Budny 10:00
R06
ETHICAL DELIMMA OF A COMMON ENGINEER
Isaac George (IJG5@pitt.edu)
INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH
Currently I am an electrical engineer working for the
United States Naval Laboratory at their Chesapeake Bay
location. While working at the Naval Laboratory I have been
a part of many projects, including radar development,
advancement of on ship power systems, and most recently rail
gun technology. My current qualm has to deal with this
newest research project. Though the rail gun can be used for
launching shuttles into space, and other peaceful ways, my
research was based in the use aboard the new naval ship the
DDG 1000[1][2]. A rail gun is a system based of the magnetic
Lorentz force that can rapidly accelerate a payload to
extremely high speeds, allowing for the output of a very large
kinetic energy [3]. This system allows for projectiles to be
launched from greater distances, and also removes
combustion as a source of propulsion.
The Ethics of Making a Weapon
At first I was skeptical about researching a weapon.
As Tim Healey explains in his article “The Unanticipated
Consequences of Technology,” any technology we create can
be used as we intended or can be used in some other fashion
[4]. This was my first concern when creating a weapon based
technology. Though it is designed to mostly be used to shoot
down cruise missiles aboard the DDG 1000, it does have the
potential to kill people [1]. However, the rail gun I would be
creating would only fire ballistic projectiles, and thus the area
of affect damage done by it would be much less than usual
long range bombarding techniques such as missiles. Also, by
developing this technology I will allow for the defense of
United States citizens by providing a longer range weapon
keeping our soldiers out of range of enemy attacks. The
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers states within
its code of ethics that that it is an engineer’s duty “to improve
the understanding of technology; its appropriate application,
and potential consequences” [5]. Due to this calling of an
electrical engineer, I found that as far as the code of ethics
goes it suggests I develop the technology further, but be warry
about it. Overall I believe that my development of the rail gun
system was the morally right thing to do, and so I proceeded
to further develop system with caution.
Unanticipated Consequences
However, as development proceeded I discovered
there is another team researching rail technology. They are
tasked with preparing chemical or possibly nuclear payloads
to be fired from the rail gun system. Prior to this discovery I
had believed that only ballistic payloads would be launched
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering 1
Submission Date 2015-11-03
from the rail system I had played a major role in developing.
Similarly to the situation Tim Healey presented in his article,
I was faced with an unanticipated use of my technology. Due
to this unexpected turn of events, I find myself in a moral
dilemma. Originally I knew my weapon may be used to harm
others, but it would be for what seemed to be an overall
positive gain, but now my weapon may be used to develop
chemical and nuclear weapon deployment techniques. These
techniques have the potential to cause significantly more
devastation. Though most likely this research will stay in
American hands, it could be devastating even if we used it,
and even more so if another group acquired this information.
I am unsure whether to just keep my mouth shut and keep
working, or if I should try and discuss another form of action
with the leads of the project.
REVIEWING ETHICAL CODES
To decide how to proceed with assessing my current
situation I have decided to review the codes of ethics which I
stand behind. Being both a member of the Nation Society for
Professional Engineers, and a member of the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers, I proceed to review both
code of ethics. From within the code of ethics from the
National Society for Professional Engineers I decided to
review the canon statement that states part of an Engineer’s
duty is to “Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of
the public”[6]. My part of the project, developing the rail gun,
could fall on either side of the ethical line when referencing
this code. Some may say that the development of the rail gun
itself could be against possibly the health of the public, but at
the same time I believe it provides for the safety of the public.
Overall I believe the rail gun that I created would protect the
public more than it could negatively affect their health.
However, if modified for chemical or nuclear warfare it most
certainly breaks this part of the code of ethics. It would cause
excessive negative health effects on whatever population it
would be used against, and for minimal benefit to society as a
whole. As a result of breaking this canon, the code rules of
practice for it suggest that it is immediately brought up with
the proper authorities or public if needed [6]. This suggests to
me that I should try and bring this up to a higher authority
within the naval laboratory. The Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers’ code of ethics states that one of the
requirements of an engineer is “to accept responsibility in
making decisions consistent with the safety, health, and
welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that
might endanger the public or the environment”[5]. This code
is similar to the one provided by the National Society for
Professional Engineers. It clearly states that if something that
may endanger the public or environment is discovered it is to
Isaac George
immediately be disclosed. Both of these codes of ethics
support stopping the development of potential nuclear or
chemical deployment, and tell me to report these findings to
the proper authorities.
