1 Saint Leo University REL 110RS The Emergence o.docx

1
Saint Leo University
REL 110RS
The Emergence of Christianity: Examination of Foundational
Christian Texts
Course Description:
The New Testament record of the development of Christianity
from a sect within Judaism to becoming a
world religion. This course will examine the foundational texts
of Christian Scripture with attention to
historical context, the intentions of the authors and the way the
texts were edited.
Prerequisite:
None
Textbooks:
The Catholic Study Bible Third Edition, Edited by Donald
Senior, et. al.(Oxford University
Press, 2016).
Imperato, Robert. Portraits of Jesus. Revised edition.

Lanham: Hamilton Books, 2018.
ISBN: 978-0-7618-6985-6
Learning Outcomes:
Students will be able to
1. Describe historical and editorial development of early
Christianity as reflected in the New
Testament assessed in first test and in papers.
2. Articulate the relationships between religious or
philosophical traditions and their cultural,
historical, and/or political context(s) by exploring how the
historical and cultural settings of the New
Testament, including geography of Israel, groups of Jews, and
the concerns of early Jewish
groups influence the writing of the New Testament texts
through first test and paper 1. RS2
3. Describe the formation of the New Testament writings
through discussion questions, first test.
4. Identify the literary and theological characteristics of each
gospel and of the Pauline letters through
first test, final exam, discussion questions.
5. Analyze N.T. texts using contemporary interpretive
approaches through discussion questions,
papers, and test.
6. Analyze beliefs, practices, values, texts and/or figures of
different traditions
(religious/philosophical/ethical) through integration of
scholarly biblical reference materials to

research meanings of biblical themes, and passages through
papers. RS1
7. Explain and contrast understandings of different portraits of
Jesus and the meaning of Christian
discipleship through first test final exam and discussion
questions.
8. Communicate effectively for a determined purpose while
engaging in a critical reading of the New
Testament which involves discovery of values, contexts, styles,
assumptions and intentions. By
leading the students beyond naïve reading to critical reading
will exemplify the core value of
excellence papers, first test, final exam, discussion questions.
CC2
Saint Leo Core Values
Core Value:
Excellence: Saint Leo University is an educational enterprise.
All of us, individually and collectively, work
hard to ensure that our students develop the character, learn the
skills, and assimilate the knowledge
essential to become morally responsible leaders. The success of
our University depends upon a
conscientious commitment to our mission, vision, and goals.

2
Evaluation:
Assignment % of Final Grade
First Exam 15
Paper 1 20
Paper 2 20
Paper 3 20
Final Exam 15
Discovery Questions (8) 10
Total 100%
Grading Scale:
A 94-100
A- 90-93
B+ 87-89
B 84-86
B- 80-83
C+ 77-79
C 74-76
C- 70-73
D+ 67-69
D 60-66
F 0-59
Exams
There are a total of two exams in this course:
First Exam
This exam will occur during Module 3 and consists of eight

short answer/brief essay questions covering
the material from Modules 1-3. You will have one hour to
complete this exam and must complete it by no
later than Sunday 11:59 PM EST/EDT of Module 3.
Final Exam
This exam will occur during Module 8 and consists of four brief
essay questions covering the material
from Modules 4-8. You will have 45 minutes to complete this
exam and must complete it by no later than
Sunday 11:59 PM EST/EDT of Module 8.
(UE Key Assignment) Paper 1
Choose just one of the themes from the list below. Note
developments of that theme in the Old
Testament to the New Testament (N.T.), and show how N.T.
writers reinterpreted it. Discuss similarities,
differences, and changes to the meaning. You must provide a
separate outline to your paper. Use only
the following resource that’s available as an eBook: Balentine,
Samuel E. The Oxford Encyclopedia of the
Bible and Theology. Oxford University Press : 2014 (The
Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Theology.)
Sometimes links to ebooks break. If the link does not work,
then go to the Saint Leo library electronically
and look up the book. Be sure to distinguish between paraphrase
and direct quotes. Type a 350-750 word
paper using MLA formatting. Submit Paper 1 to Chalk and Wire
no later than Sunday 11:59 EST/EDT of
Module 2. The Paper 1 Chalk & Wire link is located in the
Module 2 folder. Students who do not submit
the assignment to Chalk & Wire will receive a zero. This is a

