When approaching strategic, tactical & operational planning one needs to know about ostriches, denial, and prayers

by Franco Oboni and Cesar Oboni

Franco Oboni

(Riskope, Vancouver B.C. Canada; email: foboni@riskope.com)

While the world was feeling the aftershocks of the Great Recession, Riskope wrote about 16 common Human traits when dealing with hazards and risks. Some of those 16 traits lead individuals and often their organizations to assume stances called Ostrich, Denial or Prayer, resulting in flawed Strategic, Tactical & Operational planning options and occasionally exposing them (and their neighbors, their environment, society at large) to significant hazards which could generate large unintended consequences, i.e. large risks leading to catastrophe. Happily, there are also more positive stances we will discuss later in this text. Are these stances defensible from an ethical point of view? We are not talking about blatant errors or negligence cases here, but we are focusing on planning alternatives that seem acceptable, “safe enough” at some level of scrutiny or a playable risk by their decision maker(s). Examples abound: tailings dams, automotive design details, IT systems, banking system, etc. in almost any field of commerce, industry and economy.

Let's start from the potential results: unitended consequences and their causes

The idea of unintended consequences is an old one, it was indeed discussed by Adam Smith. However, it was the sociologist Robert K. Merton, incidentally the inventor of focus groups, who popularized this concept in the first half of the twentieth century (in his 1936 paper, "The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action").
Merton cited as possible general causes of unintended consequences:

• complexity (so, the “buzzword” is actually an “old” theory), 
• perverse incentives, 
• human stupidity, 
• self-deception, 
• failure to account for human nature or other cognitive or emotional biases among others. 

Risk, mitigative costs, vs public outcry.

It is nice to see that, although we are neither sociologists nor psychologists and we used politically correct language in line with present day conventions, our former post respected Merton's ideas. 
As anticipated above, there are also more positive stances: the Short Term Thinkers and the Long Term Thinkers. These are definitely better stances for decision makers and risk and crisis management, with the second clearly being the winner, but not necessarily the most likeable or popular. Hence Long Term Thinking is generally not the first choice for politicians, decision makers and CEOs driven either by re-election, immediate benefits or short term shareholders gains objectives. As we will see, even the Long Term Thinking stance has its own flaws which only very skilled planners can bypass.

What are the links between the five stances, Merton's flaws' driven behavior and the resulting risk management attitude/method?

The table below shows the five stances together with the resulting "General Behavior", the corresponding "Merton's flaw" and finally the resulting "Risk Management Attitude/Method".

Stance	General behavior	Merton's flaw (general) & details	Risk Management Attitude/Method
OSTRICH	Generally fail to evaluate uncertainties, seek comfort in one single answer from subject matter experts or other sources, go for "feel right" solutions, often refusing to properly evaluating/seeing evidence, hiding their head in the sand.	(Human stupidity). Ignorance, it is impossible to anticipate everything, so why bother. This leads to incomplete analysis.	Follow one solution, go blind into new ventures, no risk management, no mitigation.
DENIAL	Grab evidence that works in the direction they want to go while recognizing multiple perspectives. They use evidence in a rational way, but then jump to conclusions and give their opinion the highest value while stating that all opinions are valid. They deny the rational evidence they have gathered.	(Self-deception). Errors in analysis of the problem or following habits that worked in the past, but may not apply to the current situation	Mitigate what they consider "hazardous (could be nothing), trust their opinion and deny potential situations as "incredible". End-up throwing money in doubtful directions.
PRAYER	Can describe a problem and it's environment, properly evaluate evidence from various perspectives, attempt to control biases, but cannot prioritize across alternatives and cannot decide: they are prone to paralysis by analysis, being left with a prayer to decide.	(Complexity). Certain actions which may have positive results cannot be taken because they are not recognizable in the magma of options. Long-term consequences may eventually cause changes in basic values altering the perspective in the future.	As they are paralyzed by the analyses, victims of overwhelm syndrome cannot take decisions, the only thing they are left with is praying for the best.
SHORT Term Thinkers	Look for objective comparisons after analyzing available data  and including in the process key persons. They often bias towards the short term, neglecting long term and strategic issues, thus missing present limitations and future needs.	(Perverse incentives). Immediate interests overriding long-term interests may lead to backfiring results, greater risks than in the Status Quo.	This is the common attitude for savvy politicians and politically oriented leaders. They are very careful about anything that could go wrong under their watch.
LONG Term Thinkers	Are prone to "build knowledge" and find better solutions by prioritizing limitations, updating information and their interpretation. They consider the long term in strategic terms.	(Failure to account for human nature or other cognitive or emotional biases). The excessive trust in overly detailed planning generating significant risks if anticipated risks do not materialize as expected (nature, intensity, occurrence).	This is the "durable manager" attitude, the method that will bring and maintain value in the long run, building a robust organization.

