The following projects have been used for team projects by Michael Hoffmann at the Georgia Institute of Technology, if no other author is mentioned.

Emerging Technologies

Designing the morality of things: Artificial intelligence in the workplace

Peter-Paul Verbeek shows in Moralizing technology: Understanding and designing the morality of things (2011) with the example of ultrasound imaging machines that technologies often open up new spaces for decisions that are ethically significant, and that they shape ethical decision making. An ultrasound image constitutes the unborn as a person, independently from the body of its mother, and as a potential patient with “abnormalities,” but it also allows a kind of bonding among mother, father, and the unborn that was never possible before (pp. 24-27). “Moral decisions about pregnancy and abortion in many cases are shaped in interaction with the ways in which ultrasound imaging makes visible the unborn child. … Ultrasound imaging actively contributes to the coming about of moral actions and the moral considerations behind these actions“ (p. 38). At the same time there are other technologies that reduce the space for ethical decision making. If there is a speed bump in front of a school, you do not consider the ethical question whether you should slow down, you do slow down. If you wear one of Amazon’s wristbands that tracks your hand movements and that vibrates in case there is not enough movement, then there is no need for ethical motivation to work harder. You know that you are monitored.

Technologies play a fundamental role in how we perceive the world and in how we act. This implies far-reaching moral responsibilities both for the designers of technologies and for its users.

Imagine your team is a task force in a large corporation that plans to invests heavily in the research and development of artificial intelligence in the workplace, focusing on tracking and controlling employees. The company is concerned about its reputation and wants to move forward in a way that takes ethical concerns into account. Your team is charged with developing guidelines that will determine the design of this new technology. What should these guidelines include? Take into account the broadest variety of possible proposals—based on a stakeholder analysis—and then develop what seems to be the most convincing set of guidelines.

(problem_id: 480)

Go to top

Designing the morality of things: Robotic Caregivers for the Elderly

Technologies play a fundamental role in how we perceive the world and in how we act. This implies far-reaching moral responsibilities both for the designers of technologies and for its users.

Imagine your team is a task force in a large corporation that plans to invests heavily in the research and development of Robotic Caregivers for the Elderly. The company is concerned about its reputation and wants to move forward in a way that takes ethical concerns into account. Your team is charged with developing guidelines that will determine the design of this new technology. What should these guidelines include? Take into account the broadest variety of possible proposals—based on a stakeholder analysis—and then develop what seems to be the most convincing set of guidelines.

(problem_id: 735)

Go to top

Designing the morality of things: Designing robots and AI that counter human biases

Technologies play a fundamental role in how we perceive the world and in how we act. This implies far-reaching moral responsibilities both for the designers of technologies and for its users.

Imagine your team is a task force in a large corporation that plans to invests heavily in the research and development of robots and AI that counter human biases. The company is concerned about its reputation and wants to move forward in a way that takes ethical concerns into account. Your team is charged with developing guidelines that will determine the design of this new technology. What should these guidelines include? Take into account the broadest variety of possible proposals—based on a stakeholder analysis—and then develop what seems to be the most convincing set of guidelines.

(problem_id: 736)

Go to top

Designing the morality of things: Robots that “nudge” people to be more ethical

Technologies play a fundamental role in how we perceive the world and in how we act. This implies far-reaching moral responsibilities both for the designers of technologies and for its users.

Imagine your team is a task force in a large corporation that plans to invests heavily in the research and development of Robots that “nudge” people to be more ethical. The company is concerned about its reputation and wants to move forward in a way that takes ethical concerns into account. Your team is charged with developing guidelines that will determine the design of this new technology. What should these guidelines include? Take into account the broadest variety of possible proposals—based on a stakeholder analysis—and then develop what seems to be the most convincing set of guidelines.

(problem_id: 737)

Go to top

Designing the morality of things: Using AI-based learning technologies in college education

Technologies play a fundamental role in how we perceive the world and in how we act. This implies far-reaching moral responsibilities both for the designers of technologies and for its users.

Imagine your team is a task force in a large corporation that plans to invests heavily in the research and development of AI-based learning technologies for college education. The company is concerned about its reputation and wants to move forward in a way that takes ethical concerns into account. Your team is charged with developing guidelines that will determine the design of this new technology. What should these guidelines include? Take into account the broadest variety of possible proposals—based on a stakeholder analysis—and then develop what seems to be the most convincing set of guidelines.

(problem_id: 738)

Go to top

Brain-computer interfaces

Advances in brain-related science and technology open up new possibilities of bridging the boundary between what is inside and outside of our head in both directions.

