineering programs in Australian
universities, the kindest one can say is that it is not obvious how such an aim would
be achieved. This lack of progress, not just here but globally, worries many. As
recently as December 2005, the IEEE’s magazine, The Institute, had a lead article
explaining how straightforward it is to bring ethical challenges to undergraduate
engineers (Jones, 2005). The Global Colloquium on Engineering Education in 2005
(ASEE, 2005) had a professional ethicist as a keynote speaker and several papers
about ‘transforming the undergraduate syllabus’ by the novel inclusion of discussion
of ethical problems.
We now consider how this has been approached by the School of Electrical
Engineering and Telecommunications at The University of New South Wales
(UNSW).
4. Teaching Engineering Ethics at UNSW
As with all engineering education in Australia, the programs offered by the
Faculty of Engineering at the UNSW are accredited by IEAust. The University also
has specific educational objectives including:
to ensure that students examine the purposes and consequences of their education
and experience at University, and to foster acceptance of professional and ethical
action and the social responsibility of graduates.
Most engineering schools don’t have a dedicated course of study for ethics,
instead they ‘integrate’ ethical education into other courses. Within the Faculty at
UNSW, there is a typical mixture of ways ethics is presented within the program of
study. Table 1 provides a summary of the situation.
The School of Electrical Engineering took an early decision to teach
professional ethics formally in a stand-alone course and has been formally teaching
this now for more than a decade. After describing the current arrangements for this

Iain Skinner, Iain MacGill, Hugh Outhred
137
course and the way these have changed over time, in the next section we will consider
some of the lessons that can be drawn from this experience to date and how these
contribute to some of the key debates in teaching engineering ethics.
Table 1: How Ethics is Included in BE Programs at UNSW
BE Programs
How Ethics is Included
electrical, photonics, photovoltaics,
renewable energy, telecommunications
Ethics & electrical engineering practice
(year 4 of course, 12.5 % of session)
bioinformatics, computer, software
Professional issues & ethics
(year 4 of course, 25 % of session)
chemical, industrial chemistry, petroleum
Social issues in science & technology
(year 3 of course, 12.5 % of session)
civil, environmental
Civil engineering practice
(year 1/2/3/4, each 25 % of session)
aeronautical, manufacturing, mechanical,
mechatronics, mining, naval, surveying
not clear
The School of Electrical Engineering took an early decision to teach
professional ethics formally in a stand-alone course and has been formally teaching
this now for more than a decade. After describing the current arrangements for this
course and the way these have changed over time, in the next section we will consider
some of the lessons that can be drawn from this experience to date and how these
contribute to some of the key debates in teaching engineering ethics.
Figure 1
Top Five Considerations Important to HSC Students’ Career Choice
(Macquarie University, 2006)
Students currently receive a brief introduction to engineering ethics in their
first year of study. This takes the form of two, one-hour discussion classes exploring
the nature of responsibility. These students, new to tertiary study, are given (i) a case
study illustrating an ethical failure in an engineering system and (ii) material related to

Some Lessons from a Decade of Teaching Ethics
138
plagiarism and intellectual property regulations. In each case, they are invited to
explore the nature of responsibility. Part of the motivation is to highlight early in
their education the importance of ethical issues. Many students react positively to this
engagement with the ethical context of the profession. It is interesting to note that
surveys of Australian Higher School Certificate students have highlighted that ‘a job
that will benefit the community’ is one of their highest considerations in making a
career choice (Macquarie University, 2006). The comparative importance of this is
seen in Figure 1.
Most of the ethics teaching, however, is in the context of one specific and
compulsory formal course: ‘Ethics and Electrical Engineering Practice’ (ELEC4011).
Students of electrical, and related forms of engineering, complete this course in their
final semester of study towards the BE. It represents a notional one-eighth of that
half-year’s workload. The course’s formal, explicitly listed aims are that students
will:
• learn how to comprehend and critically examine ethical arguments;
• identify ethical problems in an engineering context and formulate and
communicate consistent, coherent responses to them;
• examine the social context of engineering; and
• explore an engineer’s rights and responsibilities.
Teaching involves some formal academic input through traditional lectures,
but the greater part is through facilitated debates between the students, in the context
of small classes. The lecture program has reduced from what was originally 28 hours
over the session to the current eight. Recently this has included two lectures by
EE&T staff on ethics and professional practice, two by a guest lecturer from the
UNSW Faculty of Arts on philosophy and ethical principles, a lecture by a member of
the university’s ethics panel, and three lectures by guests (from within or outside the
university) exploring the ethics of issues of current concern. Over time these have
included, amongst other topics, climate change, sexual harassment, transgenic
organisms, stem-cell research, and the privatisation of national infrastructure. The
reduction in lecture hours was a deliberate response to the students’ expressed wish.
They did not simply want to hear staff talk about topics; they wanted to argue their
own positions on questions that they chose. In other words, the undergraduate
engineering students saw some questions as important and wanted to engage in
debates on ethics.
As lectures reduced in importance, they were replaced by interactive tutorials
that now involve ten, two-hour classes in each of which there is a strict maximum of
16 students. We have experimented with larger classes (up to 24), but they have not
succeeded in giving each student enough time on the floor. This is a significant
change from the original program that included only five, one-hour tutorials of up to
25 students each.
Academic staff from EE&T lead the first two tutorial classes. The other eight
are led by groups of students who must identify appropriate ‘questions for the day’,
within a nominated topic area. These classes, therefore, involve ethical dilemmas of
the students’ own identification and definition. The topic areas change each year.
Last year they included environmental ethics, workplace behaviour, engineering as

