ENGINEERING

PRACTICE & ETHICS

ENGINEERING AS SOCIAL EXPERIMENTATIONI
 ENGINEERING AS SOCIAL
EXPERIMENTATION
• To undertake a great work and especially a work of novel type
means, carrying out an experiment. It means taking up a struggle
with the forces of nature without the assurance of emerging as a
victor after the first attack.

• Louis Marie Henri Navier (1785 - 1836) - Founder of Structural

Analysis
 ENGINEERING AS
EXPERIMENTATION
• Experimentation (Preliminary tests or Simulations) plays a vital role in the design of a
product or process. In all stages of converting a new engineering concept into a design
like,
• first rough cut design,
• usage of different types of materials and processes,
• detailed design,
• further stages of work design and
• the finished product,

• Experiments and tests are conducted to evaluate the product. Modifications are made
based on the outcome of these experiments. he normal design process is thus iterative
(modifications being made on the basis of feedback information acquired from the
tests).Even though various tests and experiments are conducted at various stages, the
engineering project as a whole in its totality can be viewed as an experiment.
 SIMILARITIES TO STANDARD
EXPERIMENTS
• Any project is carried out in partial ignorance due to
• The uncertainties in the abstract model used for the design calculations,
• The uncertainties in the precise characteristics of the materials purchased,
• The uncertainties caused by variations in processing and fabrication of materials and
• The uncertainties about the nature of stresses the finished product will encounter.
• Indeed, Engineers success lies in the ability to accomplish tasks with only a partial
knowledge of scientific laws about nature and society. The final outcome of engineering
projects, like those of

