Engineering ethics is the branch of applied ethics that brings together the set of moral principles established for the practice of engineering. Examines and establishes the obligations of engineers to society, clients and the profession. It is linked to the Ethics of technology and related to the philosophy of science and engineering.
Background and origins
Until the 19th century and growing concerns
As engineering became a distinct profession during the 19th century, engineers saw themselves as independent professionals or as technical employees of large companies. There was considerable tension between both sides, as large industrial employers struggled to maintain control of their employees.[1].
In the United States, growing professionalism led to the development of four founding engineering societies: The American Society of Civil Engineers[2] (ASCE) (1851), the American Institute of Electrical Engineers (AIEE) (1884),[3] the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) (1880), and the American Institute of Mining Engineers (AIME) (1871).[4] The ASCE and the AIEE identified more with the engineer as a learned professional, while ASME, to some extent, and AIME almost entirely, identified with the view that the engineer is a technical employee.[5].
Even so, at that time ethics was considered a personal rather than a broad professional concern.[6][7].
Turn of the 20th century and turning point
As the century drew to a close and the century began, a series of major structural failures had occurred, including some spectacular bridge failures, notably the Ashtabula River Railway Disaster (1876),[8] the Tay Bridge Disaster (1879), and the Quebec Bridge Collapse (1907). These events had a profound effect on engineers and forced the profession to confront deficiencies in technical and construction practice, as well as ethical standards.[9].
One response was the development of formal codes of ethics by three of the four founding engineering societies. The AIEE adopted its code of ethics in 1912. ASCE and ASME did so in 1914.[10] AIME did not adopt a code of ethics in its history.[5].
Ethical management in construction
Introduction
Engineering ethics is the branch of applied ethics that brings together the set of moral principles established for the practice of engineering. Examines and establishes the obligations of engineers to society, clients and the profession. It is linked to the Ethics of technology and related to the philosophy of science and engineering.
Background and origins
Until the 19th century and growing concerns
As engineering became a distinct profession during the 19th century, engineers saw themselves as independent professionals or as technical employees of large companies. There was considerable tension between both sides, as large industrial employers struggled to maintain control of their employees.[1].
In the United States, growing professionalism led to the development of four founding engineering societies: The American Society of Civil Engineers[2] (ASCE) (1851), the American Institute of Electrical Engineers (AIEE) (1884),[3] the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) (1880), and the American Institute of Mining Engineers (AIME) (1871).[4] The ASCE and the AIEE identified more with the engineer as a learned professional, while ASME, to some extent, and AIME almost entirely, identified with the view that the engineer is a technical employee.[5].
Even so, at that time ethics was considered a personal rather than a broad professional concern.[6][7].
Turn of the 20th century and turning point
As the century drew to a close and the century began, a series of major structural failures had occurred, including some spectacular bridge failures, notably the Ashtabula River Railway Disaster (1876),[8] the Tay Bridge Disaster (1879), and the Quebec Bridge Collapse (1907). These events had a profound effect on engineers and forced the profession to confront deficiencies in technical and construction practice, as well as ethical standards.[9].
The concern for professional practice and public protection highlighted by these bridge failures, as well as the Boston Molasses Disaster (1919), gave impetus to another movement that had been underway for some time: requiring formal credentials (a Professional Engineering license in the United States) as a requirement to practice. This involves meeting some combination of training, experience, and testing requirements.[11].
In 1950, the Association of German Engineers drafted an oath for all its members entitled "The Engineers' Confession", alluding directly to the role of engineers in the atrocities committed during World War II.[12][13][14].
In the following decades, most American states and Canadian provinces required engineers to be licensed, or passed special legislation reserving ownership rights to the organization of professional engineers.[15] The Canadian model is to require that all persons working in engineering fields that pose a risk to life, health, property, public welfare, and the environment be licensed, and all provinces required licensing in the 1950s.
The United States model has generally been to require only practicing engineers who provide engineering services that impact the public welfare, safety, safeguarding of life, health, or property to be licensed, while engineers working in private industry without a direct offering of engineering services to the public or other businesses, education, and government do not need to be licensed.[16] This has perpetuated the divide between professional engineers and those in private industry.[17] Professional societies have adopted generally uniform codes of ethics.
Recent evolution
Efforts to promote ethical practice continue. In addition to the efforts of professional societies and founding organizations with their members, the Canadian Iron Ring and the American Order of the Engineer have their roots in the 1907 Quebec Bridge collapse. Both require their members to take an oath to uphold ethical practice and wear a symbolic ring as a reminder.
In the United States, the National Society of Professional Engineers published its Canons of Ethics for Engineers and Rules of Professional Conduct in 1946, which evolved into the current Code of Ethics, adopted in 1964. These petitions eventually led to the creation of the Ethical Review Board in 1954. Ethics cases rarely have easy answers, but the BER's nearly 500 advisory opinions have helped clarify the ethical issues facing that engineers face every day.[18].
