chernobyl case study in professional ethics

• Engineering Ethics Tutorial
• Engineering Ethics - Home
• Engineering Ethics - Introduction
• Engineering Ethics - Moral Issues
• Moral Dilemmas
• Moral Autonomy
• Kohlberg’s Theory
• Heinz’s Dilemma
• Engineering Ethics - Gilligan’s Theory
• Professions and Professionalism
• Engineering Ethics - Ethical Theories
• Social Experimentation
• Balanced Outlook on Law
• Responsibility for Safety
• Chernobyl’s Case Study
• Bhopal’s Gas Tragedy
• Responsibilities of Engineers
• Engineering Ethics - Confidentiality
• Rights of Engineers
• Engineering Ethics - Global Issues
• Moral Leadership
• Engineering Ethics Useful Resources
• Engineering Ethics - Quick Guide
• Engineering Ethics - Resources
• Engineering Ethics - Discussion
• Selected Reading
• UPSC IAS Exams Notes
• Developer's Best Practices
• Questions and Answers
• Effective Resume Writing
• HR Interview Questions
• Computer Glossary

Engineering Ethics - Chernobyl’s Case Study

The Chernobyl disaster was nuclear accident that occurred at Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant on April 26, 1986. A nuclear meltdown in one of the reactors caused a fire that sent a plume of radioactive fallout that eventually spread all over Europe.

Chernobyl nuclear reactor plant, built at the banks of Pripyat river of Ukraine , had four reactors, each capable of producing 1,000 MWs of electric power.

On the evening of April 25 th 1986 , a group of engineers, planned an electrical engineering experiment on the Number 4 Reactor. With their little knowledge on Nuclear physics, they thought of experimenting how long turbines would spin and supply power to the main circulating pumps following a loss of main electrical power supply.

Following is an image of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.

What Led to the Disaster?

Let us now see what led to the disaster.

The reactor unit 4 was to be shut down for routine maintenance on 25 April 1986. But, it was decided to take advantage of this shutdown to determine whether, in the event of a loss of station power, the slowing turbine could provide enough electrical power to operate the main core cooling water circulating pumps, until the diesel emergency power supply became operative. The aim of this test was to determine whether cooling of the core could continue in the event of a loss of power .

Due to the misconception that this experiment belongs to the non-nuclear part of the power plant, it was carried out without a proper exchange of information between the testing department and the safety department. Hence the test started with inadequate safety precautions and the operating personnel were not alerted to the nuclear safety implications of the electrical test and its potential danger.

The Experiment

According to the test planned, the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) of the reactor, which provides water for cooling the reactor core, was shut down deliberately.

For the test to be conducted, the reactor has to be stabilized at about 700-1000 MW prior to shut down, but it fell down to 5000 MW due to some operational phenomenon. Later, the operator working in the night shift committed an error, by inserting the reactor control rods so far. This caused the reactor to go into a near-shutdown state, dropping the power output to around 30 MW.

Since this low power was not sufficient to make the test and will make the reactor unstable, it was decided to restore the power by extracting the control rods, which made the power stabilize at 200 MW. This was actually a violation to safety law, due to the positive void co-efficiency of the reactor. Positive void coefficient is the increasing number of reactivity in a reactor that changes into steam. The test was decided to be carried out at this power level.

Actually, the reactors were highly unstable at the low power level, primarily owing to the control rod design and the positive void coefficient factors that accelerated nuclear chain reaction and the power output if the reactors lost cooling water.

The following image shows the reactor 4 where the experiment was conducted. This picture was taken after everything was restored.

At 1:23, on April 26 th 1986, the engineers continued with their experiment and shut down the turbine engine to see if its inertial spinning would power the reactor’s water pumps. In fact, it did not adequately power the water pumps and without the cooling water the power level in the reactor got surged.

The water pumps started pumping water at a slower rate and they together with the entry to the core of slightly warmer feed water, may have caused boiling (void formation) at the bottom of the core. This, along with xenon burn out, might have increased the power level at the core. The power level was then increased to 530 MW and continued to rise. The fuel elements were ruptured and lead to steam generation, which increased the positive void coefficient resulting in high power output.

The high power output alarmed the engineers who tried to insert all the 200 control rods, which is a conventional procedure done in order to control the core temperature. But these rods got blocked half the way, because of their graphite tip design. So, before the control rods with their five-meter absorbent material, could penetrate the core, 200 graphite tips simultaneously entered the core which facilitated the reaction to increase, causing an explosion that blew off the 1,000-ton heavy steel and concrete lid of the reactor, consequently jamming the control rods, which were halfway down the reactor. As the channel pipes begin to rupture, mass steam generation occurred as a result of depressurization of the reactor cooling circuit.

As a result, two explosions were reported. The first one was the initial steam explosion. Eventually, after two to three seconds, a second explosion took place, which could be possibly from the build-up of hydrogen due to zirconium-steam reactions.

All the materials such as Fuel, Moderator and Structural materials were ejected, starting a number of fires and the destroyed core was exposed to the atmosphere. In the explosion and ensuing fire, more than 50 tons of radioactive material were released into the atmosphere, where it was carried by air currents. This was 400 times to the amount of radioactive materials released at the time of Hiroshima bombing.

Fatal Effects of the Disaster

The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant disaster in Ukraine, is the only accident in the history of commercial nuclear power to cause fatalities from radiation.

There were many fatal effects due to the radiation released. A few of the effects are listed below −

Two workers had died. One immediately got burnt to ashes after the accident, while the other was declared dead at the hospital within few hours of admission.

28 emergency workers and staff died within 4 months of the accident due to the thermal burns and the radiation effect on their bodies.

This accident created 7,000 cases of thyroid cancer.

Acute radiation syndrome (ARS) was diagnosed in 237 people, who were on-site and involved in cleaning up

The land, air and ground water were all contaminated to a great extent.

The direct and indirect exposure to radiation led to many severe health problems such as Downs Syndrome, Chromosomal Aberrations, Mutations, Leukemia, Thyroid Cancer and Congenital Malfunctions, etc.

A number of plants and animal faced destruction as after-effect.

Lessons of Chernobyl

Published June 7, 2019

National Review Online

By Mona Charen

O n the morning of April 28, 1986, an employee of the Forsmark nuclear power plant an hour north of Stockholm was returning from a restroom break when his shoes set off the radiation alarm. Soon klaxons were sounding everywhere. Technicians scoured the plant. No leak. After performing chemical and other analysis, they determined that the radiation wasn’t coming from Forsmark. It wasn’t even coming from Sweden. It was fallout from Chernobyl, 700 miles away.

The excellent HBO series  Chernobyl  offers an overdue glimpse into the leviathan of lies that was the Soviet system. Some have nitpicked that a composite character was created or that the trial scene at the end wasn’t historically accurate, but these exercises in poetic license don’t detract from the overall impact, and are, in any case, openly acknowledged, not concealed.

Lies were the Soviet regime’s native tongue. From the annual “record” grain harvests to the  Katyn Forest  massacre; from the Gulag to  Lysenkoism  to the shootdown of KAL007 to the  Holomodor ; the system was a black hole from which truth could not escape.

When Sweden demanded an explanation of the radiation, the Soviets denied that anything was amiss. Days later, when other European governments were detecting fallout and when U.S. satellites had photographed Chernobyl’s smoldering roof, the official news agency grudgingly acknowledged that an accident had killed “two people” but that “the situation had now been stabilized and [is] under control.” A later (post-Soviet) Ukrainian parliamentary report described such reassurances as “disinformation” of “almost Mephistophelean proportions.” The reactor was open and spewing radioactivity. Scores were already dead, more were dying an agonizing death from acute radiation poisoning, and thousands were inhaling and eating and drinking the radioactive isotopes that would cause miscarriages, stillbirths, and thyroid and other cancers. As  The   Economist summarized, “Chernobyl led to thousands of deaths, including the Soviet Union.”

While Communist Party officials were bundling their families out of Ukraine, the people were kept in the dark. Doses of potassium iodide, if administered within ten days, can protect against thyroid cancer. But there was no program to distribute the medicine. The Ukrainian surgeon general asked that people be warned to at least stay inside, wash their vegetables, avoid drinking milk, and take other precautions, but the Central Committee demanded that May Day parades proceed as usual, along with outdoor weddings and bike races. On May 1 in Kiev, as invisible fallout rained down, children in shirtsleeves marched past reviewing stands that usually held Soviet officials. They stood empty.

The Soviets kept their eye on the ball — deceit. Phone lines were cut to Chernobyl to prevent unauthorized truth from escaping, while the official machinery of propaganda revved up. As Robert McConnell reported  in  National Review , a Soviet television “news” report showed a photo of the damaged reactor and explained, “As you can see for yourself, there is no enormous destruction that some Western agencies are writing about, or no great fires, as there are no thousands of dead . . .” The air and water in Kiev were safe, the Soviet government said. For good measure, the TASS  news agency added that the U.S. had experienced “2,300 nuclear accidents and breakdowns in 1979 alone.”

While the world reeled from reports of a massive nuclear plume dropping poison whichever way the wind blew; while frantic but secret efforts were underway in Soviet Ukraine to stanch the flow; and while 220,000 people had to flee their homes (leaving livestock and pets behind as the HBO series dramatizes in sad detail), the official statements from the Kremlin were as noxious as the site itself. Denouncing a “Poisoned Cloud of Anti-Sovietism,”  Moscow News  pointed the finger at a “premeditated and well-orchestrated campaign” to “cover up criminal acts of militarism by the USA and NATO against peace and security.”

The catastrophe was a direct result of official lies. The Chernobyl reactor, like others of Soviet design, lacked several key safety features — but operators were kept in ignorance.

It is hard to know just how many people were killed outright or suffered later cancers and other pathologies because of the accident. The Soviet state directed that only the most severe cases of radiation sickness be noted in patients’ records. Estimates of deaths vary from several thousand to hundreds of thousands. As tragic as they were, those deaths were a tiny fraction of the millions starved, shot, and worked to death by the Soviet Union.

It was among the most soul-crushing of regimes in human history and lies were at the core of its corruption. The Soviet Union is gone, but deceit lives on. The Chernobyl  series is a timely reminder and a metaphor: Lying, when it becomes a way of life, is radioactive.

