Ethics in science & engineering: or, What should you do?

Ethics in science & engineering: or, What should you do?

Ethics in Science and Engineering What kinds of guidelines are there for ethics? Engineers have professional guidelines. Almost all professional engineering societies have canons that describe fundamental principles. An example is the #1 fundamental canon of engineering practice, from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers: #1 Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties.

Ethics in Science and Engineering What kinds of guidelines are there for ethics? Scientists have guidelines attached to funding and publishing. The NSF, NIH, EPA and other funding bodies have guidelines for researchers they fund. Other organizations have guidelines covering practices in research they will publish, such as the Intl Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Scientific societies such as the American Chemical Society have codes of ethics.

Ethics in Science and Engineering Behind these ethical guidelines is the same fundamental position: Science and engineering are professions of public service.

Ethics in Science and Engineering We have already seen such a statement of public service in the ASME fundamental canons. Here is an example from the American Chemical Society’s Code of Conduct: Chemical professionals have a responsibility to serve the public interest and safety and to further advance the knowledge of science. They should actively be concerned with the health and safety of co-workers, consumers and the community. Public comments on scientific matters should be made with care and accuracy, without unsubstantiated, exaggerated, or premature statements.

Ethics in Science and Engineering But are ethical guidelines sufficient?

Ethics in Science and Engineering …and in Life “For we can be within the technical limits of the law and without a shred of virtue.” Gerald Grant

In one informal study at MIT, about 11% of all homework turned out to be copied from someone else. • Many students simply do not view copying homework answers as wrong, at least not when it is done with technology. • The latest surveys by the Center for Academic Integrity found that 22% of students say they have cheated on a test or exam, but about twice as many, 43%, have engaged in “un-authorized collaboration” on homework.

An Ethics Grid The following grid helps analyze ethical situations in relationship to legal requirements Ethical actions are plotted vertically on the Y axis, and legal actions are plotted horizontally on the X axis. Ethical and legal actions will fall in the upper right quadrant, illegal and unethical ones in the lower left quadrant.

ethical unethical

legal Illegal

ethical ethical and legal legal Illegal unethical

ethical ethical and legal legal Illegal unethical and illegal unethical

ethical ethical but illegal: Is this dangerous?? ethical and legal legal Illegal unethical and illegal unethical

ethical ethical but illegal: Is this dangerous?? ethical and legal legal Illegal unethical and illegal unethical but legal: Is this dangerous?? unethical

Ethics always should prevail ethical but illegal often acceptable ethical and legal Illegal legal unethical and illegal unethical but legal very dangerous unethical

ethical A good life Illegal legal jail time unethical

Some actions will fall into gray areas, being ethical but illegal, or legal but unethical. Some examples follow. Gray areas

Illegal but ethical • Entering a home because someone may be injured • Speeding to get a woman in labor to the hospital • Illegal to share medication, but it may save someone’s life • Removing someone from life support???

legal but unethical • Segregation of African Americans • Treatment of American Indians • Abortion? • Death penalty? • Leaving your car running & wasting fuel • Breaking someone’s heart • Breaking a gentlemen’s agreement • Lying to a friend

Use the ethics grid to analyze the famous case of the Ford Pinto.

Case Study: Ford Pinto… 1970’s The Ford Pinto was Ford’s first domestic North American subcompact automobile marketed beginning on September 11, 1970. The model became a focus of a major scandal when it was alleged that the car's design allowed its fuel tank to be easily damaged in the event of a rear end collision, which sometimes resulted in deadly fires and explosions. Critics argued that the vehicle's lack of a true rear bumper, and no reinforcing structure between the rear panel and the tank, meant that in certain collisions the tank would be thrust forward into the differential. The differential had a number of protruding bolts that could puncture the tank. This, and the fact that the doors could potentially jam during an accident (due to poor reinforcing) allegedly made the car less safe than its contemporaries.

Ford knows there is a problem. What should/did they do? • Ignore the problem • Acknowledge and recall • Pay as you go

Ford’s Action Plan • Refused to pay for a redesign • Issued (internal) Ford Pinto Memo: cheaper to pay off possible lawsuits for resulting deaths (cost benefit analysis compared the cost of an $11 repair against the monetary value of a human life) • acquitted of criminal charges, but lost several million dollars and gained a reputation for manufacturing “the barbecue that seats four” • Eventually provided a dealer installable "safety kit" to install plastic protective material over the offending sharp objects, negating the risk of tank puncture “the barbecue that seats four”

Ford’s Action Plan Where would you place Ford’s response on the Ethics Grid? In which quadrant do you think it belongs?

Your opinions on recent case studies Use the ethics grid to analyze these short cases on the handout: • Euthanizing laboratory animals • Responsibility for climate change impacts • Metal on metal hip joints • CitiCorp building design • Hazardous waste & a boss’s request

Ethics in science & engineering: or, What should you do?