ENGR 482 Study Guide Midterm 1 Week 1 Objectives: - Understand ethical egoism and how it differs from psychological egoism. Ethical Egoism: it is morally right to care only about oneself. They CAN explain why it is okay to care about other people in certain situations. Psychological Egoism: people do actually care about themselves, but not about others. - Understand the common phenomenon that David Hume observed people tend to draw moral conclusions from factual premises without clearly stating the “bridge premise” necessary to make such a leap, i.e., they draw an “ought” from an is. Hume observed that you can’t jump from an “is” (descriptive) statement to an “ought” (moral) statement without a “bridge premise”. This bridge premise takes an “is” to an “ought” - Analyze the factual, moral, conceptual, and application components of an ethical issue. Factual Issue: a question of fact which is 1. unknown or controversial and 2. relevant to the moral issue. These issues can be proven experimentally. Different assumptions about the facts can result in different moral conclusions. Conceptual Issue: a question about the meaning of a term that is crucial in the moral analysis being conducted. Conceptual issues are resolved by 1. looking up the meaning in appropriate policies or laws or by 2. coming up with one of our own by looking at typical, or paradigm, examples. Application Issue: a question about whether a concept applies in a given situation. In order to resolve an application issue, we must know two things. 1. The appropriate definition of the terms (settle the conceptual issue) and 2. Need to know the knowledge of the relevant facts or the important factual issues and make reasonable assumptions. Moral Issue: sometimes a moral issue is decided when have determined the application question. Once the application issue is solved, we can say whether or not it is a moral issue or not. Moral issue arises when we must decide whether an act is right or wrong. - Understand the argument that Mary Midgely makes in “Philosophical Plumbing”. She compares philosophers to plumbers. Both of them do behind the scenes work. The theories that philosophers come up are essentially the plumbing that plumbers do. Philosophy is just water in the pipes. Our ideas and constructs that we take for granted in out thinking are based on certain ethical theories. No one notices when systems function smoothly, but they need attention when contexts change. Week 2 Objectives: - Normative ethics, descriptive ethics, and metaethics. Normative ethics: How one “ought to” act, morally speaking. “What should we all do”? Descriptive ethics: Describes people’s different beliefs about morality. “What do people think is right?” Metaethics: The study designed to understand the nature of ethical properties and evaluations. “What is good/morally right?” - Ethical theory of utilitarianism and its different versions (act or rule; actual or expected consequences; hedonism/preference-based views or objective-list theories) and the most important objections to the theory. Utilitarianism: the ethical philosophy that dictates that an act is morally right or wrong depending solely on the consequence of that act. An act that brings about as least as much pleasure or wellbeing as every alternative act is morally right. Acts that do not maximize pleasure or wellbeing are morally wrong. Particular Acts are specific acts committed that have radically different consequences (i.e., killing Adolf Hitler at 9:33 PM on November 8, 1939). Act Types are some set of central properties shared by all particular acts that are similar in some respects (i.e., killing people). Utilitarianists believe particular acts should be evaluated morally, not act types. Because it’s hard to generalize and categorize acts into one type. Act Utilitarianism believe that the right-making features of an act are consequences of that particular act. The correct act generates more good than all alternatives. Rule Utilitarianists believe that they ought to act according to a set of rules that would lead to optimal consequences if accepted by a majority of people in society. What makes an act right is what act and rule utilitarianists disagree upon. Actual Consequences are defined as how things actually go; what really results from an action. Expected Consequences are determined by calculating probabilities of the possible consequences and multiplying them by the value of the consequence (i.e., what is expected to happen). Classic Hedonistic Act Utilitarianism is the principle developed by Jeremy Bentham. States that happiness is good for its own sake. Happiness is the net balance of pleasure over pain. An act is right if and only if no alternative act brings about more of what is good for its own sake. Preference Utilitarianism is an alternative to Hedonistic Utilitarianism and states that what makes something good for its own sake is the fact that people’s preferences are satisfied. Even though preference satisfaction and happiness come together, it isn’t always the case as sometimes we can become unhappier when we get what we want. Objections to Utilitarianism: 1. Some acts that would have the greatest good consequence are wrong. 2. Consequentialism – which states that an act’s moral rightness depends upon nothing but consequences – can’t honor the moral boundary that separates one person from another. 