© 2019 Creators.com

Mona Charen is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

The Gospel of Discontent: How Feminism Shattered Our Understanding of Motherhood

The Church of England and Cost-Free Righteousness

Hur hearing shows GOP will need more than age issue against Biden

Democrats Lie About Late-Term Abortion To Make Themselves Feel Better

EPPC BRIEFLY

Sign up to receive EPPC's biweekly e-newsletter of selected publications, news, and events.

Your support impacts the debate on critical issues of public policy.

Related Publications

The summer reading list: a ukrainian primer.

George Weigel

Given the rubbish about Ukraine spewed out by Russian propaganda trolls and regurgitated by foolish or ideologically besotted Americans, this…

Syndicated Column / June 8, 2022

Dobbs Hysteria and Russian Disinformation

There are striking parallels between the Russian disinformation campaign that continues to foul the global communications space in the third month of the war on Ukraine and the hysterical screeds of pro-abortion American politicians after a draft Supreme Court decision in the  Dobbs  case leaked.

Syndicated Column / May 18, 2022

The Pope and the Patriarch of Moscow

A meeting between the current Bishop of Rome and the current Patriarch of Moscow would not have been a meeting of two religious leaders. It would have been a meeting between a religious leader and an instrument of Russian state power.

Syndicated Column / April 27, 2022

Holy Week 2022: A Wartime Meditation

A lengthy healing process notwithstanding, Ukraine has experienced more than the Passion this Lent.

Syndicated Column / April 13, 2022

Stay Connected!

Are you enjoying this article? Share with a Friend!

Always see the latest from Mona Charen and other EPPC Scholars. Sign up for EPPC Briefly!

Chernobyl Disaster and Engineering Ethics

This paper examines the Chernobyl disaster ethical issues. Specifically, it analyses the engineering ethics, what went wrong, and how to avoid similar disasters in the future.

Chernobyl Disaster

Chernobyl ethical issues analysis, annotated bibliography.

This Chernobyl ethics case study reflects events that occurred on the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. The disaster of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant was the largest nuclear power accident in the history of the world. Discarded from the destroyed reactor to the atmosphere, nuclear fuel fission products were separated by air over considerable areas determining their contamination within the borders of Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus. The effects of contamination affected people, flora, and fauna, causing plenty of incurable diseases and even deaths.

Thousands of people were relocated over the exclusion zone. Engineers, who made a mistake in the design of the nuclear reactor, were recognized guilty in the accident. In this regard, the paper examines engineering ethical issues in Chernobyl disaster, resulting in the necessity of increasing engineers’ awareness of their essential mission, in particular, the improvement of humans’ lives.

April 26, 1986, the fourth unit of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant located on the territory of Ukraine was destroyed. It was the demolition of the explosive nature when the reactor was completely destroyed, releasing enormous quantities of radioactive substances in the environment. The accident is regarded as the largest of its kind in the history of nuclear energy, both in the estimated number of dead and injured people and economic damage. Chernobyl was the most powerful NPP in the USSR.

There were various explanations of the Chernobyl accident. However, only two of them stand out as the most scientific and reasonable. The essence of the first states that the staff of the fourth block of Chernobyl flagrantly violated regulations of the process of preparing and carrying out the electrical test. In other words, rules for the safe operation of the reactor were violated. The second note negligence in the management of the reactor plant and lack of understanding of personnel features of technological processes in a nuclear reactor.

The second state commission consisting mainly of the working staff, gave another explanation of reasons caused the Chernobyl accident. It determined that the fourth reactor had some structural deficiencies that led to the reactor explosion. Therefore, scientists and engineers who have created and designed the reactor graphite and propellants are to blame for the accident.

As a matter of fact, the consequences and ramifications of the accident were terrifying. The Chernobyl incident resulted in approximately 30 kilometers of the exclusion zone, where hundreds of small settlements were destroyed and buried by heavy machinery (Yablokov, Nesterenko, & Nesterenko, 2010). Some territories of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine had undergone the pollution. Affecting the human organism, caused radiation contamination leading to different diseases, including cancer, cataracts, cardiovascular diseases, and even death (Cardis & Hatch, 2011).

It is also should be noted that the UN report on Chernobyl disaster consequences states that the effect of radiation on human health was less than expected, and the relocation of residents from the 30 kilometers zone has brought more harm than good. It destroyed the local communities, families leading to unemployment and depression. Severe stress, the effects of which cannot be accurately assessed, influenced all the relocated people. Before the accident, the city’s population comprised 43 thousand people. Currently, the city is home only to the staff of institutions and enterprises of the exclusion zone operating on a rotational basis.

In this regard, it becomes obvious that the professional ethics of engineering and other technical professions should involve the pursuit of high quality of work. Creating objects of material culture, the engineer cannot work without the spiritual culture. The development of modern techno sphere makes engineering ethics very important and in demand. The case with Chernobyl makes it clear that the engineer should possess ethics to avoid any similar situations in the perspective.

Nowadays one might observe the ethnic pluralism that traced a steady increase of the attention to the professionalism and competence problems of the modern society. Ethical dominants followed by specialists are directly dependent on the risks faced by humanity. Hence, the relevance of discussing engineering ethics in the modern world has never been greater.

The disaster of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant was the largest nuclear power accident in the history of the world. Discarded from the destroyed reactor to the atmosphere, nuclear fuel fission products were separated by air over considerable areas determining their contamination within the borders of Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus. Thousands of people were relocated over the exclusion zone. Engineers, who made a mistake in the design of the nuclear reactor, were recognized guilty in the accident as they violated the code of ethics, particularly, the morality the engineering profession resulting in harm to society.

The Chernobyl disaster changed the scientific view of the world. Consequently, problems of technological risks were discussed not only by scientists but also by the general public. The very way of discussion of safety problems concerning nuclear reactors is changed.

The responsibility of politicians, engineers, designers, and operators as well as scientists became to be taken into account. It was stated that none of the social, economic, technical, and scientific interests can justify the harm to humans and the environment (Harris, Pritchard, Rabins, James, & Englehardt, 2013). The growth of technical and technological capacities of humanity creates the entirely new ethical situation that requires not only evaluation of the exploitation of techniques but also the possibility to anticipate disasters, prevent, or, at least, minimize it.

As shown by the accident at the Chernobyl, nuclear power technology development does not make people’s lives safer. The accident occurred because of a number of violations of rules of reactor facilities operation. On the fourth power unit, during its output for scheduled maintenance at night, several experiments were conducted involving the study of modes of turbo-generators work. Workers did not provide the appropriate oversight and did not take all the security measures. All in all, it was engineer’s fault, who made a mistake in the design of the reactor.

It goes without saying that such consequences of nuclear energy as the Chernobyl disaster cannot be predicted. Nevertheless, engineers should try to do it in relation to new projects conducting relevant researches and listening to the views of the opposition (Wilson, 2013).

It is expected that the technical work would always contain a necessary component of the assessment of the technology, and not everything that is technically feasible should be necessarily be created. In the framework of utilitarianism ethical theory, the principal task of the engineer is not only to measure the space but also create the safe environment based on ethical and social responsibility. People are more significant than technology. Therefore, the latter should satisfy requirements of a variety of values, namely, criteria of economy, improvement of living standards, safety, health, environmental quality, and social environment.

Cardis, E., & Hatch, M. (2011). The Chernobyl Accident – An Epidemiological Perspective. Clinical Oncology, 23 (4), 251-260.

“The Chernobyl Accident – An Epidemiological Perspective” by Cardis and Hatch investigates the affect of the catastrophe on the human organism. Authors stated that there is the obvious connection of that affect and risk of thyroid cancer. The ionizing radiation affects people every day by means of plenty of natural sources including cosmic rays and natural radioactive materials occurring in food, drink, and air. It is considered natural radiation. However, due to the high level of radiation, there is the evidence of diseases. The book is useful for the research as it emphasizes the effect of radiation level of Chernobyl incident.

Harris, C. E., Pritchard, M. S., Rabins, M. J., James, R., & Englehardt, E. (2013). Engineering ethics: Concepts and cases (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

The book “Engineering ethics: Concepts and cases” by Harris, Pritchard, Rabins, James, and Englehardt focuses on a system of moral principles that are applied in the practice of engineering. Authors of the book are considered scholars. Therefore, the credibility of the source cannot be argued. Combining theory and practice, the book demonstrates plenty of cases as well as offers a code of ethics and its application in practice. In addition, the book clearly explains the impact of engineering solutions on health, safety, and welfare of society. It was very significant for the research as promoted the comprehension of engineer’s morality.

Wilson, W. R. (2013). Using the Chernobyl Incident to Teach Engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19 (2), 625-640.

The article “Using the Chernobyl Incident to Teach Engineering” by Wilson reveals the approach to teaching engineers ethics. It demonstrates the situation when students combined in groups and asked to act and speak like those workers of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, comprehend the issue better and suggest concise and argumentative solutions. The author of the research is a professor of Muskingum University, New Concord, OH, USA. The intended audience of the article is engineering students. This credible source was rather helpful for the provided analysis as it contributed to the creating of possible decisions concerning ethical issues in engineering.

Yablokov, A. V., Nesterenko, V. B., & Nesterenko, A. V. (2010). Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment . Boston, MA: New York Academy of Sciences.

“Chernobyl: Consequences of the catastrophe for people and the environment” by Yablokov, Nesterenko, and Nesterenko reflects various consequences of the disaster. Authors clearly and successively point out all the ramifications including general morbidity, disability, non-malignant diseases, and other illnesses occurred as a result of the accidence. What is more, the book describes catastrophe consequences for the environment. In particular, it comprises radioactive effect on atmospheric, soil, and water. The book contributed to the understanding the degree of the disaster. It would be interesting and helpful as for students as well as for the average reader.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2020, October 21). Chernobyl Disaster and Engineering Ethics. https://studycorgi.com/chernobyl-disaster-and-engineering-ethics/

"Chernobyl Disaster and Engineering Ethics." StudyCorgi , 21 Oct. 2020, studycorgi.com/chernobyl-disaster-and-engineering-ethics/.

StudyCorgi . (2020) 'Chernobyl Disaster and Engineering Ethics'. 21 October.

1. StudyCorgi . "Chernobyl Disaster and Engineering Ethics." October 21, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/chernobyl-disaster-and-engineering-ethics/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Chernobyl Disaster and Engineering Ethics." October 21, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/chernobyl-disaster-and-engineering-ethics/.