On one hand, there is remarkable progress in decoding neural activity and using that code to control external devices. Paralyzed persons are able to use a robotic arm; Facebook recently revealed plans to create a “silent speech” interface that would allow people to type at 100 words a minute straight from their brain; the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is developing similar technology to allow non-vocalized communication between soldiers on the battlefield; and many more such projects are on their way.

On the other hand, technologies are being developed to intervene in brain activities, for example to treat such conditions as Parkinson’s disease or epilepsy, but also to provide vision for the blind. Visionaries imagine a world in which humans use these technologies to “upgrade” their capabilities, “to acquire new skills at will or to communicate telepathically with others” (Economist, Jan 6, 2018). Elon Musk talks about pumping “images from one person’s retina straight into the visual cortex of another; creating entirely new sensory abilities, from infrared eyesight to high-frequency hearing; and ultimately, melding together human and artificial intelligence” (ibid.).

It is obvious that the benefits of these technologies can be life changing. But they also raise serious ethical concerns. The ability to decode neural activity leads to questions such as: What kinds of information would the technology collect? What about private thoughts? Who would own the data? How would privacy be protected? How could the accuracy of the technology be ensured? And for technologies that intervene in brain activities: What are the societal consequences if only a few can afford substantial cognitive enhancement? What would intervening in brain activities mean for the possibility of autonomous decision making? Will brain interventions change the notion of responsibility for one’s actions? What about potential misuse of these technologies, for example to manipulate people? It might even be possible to enslave people without making them realize that. What about those who might enjoy electronic self-manipulation (like taking the blue pill in The Matrix)? What would be the societal consequences of that? How would brain-computer interfaces change what it means to be human?

Imagine your team is a task force in a large company that invests heavily in the research and development of brain-computer interfaces. The company is concerned about its reputation and wants to move forward in a way that takes ethical concerns into account. Your team is charged with developing guidelines that will determine the design of brain-computer interfaces that the company plans to produce in the future. What should these guidelines include? Take into account the broadest variety of possible proposals—based on a stakeholder analysis—and then develop what seems to be the most convincing proposal.

(problem_id: 481)

Go to top

Facial Recognition Technology

Facial recognition technology (FRT) can identify people from their images; it can also be used to identify certain diseases, traits such as intelligence or sexual orientation, or moods such as a tendency to violence. Some companies want to use FRT to let people purchase goods simply by a nod or another preprogrammed response; others want to scan for known criminals and identify new ones; and still others want to allow people to better organize their personal life by keeping a highly searchable visual record of their activities. But all of this pivots on taking pictures of people—in public or private, with or without consent, online or offline—and comparing them with pictures in a database that also contains personal information. Somebody will know who you are, where you are, and what you are doing. Does FRT hold the key to a safer, more efficient, and smarter world? If so, at what cost? Is opting out even feasible for this type of technology? What kind of governance structures should be established for regulating FRT?

Imagine your team is a task force that is charged with drafting a law that regulates the design or use of facial recognition technology in public places. What should such a law include? Take into account the broadest variety of possible proposals—based on a stakeholder analysis—and then develop what seems to be the most convincing proposal.

Harari, Y. N. (2018). Why Technology Favors Tyranny. Artificial intelligence could erase many practical advantages of democracy, and erode the ideals of liberty and equality. It will further concentrate power among a small elite if we don’t take steps to stop it. The Atlantic, (Oct), 64-70.
Economist. (2017, Sep 9). Nowhere to hide: What machines can tell from your face.
Economist. (2017, Sep 9). Facial technology: Advances in AI are used to spot signs of sexuality.
Economist. (2018, June 2). Apartheid with Chinese characteristics: China has turned Xinjiang into a police state like no other.
Economist. (2018, June 2). Technology and surveillance: Does China’s digital police state have echoes in the West?

(problem_id: 475)

Go to top

Facial Recognition Technology (short)

(problem_id: 479)

Go to top

Robotic Caregivers for the Elderly

Given that certain populations in the world are rapidly aging, especially in the United States, Western Europe, and Japan, there is a pressing need to address their health care needs. One potential option is to provide these individuals with robots that could assist them with their medications and other health-related tasks. Yet there are many ethical issues to examine relating to this “technological fix” including whether this may decrease the amount of human contact that the elderly receive, and privacy issues based on the fact that these robots will collect data of people in their care. Furthermore, effects on employment should also be relevant.