3. If the only morally right act is supposed to bring maximum about of the good consequence, then all acts we perform are wrong. (i.e., I’m supposed to donate all of my money to charity, devote all of my time to volunteering but instead I buy McDonald’s and I am studying for a test) - Difference between utilitarianism and ethical egoism and the cost-benefit analysis. o Be able to apply these theories and analyses to the Ford Pinto case. Utilitarianism is committing an act based on the consequences of that specific action. If the action proves to provide you with an optimal level of happiness, then you should do it. Ethical egoism, on the other hand, states that it is morally right to only care about yourself. So, you should commit that act if it brings about some good to you or if it’s something you want to do. The Cost-Benefit Analysis is a systematic approach to estimating the strength and weaknesses of alternatives. It’s a tool used by utilitarianists and egoists. Ford Pinto Case. In 1970s, Ford was facing competition from newer generation of small, affordable, and fuel-efficient Japanese cars. Ford created an import for a new generation car with a weight less than a ton and a price less than $2000. The design time for the car was 25 months (typically 43) and preliminary engineering design work was skipped to “accommodate” for time constraints. There was a problem with the fuel tank placement; the tank has thin walls and was in a weird location. The fuel pipe was not properly protected by the bumper. The car did not do well in crash tests as the fuel pipe ruptured in 11 out of 12 impact tests. Ford had an option to fix the problem which would make the car more expensive and bigger. Cost benefit analysis was used and it said the Costs would be $137 million while the benefits would be $49.5 million. The flaw in this was that they quantified the life of a person. - Arguments for and against various forms of rule utilitarianism from Smith’s article. Hooker’s Fixed-Rate Rule Utilitarianism: Evaluating moral codes in terms of the value of their consequences at a fixed rate of social acceptance. It is arbitrary to fix 90% acceptance as the key acceptance point. Who picks 90%??? Ridge’s Variable-Rate Rule-Utilitarianism: Evaluating moral codes in terms of the value of their consequences throughout the entire range of possible acceptance rates. This was chosen to avoid arbitrariness from the FRRU. Why would you accept the acceptance of consequences at every possible level when in reality it must be accepted at some level or the other? Optimum-Rate Rule-Utilitarianism: an ideal code is the code whose optimum acceptance level is no lower than that of any alternative code. Partial Compliance Problem – the problem generated by the fact that, while a given moral code might produce excellent effects if everyone accepted it, it may produce extremely bad effects in a real-world situation in which there is only partial compliance or acceptance. Week 3 Objectives: - Be able to explain Kant’s terminology (will, duty, maxim, and the categorical imperative) Kantian Ethics: an act has moral value when the will is perfectly aligned with the duty. An act is right if and only if it is performed with good intentions. An act is also wrong if it cannot be universalized; the responsibilities of duty are inscribed on all rational beings; they are universal; they apply to all people in all possible situations and there are no exceptions. Will: one of the many faculties of the mind. The will is what animates our bodily actions; it is something that can be trained. Duty: obedience to the moral law. Duty should motivate us more than our inclinations and desires which often drive our actions. Maxim: a subjective principle that governs action. It is the principle that indicates what kind of action is moral. A maxim is limited in one sense meaning that it is limited to an individual. Categorical Imperative: How a maxim is tested to see if it can be applied universally. ‘Imperative’ refers to an order that tells us what to do. ‘Categorical’ refers to an imperative that holds true for all rational beings. Disobeying this would be immoral. - Naming the difference between a hypothetical and categorical imperative and the three formulations of the latter The hypothetical imperative follows an ‘if’ ‘then’ structure. (IF I want to get an A on this midterm, THEN I must study hard). The hypothetical imperative depends on a choice that can be freely made. The categorical imperative cannot be rejected, declined, or amended; it must be a goal for all rational beings. The three formulations of the categorical imperative are: 1) The universalization test: a. Formulate a maxim, m, that summarizes one’s reason for performing action, a. b. Imagine a world where m is a universal law that governs the actions of all rational agents performing action a. c. Is it conceivable that m could be a universal law that governs all actions of rational agents performing action a? d. Could you rationally will that m becomes a universal law governing the actions of all rational agents performing action a? 2) The means-to-an-end test – “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end-in-itself.” 