StudyCorgi . 2020. "Chernobyl Disaster and Engineering Ethics." October 21, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/chernobyl-disaster-and-engineering-ethics/.

This paper, “Chernobyl Disaster and Engineering Ethics”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: June 8, 2022 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Browse Course Material

Course info.

• Dr. Taft Broome

Departments

• Engineering Systems Division

As Taught In

• Business Ethics
• Engineering

Learning Resource Types

Engineering ethics, 10: case studies: chernobyl, three mile island (cont.).

• Download video
• Download transcript

You are leaving MIT OpenCourseWare

• Author Rights
• Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

• JOLE 2023 Special Issue
• Editorial Staff
• 20th Anniversary Issue
• Examining a Chain Reaction of Lies: Using Chernobyl (Miniseries) to Teach Ethical Leadership

Ada T. Cenkci, Ph.D. 10.12806/V19/I4/PM1

“What is the cost of lies? It’s not that we will mistake them for the truth. The real danger is that, if we hear enough lies, then we no longer recognize the truth at all”- Valery Legasov, Chernobyl Miniseries (Mazin & Renck, 2019a).

Introduction

In recent years, there has been an increased interest in the ethical leadership topic. However, illustrating abstract ethical theories and their real-life applications may be challenging to facilitators. To overcome this issue, popular culture artifacts (PCAs) can be used. Doing so has several benefits, such as making the classroom material more fun for students, helping students to develop their critical thinking skills and aligning classroom materials with the real world (Centellas, 2010). PCAs are ideal for teaching leadership, because they enable learners to recognize current trends and understand concepts by using tools that pique their interest (Callahan et al ., 2007). Regarding which, this article explores how facilitators can utilize the Chernobyl miniseries to teach ethical leadership theories. In addition, even though there are differences between the scenario of the miniseries and what actually happened at Chernobyl (Shellenberger, 2019; Shramovych & Chornous, 2019; Conca, 2019; Gessen, 2019), the series is based on actual historical events and thus, this is not purely fiction. In sum, the unprecedented cleanup efforts after the nuclear disaster and ethical dilemmas faced by the main characters are likely to spark student interest in the topic.

To set the stage for the application of ethical theories to the Chernobyl miniseries, in the next section, I first examine the integration of PCAs into leadership education. After that, I present a review of the domains of ethical theories. Next, I explain the connection of ethical theories to the Chernobyl miniseries. Then, I provide discussion questions for classroom instruction along with the conclusion.

Using Popular Culture Artifacts (PCAs) in Leadership Education

Leadership educators have the challenging task of explaining abstract concepts and ideas to their students. Teachers of leadership have recognized the potential of popular media to illustrate abstract leadership concepts and  have been utilizing PCAs (such as movies, newspapers, television, books, and social media) in classroom settings to pursue this goal (Callahan et al ., 2007; Williams & McClure, 2010; Odom et al. , 2013). There are several benefits of integrating PCAs into leadership education. First, as stated earlier, PCAs are ideal for teaching leadership, because they enable learning by using tools that spark student interest. Second, PCAs serve as practical examples for understanding leadership theories. For when deploying these, leader decisions can be seen in context, and connections can be made between leader beliefs, values, and actions (Callahan et al ., 2007; English & Steffy, 1997). Furthermore, PCAs provide vicarious learning experiences, without the need to make mistakes personally to learn the leadership lessons (Callahan et al ., 2007). Cummins (2007) also pointed out that many of the same leadership problems take place across organizations for most leaders. The author added that with a careful selection of PCAs, it is possible to help leadership students to comprehend the potential solutions without the related cost of time and effort to handle every issue as a unique situation. Moreover, PCAs teach students to recognize connections and make inferences on phenomena from everyday contexts. The presumption here is that, if students apply leadership theories to PCAs, they will be capable of applying and using these theories in everyday life (Callahan et al., 2007). Such benefits of integrating PCAs into the classroom are supported by research, such as that of Callahan and Rosser (2007), Williams and McClure (2010), Wimmer et al. (2012), and Odom et al. (2013). Acknowledging these benefits, in this article, how the Chernobyl miniseries can be used to illustrate ethical theories is explained. In the following section, I briefly discuss the main domains of ethical theories.

Domains of Ethical Theories

Ethics is defined as “judgment about whether human behavior is right or wrong” (Johnson, 2018, p. xxii). Ethical theory provides a system of rules or principles that direct us when making decisions about what is right or wrong in a specific situation. We can divide ethical theories into two main domains: Theories about leaders’ Conduct and theories about leaders’ Character . Ethical theories that address the Conduct of the leaders are then divided into two types: Consequences (Teleological) and Duty (Deontological) theories (Northouse, 2013). In consequentialist theories, the rightness or wrongness of a decision is decided upon in regard to the action’s outcomes (Peach, 1995). When determining consequences, there are three different approaches to make decisions about moral conduct: Ethical Egoism , Utilitarianism, and Altruism (Northouse, 2013). While ethical egoism holds that people should pursue only their own wellbeing (Rachels, 2003), under utilitarianism, it is argued that one should attempt to create the greatest good for the greatest number of people (Johnson, 2018). Opposite to ethical egoism, under altruism, it is argued that our behaviors ought to be aimed at helping others, regardless of the personal cost (Johnson, 2018; Northouse, 2013).

Whilst Teleological theories focus on what actions will create which outcomes, Deontological ones consider whether the action itself is good. Actions such as telling the truth, being fair and keeping promises, are essentially good, regardless of the outcomes (Northouse, 2013). Deontological theories are also called duty ethics, because they emphasize ideas of obligation and duty (Banks, 2009). While Teleological and Deontological theories look at the behavior of the leader, a second domain of ethical theories approach ethics from the perspective of leaders’ Character (Northouse, 2013). These virtue-based theories consider who leaders are and propose that these virtues can be learned with practice (Rowe, 2007). These theories emphasize the development and training of moral values. Virtue ethics is strongly influenced by Aristotle. According to his writings, a moral person demonstrates virtues, such as courage, fairness, justice, self-control, temperance and generosity (Velasquez, 1992; Northouse, 2013).  Having outlined ethical theories, in the following section, I provide background information about the Chernobyl miniseries along with specific examples for each ethical theory covered.

Connecting Chernobyl (miniseries) to Ethics

Before discussing the examples from the miniseries, it is deemed beneficial to provide students some background information regarding the actual events in Chernobyl and the main characters of the series. Information about the Chernobyl accident can be provided by the facilitators, as outlined below, or they can ask their students to search for it.

About the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident.   On April 25 and 26, 1986, the worst nuclear accident in history happened in Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the Soviet Union (in today’s northern Ukraine). This incident was a turning point in both the Cold War and the history of nuclear power (Blakemore, n.d.). A safety test at the plant went quickly out of control and a series of explosions blew apart Chernobyl’s reactor No. 4. The Soviet authorities initially denied the accident and acted slowly to control it (Greenspan, 2019; Taylor, 2011). The explosion initially caused about 30 deaths and millions of people were subjected to dangerous radiation levels (Guy, 2019). Determining the wider impact of the accident on human health proved to be a difficult task, with estimates of associated deaths from cancer ranging from 4,000 to more than 200,000 (Taylor, 2011).

About Chernobyl (miniseries).   The Chernobyl TV series is a five-part miniseries that tells the story of the nuclear accident, including the events leading up to it and the cleanup efforts afterwards. In the series, we see how the Soviet State lies about the severity of the accident to protect the image of the Soviet nuclear industry. Later, the State insists that the fault of the accident rests solely on the plant operators even though the reactor had system flaws (Mazin et al ., 2019). We see from the series that one lie leads to others, creating a chain reaction of lies in the main.

Some of the main characters of the series are introduced below.

Valery Legasov: A leading Soviet nuclear physicist. He was brought in to help with the cleanup efforts.

Ulana Khomyuk: A Soviet nuclear physicist who investigates what caused to the Chernobyl disaster. Khomyuk is a fictional character based on the many nuclear scientists involved in the Chernobyl cleanup.

Boris Shcherbina: The Soviet Deputy Prime Minister. He is assigned by the Kremlin to lead the government commission on Chernobyl.

Anatoly Dyatlov: The deputy chief engineer at Chernobyl.

Nikolai Fomin: The chief engineer at Chernobyl.

Viktor Bryukhanov: The plant director at Chernobyl.

Mikhail Gorbachev: The General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

Charkov: The first deputy chairman of the KGB (the internal security agency for the Soviet Union) (Mazin et al ., 2019; About Chernobyl, n.d.).

Examples of Ethical Theories.   Chernobyl miniseries provides several clear examples for teaching ethical theories. Video clips from it can be used illustrate ethical leadership theories such that students can connect their knowledge of these to real life ethical decisions. These examples given below can be shown in class, with students being asked to identify which of the ethical theories the video clips fit best. Table 1 lists the ethical theories and the related examples from the Chernobyl miniseries along with their explanations are given below.

The TV series has some harrowing scenes (e.g. the hospital scenes in Episode 3) that may be hard to watch for some students and thus, using the selection of video clips, as given below, is recommended. Whilst these example video clips are chosen to illustrate the ethical theories, they are also provided to help students understand the main storyline of the series.

At the beginning of Episode 1, we see Legasov recording tapes, blaming engineer Dyatlov and others, hiding the tapes and eventually hanging himself (this scene is not shown directly). It would be beneficial to show about the first six minutes of Episode 1 to introduce the discussion of the examples below.

Ethical Theories and Examples from Chernobyl (miniseries)

Ethical Egoism.   Anatoly Dyatlov provides several clear examples of ethical egoism throughout the series. His personal ambition of getting promoted causes him to go on with the experiment. A video clip from Episode 5 (start time- 02:23, end time- 05:26) shows a flashback of a scene before the nuclear accident, where we see Dyatlov, Fomin, and Bryukhanov in a meeting. Bryukhanov explains that the safety test needs to be delayed and then asks Dyatlov whether the test can be conducted after a ten-hour delay. Eager to complete the test and get promotion, Dyatlov says it is safe to do so, even though this means conducting it with the night shift employees, who have not been trained to perform the experiment. We understand from the nuclear accident that it was actually not a suitable time for the safety test. This example shows Dyatlov’s ethical egoism, whereby he is motivated to protect his own wellbeing (Rachels, 2003).

