Engineers should not be allowed to do weapons research
Engineers should not be allowed to do weapons research
ALAC099
Kairen Rong
Instructor: Prof Scott, Jordan
1
Engineers should not be allowed to do weapons research
2
“From the code of ethic for the life sciences, all persons and institutions engaged in any aspect of the
life sciences must Work for ethical and beneficent advancement, development, and use of scientific
knowledge. (Somerville& Atlas, 2005, n.p)” However, some engineers just follow the order form
their boss and even don’t care what the weapon is used for. This is why biochemical weapons will be
researched, and some biochemical weapons even require human trials. For example, during the
Japanese invasion of China, some Japanese are conducting brutal human trials in china. At the same
time, it still has unpredictable costs that spend on it. If no one stops it, it will lead to countless
innocent people dying. Engineers shouldn’t be allowed to conduct weapon design because some
biological and chemical weapons are not ethical, have the responsibility not to provide means of
injury and not in accordance with the code of ethics of engineers.
Some biological and chemical weapons are not ethical that is a major reason why engineers should
not design them. Most of the chemical weapons are used to invade other countries, and it will also
cause the death of a large number of innocent people. Somerville and Atlas (2005) argue that
scientists should not cause harm; they must respect life, especially human life, and integrate ethics
into science. Engineers should protect their findings and knowledge and work hard to confirm that
they do not cause harm (Somerville& Atlas, 2005). At the same time, Somerville and Atlas (2005)
come up with that engineers must refuse to engage in any research that might promote or is highly
likely to be used to develop bioterrorism or biological warfare. However, Ilchmann and Revill (2014)
think that chemical weapons have many advantages. In the war, chemical weapons can effectively
dismiss the opposite side, and reducing the morale on the opposite side, thus reducing the number of
soldiers killed (Ilchmann and Revill, 2014). Somerville and Atlas (2005) means that engineers
should not develop chemical weapons to be used to kill while Ilchmann and Revill (2014) believes
that chemical weapons have great benefits for war. This shows that engineers should not design
weapons, because Somerville and Atlas (2005) is more concerned with human aspects, and Ilchmann
Engineers should not be allowed to do weapons research
3
and Revill (2013) only considers war. Engineers should benefit the people more than the war. Under
normal circumstances, engineers should not develop weapons.
As an engineer, it is the responsibility of not to provide means of injury that is a significant reason
why engineers should not design them. The main direction of engineers should be to seek benefits
for society, to study inventions that are beneficial to the people, rather than to design weapons that
cause harm. Forge (2004) thinks engineers have a responsibility not to provide harm, no matter what
other duties they have. At same time, Forge (2004) claims engineers should not do weapons research
if no enemy wants to conquer and invade in peacetime. There may be people mention that engineers
should study defensive weapons. However what kind of weapon will be called a defensive weapon.
Like a mini-nuclear weapon, it can be used to kill a large army on the battlefield, or it can be used to
equip a huge army to deter the enemy that wants to invade (Forge, 2004). Therefore, there is no
defensive weapon research, because no weapon itself is defensive. This shows that engineers should
not design weapon, because they have a responsibility to reject weapons research, and most of the
weapons are used to create damage. Also Forge (2004) shows that there are no so-called defensive
weapons, weapons will cause damage. Engineers should study something that will bring convenience
to people's lives, or research some inventions that improve the environment.
Researching weapons does not meet the engineer's ethics and that it’s one of a significant reason why
engineers should not design weapon. Engineers should not feel that designing weapons is moral
because he is not the one who uses it (Cummings, 2006). Also Cummings (2006) argues that the first
fundamental principle of engineering ethics is essential to the safety, health and well-being of the
public. However, Forge (2009) comes up with that if some engineers’ country is threatened by
invasion and they want to use their expertise as an engineer to develop new weapons against this
aggression, then there is no guarantee that government will not use them in the opposite way at some
Engineers should not be allowed to do weapons research
4
point in the future to threaten to invade some innocent parties. Cummings (2006) believes that
engineers should take more into account the progress of people and technology, and Forge (2009)
thinks that in some special cases engineers have to study weapons and do not consider the
consequences. This shows that Cummings (2006) is more persuasive from the perspective of the
people, and Forge (2009) just said a special case. Engineers need to pay more attention to the
promotion and development of science and technology. In peacetime, research on weapons should be
stopped.
In general, engineers should abide by the basic principles of professional ethics and reduce the
research on weapons of destruction. Therefore, engineers should not be allowed to do weapons
research, because the existence of some chemical weapons and the refusal of various means of injury
and not in accordance with the code of ethics of engineers. In the future, engineers should pay more
attention to the development of artificial intelligence to improve people's happiness rather than focus
on weapons research.
Engineers should not be allowed to do weapons research
5
Reference
Forge, J. (2004). The Morality of Weapons Research. Science & Engineering Ethics, 10(3), 531-542.
Forge, J. (2009). Proportionality, Just War Theory and Weapons Innovation. Science & Engineering
Ethics, 15(1), 25-38. doi:10.1007/s11948-008-9088-z
Ilchmann, K., & Revill, J. (2014). Chemical and Biological Weapons in the 'New Wars'. Science &
Engineering Ethics, 20(3), 753-767. doi:10.1007/s11948-013-9479-7
M.L. Cummings IEEE Technology and Society Magazine ( Volume: 25, Issue: 1, Spring 2006 )
Page(s): 31 – 37 Date of Publication: 20 March 2006 INSPEC Accession Number:
8838023. DOI: 10.1109/MTAS.2006.1607722
Margaret A. Somerville & Ronald M. Atlas. Science 25 Mar 2005:Vol. 307, Issue 5717, pp. 18811882 DOI: 10.1126/science.1109279