ENGR 482 Engineering & Ethics Engineering Responsibility

Assigned reading: Harris, Prichard & Rabins, Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases, Chapter 5: “Responsible Engineers” CASES – 21,43,45,54

Most valuable attributes of an engineer Character: Honesty & Integrity (virtues) Responsibility (reliability) Skills & knowledge: Technical knowledge Analytical skills Computation skills Communication skills

Responsible--definition Responsible: 1) liable to be called on to answer; liable to legal review or in case of fault to penalties; 2) able to answer for one’s conduct and obligations; able to choose for oneself between right and wrong... (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary)

Responsibilities of engineers Legal responsibilities: Not to cause harm; to compensate when harm is caused; to practice in accord with Engineering Practices Act Moral responsibilities: To recognize and discharge our duties and obligations; understand and adhere to a Code of Ethics

Responsibility: Seeing what needs to be done…

…and doing it!

Legal Responsibilities To follow the letter and the spirit of the law… A. The letter of the law and/or B. The spirit of the law

Ways in which harm is caused Intentionally--this is often criminal Recklessly--acting in a way that we recognize might cause harm Negligently--by failing to exercise due care Examples: Most harm caused by engineers is not intentional. To distinguish between recklessly and negligently causing harm, consider the an engineer who is given structural calculations and designs completed by a subordinate for review. If he does not check the calculations or review the plans, but signs off on them knowing they have not been checked or reviewed, and knowing that they were done by an inexperienced EIT, this is probably reckless. If he has in place in his office a standard procedure for such plans to be checked by another engineer, who initials them and puts them on his desk, but due to some confusion or breakdown in communications he is misled into understanding that the plans have been reviewed and the calculations checked according to his standard procedures, and signs off on the plans, this is negligence. The key here is that he knows what he is doing is not right in the first instance, and in the second, he mistakenly believes that he has done everything right, but failed to make certain of this.

Engineering Practice Moral Point of View Engineers are morally responsible for harms they intentionally, negligently or recklessly cause – Regardless of whom, if anyone, is held legally responsibly In some instances, engineers may be morally responsible for failing to report, or even prevent, such behavior on the part of others.

Three models of responsibility Minimalist or Malpractice model Reasonable Care model Good Works or Supererogation model

Minimalist or Malpractice model of responsibility: Engineers have a duty only to conform to accepted practice and fulfill only basic duties prescribed by terms of employment. Those who would follow this model might be most concerned with not doing anything “wrong”. “That’s not my responsibility, someone else will take care of that.” (Example: the Gilbane Gold case)

Reasonable Care Model of Responsibility: Adhere to accepted standards of practice, and... Take reasonable care to ensure that mistakes are prevented and the public welfare is protected Exercise and apply skill, ability and judgment reasonably and without neglect keep abreast of evolving changes in knowledge and practice recognize when minimal standards of practice might not be sufficient to prevent a harm, and take additional actions to prevent such a harm in those cases

Characteristics of the Reasonable Care model Concern for preventing harm, rather than trying to prevent causing harm Oriented towards the future, toward avoiding problems and protecting the public Attitude of concern or caring Example: Roger Boisjoly’s actions before the launch of the Challenger

Standard of Reasonableness as seen by a normal prudent professional CABO TOMAR OIL SPILL EXAMPLE Bahia San Felipe, Chile Tanker ran aground on uncharted rock 70,000 BBL oil spill in Bay Tanker moved to fishing harbor for unloading Should the tanker be boomed with oil spill boom?

Standard of Reasonableness Insurance Company Advisors used Minimalistic approach – refused to boom ship - Said standard of reasonableness for Chile in the absence of available equipment was not to protect or clean up the oil in the harbor. The Chilean argued for the reasonable care approach – To prevent the harm from happening in the harbor

Tort Law A common law civil wrong for which a court will provide a remedy A tort arises from the existence of a generalized legal duty to avoid causing harm to others through act of omission as well as commission. Every adult person is obligated to fulfill a duty of care for the personal and property rights of others while engaging in daily life.

