ethics in science & engineering: or, what should you do?
TRANSCRIPT
Ethics in science & engineering: or, What
should you do?
Ethics in Science and EngineeringWhat 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 EngineeringWhat 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 EngineeringEthics in Science and Engineering
……and in Lifeand in Life
““For we can be within the technical For we can be within the technical limits of the law and without a shred limits of the law and without a shred of virtue.”of virtue.”
Gerald GrantGerald Grant
• In one informal study at MIT, about 11% of In one informal study at MIT, about 11% of all homework turned out to be copied from all homework turned out to be copied from someone else.someone else.
• Many students simply do not view copying Many students simply do not view copying homework answers as wrong, at least not homework answers as wrong, at least not when it is done with technology.when it is done with technology.
• The latest surveys by the Center for The latest surveys by the Center for Academic Integrity found that 22% of Academic Integrity found that 22% of students say they have cheated on a test students say they have cheated on a test or exam, but about twice as many, 43%, or exam, but about twice as many, 43%, have engaged in “un-authorized have engaged in “un-authorized collaboration” on homework.collaboration” on homework.
An Ethics GridAn Ethics Grid
The following grid helps analyze ethical The following grid helps analyze ethical situations in relationship to legal situations in relationship to legal requirements requirements
Ethical actions are plotted vertically on the Y Ethical actions are plotted vertically on the Y axis, and legal actions are plotted axis, and legal actions are plotted horizontally on the X axis. horizontally on the X axis.
Ethical and legal actions will fall in the upper Ethical and legal actions will fall in the upper right quadrant, illegal and unethical ones right quadrant, illegal and unethical ones in the lower left quadrant. in the lower left quadrant.
ethical
unethical
legalIllegal
ethical
unethical
legalIllegal
ethical and legal
ethical
unethical
legalIllegal
ethical and legal
unethical and illegal
ethical
unethical
legalIllegal
ethical and legal
unethical and illegal
ethical but illegal:Is this
dangerous??
ethical
unethical
legalIllegal
ethical and legal
unethical and illegal
ethical but illegal:Is this
dangerous??
unethical but legal: Is this dangerous??
ethical
unethical
legalIllegal
ethical and legal
unethical and illegal
ethical but illegal:Is this
dangerous??
unethical but legal: Is this dangerous??
Ethics always should prevail
unethical
legal Illegal
ethical and legal
unethical and illegal
unethical but legal very dangerous
ethical but illegal
often acceptable
A good life
jail time
ethical
unethical
legal Illegal
Some actions will fall into gray areas, being ethical but illegal, or legal but unethical.
Some examples follow.
Some actions will fall into gray areas, being ethical but illegal, or legal but unethical.
Some examples follow.
Gray areasGray areas
• Entering a home because someone Entering a home because someone may be injuredmay be injured
• Speeding to get a woman in labor to Speeding to get a woman in labor to the hospitalthe hospital
• Illegal to share medication, but it may Illegal to share medication, but it may save someone’s lifesave someone’s life
• Removing someone from life Removing someone from life support???support???
Illegal but ethicalIllegal but ethical
• Segregation of African AmericansSegregation of African Americans
• Treatment of American IndiansTreatment of American Indians
• Abortion?Abortion?
• Death penalty?Death penalty?
• Leaving your car running & wasting Leaving your car running & wasting fuelfuel
• Breaking someone’s heartBreaking someone’s heart
• Breaking a gentlemen’s agreementBreaking a gentlemen’s agreement
• Lying to a friendLying to a friend
legal but unethicallegal but unethical
Use the ethics grid to analyze the famous case of the Ford Pinto.
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
1.Euthanizing laboratory animals2.Responsibility for climate change impacts3.Metal on metal hip joints4.CitiCorp building design5.Hazardous waste & a boss’s request
Use the ethics grid to analyze these short cases on the handout: