Mahboobin 10:00
Group L13
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ON BRAIN-COMPUTER INTERFACE
Aaron Johnson (atj8@pitt.edu)
say about the technology as a whole? Personally, my job will
be endangered even if the company survives because I
allowed the company to release a defective product
knowingly. Despite this, my boss believes that the data
showing these errors are outliers and not important due to the
small number of cases in which they occurred. In order to
streamline the process, avoid developing new hardware and
software, and make the device more appealing to those
considering whether to use this computer chip, my boss has
stated that “the outlying data in the tests should be omitted to
avoid skewing the results.” I believe that this is ethically
questionable and deceitful; however, my boss has also
informed me that if we do not move forward with this project
more efficiently, the large amount of funds being used on this
project may seriously harm the company. This means that if
we needed to start development on a new component, the
delay may be enough to destroy the fledgling company in a
developing market. This places me in an ethically
questionable situation; do I act so that I can help the people
who might use this technology, harm the company, and
possibly harm my career or do I potentially endanger
consumers in order to save the company and my career? I plan
to reach a decision by analyzing how each choice coincides
with various codes of ethics for engineers and any other
resources which may provide me with greater insight into how
my choices affect others.
THE DILEMMA
Brain-computer interface (BCI) is a technology which
utilizes the shifts in brainwaves of a user to control various
devices. Because of the very diverse applications of such a
technology, it shows promise when integrated with virtual
reality. The company for which I work has been attempting to
commercialize this technology by integrating it with
augmented reality, allowing disabled users to gain autonomy
through the control of household robotics with brainwaves.
For instance, by focusing on a certain stimulus presented by
augmented reality, a paralyzed user would be able to order a
robotic arm in his kitchen to begin preparing a meal. I am
specifically involved with the development and
implementation of a computer chip which is meant to serve as
a processor for signals sent from the BCI device to such
robotics. Recently, a new computer chip used in the device
was developed and is now entering the testing phase.
Specifically, this computer chip has been hailed as extremely
adaptive due to its ability to recognize habitual patterns in a
user’s activity, such as turning on the television at a certain
time or making coffee in the morning, and automatically
implement these types of patterns into its functions.
However, tests have revealed that the algorithm used to
determine these patterns occasionally experiences serious
errors. It is not a common issue, but it can cause the entire
system to malfunction and fail. Although it is rather
unpredictable as to what may happen, some tests have shown
robotic arms to release what they are holding or rapidly swing
on one of its joints. Other devices may change their current
function similarly, as it is believed the error occurs due to the
system wanting to perform a recognized pattern in place of a
current action. Due to the nature of the system, this could
cause major problems where a robotic arm damages property,
or even harms the user if he were near to it during the error.
Additionally, this error would not allow the user to utilize any
of the BCI’s functionalities until a trained technician is able
to access the device in person and repair it.
If this chip were to be implemented in the final product, it
could cause liability issues for the company and harm
customers in multiple ways. As our main clients are mentally
or physically disabled people, retailers of the device or health
services with which we are associated would receive faulty
products and incur various possible damages and lose money.
Certainly, if the public were to learn of this error, our
company could encounter serious law suits and other
repercussions, resulting in the closing of the company or large
fines. As a market, these types of BCI devices would be set
back majorly due to perception by the public: if the first major
BCI technology to be commercialized is faulty, what does that
ETHICALLY WRONG
For both the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE) and National Society of Professional
Engineers (NSPE), their codes of ethics begins by stating that
engineers must put forth effort to maintain the welfare of the
public [1][2]. Of course, this is a key component when
considering the ethics of this situation. If this product is
released in its current state and the data is omitted, the
consumers would be placed in a dangerous situation. They
could potentially be harmed by this technology and would be
unaware of the threat to their health. Additionally, the user’s
welfare could be jeopardized simply because a failure in this
computer chip could harm him financially. According to both
the IEEE and NSPE, this would lead me to act in some way
against my boss’s actions so that the welfare of the public
could be maintained. If I do not act accordingly, it would be
wrong. Similarly, the NSPE code of ethics also requires that
engineers “shall at all times strive to serve the public interest”
[1]. The best method to serve the public in these manners is
to somehow refuse to omit the data.
The NSPE also states in its fundamental canons of ethics
that engineers must “avoid deceptive acts” [1]. The IEEE
code of ethics contains another consideration parallel to the
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering
2014-10-28
1
Aaron Johnson
previous one, in that it demands that an engineer not harm
others through false action [2]. No matter how one views this
situation, it is certain that falsifying test data would be
deceiving the public. Even if the data are considered outliers,
removing them altogether would be taking information away
from those who deserve to know what product they are
buying. In general, the NSPE code of ethics is established so
that engineers must at all times attempt to perform in the most
truthful and virtuous manner[1]. Altering the raw data so that
the company can more easily release a product would not be
a true effort to reproduce either of these two traits. So far, it is
hard to believe that following my boss’s orders would be the
right path, as doing so would violate the six previously
mentioned sections of two different codes of ethics.
than it was after only considering the reasons that omitting
data was wrong.
Overall, the codes of ethics are useful for deciding that I
should not omit the data. However, when I look at these codes
and read into them a little more deeply, it becomes more
complicated than just a black and white, or ethically right and
wrong, decision. In order to determine what I should do, I will
have to consult a few more resources as these codes of ethics
do not have any more information pertaining to my situation.
AN ENGINEER’S ETHICS
Certainly, ethics is an area in which it can be difficult to
reach a solution. There are so many interpretations of what is
right and wrong and reading codes can take you only so far.
Because of this, I feel that it is valuable to turn to my fellow
engineers and students of ethics to learn more.
In his book, Engineering Ethics Challenges and
Opportunities, Richard Bowen succinctly establishes “the
goal of engineering as being the promotion of the flourishing
of persons in communities through contribution to material
wellbeing” [3]. This nearly falls under a concept which I have
previously seen in the codes of ethics. However, where the
codes of ethics primarily sought to avoid harming others,
Bowen directly states that engineering should be used to help
others. This is obviously my goal, as I am considering how
best to approach a situation which could be quite negative for
many people. Sadly, this definition does little to help
determine my answer on its own, as both of my possible paths
could help certain people in different ways. It is lucky that
Bowen continues on to claim that “the safe operation of
products and processes is of paramount importance in
engineering practice” and that truthfulness is a “prerequisite
[virtue] for any practice” [3]. As he continues to analyze the
practice of engineering, it becomes more and more apparent
that the more ethical choice in my situation would certainly
not be the omission of the data. Doing so could help some
people, but not doing so would also help others while
upholding safety and honesty.
I would not be giving enough concern to this issue if I only
considered the viewpoint of one other engineer, however.
Gail Baura is another engineering ethics author, who claims
to have a different view on ethics due to her involvement in
industry. If this is truly the case, this book provides more
relevant and diverse insight into my dilemma, as it takes place
in industry. At the core of her argument, Baura believes that
all engineers should focus on three areas in ethical decisions:
“concern for public safety, technical competence, and timely
communication of positive and negative results to
management” [4]. Of these three core areas, all of them can
be applied to this scenario.
When viewing this decision in terms of public safety, I
have already made a rather easy decision: although the device
could help most of the consumers, it can also harm them,
meaning that it would be best to wait for this company, or
another, to produce a better product. Simply put, this device
EMPLOYEE OBLIGATIONS
Based on the codes of ethics for the NSPE and the IEEE,
this situation seems to be relatively easy to fix so far.
However, it is not quite so simple. There are a multitude of
other considerations which do not directly fall under the
ethical codes, but can be central considerations interpreted
with the help of these codes. For example, this decision does
not affect my career alone; if I choose to act against my boss’s
wishes, the company for which I work could potentially go
bankrupt, as this is a new industry and business. This would
not only make me jobless, but every other employee as well.
In a way, this would be violating the NSPE and IEEE codes
of ethics because I am causing financial harm to others [1] [2].
The NSPE claims that every engineer must “act for each
employer or client as faithful agents or trustees” [1]. Although
this is not directly defined as acting to maximize the success
of one’s employer, it can be interpreted that way. At its
essence, accepting a job is essentially promising to act in this
way and not doing so could also be interpreted as ethically
wrong. Employees have certain obligations that they are
supposed to fulfill and, in this scenario, my obligation to listen
to my boss can have some beneficial outcomes, despite its
serious repercussions.
Even though this device could potentially harm a user, it
is rare for it to happen. Following my boss would allow this
technology to get to the market and be the first of its kind,
helping the majority of users without causing them any harm.
If I force the company to redevelop the chip and the company
ends up failing, it may be years until another company tries to
commercialize this technology, as doing so may not be
deemed a worthy profit margin. Even if the company does not
fail, there is no guarantee that the issues could be fixed in a
short period of time. This would prevent many people from
receiving this level of autonomy for a lengthy period.
So, despite this chip posing a multitude of problems for
me ethically, it could also help a lot of people, financially or
medically, if this were to make it to market. Additionally,
complying with my boss’s wishes would be beneficial for my
career, making this situation a much more difficult choice
2
Aaron Johnson
will not save anyone’s life – at least, that is not its purpose –
so waiting for a few years will only inconvenience the
intended buyer, not hurt them. It is better not to release the
technology in its current state in this aspect. Additionally, not
omitting the data would correspond well with Baura’s other
two principles; redeveloping the computer chip would display
technical competence, as the device is in need of being fixed,
and better communication, as it would require higher level
management to overrule my boss’s poor decision. Of course,
this is similar to various other principles displayed by the
codes of ethics and Engineering Ethics, to which I have
previously referenced. It seems that the right path is becoming
clearer with each source.