key assignment assessment; the results are
used to ensure students are meeting University Exploration
program goals. Video and PDF instructions
can be found on the course home page. PDF instructions are
also located in the Start Here folder.
http://saintleo.worldcat.org/title/oxford-encyclopedia-of-the-
bible-and-theology/oclc/911403106%26referer%3Dbrief_results
3
Themes
Justice Love Jerusalem
Wealth and poverty Christ Son of God
Lord Priest Servant of God
Son of Man Shepherd Mercy and Compassion
Kingdom of God Resurrection Peace
Faith Obedience Redemption
Law Death Sin Repentance
Grading Rubric for Paper 1
REL 110RS Paper 1 UE SLO Rubric
Name
Date

Performance Levels
SLOs Criteria No Evidence 0 Partial Evidence 20 Solid
Evidence 40
CC2 Communicate effectively for a
determined purpose
Failure to distinguish
paraphrase or quotation,
poor paragraph
construction
Occasional English
grammar and
documentation errors
and/or failure to submit an
outline
Accurate usage of English
including careful
documentation (including
ability to paraphrase and

use quotations) and good
organization
RS1 Analyze theme by addressing
developments from Old
Testament to New Testament,
showing how old N.T. writers
reinterpreted it
Neither primary nor
recommended secondary
source used
Sparse use of
sources and Bible
Neither primary or
sources used
RS2 Compare and Contrast religious,
philosophical, cultural, historical
or political influences to the

change in meaning
Many unsubstantiated and
inaccurate statements and
incomplete reflection of
material read for
assignment
One or two
unsubstantiated and/ or
inaccurate statements
and/or incomplete
reflection of material read
for assignment
Accurate and complete
reflection of material read
for assignment
Comments:
Score

4
Paper 2
Choose just one of the two options below to complete this
assignment.
Option A
Identify any historical purpose(s) behind the writing of Mark’s
and Matthew’s Gospels. Include a
reference to any historical factor mentioned in the recommended
sources that may have triggered the
writing of both Matthew’s and Mark’s Gospels as well as
references to statements within both of the
Gospels themselves. Class lesson material can be used in
addition to the recommended
sources. Include at least one historical factor and at least one
reference to each Gospel studied. A
historical factor is one a historian would recognize whether the
historian has religious faith or not.
Restrict your resources to those below as well as any
information within the course modules.
Sometimes links to ebooks break. If the link does not work, then
go to the Saint Leo library
electronically and look up the book. Be sure to distinguish
between paraphrase and direct quotes.
Type a 350-750 word paper using MLA formatting. Submit the
completed assignment to the

appropriate Dropbox by no later than Sunday 11:59 PM
EST/EDT of Module 5.
Resources relative to Mark’s Gospel:
See chapter 5 of the ebook via SLU library:
Incigneri, Brian J. The Gospel To The Romans : The Setting
And Rhetoric Of Mark's Gospel. Leiden:
Brill, 2003. (http://saintleo.worldcat.org/title/gospel-to-the-
romans-the-setting-and-rhetoric-of-marks-
gospel/oclc/191953236&referer=brief_results)
See also the ebook via SLU library: Stanton, Graham The
Gospels of Jesus . Oxford U. Press 2nd
ed., 2002. pp. 48-57 (http://saintleo.worldcat.org/title/gospels-
and-
jesus/oclc/809041662&referer=brief_results)
Other references that may help:
eBook available via SLU library: Barton, John and John
Muddiman The Gospels Oxford U. Pr.,2010,
Ch. 4.
Resources relative to Matthew’s Gospel: Course material (the
Bible, textbook, any books listed on
the course syllabus) plus:
eBook available via SLU library:Sim, David. The Gospel of
Matthew and Christian Judaism :

the history and social setting of the Matthean community(The
Gospel of Matthew and
Christian Judaism ) Edinburgh : T & T Clark, 1998, p. 113 and
following.
eBook available via SLU library: Stanton, Graham The Gospels
of Jesus . Oxford U. Press 2nd ed.,
2002, pp.74-78.
eBook available via SLU library: Martin, Dale. New Testament
History and Literature ( New
Testament History and Literature) New Haven : Yale University
Press, 2012, pp. 93-107.
eBook available via SLU library: Barton and Muddiman The
Gospels Oxford U. Pr.,2010, Ch. 3.
Option B
Explain how and why Matthew may have edited Mark’s Gospel.
Use the following two sets of
passages to support your claim.
According to course materials (Bible, textbook, digital materials
linked below, etc.):
1. How and why would Matthew have edited Mark 6:45-52
contrasted with Matthew 14:25-27,32-33?
2. How and why would Matthew have edited Mark 9:2-10
contrasted with Matthew 17:1-13?

