October 2007 Issue
ETHICAL MATTERS
A Highly Technical World Needs Wise Engineering
BY G.S.H. LOCK, P.ENG.
APEGGA Life Member
_____________________
Let us understand from the beginning that the subject
of ethics is a mine field of explosive beliefs. It is not simply a matter of
doing the right thing — acting
morally — because morality is culturally based.
An ethical decision may depend upon whether you are an immigrant or an
Aboriginal, whether your lifestyle is urban or rural, whether you live in Canada,
the United States, Europe or Asia. Add to these predispositions the variations
in religious belief within a multicultural society and it becomes clear that
unanimity in ethical principles is a fond hope.
The Greek origins of medical ethics are almost universally accepted today in the form of the Hippocratic Oath. But such statements as, “Where there is love of man, there is also love of the art of medicine,” could not possibly be transposed into engineering ethics because technology is a Janus-headed creature capable of both supporting and destroying mankind.
Our profession’s ethics stem instead from the British sentiments expressed the Ritual Calling of an Engineer. Through the Iron Ring we become conscious of the catastrophic failures of which we are capable; wearing it is an expression of humility. But are we too humble for our own good or for the good of society?
It is obviously beneficial that the profession accept its direct responsibilities to the public, and monitor the activities of our members through a disciplinary mechanism. But that operates mainly on the individual who, as sociologists have been documenting for well over a decade, is in a very vulnerable position in the workplace of today.
We have become victims of what is called, somewhat ironically, corporate
re-engineering.
Individuals are expected to honour their moral and legal responsibilities or
face prosecution and censorship. But given the pressures from superiors, all
the way up to company directors and shareholders, the individual may face a serious
dilemma.
It is simply not known how many times engineers have been forced to compromise their integrity in favour of family and career. This prompts the question of whether the Association has an overarching responsibility in protecting, if not defending, the moral integrity of its members individually. Who else could champion our ethical causes?
A similar question might be raised with respect to the development of government policies on science and technology. In a healthy democracy, these are usually forged by the unholy trinity of the politician, the bureaucrat and the engineer, where the word engineer here connotes those engaged in the applied sciences.
Typically, the politician and the bureau-crat are not career engineers; theirs is the job of establishing and implementing policy, respectively. It is patently obvious that without engineering knowledge and integrity such policies would be meaningless and perhaps dangerous.
In this province, technology has both an old and a new face. Our traditional
energy industries, for example, find themselves wrestling with unprecedented
challenges in energy efficiency, the capture of carbon dioxide and the development
of energy alternatives. And the advent of nanotechnology has shown us once again
that technological innovation is invariably a mixture of danger and potential.
The technical expertise is here in abundance, as is the entrepreneurial spirit.
But is the political wisdom?
Our profession, through its individual members and its collective voice, has a vital role to play in policy development rooted in ethics. We certainly see evidence of individuals from time to time serving on various boards and commissions. But in my view this is a haphazard way of discharging ethical responsibilities.
I suggest that the Association could reputably present itself as a central and essential interest group on the grounds that there is nothing in modern life which has a greater impact than technology. If today’s technology can be viewed as an investment in the future, surely the Association has the right, if not the responsibility, to brandish its collective iron ring and insist on a place at the conference table where policy is to be thrashed out.
And speaking about the future, let me turn to the subject of engineering education. Here again, I believe the Association could play a much stronger role in the design of engineering curricula, especially in the introduction of the student to her or his ethical responsibilities.
The Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board already demands that students be exposed to courses treating the impact of technology on society, but in my experience the effect is marginal. In part, this is due to student immaturity and the lack of experience in the industrial environment, but in large measure it follows from the teaching of design.
Understandably, students are most stimulated by technical challenges and believe they have effected closure once they have figured out a solution. The curriculum encourages them to consider whether a thing can be done — not should be done, the ethical dimension.
Sadly, engineering schools have come under increasing criticism for allowing the pursuit of a credential to take precedence over the pursuit of knowledge. Wherever this is true, it not only dilutes engineering expertise and professional quality, but engenders a shift in student attitudes which, in turn, are bound to have an adverse effect on the professoriate.
It is not unreasonable to think of ourselves as agents of enlightened enterprise, but it is essential that the student body clearly realize that enlightenment means nothing if it does not mean ethical restraint. Students should be frequently reminded that the velocity of progress is a vector quantity, not just a matter of speed alone; direction is important.
Communication techniques illustrate this wherever they consist solely of information transmitted through binary logic. Human communications are much richer, more varied and more effective than the mere transmission of information.
Almost all the difficulties and challenges mentioned in this article do not arise in pure science, which, being dedicated to the description of natural laws, is amoral. Applied science cannot claim to be amoral.
Perhaps the central difficulty in engineering ethics lies in the word technology itself. Formed from the elements tekhne — the practical arts — and logia — the articulation — the word implies a detached activity without any particular or prescribed purpose; a facility rather than a choice. If the second element were replaced by sophia — wisdom — the construction would have a very different meaning with very different expectations.
Imagine students and practitioners alike who were dedicated to the art and science of “technosophy” — the wise use of engineering. Think of where this would lead both the profession and society.