The last engineer to whom I turn is actually an
acquaintance of mine who has experienced a similar situation.
In order to gain some personal advice, I asked Rick Majka
confidentially what he might do if he were faced with either
releasing a possibly defective product, or potentially causing
a lot of people to lose their jobs. Adamantly, he responded
that it was an easy decision for him; in fact, he had discovered
at a previous job that striking the lid of a cup at a certain angle
with a straw would break off a small piece of sharp plastic,
posing a choking hazard. Thanks to his testing, millions of
lids had to be destroyed, but McDonald’s managed to avoid
hurting customers and Majka upheld his own code of ethics
[5]. In a very simple but insightful manner, he told me that
“losing a job is a temporary setback, but you [cannot] get back
a life” [5]. In total, it seems that the engineering community
and engineering codes of ethics all push me toward the same
decision; but ultimately, I have to rely on myself to decide.
average, but every individual person who uses this device; I
have to bring my boss’s orders to the correct authorities that
can help me right any wrongs before they happen.
As for how this experience can be helpful for other
engineers, I have to recommend that any person who is
confronted with an ethical decision not only weigh the
positive and negative effects of each action, but also to use
every ethical resource available to them. He must analyze the
impact of his choices on not only himself but also his
coworkers, employers, the public, and engineering as a whole.
One must realize that each decision is deeper than a black and
white answer, because often there are many layers of benefits
and detriments to each possible choice. If it is too much for
one person to reflect on such a decision, there are people and
organizations that can provide a person consultation, even if
those people are family or friends. And, above all else, one
should remember his own personal values and why he started
working as an engineer, because, in the end, there is a reason
that humans, and not robots, practice ethics.
REFERENCES
[1] (2007). “NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers”. National
Society of Professional Engineers. (Online Article).
http://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics
[2] “IEEE Code of Ethics”. IEEE Policies. (Online Article).
http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html
[3] R. Bowen. (2014). “A Philosophical Analysis of the
Nature of Engineering”. Engineering Ethics Challenges and
Opportunities.
(Online
Book).
rt4rf9qn2y.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.882004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF8&rfr_id=info:sid/summon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fm
t=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.title=Engi
neering+Ethics&rft.au=W.+Richard+Bowen&rft.date=20140101&rft.pub=Springer+Verlag&rft.isbn=9783319040950&rft.
externalDocID=9783319040967&paramdict=en-US p. 1934.
[4] G. Baura. (2006). “An Ethics Foundation”. Engineering
Ethics: An Industrial Perspective. (Online Book).
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/pitt/reader.action?docID=10138013
. p. 1-16.
[5] R. Majka. (2014, October 26). Interview.
[6] “Episode 12 – Ethics”. The Engineering Commons
Podcast.
(2012).
(Podcast).
http://theengineeringcommons.com/episode-12-ethics/
MY DECISION
While listening to a podcast on engineering ethics, I
learned something very important. According to Karl
Stephan, an electrical engineering professor for Texas State
University, ethics is about deciding on your own values and
making a decision; he said that if it were only a set of simple
rules, a program could be made to give us the right answer
every time [6]. But sadly, it is not so simple. This decision
comes down to my own beliefs in the end, guided by all of the
resources to which I have access. So accordingly, the last
resource I must consult is my personal beliefs.
I certainly believe in the codes of ethics and my fellow
engineers; they all have good values. In fact, many of my
values are similar to, or the same as, what I have read in these
doctrines and ethical considerations. However, I have to
balance the benefits and detriments of my actions as well as
use all of the different ethical codes that have been developed
and instilled in me. When I do this, I see that most of the
benefits of omitting this data are personal and material, such
as helping my co-workers retain their jobs. Even the benefits
for consumers, such as a general benefit from receiving this
technology, are outweighed by the possible losses that could
occur from the device’s failure. Above all else, I should be
trying to help people with this technology – not people on
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
“Case 11 – Incremental Development”. Stanford Ethics Case
Studies
in
Biodesign.
(Online
Article).
http://biodesign.stanford.edu/bdn/ethicscases/11incremental.
jsp
3
Aaron Johnson
(2006). “Data Selection, Legitimate or Illegitimate? (adapted
from NSPE Case No. 85-5)”. Online Ethics Center for
Engineering
and
Science.
(Online
Article).
http://www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Cases/ec85-5.aspx
“Design/Build – a TE/STI Relationship (Case 1040)”. Texas
Tech University Ethics Cases. (Online Articles).
http://www.depts.ttu.edu/murdoughcenter/products/cases.ph
p
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you to Rick Majka for allowing me to interview him
for the purposes of this paper.
Thank you to Jerome Dopkin for providing consultation on
this paper.
Thank you to Andrew Campbell for reviewing this paper.
4