Toward Preparing Students for the Future: Global Ethics and Sustainability in Higher Education

MNICA EDWARDS1 & JOS F. LOZANO2 1 European Convergence Office, School of Design Engineering 2 International Cooperation and Applied Ethics Group, Department of Engineering Projects. Polytechnic University of Valencia Camino de Vera N 14, Valencia 46022, Spain email: moed@doctor.upv.es - jlozan@dpi.upv.es
Abstract: Universities have a pivotal role in the process of societal transformation towards sustainability. This paper focuses on the role of scientific and technological higher education in fostering global ethics and sustainability. Assuming that both issues are controversial in theory and practice, we present a framework of global ethics and sustainability as instruments for decision-making and civic participation. The evolution of international concern for ethics and sustainability in scientific and technological higher education are explored, concluding that these important issues are still in an early stage of development. There are important barriers to achieving these goals related to whole systems thinking and perceptions about the planetary crisis and the future of humankind.

Keywords: global ethic - sustainability - higher education - scientific and technological education

Higher education for sustainability paradigm

Strengthening awareness about the planetary crisis and ethical discussion in contexts that are increasingly complex and ambiguous is an educative urgency of our time. In confronting the many challenges that the future holds in store, humankind sees in education an indispensable asset in its attempt to attain sustainability. These upheavals are producing considerable strain on the educational community, in particular, for responding to growing needs and to meet the emerging challenges of a rapidly changing world (Bybee 1991; Orr 1994, 1995; Sterling 2003; Dam-Mieras, Michelsen & Winkelmann 2004). Throughout the last decades there have been numerous calls from international organisms and conferences for educators to participate, without distinction of level or discipline. Repeatedly educators of every subject have been asked to contribute to public awareness and understanding of the problems and challenges related to our planet's future, in order to make possible citizens' participation in well grounded decision-making (Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment 1972; Delors et al. 1996; United Nations 1992, 1998, 2002; UNESCO 2002a, 2005). After the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 and the Agenda 21 implementation, education and capacity building have been increasingly recognised as critical to help shift societies towards sustainable development. Although one decade later, recognizing the urgent necessity of reinforcing this priority, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution, establishing a Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD) to begin on January 1, 2005. This declaration emerges from a series of international conferences and initiatives beginning with the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and culminating in the 2002 Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development. UNESCO, in its Framework for a Draft International Implementation Scheme, states that education for sustainable development has come to be seen as a process of learning how to make decisions that consider the long-term future of the economy, ecology and equity of all communities and this represents a new vision of education, a vision that helps people of all ages better understand the world in which they live, addressing the complexity and interconnectedness of problems such as poverty, wasteful consumption, environmental degradation, urban decay, population growth, health, conflict and the violation of human rights that threaten our future. The vision of education emphasizes a holistic, interdisciplinary approach to developing the knowledge and skills needed for a sustainable future as well as changes in values, behavior, and lifestyles (UNESCO, 2002a).

Many international partnerships and alliances have formed to consolidate the contribution of higher education to this new vision of education, considering that it plays a critical role in making this vision of a sustainable future a reality. Universities are an integral part of the global economy and since they prepare most of the professionals who are occupying key positions today and who will do so in the future, they are uniquely positioned to influence the direction we choose to take as a society (Orr 1994, 1995; Tilbury 2004a; Cortese, 1999; Shriberg 2002). Indeed, not only do universities educate our citizenry with interdisciplinary knowledge, but they are large, prestigious, and influential institutions in their own right, capable of having large impacts on the environment as well as some influence on local and global communities. Besides training future teachers, higher education strongly influences the learning framework of primary and secondary education (Uhl & Anderson 2001). Acknowledgement of the unique responsibility carried by the higher education sector is reflected in the many declarations of commitment to sustainability signed by hundreds of universities worldwide: the Talloires Declaration (1990), the Halifax Declaration (1991); the Swansea Declaration (1993), the Kyoto Declaration (1993), the CRE Copernicus Charter (1993), the Earth Charter (1994), the Student Declaration for a Sustainable Future (1995), the Beirut Declaration (1998), and the Lneburg Declaration (2001). More recently, the Global Higher Education for Sustainability Partnership (GHESP) was launched at the UNESCO conference in Johannesburg (Wright 2004). In other Declarations, as in the UNESCO World Conference on Science Declaration on Science and the Use of Scientific Knowledge (1999) and the Ubuntu Declaration (2002) educative and scientific organizations around the world have emphasized the role of scientific and technological education as a fundamental prerequisite for democracy and for ensuring sustainable development. Interconnections between ethics and sustainability are specially remarked in the World Declaration on Higher Education for the Twenty-First Century: Vision and Action (1998):
Owing to the scope and pace of change, society has become increasingly knowledge-based so that higher learning and research now act as essential components of cultural, socio-economic and environmentally sustainable development of individuals, communities and nations. Higher education itself is confronted therefore with formidable challenges and must proceed to the most radical change and renewal it has ever been required to undertake, so that our society, which is currently undergoing a profound crisis of values, can transcend mere economic considerations and incorporate deeper dimensions of morality and spirituality (World Declaration of Higher Education 1998).

