> home
> About
> Contact Us
> Editorial Info
> IEEE-USA

10.07

Engineering Ethics: A Big Yawn?

By Donald Christiansen

I’ve written on many subjects over the years, engineering ethics among them. My writings have often inspired feedback — some positive, some negative. But I can recall little of either when I write about ethics. Likewise, in countless discussions with colleagues, the subject has seldom arisen. I’ve eavesdropped on discussions by engineering students, and never heard the issue debated.

Do engineers consider ethics in engineering practice unworthy of discussion? Superfluous? A waste of time? Boring? I am not sure. Certainly social scientists and historians of technology do not. Nor do engineering educators, as they grope for ways to introduce the subject into undergraduate curricula. (Few engineers practicing today were exposed to the subject during their undergraduate studies.) Among the teaching aids currently in use are engineering codes of ethics, invented case histories, and actual case histories (e.g., the Challenger Space Shuttle failure).

The Question of Codes

To what extent codes of ethics are useful in teaching is debatable. Such codes, created by professional engineering societies, have been around since the founding of the societies themselves. Engineers responsible for public projects hang framed copies on their office walls, alongside their licensed professional engineer certificates.

One of the half dozen fundamental canons of the NSPE Code of Ethics is this: Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation and usefulness of the profession.

With no intent to denigrate the good intentions of its formulators, I am bound to ask how useful such a canon is. Is it really necessary? My skepticism is confirmed when I state its negative: Engineers shall conduct themselves dishonorably, irresponsibly, unethically and unlawfully, so as to defame the honor, reputation and usefulness of the profession. Wouldn’t any engineer think such a canon absurd, and thus its positive version simplistic and unnecessary?

Samuel Florman, a frequent writer on the social implications of engineering, proposes that when engineers discuss ethics “they avoid a simplistic approach that is no longer adequate to the complexities of the current day.” What conscientious engineer needs to be admonished not to falsify test reports, he asks.

Many of the invented case histories used in undergraduate teaching have been criticized, too, for being too simplistic, with obvious answers that require no thoughtful discussion. On the other hand, epic case histories like that of the Challenger explosion have generally been more useful in teaching, although some educators find that the “answers” are too well known because the cases have been so widely publicized.

Reality

When I sit down with veteran engineers and broach (or force upon them) the subject of engineering ethics, an example that most often surfaces is one that relates to estimating project time and cost. Here is a typical embodiment: You have been working on a project that is key to a proposal that will be made in response to a call for competitive bids. Your boss asks when you will (or think you will) finish your assignment. Under the best of circumstances you know you cannot deliver in less than three months. “Can’t it be done in two months?” the boss asks anxiously. What is your response? Now let’s change the parameters from time to cost. Same question. Boss asks, “Can’t we do it cheaper?” Again, how do you react?

The norm seems to be that shaded (false?) estimates are par for the course to win contracts, or, internal to the organization, get project funding. Haven’t we all been there? Perhaps we justify it by simply labeling them optimistic estimates. Try this alternative for a realistic guideline: Once you have calculated the minimum time you believe will be necessary to complete a project for which you are responsible, it is unethical to understate it by more than 25 percent. I have several others of this ilk, but for starters will leave you with just the one. Perhaps it will evoke some feedback.

Good News

To be fair, there are now available many teaching case histories that encourage thoughtful student discussion. They don’t have pat answers and some are so intricate that they have no really satisfying solutions. Many are based on real-world situations. Perhaps even better teaching experiences would come from students being exposed to practicing engineers who themselves have encountered specific ethical dilemmas. Do we have any volunteers?

Resources

Christiansen, D., “A Matter of Ethics,” IEEE Spectrum, August 1988.

Christiansen, D., “Ethical Schizophrenia,” IEEE Spectrum, October 1988.

Florman, S.C., “Engineering Ethics: The Conversation without End,” National Academy of Engineering, The Bridge, Vol. 32, No. 3, 2002.

Augustine, N.R., “Ethics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics,” National Academy of Engineering, The Bridge, Vol. 32, No. 3, 2002.

Herkert, J., Social, Ethical, and Policy Implications of Engineering, Wiley/IEEE Press, 2000.

Whitbeck, C., Ethics in Engineering Practice and Research, Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Christiansen, D., “Engineers: Mere Mercenaries?,” Today’s Engineer Online, October 2005, www.todaysengineer.org.

NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers (as revised January 2003).

The Online Ethics Center of the National Academy of Engineering,
www.onlineethics.org.

Unger, S., “Some Recent Engineering Ethics Cases That Have Come to the IEEE,” OEC International Conference on Ethics in Engineering and Computer Science, March 1999.

Lynch, W.T. and R. Kline, “Engineering Practice and Engineering Ethics,” Science,
Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 25, No. 2, Spring 2000.

Harris, C.E., Jr., “Explaining Disasters: The Case for Preventative Ethics,” IEEE
Technology and Society Magazine, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1995.

Wynne, B., “Unruly Technology: Practical Rules, Impractical Discourses and Public
Understanding,” Social Studies of Science, Vol. 18, pp. 47-67, 1998.

Donald Christiansen is the former editor and publisher of IEEE Spectrum and an independent publishing consultant. He can be reached at donchristiansen@ieee.org.