Today, bribery and political corruption are being addressed very directly by various professional societies and business groups around the world.[19][20] However, new issues such as offshoring, sustainable development and environmental protection have emerged that the profession needs to consider and address.
Beginning
The codes that establish principles are coincident by international consensus; both the recently updated and published[21] by the American Society of Civil Engineers[22] and the one disseminated by the Argentine Center of Engineers with each stipulated "canon"..[23]
The canon[24] establishes the following principles:
Duty to inform
A basic ethical dilemma is that an engineer has a duty to inform the competent authority of a possible risk to others due to a client or employer's failure to follow the engineer's instructions. According to first principles, this duty takes precedence over the duty to a client and/or employer.[25] An engineer may be disciplined, or have his license revoked, even if failure to report such danger does not result in loss of life or health.[26].
If an engineer is overruled by a non-technical authority or a technical authority, he must inform the authority, in writing, of the reasons for his advice and the consequences of deviating from the advice.[27].
In many cases, this duty can be met by informing the client of the consequences frankly and ensuring that the client follows the engineer's advice. In very rare cases, where even a government authority may fail to take appropriate action, the engineer can only discharge his duty by making the situation public.[28] As a result, whistleblowing by professional engineers is not an unusual event, and courts have often sided with engineers in such cases, overriding duties to employers and confidentiality considerations that would otherwise have prevented the engineer from speaking out.[29]
Engineer conduct
There are several ethical conflicts that engineers can face. Some have to do with technical practice while others focus on broader work/business conduct considerations.[30] These include:.
Some engineering societies address environmental protection as an issue independent of ethics. The field of business ethics often overlaps and informs ethical decision making by engineers.
Case studies and key individuals
Petroski notes that most engineering errors are much more involved than simple technical calculation errors and involve failure of the design process or management culture.[31] However, not all engineering failures involve ethical issues. The infamous collapse of the first Tacoma Narrows Bridge&action=edit&redlink=1 "Tacoma Narrows Bridge (1940) (not yet drafted)"), and the losses of the Mars Polar Lander and Mars Climate Orbiter were technical and design process failures. Nor are all engineering ethics problems per se necessary engineering failures: Northwestern University instructor Sheldon Epstein cited The Holocaust as an example of a violation of engineering ethics despite (and because) the engineers' creations were successful in carrying out the Nazis' mission of genocide.[32].
These episodes of engineering failure include both ethical and technical issues.
[3] ↑ La AIEE se fusionó con el Instituto de Ingenieros de Radio (IRE) (1912) en 1963 para formar el IEEE.
[4] ↑ AIME es ahora la organización que engloba a cuatro sociedades técnicas: la Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration] (SME (1957), La Sociedad de Minerales, Metales y Materiales (TMS) (1957), la Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) (1957), y la Association For Iron and Steel Technology (AIST) (1974). Ni la AIME, ni sus sociedades filiales han adoptado un código ético formal.
[9] ↑ El miembro de la ASME H.F.J. Porter había propuesto ya en 1892 que las sociedades de ingenieros adoptaran requisitos uniformes de afiliación, educación y concesión de licencias, así como un código deontológico. (Layton (1986). pp. 45-46).
[10] ↑ Layton (1986). pp. 70 & 114.
[11] ↑ Layton (1986). pp. 124-125.
[12] ↑ Dietz, Burkhard, ed. (1996). id=FGfkMqguYd4C Technische Intelligenz und "Kulturfaktor Technik". p. 29. ISBN 9783893254477.: https://books.google.com/books?
[19] ↑ Transparency International and Social Accountability International (2009). transparency.org/whatwedo/pub/business_principles_for_countering_bribery Business Principles for Countering Bribery. Consultado el 29 de noviembre de 2013.: http://www.
[26] ↑ See NSPE, Board of Ethical Review, Cases 82-5 Archivado el 8 de agosto de 2012 en Wayback Machine. and 88-6 Archivado el 8 de agosto de 2012 en Wayback Machine. .: http://www.niee.org/cases/78-88/case82-5.htm
One response was the development of formal codes of ethics by three of the four founding engineering societies. The AIEE adopted its code of ethics in 1912. ASCE and ASME did so in 1914.[10] AIME did not adopt a code of ethics in its history.[5].
The concern for professional practice and public protection highlighted by these bridge failures, as well as the Boston Molasses Disaster (1919), gave impetus to another movement that had been underway for some time: requiring formal credentials (a Professional Engineering license in the United States) as a requirement to practice. This involves meeting some combination of training, experience, and testing requirements.[11].
In 1950, the Association of German Engineers drafted an oath for all its members entitled "The Engineers' Confession", alluding directly to the role of engineers in the atrocities committed during World War II.[12][13][14].
In the following decades, most American states and Canadian provinces required engineers to be licensed, or passed special legislation reserving ownership rights to the organization of professional engineers.[15] The Canadian model is to require that all persons working in engineering fields that pose a risk to life, health, property, public welfare, and the environment be licensed, and all provinces required licensing in the 1950s.
