Unit 3

Engineering as Social
Experimentation
What is experiment?

 To under take a great work and esspecially

work of a novel type means carrying out an
experiment.
 It means taking up a struggle with the forces
of nature with out the assurance of emerging
as the victor after first attack
Louis marie henry navier
Engineering as Social Experimentation

 “All products of technology present some potential dangers,

and thus engineering is an inherently risky activity.
 In order to underscore this fact and help in exploring its
ethical implications, we suggest that engineering should be
viewed as an experimental process.
 It is not,of course, an experiment conducted solely in
alaboratory under controlled conditions.
 Rather, it is an experiment on a social scale involving human
subjects.”
 Ethics in Engineering, Martin MW and Schinzinger R,McGraw-
Hill, 1996
Social Importance of Engineering

 Engineering has a direct and vital effect on

the quality of life of people.
 Accordingly, the services provided by
engineers must be dedicated to the
protection of the public safety, health and
welfare.
 Why is the Professional Ethics Important
for Civil Engineers?

 Important for every profession

 More contact with the life of people
 Dealing with natural materials
 Dealing with dreams and vision of the
peoples
comparison
Engineering Experimentation
Objective is to solve problems Objective to find new knowledge or
which often involves: answers which also involves:
•unknowns •unknowns
•uncertain outcome •uncertain outcome
•monitor • test hypothesis
•learn from past experiments •draw conclusions or verify
•human subjects / participants often hypothesis based on experience /
unaware, evidence
•uninformed • "informed consent" of subjects
•often don't recognize all variables •try to control all variables
natural experiment •controlled experiment
Codes of Ethics

 Standards of conduct that every member of

profession
 Respect the rights of others
 Show fairness in your dealing with the others
 Be honest in all actions
 Keep promises and contracts
 Consider the welfare of others
 Show compassion to others
Purpose

 It provides framework for ethical judgment

 Starting point for ethical decision making
 Defines roles and responsibilities of a
professionals
 Not a legal document
Objections

 New engineers do not abide by their codes

 Not aware of the society codes
 Consultaion of code is rare
 Don’t give any methods
Code of Engineering Societies

 Early
 How to conduct business
 Now
 Concerned about the social and public issues
Resolving internal conflicts

 No instructon to solve internal conflicts

 Eg
▪ Supervisor and engineeer- public hazard
Challenger: Case Study in Engineering
Ethics and Communications
 The Incident
January 28, 1986

Launch About 80 seconds after Launch

                                                                   

   
                                                               

    
Parts of space shuttle
The Investigation
O-Rings were a known problem
 1970’s: less safe than more expensive alternative
 1985: scorching becomes noticeable
▪ Thiokol analysis shows worse on colder days
▪ Launch constraint by NASA (waived every launch)
▪ Thiokol Engineer Roger Boisjoly warns superiors
“we could lose a flight”
 August ’85: NASA Meeting, no changes
▪ Later, Feynman calls this strategy “Russian Roulette”
Night Before Launch
 Boisjoly and others: “too cold, delay launch!”
 Until 53ºF
 Management: how come some warmer
launches show scorching?
 (crucial fact ignored--every single launch in cold
temperatures showed damage)
 Thiokol management gets the engineers to
accept a launch recommendation.
Obfuscation during investigation
 Famous physicist Richard Feynman performs
experiment on television
 Dips o-ring in ice-water
 Shows greater stiffness
 also complains about
slides, bullets
 Edward Tufte, designer
 Provides further damning
analysis of charts
 Condemns PowerPoint
Epilogue

 Several families sued NASA management

 between $2 and 3.5 million per family.
 Morton Thiokol paying 60 percent

 Roger Boisjoly, Thiokol engineer

 testified before Congress
 sued Thiokol under a federal whistleblowing statute (lost)
 left the company
 underwent therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder
 awarded the Prize for Scientific Freedom from the AAAS,
 now lectures on workplace ethics issues (in Australia)

 Thiokol gave up $10 million incentive fee

 did not sign a document admitting to legal liability.

 NASA bans commercial or military payloads from shuttle

Learned

 Constituted the unethical decision-making

forum resulting from intense customer
intimidation
 Lack of clarity in the presentation of
information
How traumatic events affected
children's psyches
 The majority of children's memories of
Challenger were often clear and consistent,
and even things like personal placement such
as who they were with or what they were
doing when they heard the news were
remembered well.
East Coast recalled the event more
easily than children on the West Coast
 Children on the East Coast either saw the
explosion on TV while in school, or heard people
talking about it. On the other side of the country,
most children were either on their way to school,
or just beginning their morning classes.
 Researchers found that those children who saw
the explosion on TV had a more emotional
connection to the event, and thus had an easier
time remembering it. 
Safety and ethical issues

 Crue safety?
 Rockwell and M.Thiokol were ignoring the
recommendations of its engineers?
 Safety traded for political acceptability?
 Schedule force to comparmise safety?