Imagine your team is a task force that is charged with drafting a law that regulates the design or use of robots for the elderly. What should such a law include? Take into account the broadest variety of possible proposals—based on a stakeholder analysis—and then develop what seems to be the most convincing proposal.

(problem_id: 476)

Go to top

Micro-targeting in social media

Social media allows effortless communication with large numbers of people. People enjoy using Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and other social media, and they are useful to spread information and to organize things quickly, also politically as in the civic uprisings of the Arab spring or in Ukraine. In recent years, however, several concerns have been raised that might be so serious—or have the potential to become so serious—that social media should be regulated to a certain degree.

One of these concerns is that social media companies can measure our reactions to personal posts, news stories, pictures, and ads and use these data for micro-targeted advertisement. Political parties and interest groups (lobbyists, wealthy individuals, PACs SuperPACs, etc.) are increasingly using similar data, algorithms, and artificial intelligence to test how people with specific personality traits (openness; conscientiousness; extroversion; agreeableness; and neuroticism) and sensational interests (militarism; the violent-occult; intellectual interests; paranormal credulousness; and wholesome activities) react to thousands of different versions of a political ad so that they can tweak it to get to us almost on an individual level (Economist 2017a, 2017b). These technologies can substantially increase the efficacy and efficiency of manipulation and propaganda; they can reinforce people’s prejudices and biases; and they can contribute to societal fragmentation and polarization.

Imagine your group is an expert team that a think-tank convened to answer the question how societies should deal with the problems listed above. Should there be new laws or regulations? How could unintended consequences of such regulation be avoided? How could social media be returned to a position where it is actually benefiting humanity? Take into account the broadest variety of possible proposals—based on a stakeholder analysis—and then develop what seems to be the most convincing proposal.

References:

Economist (2017a). Do social media threaten democracy? Economist, Nov 4th, p.11.
Economist. (2017b). How the world was trolled. Once considered a boon to democracy, social media have started to look like its nemesis. Economist, Nov 4th, pp. 19-22.

(problem_id: 36)

Go to top

Political Themes

Privacy and autonomy in social media

The ability to act and make decisions freely requires that personal information about oneself remains private. If we have to fear that other people or organizations know what we are thinking and what our values and preferences are, then this might influence what we think and do and it might limit our freedom to make decisions autonomously, that is, on our own accord, based on freedom. A loss of privacy can press people into conformity with social expectations. We might fear the consequences of being associated with ideas that raise suspicion, and that might lead to self-censorship; we might refrain from voicing criticism and taking action. And a loss of privacy might lead to a decrease in trust, to “fear of sharing one’s opinion (reduction in freedom of expression / speech), fear to meet and exchange views with others, and fear to participate and engage in public issues” (Strauß 2017, p. 152). If the loss of privacy as a public good is wide-spread throughout society, people might no longer exercise their freedoms; mistrust in institutions and government might increase which “undermines social and democratic activities, and finally can lead to an erosion of democracy” (p. 152).

When you sign up for a social media platform, you are usually forced to make a decision: either give up the right to keep certain personal information private or stay away. So it seems that they respect your autonomy: you are free to decide at this point. But autonomy requires that we have all the knowledge that is needed to make an informed decision. Social media companies usually tell you that giving up large parts of your privacy is for your own good. Knowing who you are allows them to present content to you in which you are really interested; it makes visiting web sites and accessing services much more convenient because you don’t have to sign in each time; it makes the use of a platform safer because it allows the companies to combat activity that violates their policies; and it allows them to improve their offers and the ways they provide them based on the reactions of millions of users (Facebook 2018). However, they usually don’t tell you about two things: first, the risks that you are facing when you give up your privacy and, secondly, the value of your personal data for their business. There is an entire industry that makes huge profits from your private information.