Utilitarianism.   In one scene from Episode 2 (scene start time- 48:03, end time- 53:40), we see a meeting scene that includes Mikhail Gorbachev. Legasov and Khomyuk explaining the calamitous situation to the meeting’s attendees and they say that water should be drained from the plant basement to prevent a destructive thermal explosion. Legasov indicates that the help of three plant workers is necessary to pump out the water from the tanks. Khomyuk adds that it is likely that these employees will be dead in a week. Then, Legasov says the following to Gorbachev: “We are asking your permission to kill three men”. In response, Gorbachev says that “all victories inevitably come at a cost” (Mazin & Renck, 2019b) and authorizes the mission. This situation is an example of utilitarianism, because Gorboachev approves creating the greatest good for the greatest number of people (Johnson, 2018).

Altruism.   In another scene from Episode 2 (start time- 54:33, end time- 57:18), we see Legasov in a meeting with plant workers, explaining the situation and asking for their help to drain the water from the plant basement. Following workers’ objection to the deadly mission, Shcherbina steps in and addresses the workers. Among other points, he says that, “if you don’t, millions will die” (Mazin & Renck, 2019b). After his inspiring talk, three plant workers courageously volunteer even though this mission means their inevitable death. The plant workers’ selfless act is a great example of altruism, whereby they aim to help others, regardless of the personal cost to themselves (Johnson, 2018).

Deontological Theories.   In one scene from Episode 4 (start time- 53:55, end time- 1:00:19), we see that Shcherbina, Legasov and Khomyuk meet secretly, away from the KGB’s monitoring. During their discussion of the explosion, Legasov reveals that a similar accident happened in 1975 in another plant. He adds that an article explaining the cause of that accident was censored by the KGB to prevent the creation of any doubt on the supremacy of the Soviet nuclear industry. We are led to understanding that the State knew that there was a system error in both reactors and that the Chernobly accident was not only the plant operators’ fault. Khomyuk says that to fix the remaining reactors with the same issue, the truth needs to be revealed when Legasov addresses the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. Shcherbina then warns Legasov about telling this truth, by saying “when it is your life and the lives of everyone you love, your moral conviction does not mean anything” (Mazin & Renck, 2019c). On the other hand, Khomyuk encourages Legasov to speak the truth when she says, “someone has to start telling the truth” (Mazin & Renck, 2019c). Khomyuk’s talk here is an example of Deontological theories, because it emphasizes ideas of obligation and duty (Banks, 2009) to tell the truth.

Character (Virtue based) Theories.   The same video clip from Episode 4 can be used to illustrate character-based theories.  Khomyuk is an example of a moral person, because she demonstrates good virtues, such as courage and honesty, fairness and justice (Velasquez, 1992; Northouse, 2013). After discussing these examples, more detailed class discussions can be conducted.

Sample Questions for Classroom Discussion

Discussion Questions 1a and 1b: The objective in these questions (as set out below) is to apply the ethical theories to an individual dilemma. Before showing this clip, it would be beneficial to tell the students that Legasov did not tell the truth in Vienna. He is next scheduled to testify during the trial of Dyatlov, Fomin, and Bryukhanov regarding their involvement in the accident. Legasov will be awarded promotion, if he repeats the lie that the accident was solely the result of the operator error. In a clip from Episode 5 (start time- 08:40, end time- 13:08), we see that Khomyuk meets with Legasov in his apartment and this time tries to convince him to tell the truth at the trial. Khomyuk says that revealing the truth during the trial will force the State to fix the other reactors. Legasov objects to her and says that he has already given his life by willingly walking into an open reactor. Facilitators can stop the video at the end of this scene and ask students the following questions:

1a) What would you do if you were Legasov? Please explain your reasoning based on the ethical theories we have discussed.

1b) What would be the pros and cons of your decision? Please explain.

After students make their decisions, facilitators can show a portion of Legasov’s testimony during the trial when he tells the truth (Episode 5, scene start time- 47:25, end time- 54:55). During his testimony, Legasov says the following: “When the truth offends, we lie and lie until we can no longer remember it is even there, but it is still there. Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid” (Mazin & Renck, 2019d).

Discussion Question 2: The objective here is to apply the ethical theories to a class debate on ethical leadership. In a scene from Episode 1 (start time- 37:50, end time- 42:56), we see an emergency meeting of the town’s executive committee to discuss the situation. One attendee suggests the evacuation of the town, while Bryukhanov, Fomin, and Dyatlov claim that the accident is well under control and try to cover the truth of the calamity of the explosion. During the meeting, an elder statesman delivers a dramatic speech, encouraging those attending to have faith in the State. He says that “…when the people ask questions that are not in their own best interest, they should simply be told to keep their minds on their labor and leave matters of the State to the State” (Mazin & Renck, 2019a). Facilitators can show this video clip and then remind students about the leak of the Pentagon Papers in the US. Commissioned by the Department of Defense, Pentagon Papers provided a detailed history of the decision-making behind the U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia. In 1971, The New York Times began publishing a series of articles based on this report. The U.S. Department of Justice obtained a temporary order to stop further publication of the classified material, claiming that further dissemination of it would result in “immediate and irreparable harm” to U.S. national defense interests (Pentagon Papers, n.d.). After this introduction, facilitators can ask students the following questions:

Is it ethical for government officials to hide the truth from the public? How about doing so for reasons such as protecting national security interests or preventing public panic? Please explain your reasoning based on the ethical theories discussed in class.

Discussion Question 3a and 3b: The objective for question 3a is to locate recent examples of unethical behavior by leaders, which can help students to connect the discussed topics to their own lives. Question 3b aims to help students in developing their own leadership ethics perspective. For these questions, facilitators can use the following prompt:

Whilst the events happened in Chernobyl may seem merely to be something that happened in the past, we can see recent examples of hiding the truth from public. One example is Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica scandal. The investigation by the U.K. Information Commissioner’s Office found that Facebook failed to keep users’ personal information secure and allowed Cambridge Analytica to access the data of up to 87 million people worldwide without their consent (Zialcita, 2019). Facebook was accused of concealing the truth from the public (Bowne, 2018). Please answer the following questions:

3a) Provide a recent example of unethical behavior by government officials or business leaders in which they hide the truth from the public.

3b) What ethical leadership lessons can you take away from these examples and from Chernobyl miniseries for your own leadership development?

This article has demonstrated how a popular culture artifact (PCA) can be used to teach ethical leadership. As claimed earlier, PCAs are ideal for teaching leadership (Callahan et al. , 2007) and the Chernobyl miniseries offers excellent examples for teaching ethical leadership theories. In addition, the Chernobyl miniseries provides insights into the ethical dilemmas of the main characters in the context of an unpresented nuclear disaster, which it is anticipated will engender student interest in the topic. This article has provided examples and discussion questions that allow for students to apply ethical theories to specific situations, in addition to reflecting on their personal ethics. These activities can help students develop their personal ethical leadership perspectives and encourage them to be moral leaders. Plokhy (2018) stated, “The world has already been overwhelmed by one Chernobyl and one exclusion zone. It cannot afford any more. It must learn its lessons from what happened in and around Chernobyl on April 26, 1986” (p. 349), which underlines the importance of learning leadership lessons from the Chernobyl disaster for the development of such moral leaders.

About Chernobyl. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.hbo.com/chernobyl/about

Banks, C. (2009). Criminal justice ethics: Theory and practice (2 nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Blakemore, E. (n.d). The Chernobyl disaster: What happened, and the long-term impacts. National Geographic . Retrieved from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/topics/reference/chernobyl-disaster/

Bowne, R. (2018, April 26). Facebook ‘concealed the truth’ of what it knew about Cambridge Analytica, lawmaker claims. CNBC . Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/26/facebook-concealed-truth-of-cambridge-analytica-scandal-uk-mp-says.html

Callahan, J. L., & Rosser, M. H. (2007).  Pop goes the program: Using popular culture artifacts to educate leaders. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9 (2), 269-287. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422306298902

Callahan, J. L., Whitener, J. K., & Sandlin, J. A. (2007). The art of creating leaders: popular culture artifacts as pathways for development. Advances in Developing Human Resources , 9 (2), 146-165. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422306298856

Centellas, M. (2010). Pop culture in the classroom: American Idol, Karl Marx, and Alexis de Tocqueville. Political Science and Politics, 43 (3), 561-565. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096510000818

Conca, J. (2019, June 27). How HBO got it wrong on Chernobyl. Forbes. Retrieved from

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/06/27/how-hbo-got-it-wrong-on-chernobyl/#102b6c499ce8

Cumins, R. L. (2007). Can modern media inform leadership education and development? Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9 (2), 143-145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422306298855

English, F. W., & Steffy, B. E. (1997). Using film to teach leadership in educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 3 3(1), 107-115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X97033001006

Gessen, M. (2019, June 4). What HBO’s “Chernobyl” got right, and what it got terribly wrong. The New Yorker. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/what-hbos-chernobyl-got-right-and-what-it-got-terribly-wrong

Greenspan, J. (2019, July 21). Chernobyl timeline: how a nuclear accident escalated to a historic disaster. Retrieved from https://www.history.com/news/chernobyl-disaster-timeline

Guy, J. (2019, June 12). ‘Chernobyl’ producer calls on tourists to respect ‘terrible tragedy’ when taking photos. CNN . Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/chernobyl-tourism-respect-scli-intl/index.html

Johnson, C. E. (2018). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership (6 th Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Mazin, C., Strauss, C., Featherstone, J., Renck J., & Fry, C. (Executive Producers) (2019). Chernobyl Miniseries [Television series]. London, UK: Sister Pictures & The Mighty Mint.

Mazin, C. (Writer), & Renck, J. (Director) (2019a). 1:23:45 [Television series episode]. In C. Mazin, C. Strauss, J. Featherstone, J. Renck, & C. Fry (Executive Producers), Chernobyl Miniseries . London, UK: Sister Pictures & The Mighty Mint.

Mazin, C. (Writer), & Renck, J. (Director) (2019b). Please remain calm. [Television series episode]. In C. Mazin, C. Strauss, J. Featherstone, J. Renck, & C. Fry (Executive Producers), Chernobyl Miniseries. London, UK: Sister Pictures & The Mighty Mint.