http://saintleo.worldcat.org/title/gospel-to-the-romans-the-
setting-and-rhetoric-of-marks-
gospel/oclc/191953236&referer=brief_results
http://saintleo.worldcat.org/title/gospel-to-the-romans-the-
setting-and-rhetoric-of-marks-
http://saintleo.worldcat.org/title/gospels-and-
jesus/oclc/809041662&referer=brief_results
jesus/oclc/809041662&referer=brief_results
http://saintleo.worldcat.org/title/gospel-of-matthew-and-
christian-judaism-the-history-and-social-setting-of-the-
matthean-
community/oclc/741691545%26referer%3Dbrief_results
http://saintleo.worldcat.org/title/gospel-of-matthew-and-
christian-judaism-the-history-and-social-setting-of-the-
matthean-
community/oclc/741691545%26referer%3Dbrief_results
http://saintleo.worldcat.org/title/new-testament-history-and-
literature/oclc/839386981%26referer%3Dbrief_results
5
Be sure to distinguish between paraphrase and direct quotes.
Type a 350-750 word paper using MLA
formatting. Submit the completed assignment to the appropriate
Dropbox by no later than Sunday
11:59 PM EST/EDT of Module 5.
Resources:

eBook available via SLU library: : Martin, Dale. New
Testament History and Literature ( New
Testament History and Literature) New Haven : Yale University
Press, 2012, pp. 106-108.
Muddiman The Gospels Oxford U. Pr., 2010,
p.56.
Paper 3
Choose just one of the two options below to complete this
assignment.
Option A
Identify any historical purpose(s) behind the writing of Luke’s
Gospel, Acts of the Apostles, and
John’s Gospel. Include a reference to any historical factor
mentioned in the recommended sources
that may have triggered the writing of Luke’s Gospel, Acts of
the Apostles, and John’s Gospels as
well as references to statements within those three. Class lesson
material can be used in addition
to the recommended sources. Include at least one historical
factor and at least one reference to
each Gospel studied. A historical factor is one a historian would
recognize whether the historian
has religious faith or not. Restrict your resources to those below
as well as any information within
the course modules. Sometimes links to ebooks break. If the
link does not work, then go to the
Saint Leo library electronically and look up the book. Be sure to

distinguish between paraphrase
and direct quotes. Type a 350-750 word paper using MLA
formatting. Submit the completed
assignment to the appropriate Dropbox by no later than Sunday
11:59 PM EST/EDT of Module
7.
Resources:
eBook available via SLU library: eBook available via SLU
library: Stanton, Graham The Gospels of
Jesus . Oxford U. Press 2nd ed., 2002, (The Gospels of Jesus ),
pp.116-118.
See also Won-Ha Hwang & J G van der Watt. “The Identity of
the Recipients of the Fourth Gospel in
the Light of the Purpose of the Gospel.” HTS : Theological
Studies, v63 n2 (Jun 2007): 683-698.
(http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=John&ch=
And ( http://saintleo.worldcat.org/title/the-identity-of-the-
recipients-of-the-fourth-gospel-in-the-light-of-
the-purpse-of-the-
gospel/oclc/5878507889&referer=brief_results)
eBook available via SLU library: : Balentine, Samuel E. The
Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible
and Theology. Oxford University Press : 2014 (The Oxford
Encyclopedia of the Bible and