Since the loss of privacy can have far-reaching consequences for individuals and for society, we should be clear about the problems that we are facing. How can we balance the convenience that social media companies offer for free—and the great services that billions of people enjoy—with the risk of becoming the victim of intimidation and manipulation? How can we establish a fair and transparent market that shows us the real value of our personal data and that leaves it to us to decide in each case whether we want to sell or not? How can we ensure that each user is aware of what is happening with their personal information—to whom access to you is sold—and remains free to determine what may and may not be done with their data? How can we balance valid business interests of social media companies and their customers with the interests of their users? How can we deal with equity issues such as the possibility that the poor are more vigorously tracked online when they apply for private and government services, while it is much harder for them to establish and curate an appealing online presence (Madden 2019)? Often poor and otherwise disadvantaged people lack the resources or the education that is required to ensure fair treatment. They are running a higher risk that online fraud, identity theft, or losing access to hacked devices leads to personal catastrophe. How could we design technical solutions such as a “personal data or algorithmic agent” that can represent a user in the digital world as a “legal proxy,” operating automatically “along the lines of current ad blockers which do not permit prespecified algorithms to access a user’s data” (IEEE 2019, p. 113)? How could we make sure that people have the ability to curate such an artificial agent? And finally: How can we prevent a further Cambridge Analytica scandal? People sitting around a computer screen, seeing the photo of a particular person, where she works and lives, who her kids are and where they go to school, for whom she voted in the last election, how much she earns—everything. And not just one person, but 87 million (Wylie 2019, p. 110-112).

Imagine your group is an expert team that has been recruited by a partnership between Facebook and IEEE, the world’s largest association of technical professionals. Your task is (1) to analyze the situation described above by identifying all the stakeholders involved and their positions on the issues of privacy and autonomy in social media and then (2) to develop a proposal regarding possible regulation or technical solutions that would satisfy all stakeholders involved.

References:

Facebook. (2018). Cookies and Other Storage Technologies. Facebook Policies.
IEEE Global Initiative (2019). Personal data and individual agency. In: Ethically Aligned Design: A Vision for Prioritizing Human Well-being with Autonomous and Intelligent Systems, First Edition (EAD1e), pp. 110-123.
Madden, M. (2019, Apr 25) The Devastating Consequences of Being Poor in the Digital Age. New York Times
Strauß, S. (2017). Privacy Analysis – Privacy Impact Assessment. In S. O. Hansson (Ed.), The ethics of technology: Methods and approaches (pp. 143-156). London; New York: Rowman & Littlefield International.
Wylie, C. (2019). Mindf*ck: Cambridge Analytica and the plot to break America (First edition. ed.). New York, NY: Random House.

(problem_id: 1397)

Go to top

How to improve democracy in America?

In its Democracy Index 2016, the Economist Intelligence Unit downgraded the United States from “full democracy” to “flawed democracy” (The Economist Intelligence Unit 2018). Among the five categories on which the index is based, what brought the US down were “the functioning of government” and “political participation.” To explain the drop in political participation, the report hypothesized that a “trust deficit causes the US to become a ‘flawed democracy’”:

Trust in political institutions is an essential component of well-functioning democracies. Yet surveys by Pew, Gallup and other polling agencies have confirmed that public confidence in government has slumped to historic lows in the US. This has had a corrosive effect on the quality of democracy in the US, as reflected in the decline in the US score in the Democracy Index. The US president, Donald Trump, is not to blame for this decline in trust, which predated his election, but he was the beneficiary of it. (The Economist Intelligence Unit 2018, p. 4)

According to survey data collected in the fall of 2015 by the Pew Research Center, only 19% of Americans say they can trust the government in Washington to do what is right “just about always” (3%) or “most of the time” (16%). “In 1958, when the American National Election Study first asked this question, 73% said they could trust the government just about always or most of the time” (Pew Research Center 2015, p. 18). Do these numbers indicate a shift in attitudes that might undermine democracy itself? That there are indeed reasons to worry becomes evident when we look at survey data that indicate a dramatic decline, especially among younger generations, in commitment to core ideas of democracy. As Roberto Stefan Foa and Yascha Mounk write, based on data from the World Values Survey:

In the United States, … people born during the interwar period consider democratic governance an almost sacred value. When asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 10 how “essential” it is for them “to live in a democracy,” 72 percent of those born before World War II check “10,” the highest value. … But … the millennial generation (those born since 1980) has grown much more indifferent. Only [around 30 percent accord] maximal importance to living in a democracy (Foa and Mounk 2016, pp. 7-8)

Among young Americans polled in 2011, … a record high of 24 percent stated that democracy is a “bad” or “very bad” way of running the country—a sharp increase both from prior polls and compared to older respondents. Meanwhile, the proportion of Americans expressing approval for “army rule” has risen from 1 in 16 in 1995 to 1 in 6 in the most recent survey. (Foa and Mounk 2017, p. 5; for the most recent survey see Pew Research Center 2017)

What can be done to strengthen democracy? Are there structural problems in the way our democracy is set up that should be addressed? Is our two-party system the best way to organize political representation? Are there ways to improve democratic institutions and procedures? How to redesign the basic structure of our society so that democratic governance works better and people participate more, more engaged, and more effectively?

