Opinion

Ethics in Engineering

Micro-engineering student Ramesh Chidambaram won the TU’s prestigious Mekelweg Prize for his essay on ethics in engineering. The following is a summary of his award-winning essay. 

observance?

“I maintain that the only purpose of science is to ease the hardship of human existence.” (Bertolt Brecht)

There was a time when an essay on ethics would’ve attracted the exclamation, ‘What are ethics!’ This is no longer the case. The formalized approach to ethics has been around for sometime now and is no longer regarded as an obscure area. Ethical guidelines laid down for engineers are now extremely well thought-out and exhaustive. But what concerns me, which forms the core of this essay, are issues regarding implementation and enforcement: Can Engineers allow themselves the luxury of ethics?

In an era when research and progress happens at break-neck speed, can we really afford to apply the brakes and preach self-governance and caution in a world of patent, publish or perish? All ‘cutting-edge’ fields push the boundaries of mankind and in the process create controversy. All cutting-edge fields must grow rapidly, as their very existence and prosperity depends on it. Thus, can Engineers allow themselves the luxury of ethics? Is there any material advantage in upholding ethical standards?

Looking at this pragmatically, usually engineers are the ‘nuts-and-bolts kind of guys’. As an individual, the engineer serves as a tool, and if the tool can’t be made to perform in a certain desired way, it’ll be replaced. Moreover, shop-floor design engineers are usually kept in the dark regarding the bigger picture, the engineer’s work just a tiny piece of a humongous jigsaw puzzle. Given the dynamics of an organization – engineers working under managers influenced by internal and market forces – can an engineers behave with an extent of autonomy required to keep check on the company’s ethical practice?

The other section where the engineer has no ethical jurisdiction over others is the armed forces. Here, the motivation is no longer earning a living or intellectual fulfillment but loyalty to one’s nation. Can a universally applicable ethical protocol be observed when one is drafted to design critical atomic bomb components? Can engineers maintain ethical standards towards humanity in general? Defense research establishment policies are made the focal domain of ethical irregularities, but such happenings aren’t uncommon in the civilian world. Take, for example, the following:

June 2004, ‘Spitzer Sues a Drug Maker, Saying It Hid Negative Data’ By GARDINER HARRIS (NYT): New York State Attorney Gen Eliot Spitzer sued British-based GlaxoSmithKline, accusing it of fraud in concealing negative information about its popular antidepressant medicine Paxil; suit claims company did not tell doctors that some studies of Paxil showed drug did not

work in adolescents and might even lead to suicidal thoughts, and that company even encouraged

doctors to prescribe drug for youngsters…

This sort of gross disregard of ethical standards can be attributed to extreme pressure, which isn’t a valid justification, but could be the root cause. Here, it’s worth quoting a speech Michael Hackworth, CEO of Aspirian Corp. and Markkula Ethics Center Advisory Board member, gave to the American Society of Engineering School Deans. The speech was entitled, ‘Only the Ethical Survive’:

“Of course, individual employees are responsible for their own sets of values and principles… But… people will do what they have to do to succeed. To encourage employees to act on principle, an organization must be led by a chief executive who actually makes decisions not only within business and legal boundaries but also within ethical boundaries…The staff must see that the boss is willing to accept ethical behavior as a constraint or a cost.”

Our bosses decide our promotions and salary raises. We try to emulate our bosses, eventually imbibing their qualities and attitudes. Therefore, any scheme drawn-up to ensure complete adherence to formal ethical guidelines must make it totally against the company’s interest to flout formal ethics code rules. Better yet, it should be used as a marketing tool to favor organizations that make extra efforts to prove they’re ethically better.

‘Gazing into the Crystal Ball… what awaits us in the future?’

If I were to simply extrapolate on the trends of past and present, I’d much rather return to the hazy crystal ball and stare at it until something good comes out. The past simply provides too many reasons to remain pessimistic. But can we afford such a defeatist attitude in our era of cloning, genetic experimentation and nanotechnology? Running an Internet search using ‘Allegations + ethics + violation’, returns 146,000 website hits detailing news cases and lawsuits about alleged ethical misdeeds! Narrow the search to, ‘Ethics + violation’, and it returns 434,000 hits!