Theology. ), Chapter “Luke-Acts.”
eBook available via SLU library: Carroll, John and Jennifer
Cox.Luke: a Commentary Westminster
John Knox Press, 2012 ( Luke: A Commentary ), pp. 398-404.
Option B
Explain how and why Luke may have edited Mark’s Gospel. Use
the following two sets of passages
to support your claim.
According to course materials (Bible, textbook, digital materials
linked below, etc.):
jesus/oclc/809041662%26referer%3Dbrief_results
http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=John&ch
http://saintleo.worldcat.org/title/the-identity-of-the-recipients-
of-the-fourth-gospel-in-the-light-of-the-purpse-of-the-
http://saintleo.worldcat.org/title/the-identity-of-the-recipients-
of-the-fourth-gospel-in-the-light-of-the-purpse-of-the-

http://saintleo.worldcat.org/title/luke-a-
commentary/oclc/893674947%26referer%3Dbrief_results
6
1. How and why would Luke have edited Mark 14:3-9
contrasted with Luke 7:36-50?
2. How and why would Luke have edited Mark 3:31-35
contrasted with Luke 8:19-21?
Be sure to distinguish between paraphrase and direct quotes.
Type a 350-750 word paper using MLA
formatting. Submit the completed assignment to the appropriate
Dropbox by no later than Sunday
11:59 PM EST/EDT of Module 8.
Resources:
Muddiman The Gospels. Oxford U. Pr.,2010
(2010), p.257.
Grading Rubric for ALL “Other” Papers
Grading
CRITERION #1: Accurate usage of English including careful

documentation (including ability to
paraphrase and use quotations) and good organizational plan. 40
pts
One or two English grammar and documentation errors and/or
failure to submit an outline. 35 points
Occasional English grammar and documentation errors. 30
points
Inconsistent English usage 25 points
Failure to distinguish paraphrase or quotation , poor paragraph
construction 1 points
CRITERION #2 Adequate research including use of primary
source. 20 points
No use of recommended secondary source(s). 10 points
Sparse use of recommended secondary sources and Bible. 7
points
Spare use of recommended secondary sources and no use of the
Bible 5 points
Neither primary nor recommended secondary sources used. 0
points
CRITERION #3. Accurate and complete reflection of material
read for assignment. 40 points
Occasional unsubstantiated and/or inaccurate statements and/or
incomplete reflection of material
One or two unsubstantiated and/or inaccurate statements and/or
incomplete reflection of material
Several unsubstantiated and inaccurate statements and
incomplete reflection of material read for
assignment. 10 pts
Many unsubstantiated and inaccurate statements and incomplete
reflection of material read for
assignment. 0 points

• Note: All assignments submitted to Dropbox are linked to
Turnitin.
Discovery Board
Each module, you will have the opportunity for reflection of
and inquiry into the materials presented. The
Discovery Board is based on reading, research, and individual
interaction with the material. Not only will you
provide a supported answer, but you will agree, disagree or
apply new insights to the topic, etc.
You will be given a choice between two discovery questions.
Once you’ve selected an option, post your
well-reasoned and researched post to the Discovery Board by no
later than Thursday 11:59 PM EST/EDT
of each module. Your instructor will then respond to your post,
providing new insights and learning
moments for you with the material.
7
Course Schedule:
Module 1 Contexts of the New Testament

Objectives At the conclusion of this module, you should be able
to:
▪ Discover the importance of context in biblical interpretation
and formation.
▪ Apply historical perspective to the interpretation of New
Testament texts.
▪ Recognize the significance of literary forms in interpreting the
Bible.
▪ Explain how the historical and cultural settings of the New
Testament,
geography of Israel, groups of Jews, and the concerns of early
Jewish
groups influence the writing of the New Testament texts.
Readings • 1 Corinthians Ch. 7:29-31
• 1 Corinthians Ch. 14:33-35
• Ephesians Ch. 6:5-8
Assignments
Module 2 Mark’s Gospel
to:
▪ Describe historical (editorial) development of early
Christianity as reflected in
Mark’s Gospel.

▪ Explain how the historical and cultural setting influenced the
writing of Mark’s
Gospel.
▪ Identify the literary and theological characteristics of Mark’s
Gospel.
▪ Explain the meaning of Christian discipleship and Mark’s
portrait of Jesus.
Readings • The Gospel According to Mark
• Chapter One from Portraits of Jesus: A Reading Guide
Assignments
Items to be Completed: Due No Later Than:
Post a response to the Discovery Board Thursday 11:59 PM
EST/EDT
Begin working on Paper 1 Module 2
EST/EDT
Submit Paper 1 Sunday 11:59 PM EST/EDT
8
Module 3 Matthew’s Gospel

to:
▪ Articulate how Matthew’s Gospel reflects competition with
Jewish religion
recently bereft of the Temple.
▪ Articulate how Matthew alters the presentation of Mark’s
Gospel in terms of
the portrayal of the disciples.
▪ Articulate how Matthew establishes church authority.
▪ Articulate how Matthew portrays Jesus.
Readings • The Gospel According to Matthew
• Chapter Two from Portraits of Jesus: A Reading Guide
Assignments
Module 4 Luke’s Gospel
to:
▪ Describe historical (editorial) development of early
Christianity as reflected in
the Luke’s Gospel.
▪ Explain the portrait of Jesus given in Luke’s Gospel.
▪ Explain how the historical and cultural settings of Luke’s