References

Foa, R. S., and Mounk, Y. (2016). The danger of deconsolidation: The democratic disconnect. Journal of democracy, 27(3), 5-17.
Foa, R. S., and Mounk, Y. (2017). The signs of deconsolidation. Journal of Democracy, 28(1), 5-15.
Pew Research Center. (2015). Beyond distrust: How Americans view their government.
Pew Research Center. (2017). Globally, Broad Support for Representative and Direct Democracy. But many also endorse nondemocratic alternatives.
The Economist Intelligence Unit. (2018). Democracy Index 2017: Free speech under attack.

(problem_id: 950)

Go to top

How to formulate a right to free speech that protects us from the political damages of hate speech?

Protected by the First Amendment, freedom of speech is a cornerstone of America’s constitutional order (Strossen 2018). Freedom of speech is an indispensable precondition for the functioning of democracy. Only if every point of view can be expressed without fear of prosecution is there a chance to make decisions that are based on opinions which are thoroughly tested by an open exchange of arguments and counter-arguments. As John Stuart Mill pointed out (1859), “complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action.”

But does that mean that all speech should be allowed? Social media is full of messages that undermine the dignity, social standing, reputation, or honor of particular people, or their cultural, religious, social, sexual, or ideological identity and self-perception. Jeremy Waldron suggests calling speech that undermines a person’s dignity hate speech: “A person’s dignity … is their social standing, the fundamentals of basic reputation that entitle them to be treated as equals in the ordinary operations of society. Their dignity is something they can rely on—in the best case implicitly and without fuss, as they live their lives, go about their business, and raise their families” (Waldron 2012, p. 5). Hate speech causes harm by taking away the victim’s sense of security, the feeling of being safe from “hostility, violence, discrimination, or exclusion by others” (p. 4).

Hate speech is not only harmful to its victims. A German study reported that 54% of participants in a representative, national survey indicated that they would voice their political opinions less often in internet discussions based on the threat of hate speech. 74% agreed to the statement: “Hate messages pose a threat to diversity on the Internet because they intimidate people and push them out of conversations” (Geschke et al. 2019; for a broader study on all sorts of “online harm” see United Kingdom Government 2019). Almost a hundred years earlier Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis opined “that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people.” Engagement in public discussion, he wrote, “is a political duty.” For Brandeis, the important point was that such a discussion would not achieve anything “without free speech.” However, his consideration can also lead to the argument that a public space that is protected by an almost unlimited right to free speech is skewed in favor of the haters. Why would we need a right to free speech if around 50% of the population simply withdraws from any political discussion based on their fear of hatred and intimidation?

Imagine your group is an expert team that a think-tank convened to answer the question of how the American constitution could be amended to deal with the tension between freedom of speech and hate speech. How could a right to free speech be formulated that protects society from the political threats of hate speech? What could be a test that would allow a judge to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable speech? Take into account the broadest variety of possible proposals—based on a stakeholder analysis—and then develop what seems to be the most convincing proposal.

References:

Geschke, D., Klaßen, A., Quent, M., & Richter, C. (2019). #Hass im Netz: Der schleichende Angriff auf unsere Demokratie. Eine bundesweite repräsentative Untersuchung.
Mill, J. S. (1978 <1859>). On liberty. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
Strossen, N. (2018). Hate. Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship: Oxford University Press.
United Kingdom Government. (2019). Online Harms White Paper C. Department for Digital, Media and Sport, Home Office (Ed.)
Waldron, J. (2012). The harm in hate speech. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

(problem_id: 1377)

Go to top

Controversial figures and events of the past: How to deal with them if eradicating them from history is not an option?

[Version for citizen participants]

Communities all over America will, at some point in time, need to determine how they can deal with controversial figures and events from their past. In order to generate knowledge and experiences of how this can be achieved, we invite you to engage in a deliberative process that focuses on a particular memorial or street name in the City of Atlanta that is connected to the Confederacy.

Your first task is to determine on which memorial or street name you want to work over the coming weeks.

For the next step in this project, please follow the instructions that are provided in the Reflect! work plan.