3) The autonomy test – “Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends” - Explain and apply: universalizability, the self-defeating approach, and respect for persons. How does Kant’s theory differ from the intersubjective Golden Rule and rule-utilitarianism? Universalizability: Applying moral maxims to everyone in all circumstances without being self-defeating. Self-Defeating Approach: “If everyone else did what I am doing, would this undermine my ability to do the same thing?” This approach decides whether or not universalizability works. Respect for Persons: This is essentially treating each person as worthy of respect as a moral agent. “People cannot be killed, deceived, denied their freedom, or otherwise violated simply to bring a greater amount of utility”. Kant’s Theory vs. Golden Rule: The categorical imperative is a law that relies on universalizability; it must be followed by all rational beings and it is not based on a subjective case. The Golden Rule, which is essentially treating others as I would have them treat me, is applied to 2 people and is intersubjective. Kant’s Theory vs. Rule Utilitarianism: The categorical imperative is dictated and decided upon the will and the duty of the action whereas rule utilitarianists act accordingly to their laws dependent on which lead to optimal consequences. - Evaluate the LeMessurier/Citicorp case from a Kantian, act utilitarian, rule utilitarian, and egoist perspective. From an act/rule utilitarianism standpoint: it would be defended because his decision led to the best possible outcome for everyone involved. - When is the line drawing approach appropriate and how do you use it? The line-drawing approach – a method used to help determining where we should “draw the line” between two options in a decision or a method to decide if something is sufficiently close to X to count as an instance of it. When using this approach, marking the most important features assists with the final decision. Should be used for conceptual and application issues. 1. Choose paradigm – hallmark example of a certain concept or moral issue – examples a. Ex. Paradigm A: Clear case that is NOT a bribe. Paradigm B: Clear case that IS a bribe 2. Identify relevant features 3. Place Xs according to where the test case falls 4. Consider additional factors that may influence the appropriate course of action. Week 4 Objectives: - Explain how eudemonia (happiness), telos (aim, goal, purpose), and arete (virtue) are employed in Aristotle’s explication of ethics o How they relate to character development, the “good life” for a human, and realization of potential Eudaimonia: happiness; ‘good spirit’; or flourishing. When Aristotle refers to eudaimonia, he is talking about what is good for you and what makes you a good person. Telos: the end purpose of something; it’s aim; it’s goal. When Aristotle talks about telos, he is saying that the telos of a human being is to strive for eudaimonia. Arete: the virtue of “whatever makes a thing an ‘outstanding specimen’ of its kind”. What properties should humans have to fulfill their telos? Virtue Ethics: theory developed by Aristotle. It is not up to you to define who you are to be; there are objective answers to who you should strive to be. It’s all about livin’ the good life. If eudaimonia, telos, and arete are practiced by individuals, they will become good people with great morals and have a high quality of life (i.e., they will do things that contribute to their purpose). Living well consists of activities caused by the rational soul in accordance with virtues and excellence. - Understand the general arguments made in sections 1, 2, and 7 of Kraut’s “Aristotle on Becoming Good” and consider how these ideas would relate to commonly held understandings of the “good life” and “good engineering” Section 1: Socrates and Meno, when discussing what arete is, revealed several of the commonplaces about virtue that any philosophical examination of them would have to treat seriously. They both concluded that virtues are related to tasks and require performing them well. Typical human virtues include being just and moderate and not just things like courage. When people are called ‘good’, it is because they have a certain virtue that can be seen. These commonplace discoveries are in place in Aristotle’s ethical writings and he appeals to them. Section 2: Aristotle believes that virtues of character are not the only kind of human virtue. He believes there are also virtues of thought. The distinction is based on Aristotle’s division between the part of the soul that enables us to engage in reasoning and the part that enables us to be able to be responsive to reasoning. He’s basically saying that there are parts that are able to make inferences and respond to criticisms and reason while there are parts of the soul that are not responsive to reason at all (Ex. A child’s growth is governed by the nutritive part of the soul and he cannot affect his rate of growth as a result of a process of reasoning). There are activities that are not merely physical processes and are capable of being affected by reason. Certain things can be described as ‘listening’ to reason or – as so often happens – declining to listen. Ex. One can tell oneself that one’s anger is fully justified, and as a result the anger may increase. Conversely, if one realizes that one’s anger is based on a false assumption, that should itself calm the anger down, and so often it does. To be angry, fearful, or hungry is not to be engaged in a process of guiding ourselves from premises to conclusions. But, if we are led to the conclusion that someone did no injury, is no threat, or did poison our food, then we will lose that anger, fear, or desire to eat. We can assess the quality of someone’s mental life in two ways. One, we can ask whether someone is in a good condition with respect to their inference-making skills. Or two, we can ask whether the parts of them that can respond to reason (desires and emotions) are responding well. If they answer yes to the first one, they have the virtue of thought. If they answer yes to the second one, they have the virtues of character. Aristotle believes that there is one virtue of thought that is intimately tied to the virtues of character. One cannot have any of those ethical virtues (justice, courage, moderation) without having that one virtue of character. And one cannot have that virtue of character without having those ethical virtues. To be in all respects a good person consists in being in good condition with respect to one’s affective responsiveness and also to be in good condition with respect to the inferences by which one is led to act in certain ways. Each of these two kinds of good condition depends on the other. Section 7: A normal human being is born with the ability to reason, but unlike our ability for perception, it cannot be exercised immediately. Whether we acquire defects or excellences of character depends partly on those with whom we come into contact with. We are beings who naturally love imitation and representation, so it makes sense that we would reproduce the behavior of those we love, trust, or admire. Aristotle believes that at a certain point in our development, we start to take responsibility for the way in which our character develops. Aristotle calls attention to the fact that humans have an innate suitability for social and civic life. Part of the reason that humans are naturally political animals is the fact for them to be disposed to enter into cooperative arrangements even with individuals who are not members of their families. This aspect is widespread and begins at an early stage. - Know the difference between aspirational, prohibitive, and preventive ethics Aspirational Ethics: Using one’s professional knowledge to advance human well-being. Prohibitive Ethics: one of the most basic divisions of professional ethics. Not allowing and fighting against fundamentally unprofessional actions. Preventive Ethics: the obligation of engineers to actively attempt to prevent harm to the public through technology. Engineers taking responsibility to take due care in their work. - Understand the argument presented in Miller’s “Aiming Professional Ethics Toward Identity Development” (what it teams to answer “qualitative questions” by integrating personal and professional commitments and why doing so is important) o Connect those ideas to Elizabeth Hausler’s endeavors. Week 5 Objectives: - Explain how engineers commonly define risk and know the strengths and weaknesses of this definition. Risk is essentially the probability of a consequence occurring. Engineers reason with risk by using two principles, the Risk-Benefit Principle or the Precautionary Principle. The Risk-Benefit Principle uses quantitative information to weigh the benefits against the cost. Critics of the RBP point out that the numbers used in the analysis are often uncertain. We cannot be 100% certain about probabilities and all values that matter in the RBP cannot hold a monetary value. It seems morally problematic to calculate the market value of a human life. The Precautionary Principle is the alternative to the RBP and all it entails is establishing whether or not a sufficiently bad outcome may occur unless some precautionary measure is taken. Critics of this principle object that a subjective risk is not always equal to the objective risk and that what was at some point in time perceived as a threat may later on turn out to not be a threat at all. Another objection is that it is too vague to serve as a regulatory standard and that its logic is unclear and its key terms are left undefined at times. - Know the conditions in which risk is “acceptable” usually vary based on whether one has the perspective of an engineer, regulator, or the general public, and how these ethical assessments relate to utilitarianism and duty ethics Acceptable Risk: the product of the probability and magnitude of harm is equal or less than the product of the probability and magnitude of benefit. Acceptable risk varies depending on whether you are an engineer, a regulator, or a member of the general public. - Understand the distinction between perceived risk and actual risk, and be able to apply this distinction to the concerns over COVID-19 and the vaccines being developed Objective Risk of an activity X depends on how likely some negative event is to actually occur. Ex. The objective risk of losing $1,000 if you bet on red in Vegas is 50%. Subjective Risk, also known as perceived risk, depends on what you believe about the world. Ex. If you believe the casino dealer messed with the machine, then your subjective risk would be higher than 50% in terms of losing $1,000. - Be familiar with the precautionary principle, understand how it differs from the principle of maximizing expected utility, and be able to distinguish between its epistemic and normative aspects The Precautionary Principle states that where there are threats or serious irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. Essentially, it is better to be safe than sorry. Epistemic Interpretation is that it is better to have a false alarm in situations than a miscalculated error. Normative Aspect is based on practical reasoning. - Understand the distinction between the technocratic and democratic models of risk management. The Technocratic Model of Risk Management involves objective science informing policy making whereas Democratic Models of Risk Management involve the public influencing the decision-making process. Week 6 Objectives: - What were some of the physical and organizational causes of Challenger and Columbia disasters? Physical Causes of Challenger: the right Solid Rocket Booster O-ring failed to seal properly at the joints and were affected by cold temperatures the morning of the launch. Improper seal caused hot gases to leak through the joint during the propellant burn of the rocket motor and burned through