EELE 487 SP16: Topics and Notes Summary
| DATE | COMMENT | |
|---|---|---|
|
Apr. 26 |
Last class meeting Project presentations in class: teams 4, 5, 6 (all other students must also attend for Q&A) Each team will submit a written summary report (one report per team, 2-3 pages, hardcopy) consisting of the following:
|
|
|
Apr. 19 |
Project presentations in class: teams 1, 2, 3 presentations (all other students must also attend for Q&A) | |
|
Apr. 12 |
Work on group projects (no regular class meeting, but need to show up for attendance check-in at the regular classroom) | |
|
Apr. 5 |
Discuss reading responses. Assign groups for final projects (for presentation April 19 and April 26) The group project assignment will be for each group (approx. 4-6 students) to select one of the case study examples from the text and do additional research on the topic and background. I will assign members of each group. Once the topic is chosen, each group will need to identify two or three key ethical considerations associated with their selected case study. The group presentations (15 minutes per group, including a few minutes for questions and discussion) will be held during class time on April 19 and April 26. Each team will submit a written summary report (one report per team, 2-3 pages, hard copy), due on 4/26/2016. Section 1 project teams: |
|
|
|
Team 1 (presentation 4/19):
AlShikh, Mujtaba M Team 2 (presentation 4/19):
Andersen, Erik P Team 3 (presentation 4/19):
Battle, Talon E |
Team 4 (presentation 4/26):
Chan, Matthew E Team 5 (presentation 4/26):
Chen, Xingpeng |
|
Section 2 project teams: Team 1 (presentation 4/19): Cannon, Austin J Team 2 (presentation 4/19): Downey, Ryan D Team 3 (presentation 4/19): Durtka, James S
|
||
|
Mar. 29 |
Computer Ethics Be ready to discuss text problems 7.1 etc. For this week (3/29 - 4/4): D2L Reading Response For our third EELE 487 reading response on D2L, we will consider the IEEE Code of Ethics (see page 157-158 of the text), and also the IEEE Code of Conduct. Address the following question statement, using SPECIFIC examples and themes from the readings and other sources. The response is to be 350-500 words: not too short but also not too long. Be careful to focus on your key claims: do not simply list your opinions, but back up what you claim with facts and evidence. A Code of Ethics is one means for a professional organization (such as IEEE) to inform and remind its members about ethical principles and practices. The IEEE Code of Ethics and the related Code of Conduct express the group's collective sense of what attributes constitute ethical action and responsibility by engineers. The Codes cannot express every single possible ethical problem, but they are intended to be a framework for discussion and consideration of ethical concepts by practicing engineers. But what about engineering students? For this reading response, please consider the IEEE Codes and discuss whether or not these ideas are meaningful for engineering students taking college courses and working on academic projects. Specifically, describe how the Codes might apply to engineering students, or what additional code elements should be added to express the needs of university student engineers. All reading responses are due by 12:00PM on Monday, April 4, 2016. Remember, no late work is accepted. Between noon on Monday and class time on Tuesday, April 5, please read as many of
your classmates' responses as possible. Be ready to discuss the topics during class
on Tuesday. D2L reading responses due by noon, Monday, April 4, 2016. |
|
|
Mar. 22 |
Rights and Responsibilities of Engineers Be ready to discuss text problems 6.1 - 6.16. For this coming week (3/22-3/28) reading assignment: text, pages 124-134. |
|
|
Mar. 15 |
No class this week (MSU Spring Break) |
|
|
Mar. 8 |
Discuss reading responses and an engineer's sense of safety and risk balance For spring break week, complete reading assignment: text, pages 103-120. |
|
|
Mar. 1 |
Accidents, safety, and assessing risks Discuss text problems 5.1, 5.13, and 5.22. 5.1: Think of some type of risky or unsafe behavior in which you have participated. What made it seem unsafe? Why did you do it anyway? What does this tell you about your role as an engineer? 5.13: [Valujet 592 accident] Should smoke and heat detectors have been installed in the cargo holds? Why do you think they weren't? 5.22: [Hyatt Regency walkway collapse] What responsibility does an engineer have for checking and ensuring that what is in the drawings is what actually goes into the building? For this week (3/1 - 3/7): D2L Reading Response to reading assignment: text, pages 93-98. For our second EELE 487 reading response on D2L, we will consider the use of mobile phone technology when driving a car. Address the following question statement, using SPECIFIC examples and themes from the readings and other sources. The response is to be 350-500 words: not too short but also not too long. Be careful to focus on your key claims: do not simply list your opinions, but back up what you claim with facts and evidence. Many jurisdictions have instituted laws that restrict the use of cell phones and other handheld communications devices when driving a car. Whether or not you personally agree or disagree with these rules, the law makes it clear that you can be fined for texting or talking with a handheld device. Modern smart phones are equipped with accelerometers and GPS technology that could, in theory, cause a phone moving more than a specified speed to disable automatically its texting and calling features (except for 911 calls, perhaps). Other than the obvious problem of distinguishing between a passenger who can legally be texting vs. the driver who cannot, from your standpoint as an engineer, what do you consider the moral and ethical principles of designing technology that "outsmarts" the user by deactivating itself in this manner? Are there sufficient reasons that the decision to text or not text should be left to the driver, or are there sufficient public safety reasons that calling and texting should be restricted by design to when the phone is not moving? All reading responses are due by 12:00PM on Monday, March 7, 2016. Remember, no late work is accepted.