Gospel, including
geography, influence the writing of Luke’s Gospel and the Acts
of the
Apostles.
▪ Describe the formation of Luke’s Acts as the author adapts his
sources to
project Christianity as a world religion.
Readings • The Gospel According to Luke
• Chapter Three from Portraits of Jesus: A Reading Guide
Assignments
EST/EDT
Complete First Exam Sunday 11:59 PM EST/EDT
EST/EDT
Continue working on Paper 2 Module 5
9

Module 5 John’s Gospel
to:
▪ Articulate John’s portrait of Jesus.
▪ Analyze differences in the way John presents Jesus as
distinguished from
the Synoptic gospels.
▪ Articulate what is expected of a disciple of Jesus.
▪ Apply a method of reading John’s Gospel.
Readings • The Gospel According to John
• Chapter Four from Portraits of Jesus: A Reading Guide
Assignments
Module 6 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians
to:
▪ Articulate the meaning of apocalyptic literature.
▪ Articulate the main theme of 1 Corinthians (self-sacrifice for
the sake of
others).

Readings • Paul’s First Letter to the Thessalonians (1
Thessalonians), Ch. 4
• Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians)
• Chapter Five from Portraits of Jesus: A Reading Guide
• Format of Pauline Letters and Method of Reading
Assignments
EST/EDT
EST/EDT
http://mediaweb.saintleo.edu/courses/REL110RS/REL110RS_Fo
rmat.pdf
10
Module 7 Philippians and 2 Corinthians
to:
▪ Interpret and articulate the meaning of the self-emptying hymn

in Philippians.
▪ Articulate the major change in Paul’s life where he broke with
his past life as
a prominent Jewish persecutor of Christians.
▪ Articulate the characteristics of a true apostle from 2
Corinthians.
Readings • Paul’s Letter to the Philippians
• Paul’s Second Letter to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians)
Assignments
Module 8 Galatians and Romans
to:
▪ Articulate the basic challenge Paul offers to religious people.
▪ Articulate the meaning of freedom in Christ.
▪ Articulate the conundrum of the place of the Jews in God’s
plan.
Readings • Paul’s Letter to the Galatians
• Paul’s Letter to the Romans
Assignments

EST/EDT
EST/EDT
Complete Final Exam Sunday 11:59 PM EST/EDT
Designing the Future | National Society of Professional
Engineers Page 1 of 6
Designing the Future
Home » PE Magazine » May 2015 » Designing the Future
May 2015
Designing the Future
Do PEs have an ethical responsibility to think ahead to help
prevent harmful effects of technology?
BY EVA KAPLAN-LEISERSON

In an age of uncertainty, one thing is clear: technology
advances. As the saying goes, “the only constant is change.”
What is common today was science fiction to our parents. The
tools designed to improve our daily lives will be ancient
history to our children. In this steady progression, is there a
need to pause, to ask deeper questions about the world
we are creating? Many say yes, that it’s imperative to examine
the long-term implications. Some believe engineers
should be the ones to lead this effort. And pes may be especially
qualified to do so.
A Growing Chorus
Recently, several prominent scientists and technologists have
spoken up about one developing area: artificial intelligence.
Tesla
and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates,
and
theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking have all stressed their
concerns about AI and humans’ abilities to control it. Hawking
told
the BBC, “The development of full artificial intelligence could
spell
the end of the human race.”
Musk, who had tweeted that AI was “potentially more
dangerous
than nukes,” took action. In January, he donated $10 million to
the
Future of Life Institute for a research program aimed at
ensuring AI
benefits humans.
But Musk, Gates, and Hawking are following in the fifteen-
year-old
footsteps of Sun Microsystems cofounder Bill Joy, who in April