Iain Skinner, Iain MacGill, Hugh Outhred
139
social experimentation, intellectual property, automation and human dignity,
regulation of the world-wide web, and precision-guided weapons. Note that the
students attend tutorials with the same group of students for all ten tutorials. This is
important. We notice that the students are more relaxed and confident about
expressing their own ethical judgments and nominating dilemmas as they get to know
each other and their tutor. Note, too, that we do not employ postgraduate students as
tutors, but only staff at least one generation removed from the majority of the
students.
One feature that needs stressing is the diversity in the student body of cultural
background, educational experience, life experience, and academic ambition. It is
only the age profile (rarely anyone outside 20 to 25) that is compressed. The UNSW
engineering undergraduate student body is relatively diverse and continues to evolve.
For example, in 2004 it was 20% female, 38% part-time, 30% international, and over
60% had a non-English speaking background.
5. Some Lessons from this Teaching
The first lesson to record is the considerable challenge in even evaluating this
course. How ought it be assessed: against the demands of our student body; the
engineering profession; professional ethicists? We have conducted some formal
evaluation but comparisons are difficult. Is it appropriate to compare this against a
mathematics course?
The abiding nature of those questions and the continuing evolution of the
course structure mean that much of what we discuss here is anecdotal.
The role of ethical theory
Surveys of teaching engineering ethics have highlighted three general
approaches: codes of ethics, case problems, and moral theory (Heckert, 2000). There
is considerable debate about the value of teaching moral theory. Different ethical
frameworks can provide different answers to particular issues. Some, including
Bowden et al. (2006), have highlighted potential problems for engineering students.
Engineers and their training are often described as convergent – that is they employ
analytical approaches that seek solutions. It is a training that is likely to find as
unacceptable, a body of theory that does not provide answers or at best provides
conflicting answers. A real problem to a teacher of ethics in engineering therefore is
that students may reject the course due (to them) to the unsatisfactory and incomplete
nature of the underlying theory (Bowden et al., 2006).
In contrast, we consciously and explicitly teach four general models of ethical
reasoning - duty, rights, virtues and utilitarianism - and ask the students to apply these
in both the seminars and the formal examination. Our experience has shown that
there is very little resistance to their use, although students don’t always specifically
apply them in their answers. We have observed some interesting patterns. There is a
strong preference by many students for utilitarianism, perhaps because in engineering
design they are trained to undertake cost-benefit analyses or perhaps reflecting
consequentialist arguments being popular in wider society. Duty ethics, too, is widely
preferred and this may be connected to the cultural background of many students
having a strong Confucian influence. There is only occasional spontaneous reference

