1749–7728/06/$30.00+0.

00
# 2006 Institution of Chemical Engineers
www.icheme.org/ece Trans IChemE, Part D, 2006
doi: 10.1205/ece.05011 Education for Chemical Engineers, 1: 49 – 54

TEACHING ETHICS TO CHEMICAL ENGINEERS

Some Class Room Scenarios
D. C. SHALLCROSS and M. J. PARKINSON
Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

T
hree fictional scenarios are presented which pose ethical dilemmas set against indus-
trial chemical engineering environments. These scenarios are designed for use in the
undergraduate chemical engineering curriculum and present the participating students
with a range of ethical dilemmas. The ethical situations considered include levels of pro-
fessional honesty and integrity, whistle-blowing, loyalty to ones company and client, and con-
flict of interest. Their simple nature allows vigorous discussions between students working in
groups and between the students and the class facilitator. The scenarios are designed to con-
front undergraduate chemical engineering students with the sort of challenging situations that
they might be faced with as graduate engineers. The use of the scenarios has proven to be very
popular with the students with nearly all being actively engaged in the discussions.

Keywords: ethics; case study; class room activity; structured controversy.

INTRODUCTION and construction engineers for use in the engineering

class room, few examples have been developed for chemi-
While it is agreed that engineering ethics is an essential cal engineers. In the early 1990s a series of four scenarios
aspect of the education of professional engineers there is were developed and published jointly by the IChemE and
still disagreement amongst educators as to how the topic the AIChE (Mascone et al., 1991; Rosenzweig and Butcher,
is best incorporated into the undergraduate curriculum. 1992). These have been successfully used by the authors
Most engineering educators would agree with the com- over a decade in teaching chemical engineering ethics.
ments of Harris et al. (1996) that ‘engineering ethics is as Herreid (1998) discussed the attributes of a successful
much a part of what engineers in particular know as factors case study for use in the classroom.
of safety, testing procedures, or ways to design for After many years of use however the authors felt that it
reliability, durability, or economy’. was time to develop a series of additional scenarios. The
Yet unlike the other topics in an undergraduate engineer- three that follow were developed by the authors and have
ing programme such as fluid mechanics or thermodynamics been successfully used for the past 2 years at the third year
the teaching of ethics builds upon, not so much the prior of the 4-year undergraduate degree programme at the Uni-
knowledge that students bring to their studies, but their versity of Melbourne. Use is also made of additional scen-
own personal morals and sets of values. While universities arios adapted from other sources, but not presented here.
and other institutions can set entrance requirements relating The aim of these sessions is not to teach the students
to standards of mathematics, language and science knowl- ethics in depth or what defines ethical behaviour. This is
edge and abilities, the students will enter the course with because it is not proper or appropriate to try to force
a diverse range of personal morals and sets of values. one’s own moral values onto others particularly when
This is particularly true for classes and courses which they will be returning to their own countries within 18
draw students from a range of diverse countries. months. One can seek to present what is or is not appropri-
This paper presents three ethical scenarios which have ate behaviour in the Australian industry and society, and by
been used at the University of Melbourne in the teaching extension industry in the Western World. The aim of the
of ethics in the undergraduate chemical engineering pro- sessions is to expose the students to the concepts and the-
gramme. While workers such as Bucknam (1999, 2000, ories of ethical behaviour irrespective of their cultural
2002, 2003a, b) have developed ethical scenarios for civil background. The sessions attempt to alert students to the
types of ethical issues that may arise during their pro-

fessional careers by presenting them with a series of up
Correspondence to: Professor D. C. Shallcross, Department of Chemical
and Biomolecular Engineering, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010,
to five different scenarios.
Australia. The Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engin-
E-mail: [email protected] eering at the University of Melbourne draws more than