Here, a news story about Hollinger International springs to mind:

(Canadian Business Magazine) Hollinger International has a very thorough code of ethics. Too bad it was ignored…Formal guidelines governing executive and employee conduct are very much in vogue these

days. Hollinger International Inc.’s eloquent Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, introduced in

early 2003 and “designed to deter wrongdoing,” offers a compelling case study. Sifting through

recent legal complaints, corporate disclosures and court rulings, it’s difficult to find a single

provision within this fledgling code that has not been allegedly trampled or disregarded…The code includes a whistle-blowing mechanism. It doesn’t appear to have worked. Most alleged misdeeds at Hollinger were discovered by the special committee–which formed in response to complaints from investors, not employees. What’s more, the mechanism is supposed to protect complainants from retaliation, but seems to have proven of little use to special committee members…

By now, it’s clear the issue regarding ethics isn’t about awareness or clever guidelines, but rather the actual inability or choice not to enforce them. So, have we engineers reached a maturity level that can provide more than just lip-service to ethics? Can we groom our own attitudes to create a favorable atmosphere wherein ethics are truly observed?

Thus far in this essay I have raised two critical points:

1. Pragmatically speaking, owing to technological and market demands, corporate culture, loyalty issues and self-interest, engineers can’t afford to devote a high level of priority to strict adherence to ethics.

2. Even if a company has formal ethical guidelines in place, the extent of observance ends with mere lip-service. Despite having a thorough ethics manual, it’s common to ignore it in practice to suit convenience.

Here, too, the engineer is helpless. If present circumstances prevail, expecting any change in the above two scenarios is purely wishful thinking. Yet, I remain optimistic: I believe engineers are pivotal to effecting improvement in the strict enforcement of ethics.

I see a few prerequisites imperative to the success of any enforcement scheme. Firstly, people occupying top management positions must agree, at least in

principle, that perfect adherence to ethical practices benefits their organizations. If top management decides that ethics would prove more advantageous in providing a level playing field and healthier competition for market share and profitability, the cause of ethics would benefit greatly. If we sincerely want an ethical workplace, we shall eventually achieve it! Collectively, we must accept that we must be much more responsible than we’ve been in the past. Today’s engineers deal with radioactive material, germ and genetic experimentation, nuclear arsenals…the effects of our actions have massive global impact. In the past, a major engineering catastrophe was a bridge collapsing; today, a catastrophe could wipe out life on the planet. With such great engineering power, comes great responsibility.

Looking ahead I see a fork in the road. One road leads to annihilation, the other to a scenario wherein we protect and shape our future for the better. Right now, we’re dead-set on first path. We must veer onto the right path now, but this requires sincere commitment.

What can universities do to make students relate more to ethics as not just a separate course, but as a code to imbibe into one’s persona? At undergraduate and post-graduate levels, there’s ample opportunity to check a student’s morals. Student needs to know that, occasionally, their morals will be tested. The students will then receive a metric, along the lines of an Ethic Index (EI), when he graduates. The point is not to provide a perfect ethical metric, but rather to introduce this metric to make students aware of how important ethical behavior is. One such ethical test is giving a student the final exam questions in advance. If he returns them, reporting that he received them from a teaching assistant (who ‘accidentally’ provides the questions), the student is thanked and a few plus points added to his EI rating. If the student fails to report that he has the exam questions, his EI is negatively affected. This would force students to act ethically at all times. This is just one example of possible ‘testing

situations’, the purpose of which is to say clearly to students: ethics are as much a part of engineering as endless cups of caffeine. If students knew that recruitment interviewers would also look closely at their EI’s, they’d be motivated to strictly adhere to ethical behavior. Why shouldn’t companies recruit based also on the candidate’s ethical standards. After all, the more ethical a candidate, the more companies can trust him. And serious white-collar crimes are often committed by employees with personal histories of seemingly minor malpractices.

Much as universities can give their graduates an ethical head-start, the impetus can then be sustained by

international professional organizations which monitor engineering sectors. Most engineers are affiliated with a professional association (like the IEEE, AIChE, Dutch Engineering Society, et al). This attaches a reputable associations’ brand image to the engineer’s resume. Such associations are able to track the entire career of an engineer, from university to employment. Such associations are already well structured, their responsibilities well delegated and devolved across geographical boundaries. At this level, the EI won’t be based on drills, but rather on a metric based on the prioritized weighted consideration of virtues, such as the engineer’s integrity,

loyalty, sense of belonging towards the engineering society, etc. I know from my personal

experience that not all international publications need possess entirely accurate claims or data. If such an occurrence is reported against an

author, then his EI would be affected . and his EI would appear along side his biographical details in publications. Such professional associations can also monitor companies. In many cases . as cited in the Hollinger International case study . internal ‘whistle-blowing’ has its limitations.

The professional society then forms a forum wherein a report can be filed. Some may argue that personal ambitions will deter reporting outside the organization. But if employees were made aware that an ethical enquiry could be followed by a law-suit, their names showed up as aiding a violation or cover-up and their EI ratings voided, making them unemployable elsewhere, I believe it would encourage reporting to the engineering society. Thus, on the basis

of employee and customer reports, the engineering society provides an institutional EI for the company as a whole. This would effectively keep companies in check, because customers would decide that companies with low EI’s are more likely to produce bad products, or products that are party to ethics violations. Once organizations understand that having a low EI puts them at a distinct disadvantage, they would do all they could to keep their in-house ethics at its peak.

In conclusion, we engineers must realize that tasks directed towards regulation and monitoring must be a major part of our future responsibility. Professional engineering societies can help monitor ethics at both individual and organizational levels. Universities however must play the bigger role. Every engineer must be taught the wisdom in adopting a universal ethical point of view, and each manager must be made aware that good ethics means better business.
Edited by David McMullin

observance?

“I maintain that the only purpose of science is to ease the hardship of human existence.” (Bertolt Brecht)

There was a time when an essay on ethics would’ve attracted the exclamation, ‘What are ethics!’ This is no longer the case. The formalized approach to ethics has been around for sometime now and is no longer regarded as an obscure area. Ethical guidelines laid down for engineers are now extremely well thought-out and exhaustive. But what concerns me, which forms the core of this essay, are issues regarding implementation and enforcement: Can Engineers allow themselves the luxury of ethics?

In an era when research and progress happens at break-neck speed, can we really afford to apply the brakes and preach self-governance and caution in a world of patent, publish or perish? All ‘cutting-edge’ fields push the boundaries of mankind and in the process create controversy. All cutting-edge fields must grow rapidly, as their very existence and prosperity depends on it. Thus, can Engineers allow themselves the luxury of ethics? Is there any material advantage in upholding ethical standards?

Looking at this pragmatically, usually engineers are the ‘nuts-and-bolts kind of guys’. As an individual, the engineer serves as a tool, and if the tool can’t be made to perform in a certain desired way, it’ll be replaced. Moreover, shop-floor design engineers are usually kept in the dark regarding the bigger picture, the engineer’s work just a tiny piece of a humongous jigsaw puzzle. Given the dynamics of an organization – engineers working under managers influenced by internal and market forces – can an engineers behave with an extent of autonomy required to keep check on the company’s ethical practice?