the fuel tank. Physical Causes of Columbia: insulating foam separated from the left bipod ramp, damaging the front edge of the left wing of the shuttle. Upon reentry to earth’s atmosphere, superheated air penetrated the wing and caused the wing to melt and eventually ignite the fuel, resulting in an explosion. Organizational Challenges of the Challenger: Bob Lund and Roger Boisjoly from Thiokol were part of the engineering team opposed to the launch of the Challenger because of the O-ring issues. Jerald Mason, senior executive at Thiokol, famously called for Lund to “take off your engineering hat and put on your management hat”. Pressure from NASA and executives within Thiokol changed the perspective of the launch time. Groupthink was an issue when the Challenger team went from proving safe to proving not safe. Proper Management Decisions were not made; they pressured engineers to compromise initial decisions. Normalization of Deviance led to ultimate decision to launch. Organizational Challenges of the Columbia: Issues within NASA were again Normalization of Deviance; previous issues with the insulating foam had been problematic, not catastrophic, so they were ignored. There was an inadequate safety program in place that had little power. Culture of the Organization did not treat kindly dissenting opinions. - What are the impediments to responsibility from the textbook and how do you recognize the five “symptoms” that frequently accompany them? The impediments to moral responsibility are: 1. Universal Acceptance of Authority: allowing figures of authority to replace our own independent thinking 2. Groupthink: the tendency of groups to come to apparent agreement at the expense of genuine and independent critical thinking. 3. Microscopic Vision: when our perspective, or field of awareness, is greatly limited so that we are not aware of the larger issue. 4. Self-Deception: the boundaries of acceptance risk are enlarged without good reason. 5. Self-Interest: allowing conflicts of interest to influence our professional judgement. 6. Fear of Retribution: the fear of the loss of promotion, being shunted into dead-end positions, or being fired; essentially professionals act irresponsibly in order to maintain their status and avoid a different look and demotion. 7. Ignorance: ignorance of the relevant issues or the consequences of the relevant actions. - What are the common differences between proper engineering and proper management decisions developed in Chapter 2 of the textbook? Proper Management Decision: factors affecting the wellbeing of an organization and doesn’t force engineers to compromise their own technical/ethical standards. Proper Engineering Decision: technical matters that require engineering expertise/judgement or involve ethical standards in engineering codes, especially in protecting the public. - Define and recognize whistleblowing. What are the distinctions between internal and external whistleblowing and the justifications for them? Whistleblowing: the act of passing along the information about what an individual believes to be a serious moral or legal wrongdoing in an organization of which the individual is a member to an internal or external party that they are not authorized to contact with the information to stop the wrongdoing. Internal Whistleblowing is reporting legal/moral issues within your own organization while External Whistleblowing is notifying someone external to your organization about immoral/illegal activity. Whistleblowing is typically permissible if… 1. The harm that will be done by the product to public is serious and considerable, 2. The employees report their concern to their immediate superiors, and 3. Getting no satisfaction from their immediate superiors, they exhaust the channels available within the organization. Week 7 Objectives: - Learn and understand the terminology and concepts related to diversity. Diversity and Stigmas can be formed from the basis of ones: Gender, Race/Ethnicity, Nationality/Citizenship, Religion, Age, Disability, Pregnancy, Parental Status, Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, Obesity, and/or Socioeconomic Status. Prejudice: an unjustified or incorrect attitude towards an individual based solely on the individual’s membership of a social group. Ex. Holding a prejudiced view against a certain race, gender, etc. Discrimination: the disadvantageous treatment or consideration towards an individual based on their membership of a social group. Ex. Refusing to hire someone based on their race, gender, etc. Stereotypes: a fixed, over generalized belief about a particular group or class of people. Ex. All Asians are good at math. - Understand implicit biases and how they develop automatically. Implicit Bias is the unconscious distortion of the perception of certain groups. These sorts of biases develop from a desire to maintain a status quo, preference for homogenous social circles, and confirmation bias – or the tendency to conform and notice evidence that supports our existing beliefs. - Understand the business and moral cases for inclusion in engineering. Business Case: Individual Performance: Improved recruitment and retention of top talent Increased job satisfaction and decreased stress Improved critical thinking skills Team Performance: Improved creativity and problem-solving Better cross-cultural interactions on global teams Marketability: Improved understanding of customer needs Better ability to reach a wider customer base Fewer costly lawsuits and less public backlash Moral Case: People care about diversity and strive to be inclusive because it is the moral, right, and fair thing