(problem_id: )

Go to top

[Version for student support team]

Highly partisan debates on Confederate Memorials that are fought over their removal tend to overlook that there is a real problem that goes beyond the dichotomy of honoring the memory “of the most courageous and patriotic serviceman the world has ever known: the Confederate soldier” (Lochlainn Seabrook, 2018) and fighting the celebration of “those who defended slavery and tried to destroy the Union” (Stacy Abrams, the Democratic candidate for Georgia governor). The problem is that we always need to define who we are in relation to a past that cannot simply be ignored. What should we tell our children in school? How should we present ourselves in public spaces? How should, for example, the city of Stone Mountain, Georgia, answer these questions, a city which not only neighbors America’s largest Confederate Memorial and the birthplace of the second Ku Klux Klan, but that also is about 75% African American today? How should the city of Cumming, Georgia, answer these questions where the infamous “night riders” launched a coordinated campaign of arson and terror against black citizens in 1912 to “cleanse” the city, which was then kept “all white” well into the 1990s?

Communities all over America will, at some point in time, need to determine how they can deal with controversial figures and events from their past. In order to generate knowledge and experiences of how this can be achieved, the task of your team is to organize and facilitate a deliberative process among stakeholders in a community that struggles with this challenge right now. Supported by the Atlanta History Center, and focusing on a real problem in a community, you will work with a small group of people who represent a variety of different world-views, values, or interests. This group will need to meet about four times for 1 – 2 hours for deliberations that will be structured by the Reflect! Work plan “Reflective Consensus Building on Wicked Problems. For deliberation among stakeholders” that is available on the Reflect! platform.

(problem_id: 488)

Go to top

Georgia, Florida and Alabama: Water wars

What could be done to resolve the dispute about water management in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin in which Alabama, Georgia, and Florida are involved for the last two decades?

(problem_id: 1)

Go to top

Develop an interdisciplinary research proposal

Imagine your team is preparing a grant proposal for a large interdisciplinary research project on “Robot Caregivers for the Elderly”. Since your proposal will only succeed in getting funding if all technical, organizational, financial, legal, ethical, and other issues are convincingly covered, your work on the research proposal should start with a stakeholder analysis: Who will be affected by such a fundamental change in providing care and who will play a role in, or influence any decision regarding robot care for the elderly? And: What would these stakeholders propose should be done when it comes to using robots for care? Take the broadest variety of possible stakeholder proposals into account and then develop a list of components that should be essential for your research proposal.

Work through the Reflect! Work Plan to solve this problem. Your first task is to find an agreement on the exact problem formulation. Feel free to replace the topic “Robot Caregivers for the Elderly” by any other topic of your choice. But make sure that your problem is formulated so that it requires a stakeholder analysis and a reflecti
on on what the stakeholders would propose to solve the problem.

(problem_id: 441; also 478)

Go to top

Environmental problems

Hydraulic Fracking in Ohio

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a method of extracting oil and natural gas by injecting fluid into geologic formations at high pressure. The method is especially well-suited for extracting from shale deposits such as the Marcellus and Utica Shale formations that cover much of the Appalachian region and extend into Eastern Ohio. Advocates for fracking point to the immense economic stimulus that natural gas extraction can provide, creating jobs and generating revenue in regions that have suffered from the decline of American manufacturing. In their view, the environmental impacts of fracking are far less harmful than other fossil fuels, both in the extraction of gas compared to coal, and in the combustion of gas versus coal for energy production. Critics, though, echo the EPA’s 2016 report that there is “scientific evidence that hydraulic fracturing activities can impact drinking water resources in the United States under some circumstances.” Residents and environmental groups argue that fracking is underregulated and unsafe, especially compared to renewable energy sources.

Imagine you and your group are working with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources to develop new regulations for fracking. Under what conditions should fracking be permitting, and at what scale (municipal, county-wide, or state-wide) should decisions be made and enforced?

(Created by Zachary Piso; problem_id: 1273)

Go to top

Developing Knoop Prairie for Commercial Outlets

Knoop Prairie was reconstructed in 1995 to restore habitat at the headwaters of Wiles Creek, an important tributary to the Stillwater River. Recently the City of Dayton has explored selling the land to commercial developers, and although the initial purchase of the property fell through, the city continues to explore its sale. Environmentalists in the region have rallied around the prairie, celebrating its ecological significance to migratory species and to filtering runoff before pollutants feed into the tributary. From their perspective, development of the lot should be strictly prohibited in order to protect the prairie and the environmental goods and services that it generates. Many Daytonians support development, however, citing the important of job creation and increasing the tax base for the city. The initial buyer expected commercial and industrial construction to create about 60 jobs. For an area in need of economic development and funds for public services, this income is viewed by many as critical.