Mazin, C. (Writer), & Renck, J. (Director) (2019c). “The Happiness of All Mankind”. [Television series episode]. In C. Mazin, C. Strauss, J. Featherstone, J. Renck, & C. Fry (Executive Producers), Chernobyl Miniseries. London, UK: Sister Pictures & The Mighty Mint.

Mazin, C. (Writer), & Renck, J. (Director) (2019d). “Vichnaya Pamyat”. [Television series episode]. In C. Mazin, C. Strauss, J. Featherstone, J. Renck, & C. Fry (Executive Producers), Chernobyl Miniseries. London, UK: Sister Pictures & The Mighty Mint.

Northouse, P. G. (2013). L eadership: Theory and practice ( 6 th Edition ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Odom, S. F., Jarvis, H. D., Sandlin, M. R., & Peek, C. (2013). Social media tools in the leadership classroom: Students’ perceptions of use. Journal of Leadership Education, 12 (1), 34-53.

Peach, L. (1995). An introduction to ethical theory. In R.L. Penslar (Ed.), Research ethics: Cases and materials (pp. 13-28). Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

Pentagon Papers (n.d.). Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pentagon-Papers

Plokhy, S. (2018). Chernobyl: The history of a nuclear catastrophe . New York, NY: Basic Books.

Rachels, J. (2003). The   elements   of   moral   philosophy . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Rowe, G. W. (2007). Cases in leadership . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Shellenberger, M. (2019, June 11). Top UCLA doctor denounces HBO’s “Chernobyl” as wrong and “dangerous”. Forbes . Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/06/11/top-ucla-doctor-denounces-depiction-of-radiation-in-hbos-chernobyl-as-wrong-and-dangerous/#459a57661e07

Shramovych, V. & Chornous, H. (2019, June 12). Chernobyl survivors assess fact and fiction in TV series. BBC . Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48580177

Taylor, A. (2011, March 23). The Chernobyl disaster: 25 years ago . The Atlantic . Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2011/03/the-chernobyl-disaster-25-years-ago/100033/

Velasquez, M. G. (1992). Business ethics: Concepts and cases (3 rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Williams, J., & McClure, M. (2010). The effects of teaching methods in leadership knowledge retention: An experimental design of lecture, experiential, and public pedagogy. Journal of Leadership Education, 9 (2), 86-100.

Wimmer, G., Meyers, C., Porter, H., & Shaw, M. (2012). Learning vicariously: Students’ reflections of the leadership lessons portrayed in the office. Journal of Leadership Education, 11 (2) 52-71.

Zialcita, P. (2019, October 30). Facebook pays $643,000 fine for role in Cambridge Analytica scandal. NPR . Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2019/10/30/774749376/facebook-pays-643-000-fine-for-role-in-cambridge-analytica-scandal

Engineering Ethics of Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island Research Paper

Introduction, the background of the two nuclear accidents, the causes of disasters, the principles of engineering ethics, breach of ethics in chernobyl and three mile island, the comparison of ethical implications in the two cases.

Ethical obligations are intrinsic to any profession; nonetheless, people often make little account of them, giving priority to the efficiency and accomplishments of their work. In occupational spheres where moral qualities are not considered important, one’s mistake usually has minor, short-term, and reversible consequences. However, in some cases, a breach of ethics can lead to significant detrimental outcomes. Negligence or an irresponsible attitude to work poses a threat to people’s safety, as it happened on the Three Mile Island, and result in long-term catastrophic repercussions, as illustrated by the Chernobyl tragedy. The two accidents serve as valuable lessons and warnings, showing the essential role of the human factor in the nuclear power industry. The well-functioning mechanisms and automated processes cannot guarantee stability and safety because an individual who makes major decisions is still prone to error. To review the mentioned events in the context of engineering ethics, it is necessary to study their history, causes, the underlying code of conduct, and professionals’ relative adherence to it.

The Chernobyl disaster is known for its drastic impact not only on the Ukrainian population and environment but also on the whole world. As Plokhy (2019) explains, the engineers working on the nuclear power plant were given the task to improve the automatic shutdown mechanisms and, consequently, establish a new emergency safety system. The ministry prompted them to run a corresponding test that would imitate the conditions of power failure (Plokhy, 2019). None of the workers had expected that the procedure would disrupt protective appliances. However, on April 6, 1986, an abrupt power emission during the reactor system test had caused an intense explosion (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2018). The resulting fire contributed to the destruction of Unit 4 and the extensive spread of radiation (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2018). Thus, the intention to enhance the work of the plant in case of emergency has turned into the worst nuclear catastrophe globally.

Despite the significant efforts of the responders to the Chernobyl accident, its consequences included the creation of the exclusion zone, people’s deaths, and worsening of the population’s health. The remaining reactors were eventually stopped, and the area within 30 kilometers of the plant was closed (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2018). Shortly after the disaster, 28 workers died, many others suffered from the radiation, and millions of people were exposed to the adverse impact in the contaminated areas (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2018). The drastic event has also led to the change in the mental health of the affected individuals. They are prone to depression, addictive behaviors, and anxiety; some people experience unrecognized physical symptoms, overestimate their conditions, and make negative predictions regarding their life span (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2018). The disaster’s widely spread outcomes should motivate society to pay more attention to safety within the industry.

The Three Mile Island occurrence is considered the most serious nuclear accident which happened in the United States. The personnel working on the plant on March 28, 1979, were unaware of the emergency feedwater valves closure after a maintenance procedure, which had an ultimate influence on their further actions (Filburn & Bullard, 2016). The absence of the main feedwater had stopped the turbine and caused a chain of complicated events and alarms which misled the operators into making wrong decisions (Filburn & Bullard, 2016). They had also missed the fact of inadequate core cooling and the failure of Power Operated Relief Valves, which resulted in radiation releases and gathering of hydrogen in the reactor’s vessel (Filburn & Bullard, 2016). The accident did not bring dangerous consequences because the large explosion was avoided. Nonetheless, being on the verge of the catastrophe makes that day on Three Mile Island admonitory.

The implications of the nuclear plant accident in the United States were realized later. According to Filburn and Bullard (2016), although people’s exposure to the radiation was insignificant and they did not suffer from long-term health issues, the event entailed economic losses. The rectification of the consequences demanded time and money – ten years and approximately one billion dollars respectively (Filburn & Bullard, 2016). Removing the fuel remains and the subsequent careful examination of the ill-conditioned components helped investigate the matter, and the proper recycling of radioactive waste ensured safety on the plant’s territory (Filburn & Bullard, 2016). Moreover, Three Mile Island aims at full decontamination of Unit 2 by 2034 (Filburn & Bullard, 2016). The accident did not impact the environmental situation in the region and did not worsen the residents’ health, but it caused financial troubles for the involved parties.

The Chernobyl catastrophe is viewed as unprecedented because of its unique circumstances and contributing factors. First of all, the utilized RBMK reactor included a mixture of a graphite moderator and water coolant and was considered unacceptable outside the Soviet Union because of its instability (The Nuclear Energy Institute, 2019). It means that the respective authorities ignored the risks associated with the item’s characteristics. The reactor’s conditions were difficult to predict at low power due to its peculiarities: the absence of cooling water increased the speed of the nuclear chain reaction and power output (The Nuclear Energy Institute, 2019). Secondly, the plant was less protected in comparison with similar buildings in the world. It was deprived of the reinforced containment structure, which allowed radioactive materials to enter the environment (The Nuclear Energy Institute, 2019). Consequently, the Chernobyl power station was not prepared for emergency situations, which made it much more dangerous than other nuclear plants.

There is no doubt that the causes of the Chernobyl tragedy are also related to the human factor. As stated in “Low Safety Culture” (2019), at that time, economic and sociopolitical aspects in the atomic energy sphere were not legally regulated. There was no person fully responsible for the safety of nuclear power utilization (“Low Safety Culture,” 2019). The plant’s Unit 4 was subject to prearranged maintenance; and operators had to perform the procedures determining whether the equipment can maintain enough power for the cooling system during the transition phase (Plokhy, 2019). However, the workers did not take proper precautions when performing the system testing because they were not aware of the existing risks. Most importantly, they were under the pressure of the deputy chief engineer, focused on the task accomplishment, and could not prioritize safety (“Low Safety Culture,” 2019). Thus, the system of seniority prevailed overprotective measures, leading to the disaster.

Regarding Three Mile Island, the reasons for the accident included minor failures of equipment and inadequate control instrumentation. The chain of events began when the malfunction of the secondary cooling circuit increased the temperature, the subsequent step of the reactor occurred, and the relief valve could not close (World Nuclear Association, 2020). However, the control room instrumentation did not detect the problem. The unnoticed stuck of the pilot-operated relief valve (PORV) has led to a series of misconceptions, which prevented the staff from the timely and effective actions and shifted their focus in the wrong direction. They underestimated the significance of the PORV and the block valve because the manufacturer was unaware of its safety function during accident loads (Rosztoczy, 2019). The flaws in the design of the plant systems had led to confusion during their handling.

The Three Mile Island accident was not deprived of human errors as well. Because of the deficient instrumentation with indicators and the lack of training in a similar situation, the operators could not decide on the appropriate course of actions. Rosztoczy (2019) explains that unable to find the problem, they were improvising and counted on the pressurizer water level data. The employees made several mistakes, such as shutting the emergency core cooling system, opening the letdown line, missing overheating of the core, and injecting radioactive water into the auxiliary building (Rosztoczy, 2019). These errors were fixed late as the partial meltdown had already occurred. Besides, the operators’ training constituted their preparation for the worst scenario. Their treatment of the situation as a minor did not allow seeing it as potentially dangerous and prevented the workers from reacting to it more seriously (Filburn & Bullard, 2016). Therefore, the incorrect approach to the staff coaching subjected the power station to a disturbing experience.