• experiments, is generally uncertain. Very often, possible outcomes are not even known and
great risks may be presented which could never be thought of.
• Effective Engineering relies upon knowledge gained about products both before and after they
leave the factory- knowledge needed for improving current products and creating better ones.
That is, ongoing success in engineering depends upon gaining new knowledge.
 LEARNING FROM THE PAST
• Engineers should learn not only from their own earlier design and
operating results, but also from other engineers.Engineers repeat the
past mistakes of others due to the following reasons.
• Lack of established channels of communication.
• Misplaced pride in not asking for information
• Embarrassment at failure or fear of litigation (legal problems).
• Negligence.
 LEARNING FROM THE PAST
• Examples:
• 1. The Titanic lacked sufficient number of life boats resulting in the death of 1522
out of 2227 (life boat capacity available was only 825), a few decades later Arctic
perished due to the same problem.
• 2. In June 1966, a section of the Milford Haven Bridge in Wales collapsed during
construction. A bridge of similar design, erected by the same bridge- builder in
Melbourne, Australia, also partially collapsed in the month of October, same year.
During this incident 33 people were killed and many were injured.
• 3. Malfunctions occurred at nuclear reactors at various locations and the
information reports were with Babcock and Wilcox, the reactor manufacturer. In
spite of these, no attention was paid leading to a pressure relief valve giving rise
to the Three Mile Island nuclear accident on March 28, 1979.
 LEARNING FROM THE PAST
• In spite In spite
• CONTRASTS WITH STANDARD EXPERIMENTS
• 1. EXPERIMENTAL CONTROL: In standard experiments, members are in
two different groups. Members of one group receive special experimental
treatment. The other group members, called „control group do not receive special
treatment, though they are from the same environment in all other respects. But
this is not true in engineering, since most of the experiments are not conducted in
laboratories. The subjects of experiments are human beings who are outside the
experimenters control. Thus it is not possible to study the effects of changes in
variable on different groups. Hence only historical and retrospective data
available about various target groups has to be used for evaluation. Hence
engineering as a social experimentation seems to be an extended usage of the
concept of experimentation.
 LEARNING FROM THE PAST
• In spite In spite
• CONTRASTS WITH STANDARD EXPERIMENTS
2. INFORMED CONSENT: has two elements, knowledge and voluntariness.
The subjects (human beings) should be given all the information needed to make
a reasonable decision. Next, they must get into the experiment without being
subjected to force, fraud or deception. Supplying complete information is
neither necessary nor in most cases possible. But all relevant information
needed for making a reasonable decision on whether to participate should be
conveyed. Generally, we all prefer to be the subject of our own experiments
rather than those of somebody else.
 Conditions defining Informed or Valid
Consent
• The consent is given voluntarily
• The consent is based on information a rational person would want, together with any other
information requested and presented to them in understandable form.
• The consenter was competent to process the information and make rational decisions.
Information has been widely disseminated.
• The subjects consent is offered by proxy by a group that collectively represents many
subjects like interests, concerns and exposure to risk.
• Engineering experiments are not conducted to gain new knowledge unlike scientific
experiments. Is this distinction necessary?
• This distinction is not vital because we are concerned about the manner in which the
experiment is conducted, such as valid consent of human subjects being sought, safety
measures taken and means exist for terminating the experiment at any time and providing
all participants a safe exit.
 Features of morally responsible engineers
in social experimentation
• Conscientiousness: A primary obligation to protect the safety of
human subjects and respect their right of consent.
• Relevant information: A constant awareness of the experimental nature
of any project, imaginative forecasting of its possible side effects and a
reasonable effort to monitor them.
• Moral autonomy: Autonomous, personal involvement in all steps of
the project.
• Accountability: Accepting accountability for the results of the project.
 CONSCIENTIOUSNESS:
• Conscientious moral commitment means sensitivity to the full range of
relevant moral values. Sensitivity to responsibilities that is relevant.
Willingness to develop the skill and expend the effort needed to reach
the best balance possible among these considerations.
Conscientiousness means consciousness because mere intent is not
sufficient.
• Conceiving engineering as social experimentation restores the vision
of engineers as guardians of the public interest in that they are duty
bound to guard the welfare and safety of those affected by engg
projects.
 RELEVANT I NFORMATION:
• Conscientiousness is blind without relevant factual information. Moral
concern involves a commitment to obtain and assess all available
pertinent information. Another dimension to factual information is the
consequences of what one does. While regarding engg as social
experimentation points out the importance of context, it also urges the
engineer to view his or her specialized activities in a project as part of
a larger whole having a social impact that may involve a variety of
unintended effects. It may be better to practice „defensive engg
(Chauncy Starr) or „preventive engg (Ruth Davis).
 MORAL AUTONOMY
• People are morally autonomous when their moral conduct and principles of action are
their own. Moral beliefs and attitudes must be a critical reflection and not a passive
adoption of the particular conventions of ones society, religion or profession. Moral
beliefs and attitudes cannot be agreed to formally and adhered to merely verbally. They
must be integrated into the core of ones personality and should lead to committed action.
• It is wrong to think that as an employee when one performs „acts serving companys
interests, one is no longer morally and personally identified with ones actions. Viewing
engg as a social experimentation helps to overcome this flawed thought and restores a
sense of autonomous participation in ones work. As an experimenter, an engineer is
exercising the specialized training that forms the core of ones identity as a professional.
• A social experiment that can result in unknown consequences should help inspire a
critical and questioning attitude about the adequacy of current economic and safety
standards. In turn, this leads to better personal involvement with work.
 ACCOUNTABILITY:
• Responsible people accept moral responsibility for their actions.
Accountability is the willingness to submit ones actions to moral scrutiny
and be open and responsive to the assessment of others. It should be
understood as being culpable and blameworthy for misdeeds. Submission to
an employers authority creates in many people a narrow sense of
accountability for the consequences of their action. This is because of
• i) Only a small contribution is made by one individual, when large scale engineering
work is fragmented. The final product which is far away from ones immediate
workplace, does not give a proper understanding of the consequences of ones action.
• ii) Due to the fragmentation of work, a vast diffusion of accountability takes place.
The area of personal accountability is delimited to the portion of work being carried
out by one.
 ACCOUNTABILITY:

• iii) The pressure to move on to another new project does not allow one to
complete the observations long enough. This makes people accountable only
for meeting schedules and not for the consequences of action.