2000 published a nearly 12,000-word treatise in Wired: “Why
the
Future Doesn’t Need Us.” In it, he argued that powerful 21st
century technologies such as robotics, genetic
engineering, and nanotechnology could threaten human
existence. And unlike previous risks such as nuclear
technology, they offered the added dangers of both self-
replication and access by a greater population.
“Failing to understand the consequences of our inventions while
we are in the rapture of discovery and innovation
seems to be a common fault of scientists and technologists,”
wrote Joy. The overwhelming desire to know, he adds,
can cause us to overlook the fact that “the progress to newer
and more powerful technologies can take on a life of its
own.”
Joy emphasized caution, even “relinquishment: to limit
development of the technologies that are too dangerous.” But
it’s hard to say whether, in the 15 years since, anyone has
heeded his advice.
http://www.nspe.org/resources/pe-magazine/may-
2015/designing-future 4/28/2015
2015/designing-future

The Engineer’s Role
Who should be the ones to give pause? According to a
November Chronicle of Higher Education article, it should be
engineers.
In “Fools for Tools,” Sujata Bhatia, P.E., assistant director of
undergraduate studies in biomedical engineering at
Harvard University, and John Kaag, associate professor of
philosophy at University of Massachusetts, write that
engineers “need to consider and debate the far-reaching
outcomes of their inventions.” That includes positing second
- and third-order effects.
Further: “If engineers fail to carefully weigh the long-term
impact of their innovations and neglect to provide
appropriate guidance for novel devices, then engineers share the
culpability if their machines are used in ways that
harm the public good.”
Bhatia, elaborating later, explains why she puts this
responsibility on the engineer’s shoulders: “No one has a better
appreciation for the capabilities of the technology and the ways
that technology might be used or misused than the
engineer who designs [it],” she notes.
While engineers could just innovate and leave it to society to
determine how their creations are used, she thinks they
must take more leadership. “If we want to be seen as
professionals who care about people and about saving lives, we
have to think about the long-term implications of our

technologies,” she says.
Engineers are already adept at considering failure modes, she
explains. They could add a societal point of view: How
could a technology, at the societal level, hurt the public’s best
interests? Or, stated differently, engineers could
release technologies with not just mechanical but also societal
operating instructions.
Beyond the Technical
In an article for the fall 2014 Issues in Science and Technology,
Carl Mitcham, a professor at the Colorado School of
Mines who specializes in the philosophy and ethics of science,
technology, and engineering, examines the engineer’s
broader responsibility.
He notes that among the National Academy of Engineering’s
Grand Challenges, “only the most cursory mention was
made of the greatest challenge of all: cultivating deeper and
more critical thinking, among engineers and
nonengineers alike, about the ways engineering is transforming
how and why we live.”
Engineers are the “unacknowledged legislators” of the world, he
writes. By designing and constructing new structures,
processes, and products, they influence how society lives as
much as politicians. “Would we ever think it appropriate
for legislators to pass laws that could transform our lives
without critically reflecting on and assessing those laws?”
Yet, engineers have been told they should just be concerned
about the technical, says Deborah Johnson, professor
of applied ethics in the University of Virginia’s Science,
Technology, and Society Program, part of the School of
Engineering and Applied Science. “It’s sort of like saying,
‘You’re just a cog…. We don’t want you to think about the

wheel that you’re designing.’”
But that process is critical, she continues. Whenever you build
something physical, you also build something social.
“[Engineers] are making society,” she says. “They are making
technology, but technology is society.”
And she believes engineers have signed a social contract. “In
exchange for the privileges and rights of being a
member of the profession, then you owe something back…to do
engineering in a way that either protects the public
health, welfare, and safety or [even] benefits society.”
PEs as Ethicists
As a professional engineer herself, Bhatia says PEs are
especially suited to take a leadership role in these types of
discussions, because licensure demonstrates an understanding of
and competence with ethics. “The public has an
extra level of both trust and expectation [in] licensed
professionals,” she says.