The reason we entered in the long discussion above is simple. In a world where many organizations, professional groups ask themselves important questions about:

• Ethics, 
• Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and 
• how to maintain Social License to Operate (SLO), and
• where the public reacts vehemently to new projects and is in permanent opposition to promoters,

it becomes important for decision makers to have a clear path forward and defensible stances. At Riskope, we believe that without a strong sense of ethics:

• neither Corporate Social Responsibility nor Social License to Operate can be achieved/maintained, 
• management will not be “durable” and 
• public opposition will only grow stronger. Back in 2013 we wrote a paper showing how faulty risk management approaches and blatant cases of conflict of interest were key in the development of a negative attitude against new projects.

How different risks are likely to influence stance development in decision makers

In this section we are going to examine how different risks can influence stance development in decision makers. The risk categorization is based on a metaphoric description developed by German researchers between the '80s and the '90s . In this section we merge it with the data from the table above.

Stance	Chances of Unintended Conse-quences	Likely trigger  (German metaphor)	Excusable behavior/ Negligence/ Ethical	Examples
OSTRICH	Extremely High	Sword of Damocles	Not today / Negligent /  Unethical	Many when confronted to emerging issues (cyber attacks, for example). Also, nuclear power plants (Fukushima), large-scale chemical facilities (Bophal, Seveso).
DENIAL	Extremely High	Sword of Damocles or Pandora’s Box	Not today / Often confused for Diligent, but basically negligent / Often considered ethical, but basically unethical	Banks before Lehman Brother and many would argue even today. Also large hydro-dams and meteorite impacts are typical examples. Tailings dams and long term toxic/radioactive dumps often trigger the denial stance (we are better than others, it will not occur to us).
PRAYER	High	Cyclops or Pythias	Not today, but quite common / considered main stream / Can be somewhat ethical or unethical	Many when confronted to “world-changing” issues like, for example climate change (if they do not deny it) or extreme natural events such as volcanic eruptions (Vesuvius), earthquakes (various “large one” like San Francisco, Tokyo, etc.) and floods belong in this category. Self-reinforcing global warming or instability of the West Antarctic ice sheet, with far more disastrous consequences than those of gradual climate change.
SHORT Term Thinkers	High	Cassandra	Common, to be phased out / can be diligent / Can be somewhat ethical or unethical.	Many who relocate for fiscal reasons, or develop business based on fiscal incentives. Also, when the distance in time between trigger and consequence creates the fallacious impression of safety.
LONG Term Thinkers	Can be minimized if solutions are robust	Medusa	To be fostered / Diligent / Ethical	Sustainable and durable businesses placing high value on long term issues.

So, changes are needed to develop strong ethical values, some stances are becoming hazardous and others should be phased out. How can we foster the change leading to more positive stances, hence a more ethical approach?

What can be done to foster the turn to positive stances?

