Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27405936›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2017

Stakeholder Views of Nanosilver Linings: Macroethics Education and Automated Text Analysis Through Participatory Governance Role Play in a Workshop Format.

Joshua Dempsey, Justin Stamets, Kathleen Eggleson

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Joshua DempseyUniversity of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USA.
Justin StametsIndiana University-Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA.
Kathleen EgglesonIndiana University School of Medicine-South Bend, 1234 Notre Dame Avenue, South Bend, IN, 46617, USA. keggleso@nd.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-1626-1374

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Nanosilver Linings role play case offers participants first-person experience with interpersonal interaction in the context of the wicked problems of emerging technology macroethics. In the fictional scenario, diverse societal stakeholders convene at a town hall meeting to consider whether a nanotechnology-enabled food packaging industry should be offered incentives to establish an operation in their economically struggling Midwestern city. This original creative work was built with a combination of elements, selected for their established pedagogical efficacy (e.g. active learning, case-based learning) and as topical dimensions of the realistic scenario (e.g. nanosilver in food packaging, occupational safety and health). The product life cycle is used as a framework for integrated consideration of scientific, societal, and ethical issues. The Nanosilver Linings hypothetical case was delivered through the format of the 3-hour workshop Ethics when Biocomplexity meets Human Complexity, providing an immersive, holistic ethics learning experience for STEM graduate students. Through their participation in the Nanosilver Linings case and Ethics when Biocomplexity meets Human Complexity workshop, four cohorts of science and engineering doctoral students reported the achievement of specific learning objectives pertaining to a range of macroethics concepts and professional practices, including stakeholder perspectives, communication, human values, and ethical frameworks. Automated text analysis of workshop transcripts revealed differences in sentiment and in ethical framework (consequentialism/deontology) preference between societal stakeholder roles. These resources have been recognized as ethics education exemplars by the U.S. National Academy of Engineering .

Indexed as

Role PlayingCommunicationDecision MakingEngineeringEthics, ProfessionalHumansStudentsTeachingTechnologyAutomated text analysisMacroethicsNanosilverRole playStakeholder

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.