Some Lessons from a Decade of Teaching Ethics
140
to virtues.
To emphasise the contradictions present in ethical dilemmas, we actually
require students to argue one side of an ethical issue using one framework and then
the other side using a different framework. The students, long accustomed to the
certainty of mathematical formulas, are initially suspicious of there not being a unique
answer to ethical problems, but, after a few weeks, move beyond this and find it quite
liberating for their imaginations.
The role of engineering codes of ethics
Some courses are structured largely around a relevant engineering
association’s codes of ethics. We provide IEAust’s code to students and include it in
one seminar exercise. Students often wonder if they have to memorise it – and are
relieved when assured that they don’t. We also draw their attention to codes’
limitations generally. These limitations in the Australian context have been
highlighted by others, including Bowden et al. (2006), and reinforce the importance of
teaching beyond such codes.
The role of case studies
According to Heckert (2000), the most popular approach to teaching
engineering ethics in the USA is the use of a catalogue of case studies. Bowden et al.
(2006) argue for this approach and use an industry survey to identify key issues as
guidance for an appropriate catalogue and associated study questions. However, it
should be remembered that engineering students are accustomed to not only studying
a set of experiments but also an accompanying, relevant unifying theory (hence our
choosing of explicit study of the latter). We have used a less formal approach to
choosing topics. Instead, we judge the students’ reaction and learning over time, and
replace those topics from which students do not develop their ethical reasoning,
looking for newer opportunities as they arise in public debate, for example, nuclear
power in 2006.
The use of a structured debate between groups of students in the first tutorial
highlights the limitation of using case studies as a formal framework for their
learning. In this classroom exercise, students are given a position to take and then
must find their own supporting arguments. The course aim, though, is that they
become more critical and flexible in their thinking rather than merely ‘for’ or ‘against’
a specific set of topics.
The role of internal versus external expertise
The success of this course relies on the assistance of people from outside the
Faculty of Engineering. Seeking their help is consistent with the standard model for
undertaking an engineering activity: we are used to sub-contracting for specific
expertise in a project when we do not have sufficient skills.
First, when the course was introduced, the syllabus was designed with the
active assistance of UNSW staff with professional expertise in the formal teaching of
ethics and ethical reasoning. Second, there is always a need for external expertise to
make the teaching more effective. Speakers with formal expertise in ethics (i.e., a
more comprehensive perspective than merely applied to the engineering context) can
and do provide a solid and convincing academic basis to persuade the students that

Iain Skinner, Iain MacGill, Hugh Outhred
141
formal thinking about ethics is intellectually respectable. There is also a need to
engage people who come from a non-academic context and who can talk of what our
students might see as ‘real problems’. Students are very good at identifying lecturers
who ‘don’t know their stuff’. Third, speakers with external experience are convincing
evidence that real ethical dilemmas arise in real contexts, warning the students of
what can happen and thereby motivating their current study.
The student experience
This is a compulsory course and teaching occurs before professional practice
has commenced. The course poses an unexpected challenge to all students. However,
we have learnt that students can, indeed, enjoy the active consideration of ethical
questions. This is made easier when students bring their own problems for
discussion. In earlier weeks, there is a tendency for students to resent the course as
‘irrelevant’ although ‘a bit interesting’, but this is overcome by the end of the teaching
semester. Indeed, many students come to enjoy the course and one measure of our
success is that students do the necessary work without realising it and ‘don’t count it
as study like preparing for other classes.’ Despite the generally positive assessment of
the worth of such studies, students still express a lingering fear about assessment tasks
that do not have a single, unambiguous, correct answer. And, of course, there are
always a few who question how such a course will enhance their employment
prospects!
Figure 2
To What Extent Would you Recommend that Another Student, Like
Yourself, Study this Subject?
Solid bars 2003; empty bars 1996 (UNSW formal student surveys).
The anecdotal evidence supports the students seeing the course as both very
interesting and relevant. Of course, we have completed formal course questionnaires.
Figures 2 to 4 show some evidence supporting these contentions about the students’
reactions to studying ethics. When compared with other compulsory courses, all these
results, especially that in Figure 2, are very positive. It should be noted that an
indication of the value the students place on the tutorial-seminars is seen by how

Some Lessons from a Decade of Teaching Ethics
142
positively they were endorsed in 2003 (Figure 3) compared to how indifferently in
1996, when there were only five. In interpreting this change, we should also note that
there may be a broader discussion within society of questions related to professional
ethics now than there was in 1996.
The staff experience
The inclusion of a formal course about ethics has not been enthusiastically
received by all the School’s staff. First, the course is expensive for the School, as
only academic staff are rostered to facilitate tutorial classes. Second, many academics
feel uneasy in teaching such non-traditional material, and understandably so. Some of
them are unhappy about teaching material on which they are not considered an
authority. Some believe their professional experience is inadequate for the task. Staff
quickly determine whether they enjoy such a course and whether they ever want to
participate again. This is not a course for the reluctant. Happily, there are those who,
like us, enjoy the challenge and interaction with the students and so lead tutorials year
after year. In the wider Faculty context, there is a suspicion of such interdisciplinary
material ‘diluting’ the technical education of engineers. Academics can be more
suspicious than the students.
Figure 3
How Helpful Were the Tutorials/Seminars?
Solid bars 2003; empty bars 1996 (UNSW formal student surveys).
Assessment
Having a formal examination is Faculty policy. This course’s exam includes
open-ended questions with no specific answer expected. The students’ formal
presentations in tutorials are assessed and we have experimented with student peer
assessment. While only a suggestion provided to the academic staff supervising the
classes, it does lead to the students thinking more profoundly about the arguments and
dilemmas their classmates present. The assessment of seminars is not designed to see
if students think as they ought about certain questions. We find they better engage in
ethical argument if they have the freedom to come to their own conclusions and test
these against someone else’s.