49
50 SHALLCROSS and PARKINSON

25% of its students from outside Australia. Most of the (6) Summary—The instructor closes the discussion by
international students come from countries including calling on selected groups to present their consensus
India, Indonesia, Malaysia, People’s Republic of China, positions. The discussions are then summarized.
Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam, with others
The structured controversy technique described above is
also coming from North America and Europe. These stu-
readily adapted to working with groups of four students. In
dents bring with them different sets of educational and
the application of the technique to chemical engineering
life experiences.
ethics described here, the students are divided into groups
The undergraduate chemical engineering degree pro-
of four based upon where they are seated in the classroom.
gramme at the University of Melbourne is a 4-year full
Each student in the group is then assigned one of the
time programme which is fully accredited by the Institution
courses of action proposed to resolve the ethical dilemma
of Engineers Australia, and by the UK-based Institution of
and required to argue that course of action amongst the
Chemical Engineers at the MEng level.
group. The students have to argue the particular course of
At the University of Melbourne professional ethics are
action assigned to them whether they believe it or not.
addressed in two 300-level (i.e., third year) subjects. In
After 10– 15 min of discussion and rebuttal the students
the first subject which considers broader chemical engin-
are assigned an alternative course of action to argue.
eering management issues a single 2-h class or module is
After a further 5 – 10 min of discussion each group is
devoted to ethics. The class begins with an introduction
asked to develop a consensus statement. Groups selected
to the theories of morals, ethics and codes of ethics. For
at random are then called upon to present their opinions
illustrative purposes the Code of Ethics of Engineers
to the class.
Australia is used. The students are then presented with a
In earlier years the structured controversy technique was
scenario which allows the students to consider the ethical
not employed when similar ethical scenarios were dis-
responsibilities of a chemical engineer. The second subject
cussed in class. Instead the class was given a scenario to
run later in the year is devoted to considering a range of
read and then they were called upon at random to express
case studies. Topics covered include engineering decision
an opinion. Few students were willing to address the
making, engineering practice, safety, the environment,
class with their thoughts on the matter and discussion
sustainable development and ethics. A single 3-h class is
was generally dominated by a handful of assertive individ-
devoted to the ethics scenarios presented here.
uals. As a generalization nearly all those students who
engaged in the class discourse were from English-speaking
backgrounds, who had the confidence to express their
opinions.
STRUCTURED CONTROVERSY
The use of the structured controversy technique with
The structured controversy technique is used in the class the ethical scenarios has led to increased engagement in the
to engage the students. Typically between 80 and 90% of class. Now when students are asked to comment on the
students are seen to be actively engaged discussing the ethical scenarios, they are giving the considered opinions
scenarios and their possible solutions. not just of themselves but of the group of four. They are
Students are actively engaged in the discussion of the observed to give their opinions with increased confidence.
ethical scenarios using the teaching technique of structured
controversy. This technique begins by using the strengths
of conventional debate and ends with the opposing sides THE SCENARIOS
seeking ways to resolve their conflicting views. As a teach- Three scenarios have been developed which present the
ing technique, structured controversy has been championed students with realistically difficult ethical dilemmas. In all
by Johnson and Johnson (1988, 1993) over several years. cases there are no clear-cut, obvious solutions. The students
Herreid (1996) has shown how the technique may be must consider a range of actions, along with their
applied to students working in pairs. consequences.
As proposed by Johnson and Johnson, students are separ- It should be noted that the scenarios as given here are as
ated into pairs and are then given a scenario having several they have been presented to the students in Australia. They
opposing resolutions. The structured controversy technique contain colloquial expressions and phrases that might be
then follows several steps: best modified before use elsewhere.
(1) Organizing Information—The students are given a con-
troversial topic or scenario having several possible but
Scenario 1: Product Testing
conflicting courses of action.
(2) Advocating a Position—The students are each assigned Sarah is a process engineer for Tonmon, a large manu-
one of two opposing views to argue in a persuasive and facturing company which makes a paper-like product for
convincing manner. They then make their argument to the building industry. Sarah is responsible for the most of
their partner. the upstream end of the process in which the feed stock
(3) Rebuttal—The students take it in turn to rebut the argu- is processed to produce an intermediate product. This pro-
ments of their partners. duct is then formed into sheets of a material very similar to
(4) Perspective Taking—The students reverse their roles paper which become Tonmon’s final product. This product
and argue the opposing view. Again rebuttal follows. is in turn sold to another company, Zaser Sheeting which
(5) Compromise—The students abandon their advocacy bonds the sheets to its own product to form fire-resistant
roles and seek to develop a compromise or consensus wall sheets. In order to meet the demands of Zaser,
statement. Tonmon’s process runs 24 h a day, 7 days a week.

Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 49– 54

 TEACHING ETHICS TO CHEMICAL ENGINEERS 51

Quality control is vital to both Tonmon and Zaser Sheet- Following a general discussion in the class when the
ing. If the sheets produced by Tonmon have the wrong main points of the scenario are clarified the class is asked
moisture content or density then they will not bond prop- to suggest courses of action that Sarah could follow. In
erly to Zaser’s material resulting in the fire-resistant wall this scenario eight courses of action were suggested by
sheets delaminating after installation. Because of the vari- members of the class. These suggestions are listed below
able nature of the feedstock used by Tonmon, samples of in the order in which they were made in class:
the Tonmon’s final product coming off the production
line are tested every 20 min. If a sample fails the test
(A) Immediately advise the client that the shipment cur-
then the entire batch is dumped. When operating normally
rently on its way to them may be off-specification
one batch every 2 or 3 days has to be dumped, but
and should not be used. Explain that the shipment
occasionally several hours’ worth of production may be
was sent in error.
found to be off-specification.
(B) Recall the truck and conduct a series of spot tests on
The quality control testing performed by Tonmon con-
the paper rolls. This could take several hours as the
sists of three simple, yet reliable tests. These tests measure
paper rolls will have to be unloaded and unwrapped.
the moisture content, density and strength of the paper-like
(C) Retest the samples of the paper rolls taken earlier in the
product. They are performed by the production technicians.
day. In order to get the current shift leader to agree to
The technicians report their results to the duty engineer
doing the retesting Sarah will probably need to share
who makes the final decision as to whether to accept or
her concerns about what may have happened.
reject a batch.
(D) Contact Dan. Despite the fact that Dan has gone out of
One Friday morning Sarah is in the test room talking to
town on leave, Sarah owes it to him to try to contact
Dan, the duty engineer, when the moisture content testing
him first before sharing her concerns. Given however
apparatus breaks down while being used by Tony, a
that Dan is probably in transit it may take hours to
young technician new to the job. There is no spare testing
track him down.
apparatus so Dan and Tony begin hurried efforts to repair
(E) Contact Tony, the technician who was using the equip-
the equipment. Dan decides to keep the plant running at
ment during the day. Tony should know what is hap-
full capacity. He reasons that as the plant product was on
pening but contacting him at home would be
specification at the time the equipment broke it should
unusual. If it later turns out that nothing was wrong
still be okay for the next couple of hours. They can keep
with the shipment, Tony might be very upset that he
producing the sheets, taking samples as required every
was brought into the situation.
20 min. Once the test equipment is fixed all they will
(F) Contact the plant General Manager. The General Man-
have to do is test the backlog of samples collected during
ager is the Sarah’s immediate superior and has the
the day, ensuring that the sheets meet specification. If any
overall responsibility for the day-to-day operation of
sample is off specification then that batch of sheets can
the plant. If there is a problem with the shipment
be dumped. Dan is under pressure to get the equipment
then the GM will have to deal with the situation. If
fixed as Friday’s production must be shipped off to Zaser
there is nothing wrong with the shipment then Sarah
Sheeting by early Friday evening.
will have impugned the reputation of a fellow worker
Just as she is leaving for home late on Friday afternoon,
without good cause.
Sarah is stopped in the hallway by Dan. He tells her that
(G) Do nothing. The quality control testing is not Sarah’s
Tony’s just been on the phone to him about the testing equip-
responsibility and it was only by accident that she
ment. ‘It’s fixed and the samples show that Friday’s batches
learnt that the equipment was broken. She need tell
are acceptable.’ Sarah is only at home for a couple hours
no one of her concerns and she can let others deal
before she is called back into work because of the apparent
with the problem if there is one. Sarah is however a
failure of a pump in the upstream end of the plant. As she
loyal employee of the company and knows that the
arrives at the plant, she see the truck carrying the day’s
shipment of any substandard product would damage
production to Zaser Sheeting leaving the site.
the company’s reputation.
Sarah’s pumping problem is quickly resolved and she
(H) Tell Sofie, the current Duty Engineer. Let Sofie make
prepares to return home. On her way out of the plant she
the decision about what to do.
learns that the moisture content testing unit has only just
been fixed in the last few minutes. She also notices that
all the moisture content sample data sheets have been In the general discussion at this stage the point is made that
filled in for Friday including those for the batches produced the testing unit may have been fixed in the afternoon as
while the testing equipment was out of operation. Her inter- Sarah was advised by Dan. Because it may have failed
est piqued, she passes through the dispatch office and finds again later in the day it is possible that on Sarah’s return
that Dan authorized the shipment of the Friday’s production to work in evening, Sarah witnessed it being repaired for
to Zaser Sheeting, certifying that it meets specification. the second time that day.
Sarah now is worried. Why was she told that the moist- The students are then surveyed to determine which of the
ure content testing unit was fixed in the afternoon when it eight courses of action they believe to be the most appropri-
was only fixed in the evening, hours later? Is someone ate for Sarah to take. The survey is conducted before the
lying? Was the moisture content data falsified? If so, by students are divided up into groups. The results of a
whom? Should the shipment have been released to Zaser? survey from one of the classes of 70 students are summar-
Dan’s shift has ended and he has left for a long weekend ized in Figure 1. Nearly a third of the class favoured option
out of town. Tony’s shift team have also gone home for C, retesting the samples before taking any further action.
the day. Sofie is now the shift engineer. Options A and B were also highly favoured.

Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 49– 54

52 SHALLCROSS and PARKINSON

more to install it. Warren also knew that if he had done

his job properly in the first place then he would have
picked up the error before construction had begun.
What should Warren do?
Again following a general discussion in the class when
the main points of the scenario are clarified the class is
asked to suggest courses of action that Warren could
follow. In this scenario seven courses of action were
suggested by members of the class. These suggestions are
listed below in the order in which they were made in class:
(A) Do nothing. The fault in the design is not Warren’s
fault after all. Warren could argue that he did not
pick up the error. The unit will still be an improvement
over the existing unit but the opportunity for a signifi-
Figure 1. Distribution of the courses of actions favoured by 70 students for cant improvement as originally hoped for will be lost.
the first scenario. (B) Tell Anton and let him sort it out. The project is
Anton’s, and he made the mistake.
(C) Tell Susan immediately before work on the installation
The students were broken up into groups of four and begins. Warren should admit to what he did, and advise
the structured controversy technique used to facilitate Susan that the unit should not be installed. This action
discussion. might at best cost Warren chances for further pro-
motion and at worst his job.
(D) Resign from the company. Warren should not tell
Scenario 2: A Flawed Design anyone or admit his mistake, but should leave the com-
Anton works as a process engineer in a manufacturing pany before the mistake is discovered.
plant. He has a reputation in the company as a sound and (E) Cost an alternative design. Warren should not tell
reliable engineer, but also as someone who can be a little anyone and spend his time trying to cost an alternative
disorganized. His latest major assignment has been to design. Now the unit has been built Warren should
design a new air extraction system which is soon to be determine how much rectifying the situation will cost
installed. The system will extract moist air from the before he tells anyone.
plants drying section, discharging it to the atmosphere (F) Improve the design. Warren should not tell anyone for
above the roof. The old system that had been installed the moment and work on how the unit may be
two decades before had stopped working efficiently long improved with little cost before final installation.
ago. What parts of it that had not be corroded by the (G) Falsify the paperwork. Hide his guilt by doctoring the
moist air had be fouled by scale. As Anton’s immediate paperwork in an effort to hide his own responsibility.
supervisor Susan had remarked, ‘Any new system must The students were then surveyed to determine which of
be better than what we have now’. the eight courses of action they believed to be the most
Company policy as well as good engineering practice appropriate for Warren to take. The results of the survey
required that a second engineer check Anton’s designs of 126 students are summarized in Figure 2. No student
and calculations. Unfortunately Anton had been running suggested that resigning was the best of the options for
behind with his work for some weeks and he only com-
pleted the design for the new system just the day before
the plans had to be approved and signed off. He hastily
gave his files to Warren to check, but Warren too was
busy trying to clear his desk before he went on leave. He
accepted the file from Anton, gave the papers a cursory
examination and then signed that he had checked the calcu-
lations and design. After all, Warren reasoned, ‘Anton is
very reliable and I can check the calculations when I’m
back from leave in three weeks’.
With the paperwork showing that Anton’s design for the
new extraction system had been checked by a second
engineer, they went off to the fabrication workshop for con-
struction. On Warren’s return after 3 week’s leave and with
the new system finally complete and ready for installation,
Warren decided to check the design calculations. While the
actual calculations were correct and appropriate, Anton had
made a simple mistake transposing two digits in an early
calculation. Warren saw that this simple error meant that
the system as designed would work only slightly better
than the existing system. The company had already spent Figure 2. Distribution of the courses of actions favoured by 126 students
nearly $80 000 building the unit, and would spend still for the second scenario.

Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 49– 54

 TEACHING ETHICS TO CHEMICAL ENGINEERS 53

Warren to follow. The majority of the students suggested employee of Polyval with responsibility for community
that Warren should tell either Anton (Option B) or Susan relations he has an obligation to his employer to spend as
(Option C). Only one student recommended that Warren little money as possible.
should falsify the data. What should Tony do?
As before, the students were broken up into groups of After general discussion the eight possible courses of
four based upon where they were seated. Each student in action were selected by the class. These are listed below
the group was then assigned one of the courses of action in the order in which they were made in class:
and required to argue that course of action amongst the
group. The students were assigned options A, B, C or E (A) Advise both the football club board and Polyvals that
depending upon where they were sitting in the group. there is a conflict of interest and withdraw from any
Again this assignment of an option to a student was arbi- further negotiations.
trary and was done whether or not the student agreed (B) Quit as a member of the football club board. Tony’s
with the particular course of action was the correct one to involvement with the club through his membership
take. The structured controversy technique was again of the board had just brought too many complications.
employed. (C) Agree with the football club for Polyvals to pay
$11 000. The club needs the money and what’s
$2000 to the company?
Scenario 3: Conflict of Interest (D) Pay $2000 out of his own pocket to make up the differ-
Polyvals is a medium-sized speciality chemical manu- ence. The club needs $11 000 but the company can
facturer. Tony is a senior process engineer who has only pay $9000. This way everyone is happy except
worked for Polyvals for the last 12 years. Some 8 years Tony who is $2000 poorer.
ago the company asked Tony to take on the responsibility (E) Have Alan come to the club board meeting to negotiate
for community liaison. In that role he has become the with the club directly. Let Alan be the one to say that
‘human face’ of the company with the local community, the company cannot afford the whole $11 000.
meeting with the local council and community groups (F) Convince Alan that $11 000 is the correct offer to
whenever concerns were raised regarding the company make to the club. Tony should accept the club’s pos-
and its operations. At his suggestion, 7 years ago the com- ition that the sponsorship should be $11 000 and he
pany began sponsoring the local football team, and for the should try to convince Alan that this amount of
last 4 years it has been one of the two major sponsors of money is reasonable.
the club. (G) Tell the club that $9000 is the company’s final offer.
At the end of the last football season the club approached Tony should accept the company’s position that the
Tony and asked him to join its committee. With the sponsorship should be $9000.
approval of his company Tony joined the club’s committee. (H) Find another sponsor. Tony cannot be expected to get
The football club is effectively a not-for-profit organiz- either the company or the club to budge from their
ation, and the committee members are legally considered positions. Tony should therefore try to identify another
to be directors of its board. Tony receives no payment for company to sponsor the club.
his work on the committee but as an avid supporter he
enjoys the work. All the committee meetings are held The results of the survey of 56 students are presented in
after working hours or on weekends. Figure 3. The most popular option was to admit a conflict
Polyval’s agreement with the club to be a major sponsor of interest existed and to withdraw from the negotiations
is up for renewal and both the club and the company are (Option A). Only one student suggested that Tony should
keen to continue the relationship. Currently each of the immediately agree to pay $11 000 against Alan’s advice.
major sponsors pays the club $9000 per year. The com- As before the students were broken up into groups of
pany’s general manager, Alan, tells Tony to handle the four based upon where they were seated.
sponsorship arrangements but to ensure that the company
pays no more than $9000 per year for the coming 2
years. Alan instructs Tony to begin the negotiations at
$8500 and try to keep it there. ‘If you really have to go
up to $9000, but absolutely no more. There’s another com-
munity group that has asked us to support them. If the foot-
ball club doesn’t accept our offer we can just drop them and
support the other group’. And as Alan says, ‘The company
should get some recognition for all your work on the
committee’.
The club has had a difficult time financially over the last
few years and at a recent meeting decided to ask its two
major sponsors to increase their level of support to
$11 000. The other sponsor has agreed to pay the increased
amount of $11 000. Tony believes that he could get the club
to accept a lower amount from Polyval.
Tony has a conflict of interest. As a committee member
he has an obligation to the club to help raise as much Figure 3. Distribution of the courses of actions favoured by 56 students for
money as he can to support the club’s activities but as an the third scenario.

Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 49– 54

54 SHALLCROSS and PARKINSON

ASSESSMENT a welcome contrast to the drier, calculation-based activities

found in other subjects. Some students comment that it
After the class has considered several scenarios, the stu-
gives them the opportunity to use ‘the other side of their
dents are presented with a final scenario. After reading this
brain’.
scenario quietly in class, the students are required to write
Engagement of the class members is enhanced by the use
an essay outlining what they believe to be the best resol-
of the structured controversy technique. Using the older
ution to the situation posed. The students are asked to pro-
technique of calling on students to voluntarily comment
pose at least three possible courses of actions that the
in class led to engagement levels of just 10 – 20%. This
characters in the scenario could follow along with their
increased to between 80 and 90% when the structured con-
comments on the relative merits of these actions. The stu-
troversy technique was applied. These scenarios and the
dents are advised that the courses of action they propose
structured controversy technique have been successfully
should not be flippant or too similar. The class is given 7
applied by the authors in classes of up to 100 students.
days to submit their assignment and limits of between
The scenarios presented here may be adapted to local cir-
700 and 1000 words are specified for the essay.
cumstances and may be applied in modified form to almost
Students are advised that they may discuss the scenario
any year level. The use of these types of scenarios alerts the
with one another outside the classroom, using the structured
students to the types of responsibilities that they will
controversy technique if they wish. They are warned how-
assume on graduation as professional chemical engineers.
ever that the actual essay must be their own work.
For many students it is the only opportunity that they
have in an otherwise very technical course to write an argu- AUTHORS’ NOTE
mentative essay. A handful of students over the years have
written some imaginative essays which address the issues All characters and company names in the scenarios are
in clever and humorous, yet insightful ways. Many students entirely fictional and are not based on any actual persons
however find it difficult to write such an essay retaining as or companies.
they often do the clearly defined structure of technical
reports including headings such as ‘introduction’, ‘discus-
sion’ and ‘conclusions’. REFERENCES
The essay is assessed partly in terms of a communication Bucknam, R.E., 1999, Ethics cases in professional practice—the fetid
and partly with respect to how well the case being pre- favor fiasco, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education
sented is argued. Little weight is given to the standards and Practice, 125: 2–5.
Bucknam, R.E., 2000, Ethics cases in professional practice—priming the
of ethics shown by the student. This is because the authors town pump, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education
do not believe that it is either proper or appropriate to try to and Practice, 126: 45–47.
force one’s own moral values onto others particularly when Bucknam, R.E., 2002, Ethics cases in professional practice—don’t bank
they come from a different cultural background. While we on it!, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and
might hope that students might understand what is and is Practice, 128: 149–151.
Bucknam, R.E., 2003a, Ethics cases in professional practice—holey
not considered appropriate ethical behaviour in Australian smoke, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and
industry and society it is not proper to seek to force stu- Practice, 129: 6–9.
dents’ thinking in this way. Bucknam, R.E., 2003b, Ethics cases in professional practice—one good
By having the students write an essay they are forced to turn deserves another, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering
Education and Practice, 129: 9–11.
carefully consider the options available to the characters Harris, C.E., Davis, M., Pritchard, M.S. and Rabins, M.J., 1996, Engineer-
in the particular scenario. Often a very useful, albeit brief, ing ethics: what? why? how? and when?, Journal of Engineering
discussion follows 2 weeks after the 3-h session when the Education, 85(2): 93–96.
essays which have been assessed are returned to the class. Herreid, C.F., 1996, Structured controversy: a case study strategy—DNA
Generally it is found that the class identifies four to eight fingerprinting in the courts, Journal of College Science Teaching,
26(2): 95–101.
courses of action which are repeatedly identified by the stu- Herreid, C.F., 1998, What makes a good case?, Journal of College Science
dents in their essays. The facilitator summarizes these main Teaching, 27(3): 163–165.
courses of actions and then moves to discuss what they Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T., 1988, Critical thought through struc-
believe to be an appropriate resolution to the problem. tured controversy, Educational Leadership, 45(8): 58–64.
Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T., 1993, Creative and critical thinking
The ethics essay typically accounts for ten percent of the through academic controversy, American Behavioral Scientist, 37(1):
overall mark for the subject. 40–44.
Mascone, C.F., Santaquilani, A.G. and Butcher, C., 1991, Engineering
ethics—what are the right choices?, Chemical Engineering Progress,
CONCLUDING REMARKS 87(4): 61–64.
Rosenzweig, M. and Butcher, C., 1992, Can you use that knowledge?,
Questionnaires completed by the students at the end of Chemical Engineering Progress, 88(4): 76–80.
the semester identify the Professional Ethics session as
one of the most enjoyable of their undergraduate career. The manuscript was received 12 December 2005 and accepted for
Students enjoy the non-technical scenarios, finding them publication after revision 7 February 2006.

Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 49– 54