• iv) To avoid getting into legal issues, engineers tend to concentrate more on
legal liabilities than the containment of the potential risks involved in their
area of work.
• Viewing engineering as a social experimentation makes one overcome
these difficulties and see the problem in whole rather than as part.
 ENGINEERING CODES OF ETHICS
• Engineering Codes of Ethics have evolved over time
• EARLY CODES
• Codes of personal behavior
• Codes for honesty in business dealings and fair business practices
• Employee/employer relations

• NEWER CODES
• Emphasize commitments to safety, public health and environmental protection
• Express the rights, duties and obligations of members of the Profession
• Do not express new ethical principles, but coherently restate existing standards of responsible
engineering practice
• Create an environment within the Profession where ethical behavior is the norm
• Not legally binding; an engineer cannot be arrested for violating an ethical code (but may be
expelled from or censured by the engineering society)
 ENGINEERING CODES OF ETHICS
• Are Engineering Codes Needed? NO:
• Engineers are capable of fending for themselves
• Common law is available to defend in ethical disputes
• Offended public can seek redress through courts
• Are Engineering Codes Needed? YES:
• Engineers have few or no resources to defend themselves in an ethical dispute
• Common law is available in reality only with great difficulty
• Conversely, the public has similar problems in seeking redress through legal channels
• Objections to Existing Engineering Codes of Ethics:
• Relatively few engineers are members of engineering societies.
• Non-members dont necessarily follow the ethical codes.
• Many engineers either dont know that the codes exist, or have not read them.
 ENGINEERING CODES OF ETHICS
• Which ethical codes apply?
• Depending upon your discipline and organizational affiliations, you may be bound by
one, two or even more ethical codes:
• Discipline related (ASME, IEEE, ASCE, IIE etc.)
• National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE)
• Employee codes (corporation, university, etc.)
• Union Codes
• Engineering Ethics
• Our engineering ethics codes are derived from a Western cultural tradition
• Ancient Greeks
• Judeo-Christian religions
• Philosophers and thinkers (e.g. Locke, Kant, Mills)
 ENGINEERING CODES OF ETHICS
• The Hammurabi Code
• If a builder has built a house for a man and has not made his work sound, and
the house he has built has fallen down and so caused the death of the
householder, that builder shall be put to death. If it causes the death of the
householders son, they shall put the builders son to death…. (Hammurabi,
King of Babylon, 1758 B.C.)
 CODE OF ETHICS FOR ENGINEERS
• Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) The
Fundamental Principles
• Engineers shall uphold and advance the integrity, honor, and dignity
of the engineering profession by:
• using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of the human race;
• being honest and impartial and serving with fidelity the public, their
employers, and clients;
• striving to increase the competence and prestige of the engineering profession.
• supporting the professional and technical societies of their discipline.
 THE FUNDAMENTAL CANNONS
• Engineers shall
• hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public in the performance of
their professional duties;
• perform service only in areas of their competence;
• issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner;
• act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, and
shall avoid conflicts of interest;
• build their professional reputations on the merits of their services and shall not compete
unfairly with others
• act in such manner as to uphold and enhance the honor, integrity and dignity of the
profession;
• continue their professional development throughout their careers, and shall provide
opportunities for the professional development of those engineers under their supervision.
 CODES OF ETHICS - ROLES OR
FUNCTIONS
• Inspiration and Guidance:
• Codes provide positive stimulus for ethical conduct and helpful guidance by
using positive language.
• Codes should be brief to be effective and hence such codes offer only general
guidance.
• Supplementary statements or guidelines to give specific directions are added
by a number of societies or professional bodies.
 CODES OF ETHICS - ROLES OR
FUNCTIONS
• 2. Support: Codes give positive support to those seeking to act ethically. An
engineer under pressure to act unethically can use one of the publicly proclaimed
codes to get support for his stand on specific moral issues. Codes also serve as
legal support for engineers.