Those individuals who are involved in the nuclear industry should recognize the basic moral values connected with radiological protection. The first one involves beneficence, which is the facilitation of good, and nonmaleficence – the avoidance of doing harm. The principles are realized in the protection of society from the adverse influence of radiation and minimizing the likelihood of threats (Cho et al., 2018). The second – prudence – means one’s competence to make informed and thought-out choices depending on what they can do in the given circumstances (Cho et al., 2018). The virtue is related to the obligation to monitor radiological conditions and make sound decisions even when facing uncertainties (Cho et al., 2018). The third value is dignity; it implies that every individual deserves unconditional respect and has the right to take or reject the risk (Cho et al., 2018). The final principle – justice – constitutes the equal distribution of benefits and losses, which means that people’s exposure to radiation should be limited, but not at the expense of others (Cho et al., 2018). The underlying ethical values should become a norm for the workers of nuclear power plants.

The practical application of moral principles can be reflected in such aspects as accountability, transparency, and inclusiveness. The first concept obliges a person or an organization to take responsibility for their actions and related consequences, as well as the provided advice, given order, and developed requirements (Cho et al., 2018). The second one means the establishment of explicit procedures and demands, ensuring unimpeded access to the information which impacts society and the environment (Cho et al., 2018). The last aspect reflects the freedom of stakeholder participation, allowing for the possibility to involve other people besides specialists in the radiological protection because it serves their interests (Cho et al., 2018). The collaboration between the experienced professionals and stakeholders helps them approach an issue in a comprehensive manner and contributes to mutual understanding. The adherence to the accountability, transparency, and inclusiveness elements is the key to upholding safety within the nuclear industry.

Engineers are respectable professionals; given the nature of their work, they are expected to follow the most demanding guidelines of ethical conduct and conform to the corresponding code. The National Society of Professional Engineers offers a comprehensive, detailed, and well-organized set of requirements for the individuals choosing this occupation. It outlines the rules of practice, dividing them into five categories (National Society of Professional Engineers, 2019). According to the code, engineers should prioritize the public’s safety, health and welfare, work only in the spheres of their competence, and deliver unbiased information to the population (National Society of Professional Engineers, 2019). Furthermore, the representatives of this profession should be faithful to their employers and clients and refrain from fraudulent acts (National Society of Professional Engineers, 2019). The engineering practice means complying with the highest ethical standards.

People working in the nuclear industry are prepared to undertake a number of obligations connected to their job. For example, engineers make honesty and integrity their moral priority, serve the public interest, avoid potentially misleading actions, and preserve the confidentiality of the clients or employees (National Society of Professional Engineers, 2019). They do not allow conflicting interests to hinder their judgment and do not purposefully worsen the reputation of colleagues to obtain a promotion (National Society of Professional Engineers, 2019). On the contrary, the professionals recognize the proprietary rights of others and accept personal responsibility for their work (National Society of Professional Engineers, 2019). The National Society of Professional Engineers recognizes that their activities directly influence people’s quality of life, setting enhanced demands regarding one’s virtues. Such an attitude is commendable and promising in terms of the safety of nuclear power stations.

The tragedy of Chernobyl and its causes can be explained by the absence of certain ethical standards, beginning from the government officials and ending with ordinary performers. The desire to keep pace with other countries has prompted the Soviet Union led to building own nuclear power plant. Nikita Khrushchev ignored the engineers’ warnings that it would be dangerous to use uranium-graphite channel-type reactors to produce electricity (“Low Safety Culture,” 2019). The alternative options were inapproachable because of the technological complexity of the reactor vessel production (“Low Safety Culture,” 2019). Thus, one can perceive the leader’s decision as contradicting the principles of nonmaleficence, accountability, and inclusiveness: he did not prevent harm, possess a sense of responsibility, and consider the public interests. Moreover, Khrushchev was acting beyond his area of competence, refusing to accept the advice of specialists in the field. Such breach of ethics has served as a prerequisite for future disaster, given the flawed design of the reactor.

A further breach of ethics can be seen right before the accident on the Chernobyl station and even afterward. As evident from the background description, the plant operators were forced to perform a risky procedure, prioritizing the deputy chief engineer’s orders over safety (“Low Safety Culture,” 2019). The head manager did not adhere to the principles of prudence and dignity, threatening everyone’s well-being and showing no respect for his employees. He also did not demonstrate the willingness to ensure public welfare. When the catastrophe occurred, despite the reactor’s flawed design, the officials could have limited radioactive exposure (The Nuclear Energy Institute, 2019). Nonetheless, the plant operators hid the news from authorities and the affected population, which led to the late evacuation alert and people’s consumption of contaminated food (The Nuclear Energy Institute, 2019). Such actions signify the breach of nonmaleficence, justice, transparency, as well as providing false information, ignoring public interests, and avoiding accountability. The continued disregard of ethics has resulted in long-term and extensive outcomes.

The Three Mile Island accident presents slightly different aspects, given that its consequences were manageable and reversible. Firstly, the safety function of PORV was disrupted because such a requirement was not indicated in its purchase order (Rosztoczy, 2019). The supplier did not comprehend the client’s demand, which illustrates the violation of beneficence, prudence, and inclusiveness due to poor communication and the reluctance to reach mutual understanding. Secondly, the design of the control room was not well-thought-out because the operators found it difficult to notice and interpret the indicators (World Nuclear Association, 2020). It means that the individuals responsible for this work did not organize the procedures explicitly and did not strive to contribute to the employees’ welfare and favorable job conditions. These various shortcomings had affected the involved personnel, causing their quite rambling actions and making their diagnostic process increasingly complicated.

The plant’s staff had played the greatest role in the Three Mile Island disaster because of their non-adherence to the expected ethical conduct. Some of the operators were not experienced enough to handle emergency cases, and the previous training did not seem to prepare them for such situations. It included the mitigation of the presupposed accidents, but very small of them, such as PORV failure, were not analyzed by the designer and consequently were excluded from the program (Rosztoczy, 2019). Without considering the station’s reaction to such a breakdown, instructors had taught the operators to rely on the pressurizer water level indication for water level measurements

in the reactor coolant system (Rosztoczy, 2019). The individuals who had developed the training of operators demonstrated the breach of accountability and beneficence because they did not offer a comprehensive preparation that would prove their professionalism and become useful to the students. In turn, the operators did not act within their area of competence as their knowledge was insufficient during the accident. The company’s staff should have been educated on the engineering code of conduct to comply with the necessary requirements.

The difference in the consequences of the two discussed disasters is significant because of the variations in the ethical culture of the United States and the Soviet Union. While the related issues were regulated in the U.S. during the corresponding accident, the USSR did not have clearly developed rules of professional conduct in the nuclear industry (The Nuclear Energy Institute, 2019). In addition, the economic progress of the foreign countries has placed the latter state in an unfavorable position. To withstand the competition, the Soviet Union had to make fast decisions and focus on efficiency and production volume, ignoring ethical obligations, including safety (“Low Safety Culture,” 2019). The authoritarian regimen disapproved initiative and demanded upholding the system of seniority. Conversely, the U.S. continued to promote democratic values and recognized the importance of collaboration. Therefore, the existence of ethical standards and better technical conditions did not result in the tragedy in Three Mile Island, but placing competition and authority before safety caused the Chernobyl tragedy.

The dissimilar outcomes of the accidents can be commented on based on the different attitudes to the precautions, which can be partially attributed to the people’s mentality. The Chernobyl disaster was provoked because of the breach of transparency and accountability. The workers performed a dangerous test without being aware of the potential consequences as the leaders ignored or hid these details (The Nuclear Energy Institute, 2019). The procedure was not accompanied by the proper safety procedures because nobody was responsible solely for this aspect (“Low Safety Culture,” 2019). On the Three Mile Island plant, the employees did not conduct questionable procedures under pressure and were just subject to an unexpected situation. They took corrective actions as soon as possible, and the serious influence of the accident was avoided (Rosztoczy, 2019). Thus, taking safety measures means following ethical standards and preventing detrimental events.

Nevertheless, both disasters involved a breach of engineering ethics and needed improvement in this realm. The accidents have revealed gaps in the leaders’ and subordinates’ accountability, prudence, and transparency, which formed the prerequisites for the occurred issues (“Low Safety Culture,” 2019). Some individuals acted beyond their competency area and provided misleading information, for instance, the chief engineer on the Chernobyl nuclear station and the managers organizing the training of employees on Three Mile Island. Furthermore, both accidents have illustrated the incidences of violating the principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, and inclusiveness, revealing the professionals’ inability to sympathize and communicate in an efficient manner. The underlying standards of honesty and integrity were not followed as well. One can notice that every breach of ethical obligations can hinder the safety of the enterprise, which is why it is crucial to uphold the existing codes of conduct within the nuclear industry.

The analysis of engineering ethics related to the disasters in Chernobyl and on Three Mile Island requires examining their backgrounds and factors, viewing the accepted principles and standards, and assessing compliance of the involved parties. The former tragedy has happened after the system test resulted in the massive explosion, people’s deaths, diseases, and considerable harm to the local environment. The latter accident involved partial melting of the reactor’s core due to the unnoticed problem and incorrect series of actions; it entailed mostly economic losses. The causes of the Chernobyl event included poor design of the reactor and the human factor, while the Three Mile Island incident occurred due to minor equipment deficiencies and the insufficient preparation of the operators. In this light, the obligatory aspects of industry ethics encompass nonmaleficence, prudence, justice, dignity, accountability, transparency, and inclusivity. In the Chernobyl case, mostly all involved individuals violated at least one ethical principle, while in the other event the breach was limited to the designer’s fault and inadequate training of the employees. The comparison of the disasters allows concluding that improving the ethical culture will help enhance nuclear power safety.

Cho, K. W. et al. (2018). ICRP Publication 138: Ethical foundations of the system of radiological protection. Annals of the ICRP, 47 (1), 1-65.

Filburn, T., & Bullard, S. (2016). Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima: Curse of the nuclear genie. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

Low safety culture of the entire system – The cause of the Chernobyl accident. (2019).

National Society of Professional Engineers. (2019). Code of ethics for engineers [PDF document].

Plokhy, S. (2019). Chernobyl: History of a tragedy. London, UK: Penguin Books.

Rosztoczy, Z. R. (2019). Root causes of the Three Mile Island accident . Nuclear News.

The Nuclear Energy Institute. (2019). Chernobyl accident and its consequences .

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (2018). Backgrounder on Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident.

World Nuclear Association. (2020). Three Mile Island accident .

