1 Aalborg University Copenhagen, The Faculty of Humanities, Aalborg University, VBN2 Centre for Applied Ethics and Philosophy of Science, The Faculty of Humanities, Aalborg University, VBN3 The Techno-Anthropology Research Group, The Faculty of Humanities, Aalborg University, VBN4 Forskningscenter for etik i praksis, The Faculty of Humanities, Aalborg University, VBN5 Center for Design, Innovation and Sustainable Transitions, The Technical Faculty of IT and Design, Aalborg University, VBN6 Department of Learning and Philosophy, The Faculty of Humanities, Aalborg University, VBN7 The Faculty of Humanities, Aalborg University, VBN8 Department of Development and Planning, The Technical Faculty of IT and Design, Aalborg University, VBN9 unknown
The need to make young scientists aware of their social responsibilities is widely acknowledged, although the question of how to actually do it has so far gained limited attention. A 2-day workshop entitled “Prepared for social responsibility?” attended by doctoral students from multiple disciplines in climate science, was targeted at the perceived needs of the participants and employed a format that took them through three stages of ethics education: sensitization, information and empowerment. The workshop aimed at preparing doctoral students to manage ethical dilemmas that emerge when climate science meets the public sphere (e.g., to identify and balance legitimate perspectives on particular types of geo-engineering), and is an example of how to include social responsibility in doctoral education. The paper describes the workshop from the three different perspectives of the authors: the course teacher, the head of the graduate school, and a graduate student. The elements that contributed to the success of the workshop, and thus make it an example to follow, are (1) the involvement of participating students, (2) the introduction of external expertise and role models in climate science, and (3) a workshop design that focused on ethical analyses of examples from the climate sciences.
Science and Engineering Ethics, 2013, Vol 19, Issue 4, p. 1491-1504