John Hall, P.E., F.NSPE, agrees. His article “I, Robot, P.E.”
(March PE) called for professional engineers to lead the
conversation about unintended consequences of advanced
technologies such as artificial intelligence.
Professional engineers are already perceived as ethicists, he
elaborates. And their education teaches them to
imagine possible outcomes and failure modes, as well as to
consider competing interests and find the best solution
using good judgment. “We are, by education and training,
problem solvers,” he says. “We should be applying our
problem-solving skills to more than technical problems.”
NSPE President-Elect Tim Austin, P.E., F.NSPE, believes
professional engineers could fill a leadership void, standing
with the public to ask, “Just because we can do something,
should we?”
He asks: “Who is in the best position to do it [if not] us?”
A Larger Trend
The responsibility to think more generally about technologies’
effects fits into an overall trend for engineering ethics,
explains Gerald Galloway Jr., P.E., chair of the National
Academy of Engineering’s Center for Engineering Ethics and
Society advisory group. Over the last several decades, engineers
have been asked to focus more on second- and
third-order effects, he says—for example, environmental and
social sustainability.
Rachelle Hollander, who directs the CEES and is a member of

the governing board of the Association for Practical
and Professional Ethics, notes that a fairly recent development
in the sciences and engineering has been an
“acknowledgement of the early warning function that science
and engineering can play in society,” in terms of risk
identification, evaluation, communication, and management.
Along with that comes an emphasis on “anticipatory ethics”—as
Johnson defines it, “the attempt to get engineers and
developers to think about ethical issues of the technology while
they’re still developing it.”
Of course, engineers are already doing some of this. As Dan
O’Brien, P.E., F.NSPE, chair of NSPE’s Board of Ethical
Review, explains, engineering projects frequently use the triple
bottom line assessment, which examines not only the
financial impacts but also effects on environment and society.
And ABET’s accreditation criteria for engineering programs
require students to demonstrate (in part):
• “the ability to design a system, component, or process to meet
desired needs within realistic constraints such
as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and
safety, manufacturability, and sustainability”;
• “an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility”;
• “the broad education necessary to understand the impact of
engineering solutions in a global, economic,
environmental, and societal context”; and
• “knowledge of contemporary issues.”
Explicit Versus Implicit
But O’Brien and others still believe this process of long-term
thinking could be made more prominent and included

earlier in the process.
For instance, the Board of Ethical Review chair says that
consideration of second-generation impacts by engineers
could become a regular part of the project development process.
Mark Frankel, director of the Scientific Responsibility, Human
Rights, and Law Program for the American Association
for the Advancement of Science, emphasizes the need for
engineers to consult with others in this process. “You can’t
just give up and say you can’t think of any [long-term] effects,”
he says.
Engineers should reach out to the communities that their
products will serve, Frankel says. For instance, firms could
convene outside advisory groups made up of nonengineers and
community leaders.
While this adds more work and perhaps cost to development, he
explains, it’s best to have a routine in place. And
such efforts can reflect positively in the event of a failure; they
are a demonstrated record of making a “good faith
effort.”

In addition to taking initiative on their own technologies,
engineers can also serve more generally as spokespeople,
Bhatia believes. She says popular culture, such as the movies
Iron Man and Big Hero 6, demonstrates the public’s
constant tension between a fascination with technology and fear
of its misuse. But engineers can stand in the
forefront to help resolve that, she says, providing trusted
guidance, as doctors do. Examples could include position
statements on controversial technologies or reassurances that
certain innovations don’t have the capabilities to be
misused in ways that the public fears.
Education and Training
How should engineers prepare for these conversations? David
Guston, codirector of the Consortium for Science,
Policy, and Outcomes at Arizona State University, is leading the
creation of a new Virtual Institute for Responsible
Innovation and editing the Journal of Responsible Innovation.
He says ethics curricula have previously focused on
microethics, the responsibilities of engineers and other
researchers to each other and to the profession, rather than
macroethics, the responsibility to society at large. But that’s
slowly shifting, he says.
Bhatia points out that ethics cases in engineering curricula
primarily examine whether a technology worked—asking
was it ready to be used rather than how it could be misused. But
she says it’s important to train students to think
about why a technology should be developed and how it should

or shouldn’t be used.
Such ethical discussions should be woven into everything
programs teach, says Galloway.
University of Virginia offers proof that engineers with a broader
mindset are in demand. Every engineering student at
the school has to take four courses in the Science, Technology,
and Society program, replacing some of their usual
humanities classes. Johnson believes graduates are both better
employees and world citizens. And she says
recruiters seek out the students, who make excellent managers
and leaders.
A Call to Action
In “The True Grand Challenge for Engineering: Self-
Knowledge,” Carl Mitcham asserts that “[a]mid the [NAE]
Grand
Challenges must thus be another: The challenge of thinking
about what we are doing as we turn the world into an
artifact and the appropriate limitations of this engineering
power.”
It is not enough to do things right, he says later. “We, engineers
and nonengineers alike, need to consider what are
the right things to do.”
Hollander stresses that engineers are critical participants in
such discussions, because their expertise can help
society make informed choices. In particular, she says, the
public needs to hear from engineers they can trust and
have confidence in, knowing that their training, experience, and
priorities will be directed at enhancing the public
good.
That sounds very much like professional engineers.