Imagine your team has been hired as a local environmental consulting firm specializing in sustainable development. Your job is to create a property listing for the 140 acres that includes all restrictions for how the prairie can be developed. Local environmental groups have consented to this approach as long as potential developers can show that comparable sites in the city would cause greater environmental degradation, but your firm should provide guidance for how to do that comparison.

(Created by Zachary Piso; problem_id: 1274)

Go to top

International Pet Trade Driving Invasive Non-Native Species

Since 1990, 300 people in the United States have been attacked by exotic pets, animals often imported from developing countries and kept both legally and illegally as companion animals across the country. These attacks though are only the tip of the iceberg—exotic pet owners often release their animals into the wild once they can no longer care for them, and the animals frequently establish local populations, outcompeting native species and wreaking havoc on the existing ecosystem. Burmese pythons have established significant populations in iconic habitats like the Everglades, and Cuban tree frogs have pushed native species of frogs and other amphibians from their traditional ranges.

Imagine that you and your team is consulted by the World Pet Association to develop recommendations for the pet industry on importing and distributing exotic pets. What restrictions should be placed on the pet trade to help avoid the spread of invasive species? Remember, many potentially invasive species are sourced through domestic breeding programs, so you’ll need to consider what to do about species that are bred locally, some of which have already become established in their local habitats.

(Created by Zachary Piso; problem_id: 1275)

Go to top

Managing Felis catus: House cat or feral cat?

Free-ranging domestic cats are estimated to be responsible for upwards of 4.0 billion bird deaths and 22 billion mammal deaths annually in the United States. For native species already under inordinate pressure from habitat loss and other stressors, these losses can threaten the extinction of endangered species. Yet whether domestic cats are invasive species is a highly contested matter—much of this ecological impact can be attributed to household pets that do not fit our normal definition of an invasive species, and even for the impacts attributed to feral cat populations, many believe that lethal management approaches are inappropriate.

Imagine that you and your team are approached by Montgomery county animal control to draft a policy for managing domestic cats. Your policy should decide on appropriate management of household-owned cats but also management of feral cat populations in both urban and rural settings. What should this policy recommend, and how should it be carried out?

(Created by Zachary Piso; problem_id: 1276)

Go to top

Protecting Coral Reefs in Hawaii

Driven especially by ocean acidification and warming temperatures, coral reefs are collapsing worldwide, and with them marine biodiversity is under tremendous pressure. In addition to the enormous ecological benefits that these habitats provide, they also generate economic growth and development through recreation and fishing for both the developed and developing world. Given all of the different stressors to coral reefs, it’s immensely difficult to develop a restoration strategy, and different restoration approaches have different costs and benefits for different stakeholders. Some solutions, such as spreading calcium bicarbonate to artificially alkalinize coastal waters, would pose novel risks.

Imagine you and your team is tasked to develop a management strategy for the coral reefs of Hawaii. You’ll work with the state’s Office of Environmental Quality Control to promote reef restoration and set guidelines for how municipal jurisdictions are permitted to restore reefs using different technologies and management approaches. What should the state do in order to protect the reefs, and should there be any restrictions on what municipalities do on their own accord for the habitats within their boundaries?

(Created by Zachary Piso; problem_id: 1277)

Go to top

Solar Panels on Roofs in UD Student Neighborhood

University of Dayton has expressed a commitment to go carbon neutral by 2050, and that commitment will depend in part on increasing the university’s investment in renewable energy sources. As residential-scale solar energy technologies become both more effective and less expensive, photovoltaic solar panels appear to be a crucial component of any renewable energy portfolio. Panels could be mounted on the rooftops of university buildings without replacing habitat that already provides valuable ecosystem services, and among these rooftops, houses in the student neighborhood promise an extensive network of energy generation. The upfront capital costs of these investments, however, have some students concerned about tuition increases in the short-term, while administrators are more concerned with new liabilities and risks that expensive equipment in the neighborhoods might pose.

Imagine that you and your team has been tasked by the UD Climate Leadership Committee to make a recommendation for how (or whether) to install solar panels in the student neighborhood. Not only should you consider what technology is most appropriate, but you should also make recommendations for how any installation should be funded, and how any damage to infrastructure should be covered.