Several authors argue that the global challenges with which we faced are ethical challenges. They are concerned with justice, with environmental responsibility, with security and the preservation of peace (Boff 2001; Jonas 1984; Sen 1999; Hansen 2005). In the Declaration Towards a Global Ethic it is affirmed that a new global order will not be possible and that the future of mankind cannot flourish without a new global ethic (Kng & Kuschel 1993). We all have a responsibility for a better global order and our involvement for the sake of human rights, freedom, justice, peace, and the preservation of the Earth is absolutely necessary.
Every individual has an inescapable responsibility for what she or he does and does not do. All our decisions and deeds, even our omissions and failures, have consequences. We need an ethic education that guarantees the freedom of conscience and religion with a scope for binding values, convictions, and norms which are valid for all humans regardless of their social origin, sex, skin colour, language, or religion (Kng & Kuschel 1993, p. 5).

A similar purpose statement for teaching ethics to science and engineering students was presented in the paper Ethics and the Responsibility of Science (SCRES 1999), recognising that the role of ethics in science has acquired many new dimensions of meaning and relevance. Hans Jonas (1984) considers that sustainability principles are oriented towards the idea of a global ethic background. From this perspective a sustainable future is a proposal inherent to a global ethic, extending the technical modernity. Global ethics, in his opinion, is at the heart of competent

citizenship. The challenge faced by humankind will require the rethinking of our values and reeducation of our citizenry in many aspects of our societys way of life. As David Orr explains (1994, p. 27):
The crisis we face is first and foremost one o f the mind, perception, and values; hence, it is a challenge to those institutions presuming to shape minds, perceptions, and values. It is an educational challenge.

The crisis of sustainability and the current problems of education are in large measure a crisis of knowledge (Orr 1994, 1995; Morin 1999; Bonnett 2002; Sterling 2003). For this reason Orr (1994) and Bonnett (2002) consider that we should analyse education for sustainability as a frame of mind. Also Buckeridge (1999) refers to the systems thinking imperative for achieving sustainability, a view very close to James Botkins ideas about the importance of developing our collective capacity for learning to resolve complex social problems (Botkin 1979). But, what is the current vision of the planetary crisis and sustainability and what is the meaning of sustainability as a frame of mind? How do our current frames of mind and our system thinking affect the evolution of education for sustainability? What is the meaning of global ethic? Why should global ethics be taught to science and engineering students? What is the situation regarding the integration of these issues into scientific and technological higher education? Our objective in this paper is to analyse these questions and present arguments for global ethic and sustainability approaches for the teaching of science and technology at university level. Our main thesis is that it is necessary to arrive at a consensus about the meaning of sustainability and that the teaching of ethics should be integrated as strategy for promoting sustainability.

The teaching of ethics in scientific and technological higher education

In the past three decades, many changes have been made in scientific and technological higher education, including a growing awareness of the importance of ethics and social responsibility. UNESCO has hosted initiatives that aim at understanding the current ethical problems raised by scientific and technological progress (UNESCO 2002a y b). The first focus was ethical issues emerging from the life sciences (bioethics), and later expanding to also cover science and technology ethics in general as well as environmental ethics (Buckeridge 1999). Today UNESCOs ethic division includes five overlapping programmes: the Bioethics Programme, the Ethics of Science and Technology Programme, the Ethics Education Programme, the Global Ethics Observatory Programme, and the Ethics around the World Programme (Hansen 2005). In the United States, to give an example, prompted in part by political controversy over the social implications of technology and the changing educational standards promoted by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), engineering educators have begun to take seriously the challenge of preparing professionals who are both technically competent and ethically sensitive (Herkert 2000, 2002). Mainly in the engineering field, resources for engineering ethics education have increased considerably with an explosive growth of online materials and resources, including cases or case studies, course syllabi, instructional modules, codes of ethics, and essays (NCSU 2002). Moreover, in many different countries and occupations, a concern to improve ethical standards in business, government, and professional practice was a feature of the 1990s (Crosthwaite 2001). In addition, there have been marked advances in the codification of human rights laws and norms that are embedded in science and engineering fields. A large body of legal instruments now exists which embody the common understanding of human rights by the international community. However, the implementation of ethics courses in science and technological education are not the norm. In the United States Stephan (1999) has determined that nearly 70 percent of ABET-acccredited institutions have no-ethics-related course requirement for all engineering students. Although there is an accepted norm in higher education to produce analytical thinkers, there is not an equal commitment to teach the change agent skills required for positive societal changes (Rowe 2002; Rowe & Bartleman 1999). On other hand, although researchers and educators recognise that it is clearly important to teach about ethical issues in scientific and technological education, there does not seem to be the same clarity about what to teach or how to teach (Crosthwaite 2001; Lozano 2003; Hansen 2005; Herkert 2005).

What should be taught? Who decides this and how? Should one teach the dominant ethical values of a community? What are these? What if they are unacceptable? (Some communities endorse oppression and exploitation of other people.) Should one teach ones own values? What is these are minority values? What does one teach in an ethic pluralist society? (Crosthwaite 2001, p. 100)

Generally, teaching of ethic in science and technological education is focused in applied ethics, normative ethical or moral theories, and theories about the nature of ethical reasoning, ethical qualities and ethical concepts (Jonas 1984; Crosthwaite 2001; Hansen 2005). Hans Jonas (1984) in his book The Imperative of Responsibility criticises this situation, considering that the main ethical theories for not being useful in handling epochal typical problems created by techno-scientific development. He affirms that in the new contexts of scientific and technological activities a new imperative has emerged: act so that the effects of your action are compatible with the permanence of genuine human life (p. 11). This imperative, which differs from the main ethical theories that has the individual will as main reference, addresses itself to public policy and public dimension, where the existence or the essence of humankind must never be made a stake in hazards of action (p. 37). Ethics and sustainability should be an integral part of the education and training of all students and particularly relevant for future scientists, technicians and engineers. But, at the present, sustainability is not an important element in the teaching of ethics in scientific and technological education.