Tort Law Nuisance Trespass Negligence Private Public To Person To Personal Property To Real Property Negligence

Tort Law Strict Liability Liability for damages without requiring a showing of negligence A potential dangerous substance is anything that if permitted to escape is certain to injure others Courts interpret widely Elf Atochem discharge of arsenic in Bryan, Texas

Good Works (Supererogation) Model of Responsibility: “...above and beyond the call of duty.” Example: A local consulting engineer offers to design a parking lot for a church at her cost, with no charge for her own time. Problems this can cause: It is possible to assume responsibilities which: might require more time than you can offer might infringe on another’s responsibilities might incur legal liabilities

EXXON VALDEZ EXAMPLE Before the spill-minimalistic Clean Seas Capability-Reasonable Care After the Spill to Reopen the Alyeska Terminal-SERVS Organization – Good Works Organized in 45 days +/- Extensive response capability

A hypothetical scenario... Suppose an airline maintenance engineer contacts an airframe manufacturer with a question about a new maintenance procedure that his crews have proposed, indicating that his crews have experimented with this procedure and have demonstrated that it can significantly reduce maintenance time and costs.

A hypothetical scenario cont’d... The procedure in question involves the removal of jet engine & pylon as a unit for replacement of a spherical bearing which served to support the engine/pylon. The manufacturer’s recommended procedure is to remove the engine, then the pylon. Maintenance personnel wish to remove the engine & pylon as a unit, supporting the engine with an engine stand mounted on a forklift, positioned at the cg of the engine/pylon unit.

Engine and pylon assy...

Engine and pylon assy... 1,865 lb (pylon) 6 ft 13,477 lb (pylon + engine)

In pairs, discuss and answer the following questions... How would the manufacturer respond if he follows... minimalist model of responsibility? reasonable care model? good works model? What responsibilities do you think the airframe manufacturer’s engineer has? How should he/she respond to this request?

The case isn’t hypothetical... In 1979, improper servicing procedures during maintenance of a American Airlines DC-10 caused undetected fractures in the bulkhead supporting the pylon. Eight weeks later on 25 May, during takeoff from Chicago O’Hare, AA Flight 191 lost the No. 1 engine from the left wing, severing hydraulic control and power lines near that pylon, causing loss of control, crash, and 273 deaths.

DC-10 case, continued... American Airlines maintenance crews were using forklifts to remove the DC-10 engines for pylon mounting bearing replacement, a shortcut that reduced service efforts by 200 man-hours per engine. McDonnell-Douglas (the manufacturer) knew that AA and Continental were using this non-standard procedure, and suspected that this might increase the risk of airframe damage.

DC-10 case, continued... References: NTSB Report on the 1979 Chicago Crash WASHINGTON, D.C. 20594, December 21, 1979 (found on web at...http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/OHare/NTSB/COPY/ohare-full.html)

How should we view our professional responsibilities? The reasonable care model is the best model for engineers. Codes demand it (“...accept responsibility in 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…”, IEEE Code of Ethics) Public expects it (Principle of Proportional Care: When people have a greater ability to harm, they have a greater obligation to prevent harm.)

Some Impediments to Responsibility Self-interest Fear Self-deception Ignorance Egocentric tendencies Microscopic vision Uncritical acceptance of authority Antagonism toward outside regulation “Groupthink” Cumbersome business organizations Self-interest--greed or ambition can have a negative impact on one’s inclination to accept responsibility Fear--fear of negative impact on one’s career makes is hard to accept responsibility Self-deception-- Ignorance--we must be sure we are knowledgeable about Egocentric--we need to recognize that others sometimes think differently than we do; this can sometimes obscure our responsibilities

Impediments to responsibility 1. Self interest Engineers are, like others, people with with personal hopes and ambitions not restricted to professional ideals. e.g. money, fame, glory, etc… Sometimes our concern for our own interests temps us to act contrary to the interests of others, even contrary to what others expect of us as professionals

Impediments to responsibility 1. Self interest Taken to extreme, concern for self-interest is a form of egoism--an exclusive concern to satisfy one’s own interests, even at the possible expense of others. Popularly characterized by “looking out for number 1” Be careful, we all get tempted!

