While engineering ethics usually addresses the responsibility of engineers in rare cases of whistle blowing, the authors broach the question to what extent engineers can be held responsible in normal practice. For this purpose, they define the conditions under which individuals can be imputable as they prevail in ethics and common sense. From outcomes of science and technology studies research, the authors conclude that these conditions are seldom met in modern technoscientific research practice. By examining such practice in a case study and comparing the results with perceptions of engineers on social responsibility as expressed in interviews, the authors are able to demonstrate that (1) a change in structural characteristics of this practice, such as funding rules, stimulates engineers to attune the inner politics of science to wider societal policies and concerns, and (2) it helps them to overcome the shifting of social responsibility to others as a consequence of the lack of agency they usually perceive.
Akrich, M., and B. Latour. 1992. A summary of convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies. In Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change, ed. W. E. Bijker and J. Law, 259-265. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
Bijker, W. E.1995. Of bicycles, Bakelites and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
Boudon, R.1979. La logique du social, introduction à l'analyse sociologique. Paris: Librairie Hachette.
4.
Callon, M.1987. Society in the making: The study of technology as a tool for sociological analysis. In The social construction of technological systems, ed. W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, and T. J. Pinch, 83-103. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
Callon, M., P. Larédo, V. Rabeharisoa, T. Gonard, and T. Leray. 1992. The management and evaluation of technological programs and the dynamics of techno-economic networks: The case of the AFME. Research Policy21:215-236.
6.
Collingridge, D.1980. The social control of technology. London: Pinter.
7.
Deuten, J. J., A. Rip, and J. Jelsma. 1997. Societal embedding and product creation management. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management9 (2): 131-148.
8.
De Vries, G.1989. Ethische theorieën en de ontwikkeling van medische technologie. Kennis en Methode3:278-294.
9.
Duff, R. A.1998. Responsibility. In The Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy online, ed. E. Craig. CD-ROM. London: Routledge.
10.
Elzen, B., B. Enserink, and W. A. Smit. 1996. Socio-technical networks: How a technology studies approach may help to solve problems related to technical change. Social Studies of Science26 (1): 95-141.
11.
Enzing, C., B. Filius, J. Jelsma, J. Overeem, and I. van de Poel. 1992. Biotechnologie in de landbouw. STB-TNO and Center for Studies of Science, Technology and Society. Enschede, the Netherlands: University of Twente.
12.
Giddens, A.1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
13.
Jelsma, J., and I. van de Poel. 1992. Design of technology assessment for early warning: The SESR project at the University of Twente. In Technology and democracy: The use and impact of technology assessment in Europe. Proceedings of the Third European Congress on Technology Assessment, vol. 2, 349-365.
14.
Larédo, P., E. Jolivet, E. Shove, S. Raman, A. Rip, E. Moors, B. Poti, G. J. Schaeffer, H. Penan, and C. E. Garcia. 2002. Socrobust final report, SOE 1981126, TSER Programme. Brussels: European Union.
15.
Latour, B.1992. Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change, ed. W. E. Bijker and J. Law, 225-259. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16.
Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. London: Sage.
17.
Lynch, W. T., and R. Kline. 2000. Engineering practice and engineering ethics. Science, Technology, & Human Values25 (2): 195-225.
18.
Martin, M. W., and R. Schinziger. 1996. Ethics in engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill.
19.
Mitcham, C., and H. Nissenbaum. 1998. Technology and ethics. In The Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy online, ed. E. Craig. CD-ROM. London: Routledge.
20.
Radder, H.1996. In and about the world. New York: State University of New York Press.
21.
Rip, A., and R. Kemp. 1998. Technological change. In Human choice and climate change, Vol. 2., ed. S. Rayner and E. L. Malone, 327-399. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press.
22.
Rip, A., T. J. Misa, and J. Schot. 1995. Managing technology in society. London: Pinter.
23.
Schaareman, J. 1997. Maatschappelijke verantwoordelijkheid voor de composthoop, Reconstructie en analyse van onderzoek naar biodegradeerbare polymeren aan de UT. Graduation report WWTS, University of Twente, Enschede.
24.
Scheepers, M. J. J., M. Kaal, and J. van Arkel. 2000. De kleur van stroom: De milieukwaliteit van in Nederland geleverde elektriciteit. Research report commissioned by Greenpeace the Netherlands. Petten, the Netherlands: Energy Research Center of the Netherlands.
25.
Smits, M.1996. Polymer products and waste management: A multidisciplinary approach. Utrecht, the Netherlands: International Books.
26.
Stapert, H., P. Dijkstra, and J. Feijen. 1996. Biodegradable polymers. In Polymer products and waste management, ed. M. Smits, 71-102. Utrecht, the Netherlands: International Books.
27.
Van Lente, H., and A. Rip. 1998a. Expectations in technological developments: An example of prospective structures to be filled in by agency. In Getting new technologies together, ed. C. Disco and B. J. R. van der Meulen, 195-220. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
28.
Van Lente, H., and A. Rip. 1998b. The rise of membrane technology: From rhetorics to social reality. Social Studies of Science28 (2): 221-254.
29.
Vaughan. D.1996. The Challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
30.
Velasquez, M. G.1998. Business ethics: Concepts and cases. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