How can PEs contribute? Send your ideas to [email protected]
Questions Engineers Might Raise
FROM LEFT TO RIGHT: SUJATA BHATIA, P.E.; MARK
FRANKEL; GERALD GALLOWAY, JR., P.E.; AND,
RACHELLE HOLLANDER
Experts weigh in on the discussions engineers and PEs could
initiate about the long-term implications of technology.
mailto:[email protected]
Sujata Bhatia, P.E.
• What is the societal need that this technology is addressing?
• Can existing technologies address this need? Why is this new
technology advantageous over existing ones?
• Will this technology benefit a few or benefit everyone? If it
benefits only a few, does it do so at the expense of
others?

• Are there ways in which the technology compromises human
rights or the public health and safety?
• What is the risk/benefit ratio?
Mark Frankel
• Where is the technology most likely to have an impact? What
kind of an impact?
• Who will benefit?
• Will the benefits change course over time?
• What people will be more disadvantaged by the technology
than others?
• How might the technology be used beyond the way it’s
designed to be used? Will it have users not originally
foreseen?
Gerald Galloway, P.E.
Ask the following of developers, proponents, and researchers
who are moving technologies from R&D to
implementation:
• What don’t you know about what’s going to happen?
• What are the uncertainties you’re worried about?
Rachelle Hollander
• What is the likely impact on future generations?
• What are the questions that might arise for different social
groups?
• What would happen if this new development fell into the
hands of children? Of people who might want to use
it to do harm?
• What kinds of controls can be put into place to minimize the

likelihood of harm? In what social circumstances
are they feasible?
• How likely is it that current and future populations will be
able to manage this technology?
• Does it satisfy the ethical maxim for “due care” (the way a
reasonable person would behave in looking out for
others’ safety)?
Resources
Publications Referenced (In Order of Mention)
• “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us,” Bill Joy, Wired (April
2000)
• “Fools for Tools,” Sujata Bhatia, P.E. and John Kaag,
Chronicle of Higher Education (November 2014)
Also see: “Answering to a Higher Standard,” NSPE Executive
Director Mark Golden’s response to “Fools for
Tools,” PE magazine (March 2015)
• “The True Grand Challenge for Engineering: Self-
Knowledge,” Carl Mitcham, Issues in Science and
Technology (Fall 2014)
• “I, Robot, P.E.,” John Hall, P.E., F.NSPE, PE magazine
(March 2015)
• The Journal of Responsible Innovation
Additional Readings

• “Victor Paschkis Versus Wernher von Braun: Responsibility in
Engineering,” Stephen Unger (December
2009)
• “Reckless Use of Technology,” Stephen Unger (February
2013)
• “Is Progress in Technology Always Beneficial?,” Stephen
Unger (May 2014)
Organizations and Programs Referenced (In Order of Mention)
• Future of Life Institute
• Science, Technology, and Society Program at the University of
Virginia
• Center for Engineering Ethics and Society, National Academy
of Engineering
• Association for Practical and Professional Ethics
• Board of Ethical Review, NSPE
• Scientific Responsibility, Human Rights, and Law Program,
American Association for the Advancement of
Science
• Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes, Arizona State
University
• The Virtual Institute for Responsible Innovation
Additional Resources Noted by or Associated With Experts

• The Center for Nanotechnology in Society
• Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
• The Society for Philosophy and Technology
• Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (UK),
Framework for Responsible Innovation

1 Saint Leo University REL 110RS The Emergence o.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 1 Saint Leo University REL 110RS The Emergence o.docx

Similar to 1 Saint Leo University REL 110RS The Emergence o.docx (20)

More from croftsshanon

More from croftsshanon (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

1 Saint Leo University REL 110RS The Emergence o.docx