In a recent paper by Harward Business Review (HBR), John Beshears & Francesca Gino recognize it is extraordinarily difficult to rewire the human brain to undo the patterns that lead to common mistakes and, we would argue, to the faulty stances described above. This is obviously not a new subject as in 1979 Kahneman & Twersky discussed this topic. However the HBR's paper suggests that altering the environment in which decisions (and stances) are made is susceptible to strongly inhibit the birth of poor decisions and negative stances. HBR also claims that Leaders can do this by acting as architects. Drawing on extensive research in the consulting, software, entertainment, health care, pharmaceutical, manufacturing, banking, retail, and food industries and on the basic principles of behavioral economics (i.e Kahnema & Twersky and their followers), the authors have developed an approach for structuring work to encourage good decision making.

Beshears' and Gino's approach reportedly consists of five basic steps:

1. Understand the systematic errors in decision making that can occur,
2. determine whether behavioral issues are at the heart of the poor decisions in question, 
3. pinpoint the specific underlying causes, 
4. redesign the decision-making context to mitigate the negative impacts of biases and inadequate motivation, and
5. rigorously test the solution.

A poor or clouded understanding of the risk environment of a decision is one of the major reasons for systematic errors. Furthermore this paper has clearly shown that certain types of risks can trigger the adoption of flawed behaviors (stances) resulting in unintended, possibly catastrophic, consequences, thus in critical undesirable risk exposures. Persisting in using poor risk assessment methodologies which introduce biases and censoring reality is unethical.

Conclusion

The Romans (probably, but not certainly, Seneca) knew already, over 2000 years ago, the conclusion of this discussion when they wrote: "errare humanum est perseverare autem diabolicum, et tertia non datur" (To err is human; to persist [in committing such errors] is of the devil, and the third possibility is not given). 
Many industries/human systems have erred enough to date, persisting is of the devil, there will not be a third chance, or, if we continue to act unethically, we will not give our future generations a third chance.
Redesigning the decision-making context is indeed necessary and ethical. It represents our possibility to stop erring, avoid the evil of catastrophic mistakes and leave a worthwhile legacy.


  

Geoethics at the AGU-GAC-MAC-CGU JA 2015: A report from Montreal

by Vincent Cronin (IAPG-USA co-coordinator) 

and Anne-Marie Ryan (IAPG-Canada coordinator)

The IAPG workshop “Teaching Geoethics in Undergraduate Science Programs” was held on 3 May 2015 for three hours. 
Catherine Pappas-Maenz, Anne-Marie Ryan, Charly Bank and Vince Cronin were joined by five colleagues for presentations and discussions about the need to help novice geoscientists to develop as ethical workers, and about the various challenges and opportunities involved in that process. Conveners talked about the possibility of developing an online geoethics course that might be able to mitigate some of the difficulties inherent in trying to develop or offer geoethics courses within university geology departments. Although participants number was small, the discussion was lively and beneficial for those present. The discussion certainly confirms and supports the need to continue to work on best pedagogical practices for teaching geoethics.

There were presentations at the IAPG symposium “How do we build a healthy geoscience community that better serves society?”, held on 7 May 2015. Once the session began, the audience consistently numbered between about 30-36 people.
Dianne Quigley (Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island) began the session with an account of her work with the Northeast Ethics Education Partnership (http://www.brown.edu/research/research-ethics/neep). As a small regional effort that has attracted external funding from the US National Science Foundation, it can be a model for the cooperative development of ethics resources that are appropriate for their constituent students. 
Catherine Pappas-Maenz of Dawson College in Montreal told about the context for her work to infuse ethics in geology coursework. Her school requires some general coursework that covers general moral philosophy, and so her efforts are focused on particular ethical issues in geoscience without having to provide background on major ethical theories. 
Charly Bank (University of Toronto) presented work he has done in collaboration with Anne-Marie Ryan (Dalhousie University) in which students confront a variety of ethical issues in the context of a water-related project. This project involves students in consideration of the history of the area, pollutants in the soils, issues of property, the sensitivity of information about hazards, and public policy. 
Vincent Cronin discussed a collaborative effort to develop educational materials in support of teaching undergraduate geoscience students about geoethics, and how those materials might be incorporated in courses. Vince also described how an entire course could be constructed from those materials. 
Gary Rosenberg (Milwaukee Public Museum and University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee) described the significant legacy of Aldo Leopold with respect to environmental ethics.
Oliver Bonham (Geoscientists Canada) described the self-regulation of geoscience ethics and practice in Canada, achieved through the cooperative efforts of professional geoscience organizations and regional authorities. 
Jan Boon (Carleton University, Ottawa) closed the session with an account of his work to identify the importance of various social and ethical factors in determining the success or failure of nine projects that he has studied as part of his doctoral research.