The teaching of sustainability in scientific and technological higher education

Despite the numerous declarations of commitment from universities around the world and the growing recognition that academic research, teaching, and service must address the sustainability challenge, the obstacles to transforming higher education are still daunting (Clugston & Calder 1999; Cortese 1999; Wright 2004; Calder & Clugston 2002; McKeonwn 2000; McKeown et al. 2002; Leal Filho 2002b; Rowe 2002; Graham 2004; Tilbury 2004a; Boyle 2004; Dawe, Jucker & Martin 2005). Some researchers consider that sustainability has become a new central organizing focus for higher education and that higher education institutions around the world are beginning to recognise that they have a unique responsibility towards the goal of sustainability (Uhl & Anderson 2001; Graham 2004; Tilbury 2004b). True, there has been considerable progress in higher education institutions and in many disciplines, such as engineering and architecture, to introduce green design and ecoefficiency reducing costs and environmental damage through energy conservation, recycling and other green practices- but reorienting general and specialized education toward sustainability has proven more difficult (Johnston et al. 2003; Boyle 2004; Downey 2004; Heilmayr 2005; Fenner et al. 2005). Thus, while some institutions are making important changes in their curricula and degree requirements improving environmental literacy and civic engagement/social responsibility contents and setting important precedents for other higher education institutions, the majority of universities have no programs or requirements for all students (Rowe et al. 1999; Rowe 2002; Graham 2004; Tilbury 2004a). Some national surveys show that most institutions of higher education have done nothing to systematically provide this knowledge. In other words, at most institutions of higher education, students can graduate with an undergraduate degree and be both environmentally illiterate and unaware of global social problems, such as resource distribution inequities (Wolfe 2001; Rowe 2002). Besides, the current usage of sustainability is largely restricted to ecological issues, and is often controversial and confusing (Shriberg 2002; Stables & Scott 2002; Tilbury 2004a). The terms sustainability education, education for sustainability (EFS), and education for sustainable development (ESD) are usually used interchangeably (Fien and Tilbury 2002; Hopkins and McKeown 2002). Also there are other expressions in the same sense that including the treatment of sustainability principles and contents, such as education for ecological literacy, education for sustainability literacy, education for environmental literacy, global education and the ScienceTechnology-Society-Environment approaches (Aikenhead 2002; Pedretti et al. 2002; Hicks 2003).

Moreover, most perspectives are on Environmental Education (and not properly on education for sustainability), focusing exclusively on local problems without paying attention to the global situation (McKeown & Hopkins, 2003). The scope of the planetary crisis generally displays a reductionist scope, ignoring the strong connections between the natural environment and social, cultural, political, economic and ethical factors (Tilbury 1995, 2004a; McKeown et al. 2002; Shriberg 2002).
environmental and development problems are not solely caused by physical and biological factors, but [] an understanding of the parts played by aesthetic, social, economic, political, historical and cultural elements is required (Tilbury 1995, p. 2).

Possibly one of the main reasons for the inappropriate treatment of the planetary crisis resides in teachers and researchers perceptions of this. An analysis of the arti cles published in 32 journals of research in science education (from 1992 to 2000), showed that papers with this holistic perspective were nonexistent. There were a few contributions (4.5 %) on local environmental and social problems. References to sustainability hardly reached 10 per cent. Results obtained in an extended analysis of the contributions made at international congresses and conferences, and in handbooks on research in science education were very similar (Edwards 2003). The conclusions of a study involving science teachers from Spain, Portugal and Latin America are highly concordant and expose science teachers perceptions as being, in general, fragmentary and superficial. Only 5.3 per cent of 848 science teachers make any references to sustainability (Edwards 2003; Gil et al. 2003). Similar results were obtained in other previous studies, such as Bybee & Mau (1986), Bybee & Nejafi (1986); Robinson, Trojok & Norwisz (1997); Gayford (1998); Hassard y Weisberg (1999); Robinson & Kaleta (1999), and Bowen & Robinson (2000). In sum and despite all clear evidence of spreading environmental and social problems and the urgency in the treatment of these issues, this message has not made much headway in the majority of universities and, as David Orr (1994, p. 27) has said, we still educate the young for the most part as if there were no planetary emergency. Only more recently contributions are focusing on a holistic view about the planetary crisis and humankinds future. In the Report, The Engineer of 2020, produced by the National Academy of Engineering (2004), a number of key goals with this perspective were identified: providing education, energy, food, and fresh water; preventing climate change, disease, poverty, and political conflict; and meeting the aspirations for cultural integrity and a high quality of life for diverse communities. Many global problems are not included in the curriculum because the problems are interdisciplinary and thus not deemed appropriate for traditional disciplines. In the opinion of Clugston & Calder (1999) the modern university is the embodiment of the mechanistic, utilitarian worldview that shaped the scientific and industrial revolutions: Cartesian dualism (separating pure from applied, objective from subjective); Baconian method (emphasizing manipulation, control, and quantitative measurement); and utilitarian philosophy shaping academic functioning. They consider that the academy is also deeply involved in providing expertise for an "unsustainable" world economy. Sterling (2003) emphasizes the following obstacles for achieving a more correct perception and treatment of sustainability and humankinds future: an increasing instrumental and managerialist orientation in the domain of education as well as other spheres, which is largely inimical to holistical approaches, environmental and sustainability education is partly grounded in an alternative holistic paradigm, and partly in the dominant paradigm, and this accounts for some of the tensions in the field holistic and radical approaches to education for sustainable development or environmental education tend to be accommodated or marginalised by the mainstream which seeks to maintain its own paradigmatic coherence there is incoherence between this dominant paradigm and our experience of increasing complexity, interdependence, and systems breakdown in our lives and the world in terms of helping us perceive the world clearly, describe it adequately, or act wisely (Sterling, 2003, p. 114).