The other section where the engineer has no ethical jurisdiction over others is the armed forces. Here, the motivation is no longer earning a living or intellectual fulfillment but loyalty to one’s nation. Can a universally applicable ethical protocol be observed when one is drafted to design critical atomic bomb components? Can engineers maintain ethical standards towards humanity in general? Defense research establishment policies are made the focal domain of ethical irregularities, but such happenings aren’t uncommon in the civilian world. Take, for example, the following:

June 2004, ‘Spitzer Sues a Drug Maker, Saying It Hid Negative Data’ By GARDINER HARRIS (NYT): New York State Attorney Gen Eliot Spitzer sued British-based GlaxoSmithKline, accusing it of fraud in concealing negative information about its popular antidepressant medicine Paxil; suit claims company did not tell doctors that some studies of Paxil showed drug did not

work in adolescents and might even lead to suicidal thoughts, and that company even encouraged

doctors to prescribe drug for youngsters…

This sort of gross disregard of ethical standards can be attributed to extreme pressure, which isn’t a valid justification, but could be the root cause. Here, it’s worth quoting a speech Michael Hackworth, CEO of Aspirian Corp. and Markkula Ethics Center Advisory Board member, gave to the American Society of Engineering School Deans. The speech was entitled, ‘Only the Ethical Survive’:

“Of course, individual employees are responsible for their own sets of values and principles… But… people will do what they have to do to succeed. To encourage employees to act on principle, an organization must be led by a chief executive who actually makes decisions not only within business and legal boundaries but also within ethical boundaries…The staff must see that the boss is willing to accept ethical behavior as a constraint or a cost.”

Our bosses decide our promotions and salary raises. We try to emulate our bosses, eventually imbibing their qualities and attitudes. Therefore, any scheme drawn-up to ensure complete adherence to formal ethical guidelines must make it totally against the company’s interest to flout formal ethics code rules. Better yet, it should be used as a marketing tool to favor organizations that make extra efforts to prove they’re ethically better.

‘Gazing into the Crystal Ball… what awaits us in the future?’

If I were to simply extrapolate on the trends of past and present, I’d much rather return to the hazy crystal ball and stare at it until something good comes out. The past simply provides too many reasons to remain pessimistic. But can we afford such a defeatist attitude in our era of cloning, genetic experimentation and nanotechnology? Running an Internet search using ‘Allegations + ethics + violation’, returns 146,000 website hits detailing news cases and lawsuits about alleged ethical misdeeds! Narrow the search to, ‘Ethics + violation’, and it returns 434,000 hits!

Here, a news story about Hollinger International springs to mind:

(Canadian Business Magazine) Hollinger International has a very thorough code of ethics. Too bad it was ignored…Formal guidelines governing executive and employee conduct are very much in vogue these

days. Hollinger International Inc.’s eloquent Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, introduced in

early 2003 and “designed to deter wrongdoing,” offers a compelling case study. Sifting through

recent legal complaints, corporate disclosures and court rulings, it’s difficult to find a single

provision within this fledgling code that has not been allegedly trampled or disregarded…The code includes a whistle-blowing mechanism. It doesn’t appear to have worked. Most alleged misdeeds at Hollinger were discovered by the special committee–which formed in response to complaints from investors, not employees. What’s more, the mechanism is supposed to protect complainants from retaliation, but seems to have proven of little use to special committee members…

By now, it’s clear the issue regarding ethics isn’t about awareness or clever guidelines, but rather the actual inability or choice not to enforce them. So, have we engineers reached a maturity level that can provide more than just lip-service to ethics? Can we groom our own attitudes to create a favorable atmosphere wherein ethics are truly observed?

Thus far in this essay I have raised two critical points:

1. Pragmatically speaking, owing to technological and market demands, corporate culture, loyalty issues and self-interest, engineers can’t afford to devote a high level of priority to strict adherence to ethics.

2. Even if a company has formal ethical guidelines in place, the extent of observance ends with mere lip-service. Despite having a thorough ethics manual, it’s common to ignore it in practice to suit convenience.

Here, too, the engineer is helpless. If present circumstances prevail, expecting any change in the above two scenarios is purely wishful thinking. Yet, I remain optimistic: I believe engineers are pivotal to effecting improvement in the strict enforcement of ethics.