to do. The NSPE Code states, “Engineers shall treat all persons with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination.” Week 8 Objectives: - Know the ideas expressed in the Preamble and Fundamental Canons of the NSPE Code of Ethics. o Be able to recognize the Rules of Practice that are in the Code. Analyze how the code for your intended industry or profession differs from the NSPE Code. The Preamble states that engineering is an important and learned profession. As members of this profession, engineers are expected to exhibit the highest standards of honesty and integrity. Engineering has a direct and vital impact on the quality of life for all people. Accordingly, services provided by engineers require honestly, impartiality, fairness, and equity and must be dedicated to the protection of the public citizens. Fundamental Canons: Engineers… shall: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. Perform services only in areas of their competence. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees. Avoid deceptive acts. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession. - Know the basics of the Macondo blowout and understand the organizational issues involved, and compare it to the Challenger and Columbia incidents. Macondo and Deepwater Horizon Blowout 11 people killed, 17 people injured, 210 MILLION (million) gallons of Crude Oil dumped into the Gulf of Mexico. 41 miles of SE Louisiana coast. The well was 18,000 ft (5,000 ft water depth + 13,000 ft) February 15 – March 8: there were delays worth $96 million. Fall 2009 – Drilling began with a different rig that was damaged by a hurricane. Deepwater Horizon rig brought in by February 2010. March – Gasket on rig’s blowout preventer was damaged and went unreported. April 1 – BP was concerned cementing would not be successful. Halliburton engineer cautions use of cement was “against our best practices” April 9 – BP drills last section of wellbore still required about 1,200 ft. of casting. Normalization of deviance occurred since it was normalized behavior. Similar to that of the Challenger and the Columbia. April 15 o Centralizers: BP Drilling Engineer, Brian Morel, informs Halliburton Exec “ we will use 6 centralizers” instead of 21 specifics by Halliburton’s design. o BP Operation Drilling Engineer, Brett Cocales said, “Who cares… Six should be adequate to obtain a proper cement seal… we will probably be fine.” o Halliburton Exec recommended to Morel to circulate mud from bottom up to the surface to remove air pockets and debris that will contaminate the cement. Instead, BP used only a small fraction of what was specified. April 17: Drilling completed; well being prepared to be cemented April 18: Halliburton sent a crew to conduct a Cement Bond Log April 19: Halliburton completes cementing of the casing string for the final production April 20: 7 AM – BP Exec cancels recommended cement bond long test (saved $110,000) o BP VP visits the drilling platform to present a safety award for 7 years with no injury on the rig o Evening, installation manager J. Harrel, forced BP to run a negative pressure test (required), to test he integrity of the cement. The test failed. o BP argued it should be fine since there was no mud residue. They instead conducted a pressure test on the Kill line, which passed. (Similar to Ford Pinto where 11 out of 12 failed) o 9:56 PM – Gas, oil, and concrete exploded up on the wellbore onto the deck and then catches on fire. o There were two attempts to shut BOP – but they both failed. What did they do wrong? - Used only 6 centralizers, 21 were required. Canceled log test for cement integrity. Limited volume of cement, and thus the length of the cement plug in the annulus above the formation Skipped bottoms-up circulation prior to cementing Inadequate mud flow monitoring; failure to detect kickback at negative pressure testing. Which Canons were violated? - They did not hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. They did not perform services only in areas of their own competence. They did not avoid deceptive acts. How is it similar to Columbia/Challenger? - There was a sense of groupthink and normalization of deviance since everyone continued to perform the wrong acts. - Know the features of professions in general and the degree to which engineering as a profession possesses those features. - Understand how the Texas Board of Professional Engineers, the steps toward licensing detailed in the TEPA, and the industry exemption contribute to the character of the engineering profession. Six Canons for the TEPA: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Engineers shall protect the public Engineers shall be objective and truthful Engineers actions shall be competent Engineers shall maintain confidentiality of clients Engineers responsibility to the profession Action in another jurisdiction Industry Exemption: laws that allow for non-professional engineers to practice what is considered to be engineering work. Examples include: those designing consumer products, those designing smaller buildings, minor changes to buildings, most government work, areas not generally accessible by the public. Steps towards licensing in the TEPA: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Take the FE exam $180 Graduate (BS in ABET-accredited school) and apply to be EIT $15 Gain 4+ years engineering experience working under a PE who will endorse your application Prepare for an take the PE exam $350 Apply for licensure $80 To maintain your license, pay annual license fees ($40/yr.) on time and keep records of your “continuing professional development” activities.