Though I chose to develop rail gun technology, I did not
anticipate the further effects of my research. However, now
that I am in my current situation, and it seems my
development has the potential to be used for deadly outcomes,
so I must, unlike the amoral stance that many engineers seem
to be taking, take responsibility for my actions. Through
reviewing this article I believe that the idea to report the
improper use of this technology in some manner was further
edified.
REVIEWING CASE STUDIES
Not only have I decided to review the codes
of ethics for my engineering proficiencies, but I also reviewed
some case studies based on similar experiences of other
engineers. The first experience that came to my mind was the
reaction to Engineers post Katrina. New York Times writers
Cambell Robertson and John Schwartz delved into this in
their case study “Decade after Katrina, Pointing Fingers More
Firmly at Army Corps.” Many engineers decided to overlook
clear issues within their studies on using the flood walls,
which allowed for Katrina to reap such massive destruction
on the city of New Orleans [7]. These engineers decided to be
blind to a specific fact and it caused significant outrage and a
negative impact on public health. I don’t want to ignore what
this project may turn into and allow extensive damage to be
done, similar to what happened with hurricane Katrina and
New Orleans. Another case study I reviewed questioned the
role of scientists and educating the public. The study, based
off of Pugwash, heavily suggested that engineers should
inform the public about involvement in the negative effects of
nuclear weapons and power [8]. However, this seemed to be
more focused on the general support of public knowledge, and
not on pressing information involving the new development
of technology. From my research into these case studies I
have determined that though I should report my findings of a
potentially hazardous adaption to this technology, I shouldn’t
publically declare this information, but maybe inform a higher
branch of government about this development.
INFORMATION ABOUT NUCLEAR
POLICY
To further supplement my research before I jumped
to a conclusion about how I should take action, I viewed some
other sources. The first was the United Nation’s website and
their stance on chemical weapons. The website detailed parts
of the Chemical Weapons Conference, and the Organization
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, both of which the
United States of America are a part of. These organizations,
and the United Nations itself are strongly against the use of
chemical warfare, and seek the destruction of chemical
weapons [10]. This information further supports the idea of
moving toward acting, and possibly telling a higher ranking
officer about the project. The project goes against the United
States’ current policies therefore I shouldn’t let it slide by. It
could possibly injure our status amongst other nations if they
were to find out, and in general it is unethical to go against
international treaties. Also, to review my understanding of
nuclear capabilities and potential I watched a documentary on
the history of nuclear weapons. For this most part much of
this information was unnecessary for my ethical dilemma, but
the massive scope of the destruction caused helped reaffirm
my understanding of the negative impacts of a rail gun loaded
with a nuclear payload. The missiles shown were able to wipe
out entire cities, and though large missiles most likely
wouldn’t be able to be launched via the rail gun system, the
smaller missiles would still cause significant and unrestrained
damage [11].
THE MORAL AMBIGUITY OF THE
ENGINEER
While reviewing case studies I also happened upon
another article. The article “As Engineers We Must Consider
The Ethical Implications of Our Work,” written by Abbas ElZein, considers the almost amoral stance most engineers take
with their work, thinking of how as engineers “Our ethics
have become mostly technical: how to design properly, how
to not cut corners, how to serve our clients well. We work
hard to prevent failure of the systems we build, but only in
relation to what these systems are meant to do, rather than the
way they might actually be utilized, or whether they should
have been built at all”[9]. Like the article I referenced
previously, El-Zein recognizes that technology can be used
positively or negatively, and that most modern engineers
would ignore the implications of their own work. El-Zein
brings up however, that just because our technology was built
correctly, does not mean that it should have been built. This
information I believe directly parallels my current situation.
MY PROFFESIONAL DECISION
After reviewing the codes of ethics that I work by,
case studies of engineers in similar problems, articles, and
additional sources of information, I believe I have come up
with the best decision for me to take action upon. The code of
ethics suggested that any technology that could be used as an
overall detriment to public health is unethical, and any
engineer working upon a project such as this should report it.
Specifically the National Society for Professional Engineers
provide the rule of practice for the code that upholds the
health and safety of the public that “Engineers having
knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report
thereon to appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant,
also to public authorities, and cooperate with the proper
2
Isaac George
Ground.” NASA.