The United States model has generally been to require only practicing engineers who provide engineering services that impact the public welfare, safety, safeguarding of life, health, or property to be licensed, while engineers working in private industry without a direct offering of engineering services to the public or other businesses, education, and government do not need to be licensed.[16] This has perpetuated the divide between professional engineers and those in private industry.[17] Professional societies have adopted generally uniform codes of ethics.
Recent evolution
Efforts to promote ethical practice continue. In addition to the efforts of professional societies and founding organizations with their members, the Canadian Iron Ring and the American Order of the Engineer have their roots in the 1907 Quebec Bridge collapse. Both require their members to take an oath to uphold ethical practice and wear a symbolic ring as a reminder.
In the United States, the National Society of Professional Engineers published its Canons of Ethics for Engineers and Rules of Professional Conduct in 1946, which evolved into the current Code of Ethics, adopted in 1964. These petitions eventually led to the creation of the Ethical Review Board in 1954. Ethics cases rarely have easy answers, but the BER's nearly 500 advisory opinions have helped clarify the ethical issues facing that engineers face every day.[18].
Today, bribery and political corruption are being addressed very directly by various professional societies and business groups around the world.[19][20] However, new issues such as offshoring, sustainable development and environmental protection have emerged that the profession needs to consider and address.
Beginning
The codes that establish principles are coincident by international consensus; both the recently updated and published[21] by the American Society of Civil Engineers[22] and the one disseminated by the Argentine Center of Engineers with each stipulated "canon"..[23]
The canon[24] establishes the following principles:
Duty to inform
A basic ethical dilemma is that an engineer has a duty to inform the competent authority of a possible risk to others due to a client or employer's failure to follow the engineer's instructions. According to first principles, this duty takes precedence over the duty to a client and/or employer.[25] An engineer may be disciplined, or have his license revoked, even if failure to report such danger does not result in loss of life or health.[26].
If an engineer is overruled by a non-technical authority or a technical authority, he must inform the authority, in writing, of the reasons for his advice and the consequences of deviating from the advice.[27].
In many cases, this duty can be met by informing the client of the consequences frankly and ensuring that the client follows the engineer's advice. In very rare cases, where even a government authority may fail to take appropriate action, the engineer can only discharge his duty by making the situation public.[28] As a result, whistleblowing by professional engineers is not an unusual event, and courts have often sided with engineers in such cases, overriding duties to employers and confidentiality considerations that would otherwise have prevented the engineer from speaking out.[29]
Engineer conduct
There are several ethical conflicts that engineers can face. Some have to do with technical practice while others focus on broader work/business conduct considerations.[30] These include:.
Some engineering societies address environmental protection as an issue independent of ethics. The field of business ethics often overlaps and informs ethical decision making by engineers.
Case studies and key individuals
Petroski notes that most engineering errors are much more involved than simple technical calculation errors and involve failure of the design process or management culture.[31] However, not all engineering failures involve ethical issues. The infamous collapse of the first Tacoma Narrows Bridge&action=edit&redlink=1 "Tacoma Narrows Bridge (1940) (not yet drafted)"), and the losses of the Mars Polar Lander and Mars Climate Orbiter were technical and design process failures. Nor are all engineering ethics problems per se necessary engineering failures: Northwestern University instructor Sheldon Epstein cited The Holocaust as an example of a violation of engineering ethics despite (and because) the engineers' creations were successful in carrying out the Nazis' mission of genocide.[32].
These episodes of engineering failure include both ethical and technical issues.
[3] ↑ La AIEE se fusionó con el Instituto de Ingenieros de Radio (IRE) (1912) en 1963 para formar el IEEE.
[4] ↑ AIME es ahora la organización que engloba a cuatro sociedades técnicas: la Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration] (SME (1957), La Sociedad de Minerales, Metales y Materiales (TMS) (1957), la Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) (1957), y la Association For Iron and Steel Technology (AIST) (1974). Ni la AIME, ni sus sociedades filiales han adoptado un código ético formal.
[9] ↑ El miembro de la ASME H.F.J. Porter había propuesto ya en 1892 que las sociedades de ingenieros adoptaran requisitos uniformes de afiliación, educación y concesión de licencias, así como un código deontológico. (Layton (1986). pp. 45-46).
[10] ↑ Layton (1986). pp. 70 & 114.
[11] ↑ Layton (1986). pp. 124-125.
[12] ↑ Dietz, Burkhard, ed. (1996). id=FGfkMqguYd4C Technische Intelligenz und "Kulturfaktor Technik". p. 29. ISBN 9783893254477.: https://books.google.com/books?
[19] ↑ Transparency International and Social Accountability International (2009). transparency.org/whatwedo/pub/business_principles_for_countering_bribery Business Principles for Countering Bribery. Consultado el 29 de noviembre de 2013.: http://www.
[26] ↑ See NSPE, Board of Ethical Review, Cases 82-5 Archivado el 8 de agosto de 2012 en Wayback Machine. and 88-6 Archivado el 8 de agosto de 2012 en Wayback Machine. .: http://www.niee.org/cases/78-88/case82-5.htm