Poster at EGU 2015, by Vincent Cronin et al.

Vincent Cronin posted two small copies of his EGU 2015 poster in the symposium room with some blank post-it notes, and invited the audience to contribute ideas to those that are already on poster. Several new posts were submitted.

The IAPG has signed an Agreement of Co-operation with the IGEO - International Geoscience Education Organisation

The International Geoscience Education Organisation (IGEO) and the International Association for Promoting Geoethics (IAPG) have signed on 20 May 2015 an Agreement of Co-operation. The agreement expresses a mutual desire to co-operate on a range of issues in the field of geoethics and geoscience education, in particular, the following affairs:

• promoting the principles of geoethics and research integrity in geosciences through their networks;
• promoting the importance of geoscience education inside the scientific community;
• promoting geoscience education internationally at all levels;
• promoting the debate and working for the enhancement of quality in the international provision of geoscience education;
• to encourage developments that raise public awareness of geoscience, particularly amongst younger people.
• co-organising scientific and dissemination events on geoethics and geoscience education;
• identifying possibilities to apply for funding for the development of common projects on geoethics and geoscience education.

Both organizations will establish a liaison to ensure good information flow and cooperation.
IGEO (http://www.igeoscied.org/) is an association formed on January 2000 at the 3rd International Conference on Geoscience Education in Sydney, Australia, with the aim of promoting geoscience education internationally at all levels; working for the enhancement of quality in the international provision of geoscience education; encouraging developments that raise public awareness of geoscience, particularly amongst younger people. The IGEO is an affiliated organization of the IUGS – the International Union of Geological Sciences.

The activities of the IAPG-Peru section in 2014

by Sandra Paula Villacorta Chambi and Cosme Pérez-Puig Obieta

(IAPG-Peru; email: spvillacorta@gmail.com)



During the 2014, the Peruvian section of the International Association for Promoting Geoethics (IAPG) took part in the organization of the workshop "Management of Geological Hazards in Lima and Callao" and the course "Flood Modeling using geomorphological and hydraulic methods".


Workshop "Management of Geological Hazards in Lima and Callao"

The workshop "Management of Geological Hazards in Lima and Callao" took place on 20th and 21st November, 2014 in Lima (Peru) and in the auditorium of the Peruvian Geological Society (in Spanish: Sociedad Geológica del Perú or SGP). It was a joint initiative between the Peruvian chapter of the YES (Young Earth Scientist) network, the SGP and the Peruvian section of the IAPG to contribute to disaster risk management in the capital of Peru. The event was also sponsored by major national organizations dedicated to these topics.
It counted with the participation of prominent national speakers, who presented different case studies occurred in Peru (to download them, in Spanish, just follow this link).

Dr. César Muñoz, President of the SGP,
during the opening of the workshop. 
For more photos from the workshop
click here.