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, February 26). Engineering Ethics of Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island. https://ivypanda.com/essays/engineering-ethics-of-chernobyl-and-the-three-mile-island/

"Engineering Ethics of Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island." IvyPanda , 26 Feb. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/engineering-ethics-of-chernobyl-and-the-three-mile-island/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Engineering Ethics of Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island'. 26 February.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Engineering Ethics of Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island." February 26, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/engineering-ethics-of-chernobyl-and-the-three-mile-island/.

1. IvyPanda . "Engineering Ethics of Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island." February 26, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/engineering-ethics-of-chernobyl-and-the-three-mile-island/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Engineering Ethics of Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island." February 26, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/engineering-ethics-of-chernobyl-and-the-three-mile-island/.

• Chernobyl Catastrophe, Its Impacts and Regulations
• Three Miles Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima Disasters
• Chernobyl Disaster: Ethical Aspects and Effects
• How Chernobyl Accident Happened
• Chernobyl Nuclear Plant Disaster
• The Chernobyl Tragedy and Hurricane Katrina
• Background Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster
• The Chernobyl Disaster: Influence on Human Health
• The Chernobyl Disaster: Time, Distance and Shielding
• How Chernobyl Affected Animals?
• Engineering Hardware Identification
• Nikola Tesla's Inventions and Achievements
• Very-Low-Frequency Testing of Cables
• Characterisation of Large Disturbance Rotor Angle and Voltage Stability in Interconnected Power Networks with Distributed Wind Generation
• Water Treatment System for Saline Bores in Cape York

• Ethics in Culture

The Ethics of Scientific Advice: Lessons from “Chernobyl”

The recently-released HBO miniseries Chernobyl highlights several important moral issues that are worth discussing. For example, what should we think about nuclear power in the age of climate change? What can disasters tell us about government accountability and the dangers of keeping unwelcome news from the public? This article will focus on the ethical issues concerning scientists potential to influence government policy. How should scientists advise governments, and who holds them accountable for their advice? 

In the second episode, the Soviet Union begins dumping thousands of tons of sand and boron onto the burning nuclear plant at the suggestion of physicist Valery Legasov. After consulting fellow scientist Ulana Khomyuk (a fictional character who represents the many other scientists involved), Legasov tells Soviet-leader Gorbachev that in order to prevent a potential disaster, drainage pools will need to be emptied from within the plant in an almost certain suicide mission. “We’re asking for your permission to kill three men,” Legasov reports to the Soviet government. It’s hard to imagine a more direct example of a scientist advising a decision with moral implications. 

Policy makers often lack the expertise to make informed decisions, and this provides an opportunity for scientists to influence policy. But should scientists consider ethical or policy considerations when offering advice? 

On one side of this debate are those who argue that scientists primary responsibility is to ensure the integrity of science. This means that scientists should maintain objectivity and should not allow their personal moral or religious convictions to influence their conclusions. It also means that the public should see science as an objective and non-political affair. In essence, science must be value-free.

This value-free side of the debate is reflected in the mini-series’ first episode. It ends with physicist Legasov getting a phone call from Soviet minister Boris Shcherbina telling him that he will be on the commission investigating the accident. When Legasov begins to suggest an evacuation, Shcherbina tells him, “You’re on this committee to answer direct questions about the function of an RBMK reactor…nothing else. Certainly not policy.”

Those who argue for value-free science often argue that scientists have no business trying to influence policy. In democratic nations this is seen as particularly important since policy makers are accountable to voters while scientists are not. If scientists are using ethical judgments to suggest courses of action, then what mechanism will ensure that those value judgments reflect the public’s values?

In order to maintain the value-free status of science, philosophers such as Ronald N. Geire argue that there is an important distinction between judging the truth of scientific hypotheses and judging the practical uses of science. A scientist can evaluate the evidence for a theory or hypotheses, but they shouldn’t evaluate whether one should rely on that theory or hypothesis to make a policy decision. For example, a scientist might tell the government how much radiation is being released and how far it will spread, but they should not advise something like an evacuation. Once the government is informed of relevant details, the decision of how to respond should be left entirely to elected officials. 

Opponents of this view, however, argue that scientists do have a moral responsibility when offering advice to policy makers and believe that scientists shouldering this responsibility is desirable. Philosopher Heather Douglas argues that given that scientists can be wrong, and given that acting on incorrect information can lead to morally important consequences, scientists do have a moral duty concerning the advice they offer to policy makers. Scientists are the only ones who can fully appreciate the potential implications of their work. 

In the mini-series we see several examples where only the scientists fully appreciate the risks and dangers from radiation, and are the strongest advocates of evacuation. In reality, Legasov and a number of other scientists offered advice on how to proceed with cleaning up the disaster. According to Adam Higginbotham’s Midnight in Chernobyl: The Untold Story of the World’s Greatest Nuclear Disaster , the politicians were ignorant of nuclear physics, and the scientists and technicians were too paralyzed by indecision to commit to a solution.

In the real-life disaster, the scientists involved were frequently unsure about what was actually happening. They had to estimate how fast various parts of the core might burn and whether different radioactive elements would be released into the air. Reactor specialist Konstantin Fedulenko was worried that the boron drops were having limited effect and that each drop was hurling radioactive particles into the atmosphere. Legasov disagreed and told him that it was too late to change course. Fedulenko believed it was best to let the graphite fire burn itself out, but Legasov retorted, “People won’t understand if we do nothing…We have to be seen to be doing something.” This suggests that the scientists were not simply offering technical advice but were making judgments based on additional value and policy considerations. 

Again, according to Douglas, given the possibility for error and the potential moral consequences at play, scientists should consider these consequences to determine how much evidence is enough to say that a hypothesis is true or to advise a particular course of action. 

In the mini-series, the government relies on monitors showing a low level of radiation to initially conclude that the situation is not bad enough to warrant an evacuation. However, it is pointed out the radiation monitors being used likely only had a limited maximum range, and so the radiation could be much higher than the monitor would tell them. Given that they may be wrong about the actual amount of radiation and the threat to public health, a morally-responsible scientist might conclude that evacuation be suggested to policy makers. 

While some claim that scientists shouldn’t include these considerations, others argue that they should. Certainly, the issue isn’t limited to nuclear disasters either. Cases ranging from climate change to food safety, chemical and drug trials, economic policies, and even the development of weapons, all present a wide array of potential moral consequences that might be considered when offering scientific advice. 

It’s difficult to say a scientist shouldn’t make morally relevant consequences plain to policy makers. It often appears beneficial, and it sometimes seems unavoidable. But this liberty requires scientists to practice judgment in determining what a morally relevant consequence is and is not. Further, if scientists rely on value judgments when advising government policy, how are scientists to be held accountable by the public? Given these benefits and concerns, whether we want scientists to make such judgments and to what extent their advice should reflect those judgments presents an important ethical dilemma for the public at large. Resolving this dilemma will at least require that we be more aware of how experts provide policy advice.

On Ye and Edgelords

Utilitarian Justification for Survivor Cannibalism?

The Lengths to Which We Go: Part 2

The Lengths to Which We Go: Part 1

Receive a weekly digest of our best content!

Using the Chernobyl incident to teach engineering ethics

Affiliation.

• 1 Muskingum University, New Concord, OH, USA. [email protected]
• PMID: 22170503
• DOI: 10.1007/s11948-011-9337-4

This paper discusses using the Chernobyl Incident as a case study in engineering ethics instruction. Groups of students are asked to take on the role of a faction involved in the Chernobyl disaster and to defend their decisions in a mock debate. The results of student surveys and the Engineering and Science Issues Test indicate that the approach is very popular with students and has a positive impact on moral reasoning. The approach incorporates technical, communication and teamwork skills and has many of the features suggested by recent literature.

• Chernobyl Nuclear Accident*
• Data Collection
• Decision Making / ethics*
• Engineering* / education
• Engineering* / ethics
• Problem Solving / ethics*
• Problem-Based Learning / methods*

Europe PMC requires Javascript to function effectively.

Either your web browser doesn't support Javascript or it is currently turned off. In the latter case, please turn on Javascript support in your web browser and reload this page.

Search life-sciences literature (43,868,772 articles, preprints and more)

• Available from publisher site using DOI. A subscription may be required. Full text
• Citations & impact
• Similar Articles

Using the Chernobyl incident to teach engineering ethics.

Author information, affiliations.

• Wilson WR 1

Science and Engineering Ethics , 15 Dec 2011 , 19(2): 625-640 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9337-4   PMID: 22170503 

Abstract 

Full text links .

Read article at publisher's site: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9337-4

References 

Articles referenced by this article (47)

ABET. (2010). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs, 2011–2012 review cycle. Reference document. Accrediting Board for Engineering and Technology. http://www.abet.org/Linked Documents-UPDATE/Program Docs/abet-eac-criteria-2011-2012.pdf. Accessed July 15, 2011.

Ballantyne, r., & bain, j. (1995). enhancing environmental conceptions: an evaluation of cognitive conflict and structured controversy learning units. studies in higher education, 20(3). available from: ebscohost. accessed august 3, 2011., bernstein, j. l., & meizlish, d. s. (2003). becoming congress: a longitudinal study of the civic engagement implications of a classroom simulation. simulation & gaming, 34(2), 198–219., bero, b., & kuhlman, a. (2010). teaching ethics to engineers: ethical decision making parallels the engineering design process. science and engineering ethics. june 04 2010 (online 1st)., bird, s. r., & erickson, k. a. (2010). a constructive controversy approach to “case studies”. teaching sociology, 38(2), 119–131., the engineering and science issues test (esit): a discipline-specific approach to assessing moral judgment..

Borenstein J , Drake MJ , Kirkman R , Swann JL

Sci Eng Ethics, (2):387-407 2009

MED: 19597969

Brown, K. M. (1994). Using role play to integrate ethics into the business curriculum: A financial management example. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(2), 105–110.

Development of role-play scenarios for teaching responsible conduct of research..

Brummel BJ , Gunsalus CK , Anderson KL , Loui MC

Sci Eng Ethics, (3):573-589 2010

MED: 20593245

Colby, A., & Sullivan, W. M. (2008). Ethics teaching in undergraduate engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 327–338.

Crain, w. c. (2011). kohlberg’s stages of moral development. in theories of development: concepts and applications (pp. 157–179). boston: prentice hall., citations & impact , impact metrics, citations of article over time, article citations, engineering students as co-creators in an ethics of technology course..