Environmental sciences and sustainability are in a continuous process of shying away from a specialized, compartmentalized, sub-disciplinary, unidimensional approach into a multidimensional, cross-boundary endeavour in the science-technology-environment-society interface. This poses new challenges with respect to both the intrinsic science organization and to the way the knowledge will be put into action (Orr 1995; Zoller 2004). At the same time, the rapid pace of economic globalization along with the explosion in information technologies, have radically altered the research environment in which scientists and engineers operate. The scientific and technological community and society are committed to devising a new set of strategies to meet the challenges that lie ahead. There is a growing understanding that addressing the global crisis facing humanity will require new methods for knowing, understanding, and valuing the world. Narrow, disciplinary, mechanistic, and reductionist perceptions of reality are proving inadequate for addressing the complex, interconnected problems of the current age. This divisive, compartmentalized thinking fosters alienation and selffocused behavior. In words of Edgar Morin (1999) there are great contradictions between the global, interdependent and complex planetary problems and, of another one, the manner that the knowledge is acquired and developed, every time of fragmented, partial form and compartmentalized. This is an enormous challenge sent internationally, at the beginning of this century, the knowledge, to those who is film stars of their creation, ordering and spreading and is an authentic reform of the thought.

Building an integrated vision of sustainability

WHAT MEANS SUSTAINABILITY?
While for Stables & Scott (2002) the word sustainability is equivalent to sustainable development and it is a paradoxical compound policy slogan, Leal Filho (2002b) claims that sustainability is simultaneously a goal, a process, a way of thinking, and a tool (p. 16). Other authors consider that sustainability is a new paradigm (Orr 1992; Novo 2002; Sterling 2003). Sustainable development was not a new theme; the British philosopher John Stuart Mill had mentioned it many years earlier. It also was the key theme of The Ecologist influential Study Blueprint for Survival of 1972 and Lester Brown (1981) published an influential study Building a Sustainable Society. In 1987, the Brundtland Report tried to take and holistic view of environment and development issues, with the following definition of sustainable development:
to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (WCED 1987, p. 8).

This definition provides the baseline for most discussions of sustainability, and masking the fierce debate between ecologists and economists over the role of economic growth and ecological carrying capacity in sustainable development (Daly & Cobb 1989; Orr 1992; Costanza et al. 1997). This debate involves a series of different interpretations, among anthropocentrism versus eco-centrism, weak sustainability versus strong sustainability, technological versus ecological sustainability, cornucopia versus neo-Malthusia, and economic versus biological sustainability (Shriberg 2002). On the other hand, theorists attempt to define sustainability from a wide range of perspectives: philosophical, ethical, moral, economic, religious, technological, ecological, etc. (Daly & Cobb 1989; Costanza et al. 1997). The literature reveals an emerging consensus about the three pillars of sustainable development, also known as the triple bottom line, involving ecological, economic and social sustainability. Although there are solid explanations for each one of these pillars of sustainability, the concept is still ambiguous and few philosophical debates have been resolved.

SUSTAINABILITY: A NEW PARADIGM IN EVOLUTION We must assume that sustainability is still a concept or a set of concepts in construction and its development invokes much more that technical or rational solutions (Jonas 1984). Sustainability, in our point of view, is in connection with the emergence of new ways of thinking or reperception (Harman 1988) in which the root of the world problematique lies in a crisis of perception, in the way we see the world (Bohm 1982; Orr 1994; Capra 1996; Korten 1999; Sterling 2003). It is becoming increasingly clear that the major problems facing humanity -overpopulation, poverty, inequity, resource depletion, biodiversity and cultural loss, ethnic conflicts, environmental degradation, unemployment, crime and social decay, etc.- are interconnected and interdependent. They are systemic problems that are impossible to address in isolation, requiring an integration and transcendence of existing boundaries of knowledge (Costanza et. al., 1997; Capra 1996, 1982; Bohm 1982).
Ultimately these problems must be seen as just different facets of one single crisis, which is largely a crisis of perception. It derives from the fact that most of us, and especially our large social institutions, subscribe to the concepts of an outdated worldview, a perception of reality inadequate for dealing with our overpopulated, globally interconnected world (Capra 1996, p. 4).

