Engineering Ethics

1. Engineering Ethics Prof. Bitar ECE 2799 LAST UPDATE: 12/07/2018

2. A Classic Case…

3. 1980 Ford Pinto http://www.cookieboystoys.com/vintage%20pinto/1980%20Ford%20Pinto%20Brochure/1980%20Ford%20Pinto%20Brochure%2001.jpg

5. http://www.engineering.com/Library/ArticlesPage/tabid/85/ArticleID/166/Ford-Pinto.aspxhttp://www.engineering.com/Library/ArticlesPage/tabid/85/ArticleID/166/Ford-Pinto.aspx

6. 1978 Ford Cost-Benefit Analysis... • Unsafe tanks would cause… • 180 burn deaths, • 180 serious burn injuries • 2,100 burned vehicles each year. • Total Liability: $49.5 million • Redesign: $137 million (in 1978 dollars)

7. PR Nightmare for Ford Thank You Ralph Nader !!!!

8. Decisions in Engineering Through the Years • 1978: Ford sells “Pinto” despite known design problem with gas tank—hundreds die • 1986: Challenger launched in cold despite O-ring concerns—crew dies, $ billions spent, space program derailed

9. And more recently, Volkswagen…https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu_PZD6CQXk

11. Space Shuttle Challenger January 28, 1986

13. What ethical problems do you expect to face as an engineer?

14. What ethical problemsdo you face now, as an engineering student?

15. More Decisions Through the Years • 2010: Student uses pirated software • 2011: Student copies homework assignment • 2012: Student plagiarizes part of IQP • 2013: Student signs MQP report despite not doing fair share of work—partners cover for him • 2013: WPI grants student ECE Degree • 2013: Raytheon hires student to design Air Traffic Control Systems

16. A Context for Today’s Discussion • Your “professional career” has already begun… • You are already expressing your ethical standards; they are what you do… • Contrary to popular belief, personal and professional ethics cannot be separated, without imposing an ethical dilemma …

17. Some Difficult Questions • When is a lie justified? • When is it OK to break the law? • When do the ends justify the means? • When does public interest override profit? • Will you be a whistleblower?

18. Real-World Ethical Problems “In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice... In practice, there is.”Yogi Berra • Rarely is there clear “right” or “wrong” • Often you are choosing between competing interests, both of which matter

19. A Simple Google Search Reveals: • Online Ethics Center for Engineering & Science • NIEE (National Institute for Engineering Ethics) • NSPE (National Society of Professional Engineers) • IEEE (and many others) Code of Ethics • Web Clearinghouse for Engineering and Computing Ethics • Course and resource pages at many universities (ABET requirement)

20. Core Ethical Values (NIEE) • Integrity: good judgment, adherence to principles • Honesty: truthfulness, fairness, sincerity • Fidelity: to clients, to the public trust, to employer, to the profession • Charity: kindness, caring, good will, tolerance, compassion/mercy, adherence to the Golden Rule • Responsibility: reliability/dependability, accountability, trustworthiness • Self-Discipline: acting with restraint, not indulging in excessive behavior

21. IEEE Code of Ethics “We, the members of the IEEE, in recognition of the importance of our technologies in affecting the quality of life throughout the world, and in accepting a personal obligation to our profession, its members and the communities we serve, do hereby commit ourselves to the highest ethical and professional conduct and agree: 1. to accept responsibilityin making engineering decisions consistent with the safety, health and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment; 2. to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest whenever possible, and to disclose them to affected parties when they do exist; 3. to be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data; 4. to reject bribery in all its forms;

22. IEEE Code of Ethics, cont’d 5. to improve the understanding of technology, its appropriate application, and potential consequences; 6. to maintain and improve our technical competence and to undertake technological tasks for others only if qualified by training or experience, or after full disclosure of pertinent limitations; 7. to seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to acknowledge and correct errors, and to credit properly the contributions of others; 8. to treat fairly all persons regardless of such factors as race, religion, gender, disability, age, or national origin; 9. to avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious action; 10. to assist colleagues and co-workers in their professional development and to support them in following this code of ethics.”

23. Example Moral Standard:The Categorical Imperative(Immanuel Kant, 1724-1804) “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”

24. Using the Categorical Imperative to Judge an Action • Convert the action to a principle • Would it be logical for you to wanteveryone to follow that principle? • Yes—action is moral • No—action is immoral • Kant’s favorite examples • Suicide • False promises • Failing to develop one’s abilities • Refusing to be charitable

25. The Law of Sowing and Reaping • Sow a Thought, Reap an Action. • Sow an Action, Reap a Habit. • Sow a Habit, Reap your Character. • Sow your Character, Reap your Destiny. “Character Determines Destiny”Heraclitus of Ephesus 500 BC

26. Moral Codes … What is your basis for judging right from wrong? • “The Ten Commandments” • “Eye for an Eye” • “The Golden Rule” (the foundation for many codes of ethics) • Others?

27. Things you can do to avoid ethical dilemmas in your career… • Think about your own beliefs and values and adopt a code of ethics you believe in. • Ask a potential employer what their core values are and what they stand for, before accepting a job. • Make it clear, where you stand. • Work for something you believe in.