(Online
article).
www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/X-.Press/aerovations/20
11/new_launch_technology.html. p. 1
[3] S. Rashleigh and R. Marshall. (1978). “Electromagnetic
acceleration of macroparticles to high velocities.” Journal of
Applied
Physics.
(Online
article).
scitation.aip.org/docserver/fulltext/aip/journal/jap/49/4/1.325
107.pdf?expires=1444138578&id=id&accname=2106341&c
hecksum=D433CA5887097D9B61FEF6B652C4BDC9. p.
2540
[4] T. Healy. (2014). “The Unanticipated Consequences of
Technology.”
SCU.
(Online
Article).
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/healy/cons
equences.html p.1
[5] IEEE. (2015). “IEEE Code of Ethics.” IEEE.org.
(Website).
http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html
[6] National Society of Professional Engineers. (2007).
“NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers.” Nspe.org. (Website).
http://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics
[7] C. Robertson and John Schwartz. (2015, May 23).
“Decade After Katrina, Pointing Finger More Firmly at Army
Corps.”
New
York
Times.
(Online
Blog).
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/us/decade-afterkatrina-pointing-finger-more-firmly-at-armycorps.html?_r=4
[8] OEC. (2013).” Physical Scientists, the Union of
Concerned Scientists, and Pugwash.” OnlineEthics.org.
(Website).
http://www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Cases/Pugwash.aspx
[9] A. El-Zein. (2013). “As Engineers, we Must Consider the
ethical Implications of our Work.” The Guardian. (Online
Article).
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/05/en
gineering-moral-effects-technology-impact p. 1
[10] UNODA. (2008). “Chemical Weapons.” UN.org
(Website). http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Chemical/
[11] YouTube. “Nuclear Weapons (The History).”
Youtube.com.
(Online
Video).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcIQGsIa3O4
authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as
may be required”[6]. Several case studies I reviewed showed
the consequences of engineers not taking action and turning a
blind eye against potential problems within their work. These
cases helped me understand that if I did not take responsibility
for my creation and make sure it was used correctly, I could
be blamed for any of the destruction which it may cause. The
articles I reviewed talked about the moral ambiguity of
developing new technology, but also stressed that engineers
stand by and support proper use of their technology. The other
information I researched was only supplementing my
understanding of international code of the use of nuclear and
chemical weapons, the two potential other uses for my
weapons. After this research I have decided to write up
documentation of my findings and their contradictory to the
moral code of both engineers and the United States. This
document I will then deliver to the higher ups within the naval
laboratory, and if that changes nothing, I will send it to the
National Society for Professional Engineers for further review
and potential action. This plan seems to be most supported by
the research I have done, and I believe it will conclude the
moral predicament I found myself a part of.
ADVICE FOR OTHERS FACING
UNETHICAL CHALLENGES
To any other engineers facing similar problems out
there, this is my suggestion. If you believe yourself to be a
part of an unethical project or potentially unethical situation,
first review your codes of ethics. Whether it be provided by
the National Society for Professional Engineers, or by another
engineering organization like the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers. These codes give a pretty clear idea of
what is right and wrong. However, if you run across a code
that is unclear, I suggest reviewing case studies or articles.
These may help to differentiate between right and wrong, by
providing further limitations on ethical and unethical actions.
Another important step when facing an unethical situation is
to act upon it. If as engineers we do not act upon unethical
situations that we find in the workplace, our advancement of
technology will be a factor driving us to our doom. The more
often an engineer ignores the possible negative implications
of their actions the more the public will distrust engineers as
a whole. It is our job to improve the world, and the more time
we spend working in an ethical manner the more opportunity
we will have to create something new for the good of the
people whom we support. (2310)
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
Stanford Biodesign. “To Release or not to Release: An
Engineer’s Perspective.” Biodesign.Stanford.edu. (Website).
http://biodesign.stanford.edu/bdn/ethicscases/21releasequesti
on.jsp
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
Thanks to the University of Pittsburgh Engineering staff
which continues to try and teach the uneducated masses.
[1] K. Osborn. (2015, April 17). “Navy Will Test its
Electromagnetic Rail Gun aboard DDG 1000.” Defense Tech.
(Online blog). http://defensetech.org/2015/04/15/navy-willtest-its-electromagnetic-rail-gun-aboard-ddg-1000/
[2] K. Kloesel. (2011). “'New Launch Technology Idea Gains
3