After the conferences, a discussion was held on actual situation on risk management in Lima within three working groups: 1) mass movements, 2) Earthquakes and Tsunamis and 3) and River Flood Risk. During the discussion, each participant showed his and her point of view, in a "brainstorm" process, in order to make a feedback process. The event ended with a discussion panel, whose agreements may be viewed on the official record of the event (in Spanish).
The workshop has led to the approach between several organizations involved in the management of geological risks in Peru, with the objective to become the seed of future joint ventures between them.
Some of the identified needs have been: 1) to involve other knowledge networks and the mass media (radio, television) in order to allow greater dissemination of geoscientific information, 2) to encourage the participation of more citizens, who usually ignore the realization of such important events for raising public awareness on issues of national importance.


Theoretical and practical course: Flood Modeling using geomorphological and hydraulic methods

The theoretical and practical course “Flood Modeling using geomorphological and hydraulic methods” was carried out between 24th and 30th November, 2014 with the collaboration of the Peruvian and Spanish Geological Surveys (respectively, INGEMMET and IGME). It was taught by Dr. Miguel Llorente, Researcher of the IGME.
Because of the need for training of professionals who develop geomorphological maps in Peru, whose actual experience is almost poor, the Peruvian section of the IAPG developed the course project and submitted a proposal to the SGP, who accepted it. The Peruvian chapter of YES Network was invited to co-organize the event.
The lectures, including practices with Arcgis Hecras, were held at the auditorium of the INGEMMET (Instituto Geológico Minero y Metalúrgico) in Lima (Peru) and included discussions on the geomorphological implications for flood modeling and on the cross-validation between interpretations of geomorphological elements (qualitative results) transformed into plain and elevation morphometric characterization (quantitative data). Discussions highlighted that good modeling fits needs for good geomorphological studies, and vice-versa.

Dr. Miguel Llorente, from IGME, while is giving
some explanations during the field trip.

The practical part of the course was a field trip through Andean chain, between the regions of Lima and Junín, in order to look at typical landforms of coastal, mountain range and jungle areas. Participants were taught to collect geomorphological data, and were introduced to the overlapping principle to determine fluvial, alluvial, colluvial, deluvial, proluvial and glacial sequences.
This course has allowed the participants to learn about the techniques of geomorphological analysis from a genetic point of view, the processes that led to different landforms, and the standardization and progressive improvement of the applied geomorphological mapping (both in the office and the field). The concepts taught during the theoretical course and its applications on the geomorphological mapping were discussed, in particular it was observed that on detailed scales mainly active processes are represented, whereas in less detailed scales the tectonic processes with predominant processes indicators have better accommodation. Finally, some scopes for mapping improvement were identified.

The training of Peruvian researchers in these techniques will allow soon the development of new investigations and studies that will be useful for the competent institutions in planning strategies for mitigating the effects of floods in Peru.

Different sketches prepared by participants
during the field trip.

In the 2nd edition of the course, that will take place in 2015 in Arequipa, a deeper knowledge on aspects of fluvial geomorphology and numerical modeling of floods will be developed. This 2nd course will be included among the activities of the forum on geological risk management, organized by INGEMMET with the collaboration of the Peruvian Section of IAPG and other institutions.

Preparation for and response to earthquake disasters 
fail to use crucial information

by Max Wyss

Max Wyss

(International Centre for Earth Simulation, Geneva, Switzerland; email: max@maxwyss.ch)



Seismologist's capability to estimate the extent of earthquake disasters for the future and immediately after a devastating event, like the M7.8 Nepalese earthquake of 25 April 2015, has greatly increase during the last decade. However, this advance is not being used by governments to prepare and reduce seismic risk, and by mass media reporting on disasters.

Countless individuals and organizations are doing their very best to rescue and help the victims of the disastrous M7.8 Nepalese earthquake of 25 April 2015. Some are high profile teams with colorful outfits bearing logos and organization names for the TV cameras, but most are desperate family members and neighbors digging with bare hands in the rubble, hoping to rescue a loved one. All of them, whether glamorous or faceless, deserve our admiration and thanks. Nevertheless, we may ask: Could we perhaps have done better to prepare for this event?