• 3. Deterrence and discipline:

• Codes can be used as a basis for conducting investigations on unethical conduct. They also
provide a deterrent for engineers to act immorally. Engineers who are punished by
professional societies for proven unethical behaviour by revoking the rights to practice as
engineers are also subjected to public ridicule and loss of respect from colleagues and local
community. This helps to produce ethical conduct even though this can be viewed as a
negative way of motivation.
 CODES OF ETHICS - ROLES OR
FUNCTIONS
• 4. Education and mutual understanding:
• The codes can be used for discussion and reflection on moral issues and thereby improve the
understanding of moral responsibilities among all engineers, clients, public and good
organizations.
• 5. Contributing to the profession’s public image:
• Codes present the engineering profession as an ethically committed society in the eyes of the
public thus enhancing their image.

• 6. Protecting status quo:

• Codes establish ethical conventions, which can help promote an agreed upon minimum level of
ethical conduct.
• 7. Promoting business interests:
• Codes can place unwarranted restraints of commerce on business dealings.
 Relative importance of the various
functions of codes of ethics
• The perspective of engg as social experimentation clearly emphasizes the primary role
supportive function of the codes of ethics. This is so because, only this support enables
engineers, speak out clearly and openly their views, to those affected by engg projects.
• The, „inspiration and guidance and „educative functions are also important in promoting mutual
understanding and in motivating engineers to act with higher moral standards.

• The „disciplinary function in engg codes is of secondary importance. Those with unethical
conduct when exposed are subject to law. Developing elaborate paralegal procedures within
professional societies duplicates a function which can be done better by legal system. At best,
codes should try to discipline engineers in areas which are not covered by law.
• The worst abuse of codes has been to restrict honest moral effort in the name of preserving
professions public image and „protecting status quo. The best way to increase trust is by
encouraging and aiding engineers to speak freely and responsibly about public safety.
 Limitations of Codes of Ethics
• Codes are restricted to general and vague wording. They cannot be
straightaway applied to all situations. It is impossible to foresee the
full range of moral problems that can arise in a c omplex profession
like engg. It is easy for different clauses of codes to come into conflict
with each other. Usually codes provide no guidance as to which clause
should have priority in those cases, creating moral dilemmas. They
cannot serve as the final moral authority for professional conduct. If
the code of a professional society is taken as the last word, it means
that we are getting into a particular set of conventions i.e. ethical
conventionalism.
 The problems of law in engineering

• 1. The greatest problem of law in engg is of „minimal compliance. Engineers and employers can search
for loop holes in the law to barely keep to its letter while violating its spirit. Engineers will tend to refer
to standard readymade specifications rather than come up with innovative ideas. Minimal compliance
led to the tragedy of the „Titanic.

• 2. Continually updating laws and regulations may be counter-productive and will make law always lag
behind technology. This also overburdens the rules and regulators.

• Many laws are „non-laws i.e. laws without enforceable sanctions. These merely serve as window
dressing, frequently gives a false sense of security to the public. The opponents of the law may burden
it intentionally with many unreasonable provisions that a repeal will not be far off. ighly powerful
organizations, like the government can violate the laws when they think they can get away with it by
inviting would be challengers, to face them in lengthy and costly court proceedings. This also creates
frustration with the law.
 Role of law in engineering
• It is wrong to write off rule-making and rule following as futile. Good laws, effectively
enforced, clearly produce benefits. Reasonable minimum standards are ensured of
professional conduct. It also provides a self-interested motive for most people and
corporations to comply. They also serve as powerful support and defense for those who
wish to act ethically in situations where ethical conduct might not be welcome.

• Viewing engineering as social experimentation provides engineers with a better perspective

on laws and regulations. Precise rules and enforceable sanctions are appropriate in cases of
ethical misconduct that involve violations of well established and regularly reexamined
procedures that have as their purpose the safety of public. In areas of experimentation, rules
must not attempt to cover all possible outcomes of an experiment, nor must they force the
engineer to adopt a rigidly specified course of action. Here the regulations should be broad
based guidelines but should hold the engineer accountable for his or her decisions.