Bombaerts G , Doulougeri K , Tsui S , Laes E , Spahn A , Martin DA

Sci Eng Ethics , 27(4):48, 23 Jul 2021

Cited by: 1 article | PMID: 34297187 | PMCID: PMC8302512

A Systematic Literature Review of US Engineering Ethics Interventions.

Hess JL , Fore G

Sci Eng Ethics , 24(2):551-583, 11 Apr 2017

Cited by: 11 articles | PMID: 28401510

Effective Practices in the Delivery of Research Ethics Education: A Qualitative Review of Instructional Methods.

Todd EM , Torrence BS , Watts LL , Mulhearn TJ , Connelly S , Mumford MD

Account Res , 24(5):297-321, 01 Mar 2017

Cited by: 9 articles | PMID: 28332862

A Meta-analytic Comparison of Face-to-Face and Online Delivery in Ethics Instruction: The Case for a Hybrid Approach.

Todd EM , Watts LL , Mulhearn TJ , Torrence BS , Turner MR , Connelly S , Mumford MD

Sci Eng Ethics , 23(6):1719-1754, 01 Feb 2017

Cited by: 11 articles | PMID: 28150177

Validation and Use of a Predictive Modeling Tool: Employing Scientific Findings to Improve Responsible Conduct of Research Education.

Mulhearn TJ , Watts LL , Todd EM , Medeiros KE , Connelly S , Mumford MD

Account Res , 24(4):195-210, 22 Dec 2016

Cited by: 1 article | PMID: 28005407

Similar Articles 

To arrive at the top five similar articles we use a word-weighted algorithm to compare words from the Title and Abstract of each citation.

Sci Eng Ethics , 16(2):387-407, 14 Jul 2009

Cited by: 19 articles | PMID: 19597969

Teaching ethics to engineers: ethical decision making parallels the engineering design process.

Bero B , Kuhlman A

Sci Eng Ethics , 17(3):597-605, 04 Jun 2010

Cited by: 4 articles | PMID: 20524076

The Roles of Implicit Understanding of Engineering Ethics in Student Teams' Discussion.

Lee EA , Grohman M , Gans NR , Tacca M , Brown MJ

Sci Eng Ethics , 23(6):1755-1774, 22 Dec 2016

Cited by: 1 article | PMID: 28005255

A pathway for moral reasoning in home healthcare.

McCormick-Gendzel M , Jurchak M

Home Healthc Nurse , 24(10):654-61; quiz 670-1, 01 Nov 2006

Cited by: 4 articles | PMID: 17135844

Ethical decision making in intrapartum nursing.

Simmonds AH

J Perinat Neonatal Nurs , 26(4):327-335, 01 Oct 2012

Cited by: 0 articles | PMID: 23111721

Europe PMC is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

• Open Advanced Search
• Enterprise Plans

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day.  Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn more →.

Sorry, your browser isn't supported.

Upgrading to a modern browser will give you the best experience with DeepDyve.

• Google Chrome

Using the Chernobyl Incident to Teach Engineering Ethics

• References BETA
• Recommended
• Add to Folder

Have problems reading an article? Let us know here.

Thanks for helping us catch any problems with articles on DeepDyve. We'll do our best to fix them.

How was the reading experience on this article?

Check all that apply - Please note that only the first page is available if you have not selected a reading option after clicking "Read Article".

Include any more information that will help us locate the issue and fix it faster for you.

Thank you for submitting a report!

Submitting a report will send us an email through our customer support system.

References (53)

David Johnson, Roger Johnson (1979)

Review of Educational Research , 49

R. Ballantyne, J. Bain (1995)

Studies in Higher Education , 20

R. Rosnow (1990)

Teaching of Psychology , 17

I. Doron (2007)

Educational Gerontology , 33

B. Newberry (2004)

Science and Engineering Ethics , 10

D. Wareham, Takis Elefsiniotis, D. Elms (2006)

European Journal of Engineering Education , 31

David Johnson, Roger Johnson, K. Smith (2000)

Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning , 32

M Tichy, DW Johnson, RT Johnson, CJ Roseth (2010)

Journal of Applied Psychology , 40

J. Herkert (2004)

IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 2004.

J. Bernstein, D. Meizlish (2003)

Simulation & Gaming , 34

D. Strohmetz, Anne Skleder (1992)

Teaching of Psychology , 19

M. Loui (2009)

Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society , 29

P. Vesilind (1996)

Journal of Engineering Education , 85

D. Haws (2001)

Journal of Engineering Education , 90

Marnie Jorenby (2007)

Journal of Peace Education , 4

M. Prince (2004)

Journal of Engineering Education , 93

M. Tichy, David Johnson, Roger Johnson, Cary Roseth (2010)

Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 40

J. Borenstein, M. Drake, R. Kirkman, J. Swann (2010)

Science and Engineering Ethics , 16

G. Jensen, A. Richert (2005)

Journal of Physical Therapy Education , 19

C. Shaw (2004)

International Studies Perspectives , 5

Kristina Deneve, M. Heppner (1997)

Innovative Higher Education , 21

M. D'Eon, P. Proctor (2001)

Innovations in Education and Teaching International , 38

C. Harris, Michael Davis, M. Pritchard, M. Rabins (1996)

C. Hudak (2004)

Nursing education perspectives , 25

Kate Brown (1994)

Journal of Business Ethics , 13

David Johnson, Roger Johnson (1985)

Devereaux Poling, Julie Hupp (2009)

College Teaching , 57

James Rest, D. ez, S. Thoma, M. Bebeau (1999)

Rioh'det Corser, George Fox (1998)

Teaching of Psychology , 25

James Rest, S. Thoma, D. Narvaez, M. Bebeau (1997)

Journal of Educational Psychology , 89

Jack Raisner (1997)

Journal of Business Ethics , 16

K. Smith, David Johnson, Roger Johnson (1981)

Journal of Educational Psychology , 73

Matthew Krain, Jeffrey Lantis (2006)

International Studies Perspectives , 7

MT Holtzapple, D Reece (2008)

WC Oakes, LL Leone, CJ Gunn (2009)

Rachel Kraus (2008)

College Teaching , 56

James Mitchell, David Johnson, Roger Johnson (2002)

Social Psychology of Education , 5

James Rest, D. Narvaez, S. Thoma, M. Bebeau (1999)

Journal of Educational Psychology , 91

P. Santi (2000)

Journal of Engineering Education , 89

Rajib Sanyal (2000)

Teaching Business Ethics , 4

B. Bero, Alan Kuhlman (2011)

Science and Engineering Ethics , 17

Sharon Bird, K. Erickson (2010)

Teaching Sociology , 38

M. Drake, P. Griffin, R. Kirkman, J. Swann (2005)

Journal of Engineering Education , 94

W. Oakes, L. Leone, Pramod Abichandani (2000)

Anne Colby, W. Sullivan (2008)

Journal of Engineering Education , 97

Bradley Brummel (2010)

JRChadwick (2009)

• Science and Engineering Ethics /
• Volume 19 Issue 2
• Subject Areas /
• Business, Management and Accounting

This paper discusses using the Chernobyl Incident as a case study in engineering ethics instruction. Groups of students are asked to take on the role of a faction involved in the Chernobyl disaster and to defend their decisions in a mock debate. The results of student surveys and the Engineering and Science Issues Test indicate that the approach is very popular with students and has a positive impact on moral reasoning. The approach incorporates technical, communication and teamwork skills and has many of the features suggested by recent literature.

Science and Engineering Ethics – Springer Journals

Published: Dec 15, 2011

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article..

• {{#if ref_link}} {{ref_title}} {{ref_author}} {{else}} {{ref_title}} {{ref_author}} {{/if}}

Share the Full Text of this Article with up to 5 Colleagues for FREE

Sign up for your 14-day free trial now.

Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.

Continue with Facebook

Log in with Microsoft

Already have an account? Log in

Save Article to Bookmarks

Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library .

To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.

Sign Up Log In

Subscribe to Journal Email Alerts

To subscribe to email alerts, please log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.

Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote

Reference Managers

Follow a Journal

To get new article updates from a journal on your personalized homepage, please log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.

Access the full text.

Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.

Our policy towards the use of cookies

All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.

cookie policy

• Advanced Search
• All new items
• Journal articles
• Manuscripts
• All Categories
• Metaphysics and Epistemology
• Epistemology
• Metaphilosophy
• Metaphysics
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Religion
• Value Theory
• Applied Ethics
• Meta-Ethics
• Normative Ethics
• Philosophy of Gender, Race, and Sexuality
• Philosophy of Law
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Value Theory, Miscellaneous
• Science, Logic, and Mathematics
• Logic and Philosophy of Logic
• Philosophy of Biology
• Philosophy of Cognitive Science
• Philosophy of Computing and Information
• Philosophy of Mathematics
• Philosophy of Physical Science
• Philosophy of Social Science
• Philosophy of Probability
• General Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Science, Misc
• History of Western Philosophy
• Ancient Greek and Roman Philosophy
• Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy
• 17th/18th Century Philosophy
• 19th Century Philosophy
• 20th Century Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy, Misc
• Philosophical Traditions
• African/Africana Philosophy
• Asian Philosophy
• Continental Philosophy
• European Philosophy
• Philosophy of the Americas
• Philosophical Traditions, Miscellaneous
• Philosophy, Misc
• Philosophy, Introductions and Anthologies
• Philosophy, General Works
• Teaching Philosophy
• Philosophy, Miscellaneous
• Other Academic Areas
• Natural Sciences
• Social Sciences
• Cognitive Sciences
• Formal Sciences
• Arts and Humanities
• Professional Areas
• Other Academic Areas, Misc
• Submit a book or article
• Upload a bibliography
• Personal page tracking
• Archives we track
• Information for publishers
• Introduction
• Submitting to PhilPapers
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Subscriptions
• Editor's Guide
• The Categorization Project
• For Publishers
• For Archive Admins
• PhilPapers Surveys
• Bargain Finder
• About PhilPapers
• Create an account

Using the Chernobyl Incident to Teach Engineering Ethics

Reprint years, philarchive, external links.

• From the Publisher via CrossRef (no proxy)
• dx.doi.org (no proxy)
• link.springer.com (no proxy)
• link.springer.com [2] (no proxy)

Through your library

• Sign in / register and customize your OpenURL resolver
• Configure custom resolver

Similar books and articles

Citations of this work, references found in this work.