The pervasive Cartesian worldview of scientific materialism, which views the cosmos as a vast machine composed of independent, externally related pieces (Capra 1982), promotes fragmentation in our thinking and perception. David Bohm (1982) asserts that the root cause of this crisis of perception lies in our habit of seeing and experiencing ourselves and our world as constituted of separately existent fragments.
The notion that all these fragments are separately existent is evidently an illusion, and this illusion cannot do other then lead to endless conflict and confusion. Indeed, the attempt to live according to the notion that the fragments are really separate is, in essence, what has led to the growing series of extremely urgent crises that is confronting us today (p. 2)

This fragmentation is "continually being brought about by the almost universal habit of taking the content of our thought for a description of the world as it is". The differences and distinctions that pervade our thinking are taken to be real divisions of an external world, so that the world is experienced as actually broken up into fragments. The limits in our perception explain, in part, our limitation in the response to the planetary crisis. It is so difficult for majority people think and act with earth in mind and there appears to be a fundamental mismatch between the deeply systemic world we inhabit (an in part have created), and the fragmented way we predominantly perceive and think. Sterling (2003) affirms that the new ecological paradigm is an expression of holistic and systemic thinking. In his interpretation of the ecological paradigm and sustainability, paradigm is understood as the basic way of perceiving, thinking, valuing, and doing associated with a particular vision of reality (Harman 1988, p. 10). Sustainability paradigm is dynamic and in evolution, in contrast to the Kuhnian revolutionary view of successive incommensurable paradigms (Kuhn 1962). System thinking is largely implicit rather than explicit in this paradigm. Systems as discipline are necessary but not sufficient to further articulate and realise sustainability. In his words:
Whole thinking systems involves an extension of perception, a quality of connection in our conceptual thinking, and integration in our planning and actions towards healthy systems, as a triadic model of three interpenetrating dimensions of worldview change seeing, knowing and doing (Sterling 2003, p. 9).

Three components of paradigm can be distinguished: the ethos, which refers to the affective level, values, and norms, eidos, which refers to the cognitive or intellectual level, and the praxis, which refers to theory in action and behaviour, both what is done (and not done) and how it is done (Sterling 2003, p. 90). Whole systems thinking extends, connects and integrates the three aspe cts of paradigm: ethos, eidos, and praxis to reflect wholeness in (respectively) purpose, description, and action (Sterling 2003, p. 115)

This approach to sustainability paradigm empowers the consensus between different frameworks of analysis and theoretical perspectives. But it is necessary more research on rethinking our way of production and organization of knowledge about sustainable development and sustainability.

World Citizenship: sustainability and global ethic

The evolution of the sustainability paradigm depends of each person and each community, hinging on a collective deepening of our sense of responsibility to the earth and to future generations. What role corresponds to ethos within this holistic and systemic perspective of sustainability? In Hans Jonas's theory of moral responsibility the extension of ethics is linked to the expansion of the range of our collective actions and of our knowledge of far and future (uncertain) consequences.
No previous ethics had to consider the global condition of human life and the far-off future, even existence, of the race. These now being an issue demands, in brief, a new conception of duties and rights, for which previous ethics and metaphysics provide not even the principles, let alone a ready doctrine (Jonas 1984, p. 6)

According to Hans Jonas, the expansion of human power through the collective practice of technology has created an ethical vacuum. And novel powers to act require novel ethical rules and perhaps even a new ethics. The expansion of the range and impact of our collective actions and our increased awareness of possible far and future consequences moves the principle of responsibility into the very centre of ethics. Ethics and responsibility at individual and collective level are in the heart of the concept of world citizenship (McKeown et al. 2002).
This sense of responsibility can only emerge from the acceptance of the oneness of humanity. [] Without such a global ethic, people will be unable to become active, constructive participants in the world-wide process of sustainable development. [] World citizenship encompasses the constellation of principles, values, attitudes and behaviour that the people of the world must embrace if sustainable development is to be realizad (McKeown et al. 2002, p. 22)..

Mckeown and her colleagues talk about global ethic, other researchers use the terms civic ethic, ethic of responsibility, development ethics and a minimal ethics (Crocker 1991; Cortina 1994; Sen 1999; Boff 2001; Runte 2001; Alre & Kristensen 2002). Civic ethics implies freedom, equality and solidarity, and also an active tolerance and a dialogical ethos. Adela Cortina (1994) calls about a pluralist and minimal ethics. Pluralism and minimalism closely relate to each other if the social interrelationship system facilitates the coexistence of several models of happy life, with their respective world conceptions. In that case, one lives in a society where members respect each other, even if they think differently; since they share certain nonnegotiable moral minima, and not because any group may have imposed them on the other members by force, but because the different sectors have been arriving to the conviction that they are values and norms, which a society cannot give up without renouncing its humanity. In the Report From Rio to Johannesburg: Lessons learnt from a decade of commitment it is affirmed that sustainable development requires active and knowledgeable citizens and caring and informed decision makers. In this sense, sustainability represents a process of collective and social learning, a catalytic vision where sustainable development is perhaps more a moral precept than a scientific

concept, linked as much with notions of peace, human rights and fairness as with scientific theories of ecology (UNESCO 2002a).
While sustainable development involves the natural sciences, policy and economics. It is primarily a matter of culture: it is concerned with the values people cherish and with the ways in which we perceive our relationship with others and with the natural world (UNESCO 2002a, p. 3).