28. Story… “If he’s going to be stupid enough to leave it out, I’m not going to be stupid enough not to take it….”

29. Extras

30. “Ethics as Design”—Caroline Whitbeck • Analyzing the situation is not enough • You must do something that resolves the issue • Ethical problems require practical design • Constraints, objectives, criteria • There may not even be a “solution” • But usually, there are many • There is no unique “right answer” • There are plenty of “bad answers” • Some answers are better than others

31. Designing a Solution • Define the problem • What’s known? What’s ambiguous? • Explore solutions • Brainstorm—go beyond the obvious • Consider criteria • Moral standards, professional standards, laws • Consider consequences • Professional, personal, legal, moral

32. Ethics • Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public— National Society of Professional Engineers, • Moral rule: "People should not steal (or commit theft)." • Breaking into a store and taking $3000 in merchandise. • “Borrowing" a friend's car and failing to return it. • Taking a bicycle that someone had forgotten to lock. • Developing a computer program on company time for your company, and then patenting a considerably improved version of the program under your own name. • Borrowing a book from a friend, keeping it by mistake for a long time and then failing to return it. (You discover the book after your friend has moved away, and you decide to keep it.) • Using some ideas you developed at Company A for a very different chemical process at Company B. • Using some management techniques at Company B that were developed at Company A. • Picking up a quarter that you saw someone drop on the street. • Failing to return a sheet of paper (or paper clip) you borrowed. • Picking up a quarter that someone (you don't know who) has dropped on the street.

33. Situations that challenge our abilities: • To determine the right thing to do, • Carry out effective ethical action • Lay out an effective strategy for avoiding ethical obstacles in the future. • Engineering failures include ethical as well as technical issues Ethical Wrong Thing To Do Ethical Dilemma Ethical Dilemma Right Thing To Do Un-Ethical Pause Act Think Consult

34. Engineering ethics categories • Academic Ethics • Bioengineering • Business Ethics • Civil Engineering • Computer/Software Engineering • Electrical Engineering • International • Mechanical Engineering • Science/Research Ethics

35. Engineering failures include ethical as well as technical issues (check these out): • Space Shuttle Columbia disaster (2003) • Space Shuttle Challenger disaster (1986) • Therac-25 accidents (1985 to 1987) • Chernobyl disaster (1986) • Bhopal disaster (1984) • Kansas City Hyatt Regency walkway collapse (1981) • Love Canal (1980), Lois Gibbs • Three Mile Island accident (1979) • Citigroup Center (1978), • Ford Pinto safety problems (1970s) • Minamata disease (1908–1973) • Chevrolet Corvair safety problems (1960s), Ralph Nader, and Unsafe at Any Speed • Boston molasses disaster (1919) • Quebec Bridge collapse (1907), Theodore Cooper • Johnstown Flood (1889), South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club • Tay Bridge Disaster (1879), Thomas Bouch, William Henry Barlow, and William Yolland • Ashtabula River Railroad Disaster (1876), Amasa Stone

36. Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, Wikipedia. Date: 28 January 1986 Time: 11:39:13 EST (16:39:13 UTC) Location: Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of Florida Outcome: Grounding of the Space Shuttle fleet for nearly three years during which various safety measures, solid rocket booster redesign, and a new policy on management decision-making for future launches were implemented. Casualties: Francis R. Scobee, Commander, Michael J. Smith, Pilot, Ronald McNair, Mission Specialist, Ellison Onizuka, Mission Specialist, Judith Resnik, Mission Specialist, Gregory Jarvis, Payload SpecialistChrista McAuliffe, Payload Specialist, Teacher Inquiries: Rogers Commission STS-51-L crew: Michael J. Smith, Dick Scobee, Ronald McNair; (back row) Ellison Onizuka, Christa McAuliffe, Gregory Jarvis, Judith Resnik. On January 28, 1986, the NASA shuttle orbiter mission STS-51-L and the tenth flight of Space Shuttle Challenger (OV-99) broke apart 73 seconds into its flight, killing all seven crew members, which consisted of five NASA astronauts and two payload specialists. The spacecraft disintegrated over the Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of Cape Canaveral, Florida, at 11:39 EST (16:39 UTC). Disintegration of the vehicle began after an O-ring seal in its right solid rocket booster (SRB) failed at liftoff. The O-ring was not designed to fly under unusually cold conditions as in this launch. Its failure caused a breach in the SRB joint it sealed, allowing pressurized burning gas from within the solid rocket motor to reach the outside and impinge upon the adjacent SRB aft field joint attachment hardware and external fuel tank. This led to the separation of the right-hand SRB's aft field joint attachment and the structural failure of the external tank. Aerodynamic forces broke up the orbiter. The crew compartment and many other vehicle fragments were eventually recovered from the ocean floor after a lengthy search and recovery operation. The exact timing of the death of the crew is unknown; several crew members are known to have survived the initial breakup of the spacecraft. The shuttle had no escape system,[1][2] and the impact of the crew compartment with the ocean surface was too violent to be survivable.[3] The disaster resulted in a 32-month hiatus in the shuttle program and the formation of the Rogers Commission, a special commission appointed by United States President Ronald Reagan to investigate the accident. The Rogers Commission found NASA's organizational culture and decision-making processes had been key contributing factors to the accident,[4] with the agency violating its own safety rules. NASA managers had known since 1977 that contractor Morton-Thiokol's design of the SRBs contained a potentially catastrophic flaw in the O-rings, but they had failed to address this problem properly. NASA managers also disregarded warnings (an example of "go fever") from engineers about the dangers of launching posed by the low temperatures of that morning, and failed to adequately report these technical concerns to their superiors. As a result of the disaster, the Air Force decided to cancel its plans to use the Shuttle for classified military satellite launches from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, deciding to use the Titan IV instead. Approximately 17 percent of Americans witnessed the launch live because of the presence of Payload Specialist Christa McAuliffe, who would have been the first teacher in space. Media coverage of the accident was extensive: one study reported that 85 percent of Americans surveyed had heard the news within an hour of the accident.[5] The Challenger disaster has been used as a case study in many discussions of engineering safety and workplace ethics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4JOjcDFtBE