My remarks may be myopic because I have not researched this topic. I am relating some of my own experiences, only, in the hopes that this letter may trigger a discussion that will lead to a wider view.

Reliable earthquake predictions that specify magnitude, location and occurrence time are currently not possible. However, the first two variables can be specified, at least approximately. The looming danger of disastrous earthquakes in the Himalaya has long been recognized, based on past great earthquakes that were bound to be repeated, and on geodetically measured deformation rates. Among the many scientists who have estimated the amount of energy stored along the Himalayan collision belt K. Khattri, V. Gaur and R. Bilham (e.g. (1, 2)) are the most prominent, in my view. In addition, B. Tucker has often emphasized the precarious situation in the Himalaya, especially in Nepal, due to the deplorable state of the built environment.

The seismic hazard map of the world (3) is incomprehensible for community leaders (4), and inadequate when it comes to large earthquakes (5). To make the risk in the Himalaya clear to community leaders, the population and international donor organizations, I have calculated the expected human losses, when and not if, magnitude 8 class earthquakes would return to the Himalayan collision zone (6).

Out of my seven hypothetical loss scenarios, one was called Kashmir and another one Kathmandu. I estimated a range of fatalities of 67,000 to 137,000, and 21,000 to 42,000, respectively. Subsequently, the M7.6 earthquake of October 2005 in Kashmir killed about 85,000, thus my loss estimates are verified to be correct to within about a factor of two (7). Currently the count of fatalities is rising in Nepal and may surpass the aforementioned estimate.

Mean damage due to the Nepal earthquake of 25 April 2015 calculated by QLARM in near-real-time on a scale of 5 (blue=very light to red=very heavy) for settlements with dots proportional to size. Kathmandu is not readily noticeable because it is presented in 35 separate districts. This theoretical estimate serves to assist rescue organizations and governments to launch appropriate response efforts.

Moved by our deep concern about the earthquake threat hanging over Nepal like a Damocles sword, Philippe Rosset and I prepared a proposal, together with our Nepalese colleague, D. Chamlagain, to give our loss estimating tool, QLARM, to our Nepalese colleagues pro bono, and teach them how to use it. The purpose would have been for Nepal to refine scenarios for losses, to know the approximate extent of the disaster that was to be faced, and to prepare for it. Humanitarian funding agencies, including the World Bank, turned us down.

If we had been funded, our Nepalese colleagues would have been able to advise their government within minutes of the extent of the disaster on April 25. Instead, three days after the disaster struck, Nepalese officials still believe that only 10,000 may have died, when it will most likely turn out to have been a multiple of this number.

The reporting of fatalities in earthquakes lags behind the final count by necessity, as casualties need to be discovered. For this reason QLARM calculates an estimate of fatalities right after the earthquake. Here the fatality counts in Nepal (on the left), where access to much of the affected area is on foot or helicopter only, are compared to those in L'Aquila (on the right) in an industrial country with well developed infrastrucutres. Dots are media reports, the solid square shows the final count, the triangle indicates the near-real-time estimate by QLARM.

Mass media contribute to slowing down rescue efforts by initially reporting two (2!) fatalities, without mentioning that experts estimate that 10s of thousands have perished in Nepal. Similarly, in Morocco in 2004, the report of 2 people dead prompted the person in charge to refuse an official offer of help when an expert estimated within 102 minutes that 1,200 people had lost their lives. Later, it turned out that 631 people had died and thousands had been injured. Now that these experts have been proven to issue reliable loss estimates within minutes of devastating earthquakes, it is time that news media contributed to disseminate this valuable information.

The fact that no Nepalese government official uttered a public statement for three days after the April 25th disaster inflames the exasperation of desperate victims as they talk to television crews, amongst the ruins of their dwellings.

Although conferences had been held on earthquake danger in Nepal and many international organizations had been trying to design projects to reduce the latent risk, there exists startling evidence that the Nepalese government may not have cared much about this problem: The earthquake catalog for Nepal, a fundamental tool to assess the hazard and risk, has not been updated to the present, although a seismograph network has recorded events. The catalog available is missing information for the last 10 years, and Nepalese seismologists are struggling to complete this catalog.