Engineering Responsibility The Graham Estate Case In 1956 George Graham passed away and left his estate to his hometown - the Town of Cherokee, Oklahoma In today’s money the value of the estate would be about $700,000 The city’s of Cherokee wastewater drained into the newly constructed Fort Gibson reservoir

Engineering Responsibility The Graham Estate Case P.E. John Green was hired by the city of Cherokee to design and supervise the construction of a new wastewater treatment plant Engineer Green’s fee was to be based on a standard minimum percentage of the construction cost set by the state engineering profession--a practice no longer allowed

Engineering Responsibility The Graham Estate Case Generally accepted design for cities of this size and situation in Oklahoma at the time would have been a series of faculative oxidation ponds at a cost of approximately $300,000 Engineer Green instead designed an extensive secondary wastewater treatment plant that most engineers would consider unusual for this situation

Engineering Responsibility The Graham Estate Case Engr. Green expected the cost of this plant to be $1,000,000 to financed with Graham estate funds and a 30% Federal grant through the Oklahoma Health Dept. and the U. S. Public Health Service. Unfortunately the project ran $300,000 over budget and the City of Cherokee had to make up the project deficit.

Engineering Responsibility The Graham Estate Case Six months after the City of Cherokee project was complete Engineer Green was on his way to a meeting on another project in western Oklahoma He was called on to answer for his actions by a higher authority when his car went over a hill at 100 MPH and encountered an 18 wheeler going 50 MPH

Engineering Responsibility The Graham Estate Case Did Engineer Green really think the City of Cherokee needed such an elaborate waste water treatment plant ? With another engineer and a 30% federal grant the city would have spent only $210,000 and would have saved $490,000 of the grant plus the $300,000 overrun for other projects. Was he just inflating the cost to maximize his engineering fee? Was he serving his client or himself?

Impediments to Responsibility 2. Fear Many potential fears Fear of acknowledging mistakes Fear of losing one’s job Fear of punishment Fear of the fate of whistleblowers Fear of being unable to find alternative employment

Impediments to Responsibility 3. Self-Deception Definition: An intentional avoidance of truths we would find it painful to confront self- consciously We deceive ourselves into believing something is OK by some rationalization I’m not really doing this just for myself Everyone takes shortcuts once in a while, etc. Example: bribing a city council to get a project in order to save the jobs of your employees

Impediments to Responsibility 4. Ignorance An obvious barrier to responsible action is ignorance of vital information Sometimes engineers take on design problems in areas in which they are not sufficiently competent and avoidable problems can result An engineer put an aluminum liner in the Texas A&M nuclear reactor when most Civil engineers would know that concrete and aluminum are not compatible materials

Impediments to Responsibility 5. Egocentric Tendencies Failure to view actions or projects from alternative viewpoints It is a special form of ignorance Example from India--we may think what a community needs is a new water or wastewater system. The people may be perfectly happy with water from a nearby ditch, but what they really want is a school or health care. Product developer vs. user problems

Impediments to Responsibility 6. Microscopic Vision Can’t see the forest for the trees Shoemaker example--knows a lot about shoes but may be ignorant as to how they are going to used in different circumstances

Impediments to Responsibility 7. Uncritical acceptance of authority Engineers are to exercise independent, objective judgment in performing their duties Engineers also have a duty of fidelity to their employers and clients Most engineers are not their own bosses, and they are expected to defer to authority in their organizations These responsibilities can conflict

Impediments to Responsibility 7. Uncritical acceptance of authority Stanley Milgram found that a surprisingly high percentage of people are inclined to defer uncritically to authority Engineers who implement improper actions dictated by their firm’s superiors can be held legally responsible for their actions

Impediments to Responsibility 8. Groupthink Groupthink--a situation in which groups come to an agreement at the expense of critical thinking Engineers tend to work and to deliberate in groups and can be vulnerable to groupthink

Impediments to Responsibility 8. Groupthink symptoms An illusion of invulnerability of the group to failure A strong “we feeling” that views outsiders as adversaries or enemies and encourages stereotypes of others Rationalization that tends to shift responsibility to others An illusion of morality--the group can do no wrong

Impediments to Responsibility 8. Groupthink symptoms A tendency of individual members toward self–censorship resulting from a desire not to “rock the boat” An allusion of unanimity, considering silence of a group member as consent An application of direct pressure on those who show signs of disagreement – often exercised by the group leader Mindguarding, excluding differing views by preventing their introduction-particularly by outsiders