But if values are dependent on cultural context, can we identify a set of culturally neutral universal values to which all people aspire? The answer is yes, there are certain core ethical values that transcend culture, race, gender, age, and socioeconomic conditions. Core values are embedded in the age-old cultural tradition of human civilization and ethical conduct is an ancient theme in human thought (Alre & Kristensen 2002). And, for instance, the following set of desirable universal values can be found in the Report of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century (Delors et al. 1996): Awareness of human rights combined with a sense of social responsibilities Value of social equity and democratic participation Understanding and tolerance of cultural differences and pluralism A caring, co-operative and enterprising spirit Creativity Sensitivity to gender equality Open-mindedness to change Obligation to environment protection and sustainable development Global ethic represents the commitment to a culture of solidarity and a just economic order and it means a fundamental consensus on binding values, irrevocable standards, and personal attitudes. A global ethic should be for individuals as well for communities and organizations, for states as well as for the religions themselves (Kng & Kuschel 1993).

Conclusion
Education, and particularly higher education, is a critical tool for facing today's challenges and for building a sustainable world. Higher education, particularly in scientific and technical areas, has the mandate and potential to develop the intellectual and conceptual framework for achieving this goal, and must play a strong role in education, research, policy development, information exchange and community outreach and support. But higher education institutions must not restrict themselves to generating disciplinary knowledge and developing skills, they bear a profound moral responsibility to increase the awareness, knowledge, skills and values needed to create a just and sustainable future. Scientific and technological higher education must prepare future professionals who should be able to use their expertise not only in a scientific or technological context, but equally for broader social, political, cultural and environmental needs. This is not simply a matter of adding another layer to the technical aspects of education, but rather addressing the whole educational process in a more holistic way. Actually, in spite of the progress which has been made, there are still enormous barriers to reorientation of scientific and technological higher education to sustainability. There appears to be a fundamental mismatch between the deeply systemic world we inhabit and the fragmented way we perceive and think. Theoretical frameworks and practical models within the sustainability paradigm are being clarified; new knowledge, skills, and sensibilities are emerging. But it is necessary more efforts to clarify the ways in which we know and we apprehend the reality and how our whole system think affects our perceptions about the planetary crisis and humankinds future.

Ethics and sustainability should be an integral part of the education and training of all students and particularly relevant for future scientists, technicians and engineers. Doubtlessly it is necessary a major debate among academics to determine how sustainability and global ethic can be integrated into the curricula of the disciplines, to achieve full engagement of sustainability concepts and teaching.

References
Aikenhead, G. S.: 2002. STS Education: A Rose by Any Other Name. En R. Cross (Ed.): A Vision for Science Education: Responding to the Work of Peter J. Fensham. New York: Routledge Press. Alre, H. F. & Kristensen, E. S.: 2002. Towards a systemic research methodology in agriculture: Rethinking the role of values in science. Agriculture and Human Values 19 (1), 3- 23. Boff, L.: 2001. Ethos mundial. Ed. Trotta SA: Madrid. Bonnett, M.: 2002. Education for sustainability as a frame of mind. Environmental Education Research 8 (1), 9-20. Bohm, D.: 1982. Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Routledge & Kegan Paul. London Botkin, J. W., Elmandjra, M. & Malitza, M.: 1979. No limits to learning. Bridging the human gap. A report to the Club of Rome. Pergamon International Library of Science, Technology, Engineering and Social Studies. Boyle, C.: 2004. Considerations on educating engineers in sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 5 (2), 147-155 Bowen W. M. & Robinson M.: 2000. Global environmental priorities of Engineering students in Krakow Poland. Electronic Journal of Science Education 5 (1), 1-14. http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/robinsonetal.html Brown, L.: 1981. Building a Sustainable Society. W.W. Norton. Buckeridge, J.: 1999. Ethics and morality: their development in professional practice. Global Journal of Engineering Education Vol. 3 (3), pp. 215-220. Bybee, R. W.: 1991. Planet Earth in crisis: How should science educators respond? The American Biology Teacher 53 (3), 146-153. Bybee, R. W. & Mau, T.: 1986. Science and Technology related to global problems. An international survey of science educators. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 23, 599-618. Bybee, R. W. & Nejafi, K.: 1986. Global problems and college education: a survey of students. Journal of College Science Teaching 15 (5), 443-447. [ Calder, W. & Clugston, R. M.: 2002. Progress Toward Sustainability in Higher Education. In Dernbach, J. C. (Ed.). Stumbling Toward Sustainability. The Environmental Law Institute. Available in http://www.ulsf.org/pdf/dernbach_chapter_short.pdf Capra, F. 1982. The Turning Point. Bantam, New York.

Capra, F.: 1996. The Web of Life. Doubleday, New York. Center for the study of ethics in the professions: 2002. http://www.iit.edu/departments/csep/PublicWWW/codes/index.html Codes of ethics online.

Clugston, R. M. & Calder, W.: 1999. Critical Dimensions of Sustainability in Higher Education. In Leal Filho, W. (Ed.). Sustainability and University Life. Peter Lang Publisher. . Corcorn, P. B. & Wals, A. E. J. (Eds.): 2004. Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability: Problematics, Promise, and Practice. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Cortina, A. tica minima. Ed. Trotta, Madrid. Crocker, D. A.: 1991. 'Toward Development Ethics', World Development 19, 457-83. Crosthwaite, J.: 2001. Teaching ethics and technology what is required? Science & Education 10, 97-105. Daly, H. & Cobb, J.: 1989. For the Common Good. Beacon Press, Boston. Dam-Mieras, R. V.; Michelsen, G. & Winkelmann, H-P.: 2002. COPERNICUS IN Lneburg: higher education in the context of sustainable development and globalization. Series Innovation in den Hochschulen: Nachhaltige Entwicklung, 8. VAS, Frankfurt am Main. Dawe, G., Jucker, R. & Martin, S.: 2005. Sustainable Development in Higher Education: Current Practice and Future Developments A report for The Higher Education Academy. November 2005. Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment: 1972. United Nations. Available in http://www.unep.org Delors, J. et al. : 1996. Learning: the treasure within. Report to UNESCO. Paris. Downey P.R.: 2004. Sustainability takes time. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 5 (1), 81-90. Edwards, M.: 2003. La atencin a la situacin del mundo en la educacin cientfica. Tesis doctoral. Departamento de Didctica de las Ciencias Experimentales y Sociales. Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Valencia. Valencia. Edwards, M.: 2005. Activist Science Education. In Mitcham, C. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics. McMillan. Detroit. Pp. 12-14. Fenner, R. A.; Ainger, C. M.; Cruickshank, H. J. & Guthrie, P. M.: 2005. Embedding Sustainable development at Cambridge University Engineering Department. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 6 (3), 229-241. Fien, J. & Tilbury, D.:2002. The Global Challenge of Sustainability. In Tilbury, D.; Stevenson, R. B.; Fien, J & Schreuder, D. (Eds.). Education and Sustainability: Responding to the Global Challenge. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, pp. 1-12. Gayford C.: 1998. The perspectives of science teachers in relation to current thinking about Environmental Education. Research in Science & Technological Education 16 (2), 101-113

Gil-Prez, D.; Vilches, A.; Edwards, M. ; Praia, J. ; Marques, L. & Oliveira, T.: 2003. A proposal to enrich teachers perception of the state of the world: first results. Environmental Education Research 9 (1), 68-88. Graham, A. C.: 2004. Report on Higher Education Sustainability Activities. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA Hansen, T. B.: 2005. Teaching ethics to science and engineering students. Center for the Report of Conference on Science. April 15-16. Philosophy of Nature and science Studies. Copenhagen, pp. 2-17. Harman, W.: 1988. Global Mind Change. Knowledge Systems. Indianapolis. Hassard J. y Weisberg J.: 1999. The emergence of global thinking among American and Russian youth as a contribution to public understanding. International Journal of Science Education 21 (7), 731-743. Heilmayr, R.: 2005. Sustainability Reporting at Higher Education Institutions. Claremont Mckenna College. Herkert, J. R.: 2000. Social, Ethical, and Policy Implications of Engineering. Wiley/IEEE Press, New York. Herkert, J. R.: 2002. Continuing and emerging issues in Engineering Ethics education. The Bridge 32 (3), 8-13. Herkert, J. R.: 2005. Ways of Thinking about and Teaching Ethical Problem Solving: Microethics and Macroethics in Engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics 11(3), 373-385. Hicks, D.: 2003. Thirty Years of Global Education:a reminder of key principles and precedents. Educational Review 55 (3), 266-275. Hopkins, C. & McKeown, R.: 2002. Education for sustainable development: an international perspective. In Tilbury, D.; Stevenson, R. B.; Fien, J & Schreuder, D. (Eds.). Education and Sustainability: Responding to the Global Challenge. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, pp. 13-24. Jonas, H.: 1984. The imperative of responsibility. In search of an ethics for the technological age. Chicago and London. The University of Chicago Press. Johnston, A.; White, E.; Buckland, H.; Parkin, S. & Brookes, F.: 2003. Reporting for Sustainability. Guidance for Higher Education Institutions. Higher Education Partnership for Sustainability Forum for the Future. UK. Korten, D.: 1999. When corporations rule the world. London, Earthscan Publications Ltd. Kuhn, T.: 1962. The structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press. Kng, H. & Kuschel, K. J. (Eds.): 1993. A Global Ethic. The Declaration of the Parliament of the Worlds Religions. SCM Press/London/Continuum. New York. Leal Filho, W. 2002a, Teaching Sustainability - towards curriculum greening, Peter Lan Scientific Publishers. Bern, Frankfurt, New York, Vienna. Leal Filho, W. 2002b. Teaching sustainability: some current and future perspectives. In Leal Filho, W. (Ed.) Teaching sustainability at universities. Vol. 11 of the Series Environmental Education, Communication and sustainability. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Pp 15-23.