Of course, we seismologists are focused on the danger we see, but governments are faced with many other problems, the solutions to which may seem to officials as more pressing, until an earthquake disaster strikes. The maxim that 1$ spent for earthquake risk reduction will reduce the losses by 10$ is ignored because there is no guarantee that the disaster will strike during the elected term of the current government. However, I am of the opinion that there is a guarantee that during the next three to four generations (the lifetime of people we know and care about),  that another 50,000 to 100,000 humans will perish in an earthquake, this time in the Indian segment of the Himalayan collision zone.

In my opinion, we could do better in protecting the population and reducing earthquake risk than we are doing now.


References

1. Khattri K. N. (1999). Probabilities of occurrence of great earthquakes in the Himalaya. Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences (Earth and Planetary Sciences) 108, 87-92.

2. Bilham R., Gaur V. K., Molnar P. (2001). Himalayan Seismic Hazard. Science 293, 1442-1444.

3. Giardini D. (1999). The Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program (GSHAP) - 1992/1999. Ann. Geofis. 42, 957-974.

4. Wyss M. (2015). Chapter 20, pp. 239-249. In: Wyss M. and Peppoloni S. (Eds.), Geoethics: Ethical Challenges and Case Studies in Earth Sciences. Elsevier, 450 p., Waltham, Massachusetts.

5. Wyss M., Nekrasova A., Kossobokov V. G. (2012). Errors in expected human losses due to incorrect seismic hazards estimates. Nat. Hazards 62, 927-935. doi: 10.1007/s11069-012-0125-5.

6. Wyss M. (2005). Human losses expected in Himalayan earthquakes. Nat. Hazards 34, 305-314.

7. Wyss M., pp. 5. In: Van de Walle B., Turoff M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Conference of the International Community on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (Newark, 2006).

(photo on the top from http://www.apibimi.org/)

The IAPG section of Spain

We welcome the IAPG section of Spain. 

The section will work under the responsibility of Emilia Hermelinda Lopera Parejas (Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas - CIEMAT, Madrid) and Domingo Alfonso Martín Sánchez (E.T.S.I de Minas y Energía, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid).

Emilia Hermelinda Lopera Parejas

Emilia Hermelinda is a Researcher in the Research Unit on Scientific Culture of the CIEMAT (Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas, Madrid). Her research interests are in Environment, Energy and Social Innovations, in Communication of Science, Technology, Environment, Risk and Climate Change, in social media, in Ethics applied to Engineering. She is teaching assistant at the Higher Technical School (ETS) in Engineering of Mines and Energy of the Polytechnic University of Madrid (UPM) for the course on "Ethics and Values in Engineering".

Domingo Alfonso Martín Sánchez

Domingo Alfonso is PhD in Geological Sciences and Professor in the Department of Geological Engineering and Mining of the Higher Technical School (ETS) in Engineering of Mines and Energy of the Polytechnic University of Madrid (UPM); he has held various positions of management related to issues of Quality and Social Responsibility. He is currently involved in the Directorate for Economic Affairs and Infrastructure. About teaching and research activities, his work is mainly related to geological, hydrogeological and geophysical surveys; in the last five years, he has been involved in a growing activity on educational innovation and international cooperation. He holds the academic responsibility of the Unit of Social Entrepreneurship, Ethics and Values in Engineering (UESEVI) at the School of Mines and Energy.

The logo of the section IAPG-Spain

IAPG-Spain website: http://www.minasyenergia.upm.es/es/inicio-iapg.html.
IAPG-Spain Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/IAPGSPAIN.
IAPG-Spain Twitter page: https://twitter.com/IAPG_SPAIN. 

Other IAPG national sections: http://www.iapg.geoethics.org/organization/na