I see a few prerequisites imperative to the success of any enforcement scheme. Firstly, people occupying top management positions must agree, at least in

principle, that perfect adherence to ethical practices benefits their organizations. If top management decides that ethics would prove more advantageous in providing a level playing field and healthier competition for market share and profitability, the cause of ethics would benefit greatly. If we sincerely want an ethical workplace, we shall eventually achieve it! Collectively, we must accept that we must be much more responsible than we’ve been in the past. Today’s engineers deal with radioactive material, germ and genetic experimentation, nuclear arsenals…the effects of our actions have massive global impact. In the past, a major engineering catastrophe was a bridge collapsing; today, a catastrophe could wipe out life on the planet. With such great engineering power, comes great responsibility.

Looking ahead I see a fork in the road. One road leads to annihilation, the other to a scenario wherein we protect and shape our future for the better. Right now, we’re dead-set on first path. We must veer onto the right path now, but this requires sincere commitment.

What can universities do to make students relate more to ethics as not just a separate course, but as a code to imbibe into one’s persona? At undergraduate and post-graduate levels, there’s ample opportunity to check a student’s morals. Student needs to know that, occasionally, their morals will be tested. The students will then receive a metric, along the lines of an Ethic Index (EI), when he graduates. The point is not to provide a perfect ethical metric, but rather to introduce this metric to make students aware of how important ethical behavior is. One such ethical test is giving a student the final exam questions in advance. If he returns them, reporting that he received them from a teaching assistant (who ‘accidentally’ provides the questions), the student is thanked and a few plus points added to his EI rating. If the student fails to report that he has the exam questions, his EI is negatively affected. This would force students to act ethically at all times. This is just one example of possible ‘testing

situations’, the purpose of which is to say clearly to students: ethics are as much a part of engineering as endless cups of caffeine. If students knew that recruitment interviewers would also look closely at their EI’s, they’d be motivated to strictly adhere to ethical behavior. Why shouldn’t companies recruit based also on the candidate’s ethical standards. After all, the more ethical a candidate, the more companies can trust him. And serious white-collar crimes are often committed by employees with personal histories of seemingly minor malpractices.

Much as universities can give their graduates an ethical head-start, the impetus can then be sustained by

international professional organizations which monitor engineering sectors. Most engineers are affiliated with a professional association (like the IEEE, AIChE, Dutch Engineering Society, et al). This attaches a reputable associations’ brand image to the engineer’s resume. Such associations are able to track the entire career of an engineer, from university to employment. Such associations are already well structured, their responsibilities well delegated and devolved across geographical boundaries. At this level, the EI won’t be based on drills, but rather on a metric based on the prioritized weighted consideration of virtues, such as the engineer’s integrity,

loyalty, sense of belonging towards the engineering society, etc. I know from my personal

experience that not all international publications need possess entirely accurate claims or data. If such an occurrence is reported against an

author, then his EI would be affected . and his EI would appear along side his biographical details in publications. Such professional associations can also monitor companies. In many cases . as cited in the Hollinger International case study . internal ‘whistle-blowing’ has its limitations.

The professional society then forms a forum wherein a report can be filed. Some may argue that personal ambitions will deter reporting outside the organization. But if employees were made aware that an ethical enquiry could be followed by a law-suit, their names showed up as aiding a violation or cover-up and their EI ratings voided, making them unemployable elsewhere, I believe it would encourage reporting to the engineering society. Thus, on the basis

of employee and customer reports, the engineering society provides an institutional EI for the company as a whole. This would effectively keep companies in check, because customers would decide that companies with low EI’s are more likely to produce bad products, or products that are party to ethics violations. Once organizations understand that having a low EI puts them at a distinct disadvantage, they would do all they could to keep their in-house ethics at its peak.

In conclusion, we engineers must realize that tasks directed towards regulation and monitoring must be a major part of our future responsibility. Professional engineering societies can help monitor ethics at both individual and organizational levels. Universities however must play the bigger role. Every engineer must be taught the wisdom in adopting a universal ethical point of view, and each manager must be made aware that good ethics means better business.
Edited by David McMullin

Editor Redactie

Do you have a question or comment about this article?

delta@tudelft.nl

Comments are closed.