Lozano, F.: 2003. Ethical Responsibility in Engineering: A Fundamentation and Proposition of a Pedagogic Methodology. International Conference on Engineering Education. July 2125, 2003, Valencia, Spain. McKeown-Ice, R.: 2000. Environmental Education in the United States: a Survey of Preservice Teacher Education Programs. The Journal of Environmental Education 32 (1), 4-11. McKeown, R., & Hopkins, C.: 2003. EE does not equal ESD: Defusing the worry. Environmental Education Research 9 (1), 118128. McKeown, R. Hopkins, C. A., Rizzi, R. & Chrystalbridge, M.: 2002. Education for Sustainable Development Toolkit. Energy, Environment and Resources Center. University of Tennessee. Morin. E.: 1999. Seven complex lessons in education for the future. UNESCO Publishing. National Academy of Engineering: 2004, The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new century, National Academies Press, Washington, DC. NCSU (North Carolina State University): 2002. Web Clearinghouse for Engineering and Computing Ethics. Available online at http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jherkert/ethicind.html Novo, M.: 2002. Higher Environmental Education in the XXI Century: Towards a new Interpretative Paradigm. In Filho (Ed.), Teaching sustainability at universitiesTowards curriculum greening. New York: Peter Lang Scientific Publishers. Chapter 25, pp. 429-458. Orr, D. W.: 1992. Ecological literacy: education and the transition to a posmodern world. State University of New York Press: Albany. Orr, D. W.: 1994. Earth in Mind. On Education, Environment, and the Human prospect. Island Press: Washington, DC - California. Orr, D. W.: 1995. Educating for the Environment. Higher Educations Challenge of the Next Century. Change, May/June, 43-46. Pedretti, E., Digiuseppe, M., Bencze, J., De Coito, I. & Hodson, D.: 2002. Enhancing STSE Praxis Through Action Research. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. New Orleans, LA. Robinson, M. & Kaleta, P.: 1999. Global environmental priorities of secondary students in Zarbre, Poland. International Journal of Science Education 21 (5), 499-514. Robinson, M., Trojok, T. & Norwisz, J.: 1997. The ranking of global environmental issues and problems by Polish Secondary students and teachers. Electronic Journal of Science Education 2 (1), 1-16. http://unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/rob_etal.html Rowe, D.: 2002, Environmental Literacy and Sustainability as Core requirements: Success Stories and Models. In Filho, W. L.: 2002a, Teaching Sustainability - towards curriculum greening, Peter Lan Scientific Publishers (Bern, Frankfurt, New York, Vienna), pp. 79-104. Rowe, D. & Bartleman, D.: 1999. Learning communities to teach solutions to societal problems, reduce student apathy and create positive change agents: essential and missing components of our curricula., Washington Center for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education annual conference presentation paper, SeaTac, WA.

Rowe, D., Bartleman, D., Khirallah, M. Smydra, M., Keith, G. & Ponder, M.: 1999. Reduce cynicism and apathy and create positive change agents: Essential and missing components of our educational curricula., Chair Academy Conference Proceedings, Long Beach, CA. Runte, R.: 2001. Re-Educating Humankind: Globalizing the Curriculum and Teaching International Ethics for the New Century. Higher Education in Europe 26 (1), 39-46. Sen, A.: 1999. Development as Freedom, New York: Knopf. Shriberg, M. P.: 2002. Sustainability in U. S. Higher Education: organizational factors influencing campus environmental performance and leadership. University of Michigan. Doctoral Thesis Unpublished. Stephan, K.: 1999. A survey of ethics-related-instruction in US engineering programs. Journal of Engineering Education 88, 459-464. Stables, A. & Scott, W.: 2002. The quest for holism in education for sustainable development. Environmental Education Research Vol. 8 (1), pp 54-60. Standing Committee on Responsibility and Ethics in Science (SCRES): 1999. Ethics and the responsibility of science. Available at http://www.unesco.org/science/wcs/background/ethics.htm Sterling, S.: 2003. Whole systems thinking as a basis for paradigm change in education: exploration in the context of sustainability. Doctoral thesis. University of Bath Tilbury, D.: 1995. Environmental Education for sustainability: defining the new focus of environmental education in the 1990s, Environmental Education Research 1 (2), 195-212. Tilbury, D.: 2004a. Rising to the Challenge: Education for Sustainability in Australia . Australian Journal of Environmental Education 20 (2), 103-114. Tilbury, D.: 2004b. Environmental education for sustainability: A force for change in Higher Education. In P. Blaze Corcoran & A. Wals (Eds.), Higher education and the challenge of sustainability. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 97-112. Uhl, C., & Anderson, A.: 2001. Green Destiny: Universities Leading the Way to a Sustainable Future, BioScience 51, No.1, 36-42. UNESCO: 1998. World Conference on Higher Education in the Twenty-first Century. Available in http://www.unesco.org/education/educprog/wche/declaration_eng.htm UNESCO: 2002a. Education for Sustainability. From Rio to Johannesburg: Lessons learnt from a decade of commitment. UNESCO. Paris. UNESCO: 2002b. Harnessing science to society. Analytical Report to governments and international partners on the follow-up to the World Conference on Science. UNESCO. Paris. http://www.unesco.org/science/wcs/report_wcs.pdf UNESCO: 2005. Guidelines and Recommendations for Reorienting Teacher Education to Address Sustainability. United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005-2014). Education for Sustainable Development in Action. Technical Paper N 2. United Nations: 1998. Environment Programme. Engineering Education and Training for Sustainable Development. Final Report from the UNEP, WFEO, WSCSD, ENPC Joint Conference, Paris, France.

United Nations: 1992. UN Conference on Environment and Development, Agenda 21 Rio Declaration, Forest Principles. UNESCO: Paris. United Nations: 2002. The world summit on sustainable development. Available in http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/ World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED): 1987. Our common future. Oxford University Press: Oxford, New York. Wolfe, V.: 2001. A survey of the environmental education of students in non-environmental majors at tour year institutions in the USA. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2 (4), 301-315. Wright, T.: 2004. The evolution of sustainability Declarations in Higher Education. In Corcorn, P. B. & Wals, A. E. J. (Eds.): 2004. Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability: Problematics, Promise, and Practice. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Pp 7-20 Zoller, U.: 2004. Chemistry and Environmental Education (editorial). Chemistry Education: Research and Practice 5 (2), 95-97.