Iain Skinner, Iain MacGill, Hugh Outhred
143
A challenge we have yet to meet is to test the students’ ability with ‘moral
reasoning’ before and after the course.
Figure 4
Is this Subject Relevant to the Degree Program?
Question not asked 2003; solid bars 1996 (UNSW formal student survey).
6. Where to from Here?
We are left with a wide range of questions and challenges. As noted above,
there are difficulties in measuring the effectiveness of such a course. Also, it is
difficult to balance the general and the specifically engineering content, as well as
expertise, within the course. Should we be teaching engineering ethics or general
professional ethics? The School’s proposal for beyond 2007 is to integrate ethics with
the students’ study of management and business, returning to a more conventional
approach for an engineering degree program.
We have yet to identify an entirely satisfactory way to manage cultural
differences and, more seriously, language barriers. For many students, the very idea
that they can determine what should be done is novel. Some students with poor
language skills fear the emphasis placed on interactive learning.
In the wider engineering context we can think about many different questions.
For example, what about post-graduate engineering students? It is not clear how and
what form an education about ethics might take for postgraduate students who are,
typically, studying a specific technical specialization or to prepare for wider roles and
responsibility. In that case we would be educating students to be managers of
engineering activities, with associated higher-level responsibilities. In that case, the
student body would be even more culturally and demographically diverse than the
undergraduates are.
Perhaps we need, too, specific training in engineering ethics for the
engineering academics. Delivering this course has highlighted some of our own

Some Lessons from a Decade of Teaching Ethics
144
limitations.
For undergraduate engineering students, though, we feel it is appropriate to
challenge them with a call to accept their social responsibilities when designing and to
relate with others in an appropriately ethical (professional) manner. Overall the
inclusion of a formal specialist course discussing professional ethics has proven to be
worthwhile and successful, but with scope for further improvement.
*We thank Stephen Cohen, Damian Grace, John Kaye, and our many students who
have helped us learn how to deliver an effective course in engineering ethics.
References
ASEE (2005). 4th ASEE/AaeE Global Colloquium on Engineering Education, 26th-29th Sept. 2005,
Sydney.
Auyang S.Y. (2004). Engineering – An Endless Frontier. Harvard University Press: Cambridge.
APESMA (2006). Professional Engineer Remuneration Survey Report.
Bowden, P., El-Zein, A. and Airey, D. (2006). ‘Underpinning a Discipline-Specific Ethics Course’,
AAPAE 13th Annual Conference Proceedings, 12th-14th June, Sydney.
Heckert, J.R. (2000). ‘Engineering Ethics Education in the USA: Content, Pedagogy and Curriculum’,
European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 25, No. 4.
Institution of Engineers Australia (2000). 2000 Code of Ethics, available at
www.engineersaustralia.org.au/about-us/discipline-complaints/code-of-ethics/code-of-ethics_home.cfm
[accessed 14 Aug 2006].
Institution of Engineers Australia (2004). Accreditation Management System, available at
www.engineersaustralia.org.au/about-us/course-accreditation/the-accreditation-process/accreditation-
management-system-for-professional-engineers/accreditation-management-system-for-professional-
engineers_home.cfm [accessed 14 Aug 2006].
Jones, W.D. (2005). ‘Adding Ethics to Engineering Education’, The Institute, Vol. 29, No. 4.
Macquarie University (2006). Macquarie University Science Engineering and Technology Study.
Marcellus, O. (1992). ‘Breeding Disaster: France’s Nuclear Power Program’, Multinational Monitor,
April.
Martin, M.W. and Schinzinger, R. (1996). Ethics in Engineering, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill: New York.
NSF (2006). National Science Foundation Science and Engineering Indicators.
Wikipedia (2006) ‘Engineering’ available at www.wikipedia.org [accessed 14 Aug 2006].