(Created by Zachary Piso; problem_id: 1278)

Go to top

Chronic Wasting Disease in White-Tailed Deer

State agencies across the country have constantly updated their hunting regulations in order to better control the population of recreational species such as white-tailed deer. Now, cases of chronic wasting disease (CWD) has pushed Ohio lawmakers to rethink existing policies in order to prevent the spread of the prion disease. Like bovine spongiform encephalopathy (“mad cow disease”), CWD is suspected to be transmittable between animals and, potentially, from deer to humans. Confirmed cases of CWD in Ohio are rare and seem localized to captive deer, and as of 2018, deer hunted outside of Ohio must be carefully processed to avoid introducing the disease to local species. However, it seems only a matter of time before CWD is identified in the wild deer population, and the state is exploring anticipatory regulations to manage its spread through hunting that could help prevent an epidemic.

Imagine that you and your team are hired as consultants by the Ohio Division of Wildlife. Your task is to consult with hunters and other stakeholders to develop regulations that will help prevent a CWD epidemic without placing undue restrictions on hunters and other recreationalists to hunt and raise deer in captivity. What regulations would your group propose?

(Created by Zachary Piso; problem_id: 1279)

Go to top

Dakota Access Pipeline

The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) connects shale oil fields in North Dakota to processing plants and distribution centers in central Illinois. During its construction, the pipeline was routed through habitat and hunting grounds important to the Stand Rock Sioux tribe, who argued alongside environmental groups that the pipeline posed risks to the environment and watershed upon which they depend. Oil company representatives countered that the risk of spill is unlikely and that they were already complying with all relevant EPA regulations for onshore pipelines. This however failed to address the concerns of both tribal and non-tribal stakeholders, and protests of the pipeline became a national story during 2016. In spite of these protests, the first oil from the pipeline was delivered in June, 2017.

Imagine that you and your team were commissioned by the EPA to review the regulations that governed the planning and development of DAPL. Your goal is to rethink how decisions about pipeline construction are made, who should be consulted, how and when they should be consulted, and what sorts of evidence is required by what parties. In other words, you should articulate a process for reviewing planned pipeline construction, as well as decide whether existing construction should be grandfathered into your proposal.

(Created by Zachary Piso; problem_id: 1280)

Go to top

Hydroelectric dam on Miami River

Hydroelectric power harnesses the energy from water flow over or through a dam to produce clean and renewable energy, often replacing electricity produced through carbon-intensive combustion of fossil fuels. The Great Miami River is a candidate for a hydroelectric dam, with a company already exploring low-impact technologies through prototypes in Hamilton, OH. Elsewhere on the river, however, low-head dams are being removed, sometimes at great expense, in order to reduce dangers to recreationalists who often cannot see the structures and are at risk of accidents and drowning. The environmental impacts of low-head dams are ordinarily considered to be negative, but the impacts of hydroelectric dams are more difficult to project given that the energy that they generate replaces much more damaging non-renewable energy sources.

Imagine that you and your team were hired by the Ohio EPA to engage stakeholders about the construction of a new hydroelectric dam somewhere on the Great Miami River. You should recommend whether and where a hydroelectric dam would be placed, what infrastructure should be included to ensure its safety, and how that infrastructure should be funded.

(Created by Zachary Piso; problem_id: 1281)

Go to top

Public Engagement in High Level Waste Disposal

A portion of the waste products generated from commercial nuclear power production and by the US government’s nuclear weapons program pose significant risks to people, plants and animals, and ecological systems. These risks can last for many generations. The challenges association with disposal of such “high level waste” raise many issues, including those of environmental justice, responsibility to future generations, environmental impacts, the meaning of consent (e.g. when a community agrees to host a disposal site), and many others.

One of the keys to navigating the complex trade-offs involved in high level waste disposal will be the meaningful engagement of communities located near and around potential disposal sites, as well as the larger public(s) that presumably benefit from the activities that produce this waste. Some other countries that produce high level waste have had some success in engaging communities and the broader public around these issues. Challenges to public engagement may be particularly acute in the United States, where there is an interplay of power between federal and state authorities, and where many people mistrust scientific expertise and/or government decision making.

While the majority of effort, investment, and focus in the US has been on identifying a single site for high level waste disposal (Yucca Mountain) there is also a more decentralized option that could involve multiple smaller sites. Could focusing on the decentralized option overcome the current gridlock and allow for important conversations and learning to unfold across a variety of contexts, places, and people?

Imagine that the class is a think-tank. Your think-tank has received a grant to engage diverse publics in the type of dialog, thinking, and analysis that would play a key role in future high level waste siting. Each group in the class / think-tank will compose a sub-group that will attack the problem in a different way and in a different context, in order to inform our collective thinking.

(Created by Paul D. Hirsch; problem_id: 1330)

Go to top

The Reflect! platform

Wicked problems