Between noon on Monday and class time on Tuesday, March 8, please read as many of
your classmates' responses as possible. Be ready to discuss the topics during class
on Tuesday. D2L reading responses due by noon, Monday, March 7, 2016. |
|
|
Feb. 23 |
SPECIAL CLASS EVENT "Cracking the Foundation" in-class presentation on cultural influences that tend to cultivate interpersonal violence. Professionalism and the leadership role of engineers. Assigned for this coming week: Consider text problems 5.1, 5.13, and 5.22 (accidents,
safety, and assessing risks). |
|
|
Feb. 16 |
Ethical conflicts, bribes, and kickbacks. Discuss text problems 4.5, 4.9, and 4.12. 4.5: If there are potential, but not well-understood, hazards in building a product, what are the future consequences of doing nothing, i.e., of making no changes in the design? Will warnings to the consumer suffice to get the designer off the hook? Must the product be engineered to be totally safe at all costs? 4.9: Many of the studies researching cell phone safety have been funded by the cell phone industry. What are the ethical implications of this? 4.12: What should an engineer do in the face of competition from others who are willing to resort to bribery? Assigned for this coming week: Reading assignment: text, pages 74-88. Be ready to discuss in class on 3/1/16 the issues raised in the readings. REMINDER: special lecture on the Challenger accident, Prof. Doug Cairns, Friday, Feb. 19, 2016, 3-4PM, Roberts 101. |
|
|
Feb. 9 |
The Space Shuttle case study (conclusion). Begin discussion of Ethical Problems and Approaches Assigned for next week: Reading assignment: text, pages 63-73. Be ready to discuss in class the issues raised in the readings. April 2012: |
|
|
Feb. 2 |
The Space Shuttle case study (introduction) For this week (2/2 - 2/6): D2L Reading Response For our initial EELE 487 reading response on D2L, we will consider an aspect of the Challenger space shuttle accident. Address the following question statement, using SPECIFIC examples and themes from the readings. The response is to be 350-500 words: not too short but also not too long. Be careful to focus on your key claims and views. Prior to the Challenger accident in January, 1986, the Thiokol engineers had observed O-ring erosion on several earlier shuttle flights dating back to the start of the program in 1980-81. They felt they had evidence and theoretical rationale that the problem was likely to be worse in cold weather, hence their recommendation that Challenger not be launched until the temperature was at least 53F. However, the NASA solid rocket project managers, particularly Larry Mulloy, insisted that without more direct evidence of cold weather issues, Thiokol was overly cautious and needed to go ahead and sign the launch authorization. Ultimately the senior Thiokol management did sign the authorization over the objections of the engineers. Following the accident the investigation revealed internal engineering memos among the Thiokol engineers and managers discussing the O-ring erosion that had been observed, but the NASA managers claimed that they had not been made aware of the seriousness of these observations, and that Thiokol must have downplayed the problem because they were worried about losing NASA contracts. The Thiokol engineers, on the other hand, said that NASA was so eager to keep the shuttle program on schedule that they basically ignored the warning signs. What formal mechanism can you conceive that would avoid the conflicts of interest
that crept into the Challenger launch decision process? How would you recommend organizations
facing these types of conflicts of interest act to prevent poor decision making? All reading responses are due by 12:00PM on Monday, February 8, 2016. Remember, no late work is accepted. Between noon on Monday and class time on Tuesday, February 9, please read as many
of your classmates' responses as possible. Be ready to discuss the topics during
class on Tuesday. D2L reading responses due by noon, Monday, February 8, 2016 Also for next week: Reading assignment: text, pages 37-54. |
|
|
Jan. 26 |
Engineering and the environment: the case for lead-free solder For discussion on Feb. 2-- Reading assignment: text, pages 7-15. The Rogers Report (Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident) Read sections: Preface, Chapters 1-3.
|
|
|
Jan. 19 |
First class meeting Roberts Hall Room 321. Course introduction and overview Reading assignment: text, pages 1-6, and handout links: EPA Lead-Free Solder Partnership Environmental Health: Lead in Electronics Impact of environmental regulations on green electronics manufacture
|
|
Discuss reading responses.
Assign groups for final projects (for presentation April 18 and April 25)
The group project assignment will be for each group (approx. 4-6 students) to select one of the case study examples from the text and do additional research on the topic and background. I will assign members of each group.
Once the topic is chosen, each group will need to identify two or three key ethical considerations associated with their selected case study. The group presentations (15 minutes per group, including a few minutes for questions and discussion) will be held during class time on April 18 and April 25.
Cannon, Austin J Field, Nathaniel J Holle, Ryan A Matejunas, Alex C Trafford, Dylan J Wang, Hongchuan