Introduction

It is a fact of life that everyday we all face making moral and ethical decisions, albeit that the results of many of these decisions are often inconsequential. Take for example the decision to ring in sick to work when in fact you are just hung over, we’ve all done it, and although deliberately deceiving your employer is clearly unethical, many of us would not have a problem doing so. This is mainly because we realise that our brief absence will not have any major negative repercussions for the company that we work for, or any of our colleagues. As a result we rationalise our unethical behaviour as being acceptable, because we know that the consequences of our actions are very limited, and that as long as we do not make a regular occurrence of fraudulently skipping work that this will remain the case. From time to time however we will be confronted with situations that have serious moral and ethical implications, for ourselves and for others. The outcomes of these situations may be unclear, the facts misleading and there may be multiple conflicting moral obligations to consider. More often than not these scenarios will be work related, but not exclusively, but either way these situations will make us unsure of the morally and ethically acceptable course of action to follow.

It is therefore necessary in such situations to have a strategy or plan which enables us to evaluate the best course of action in these instances. These strategies should take into account the rational analysis of relevant and available facts (as well as relevant facts that may be unavailable), and should lay as the basis for their outcomes comparisons with other similar cases. The Line Drawing Methodology (L.D.M.) is one such strategy.

The Fundamentals of the Line Drawing Methodology

For a given situation the L.D.M. helps us decide on the most morally acceptable course of action, by first and fore mostly identifying the relevant facts in the case which should influence our decision making. This is the primary task in beginning to resolve any ethical problem, and must be done in conjunction with identifying any legal and professional considerations also. Using these facts (or features) of the situation at hand, the L.D.M. approach identifies paradigm cases, these being instances of the situation in which the features of the case allow us to easily identify whether a particular course of action is right or wrong. These represent the best and worst case scenarios of the problem at hand, and are known as positive and negative paradigm cases respectively. To clarify, each paradigm case will have an identical list of features, the positive paradigm case will fulfil each of these features in a way such that it is obviously morally acceptable, whilst the negative will do the opposite.

Mapping these paradigm case features out individually, as either ends of opposing scales, a line can be drawn between them. These features are then applied to the problem case, and for each one a mark is drawn on the line between the positive and negative case paradigm feature. This mark will indicate by degrees whether or not that particular feature has been positively or negatively fulfilled in the problem case. When all the features have been applied to the problem case in this way, the L.D.M. results in an easily interpreted graphical illustration of the ethical considerations within the case, and shows how they have been fulfilled. The integrity of a followed course of action within the problem case can hence be judged. A case study will now be introduced to demonstrate the use of the L.D.M.

Case Study

Consider the following points in a problem case study (Charles E. Harris Jr, Engineering Ethics, p 65/66), which applies the L.D.M. to a problem case involving bribery:

1)   John is an engineer at a large construction firm.

2)   His job is to specify the rivets for a large apartment building and award  the contract.

3)  After some study and research he awards the contract to ACME Ltd.

4)  He is later awarded, by ACME, an all expenses paid trip to a conference in Jamaica.

5)  Paid expenses include trips to the beach and rum factories.

Is this a bribe and should John accept the trip?

Here the L.D.M. identifies the following relevant facts that need to be included in the paradigm cases when considering bribery:

• The size of the gift.
• The timing of the gift.
• The reason for giving the gift.
• The level of responsibility the receiver of the gift had in awarding the contract.
• Product quality and cost.

These features are now applied to John’s situation and, using the L.D.M., are illustrated as follows:

It is now clear to see that all of the facts applying to John’s case point toward the negative paradigm of bribery (indicated by the marks on the lines falling to the left). As already stated the L.D.M. has also identified the important fact that the quality and cost of the rivets in the case had on the awarding of the contract. These are important considerations in helping to determine whether or not John’s case constitutes bribery, but this information is not available, as illustrated. It is included in the L.D.M. nonetheless, because its very absence should also be considered when making our final decision.

Important Considerations when applying the L.D.M.

The key to the success of the L.D.M. is in its identification of the facts and key ethical considerations upon which to base the features of its paradigm cases. This is because:

“We can not discuss moral issues intelligently apart from a knowledge of relevant facts. So we must begin by considering what those facts are. In any given case, many facts will be obvious to all…However, sometimes people come to different moral conclusions because they are not all aware of the same facts.”[1]

If these facts are erroneous, missing or not rationally applied to the paradigm cases and hence problem, then the L.D.M. can be manipulated to yield any result required. This is the strategies biggest downfall, interpretation of all the facts and ethical considerations must be rational and objective, rather than subjectively applied to yield a preferred rational for ultimately undertaking the wrong ethical action.

Other important considerations include unknown facts that constitute necessary features of the paradigm cases. Despite the fact that the L.D.M. can still be applied in such instances (e.g. the case study), the result can be greatly affected by such omissions. In addition some features may need to be weighted, those being the ones of greatest importance in the analysis of the problem case. For example in the above case study the size of the gift is clearly the most important feature to consider, and as such if this information was missing then applying all the other paradigm features would be pointless. On the face of it this may seem contradictory, as the other facts my all clearly point toward a case of bribery, but even if they did then the size of the gift could still be so inconsequential that we may need not have even considered it a bribe in the first place.

As a final consideration it is also necessary to have a solid understanding of the key concepts, rules and principles used to identify the paradigm case features. In our case study this means identifying what exactly bribery constitutes before applying the L.D.M. to determine whether it has occurred in the problem case. This may appear quite trivial in this instance as the concept of bribery is relatively straight forward, but in many cases in which the L.D.M. can be applied this is not the case. Take for example a case which involves establishing whether a certain course of action constitutes remaining loyal to your employer, using the L.D.M. Here the definition of loyal is open ended and subject to various differing interpretations. As a result it must be first defined before paradigm features of loyalty can be identified.

Conclusion

In summary he L.D.M. :

“…can be used in cases in which we are unsure how to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable actions. By comparing problematic cases with those where it is clear what we should do, we can often decide what we should do in the problematic cases.”[2]

We should however be aware of the importance of the identification of the relevant facts, when applying the L.D.M.. The absence of these facts greatly reduces the reliability of results yielded by the L.D.M.. It should also be remembered that the application of these facts should be done rationally and honestly if the L.D.M. is to be effective.

References

[1] C.E Harris, M.S Pritchard and M.J Rabins, Engineering Ethics,3^rd ed, p 57 , Belmont,

California, U.S.A: Thomson Learning Inc, 2005.

[2] C.E Harris, M.S Pritchard and M.J Rabins, Engineering Ethics,3^rd ed, p 75 , Belmont,

California, U.S.A: Thomson Learning Inc, 2005.

Abstract

The following report will examine the use of Human corpses as crash test dummies. It will study the principles comprising arguments both for and against such use, The Respect for Persons and Utilitarian arguments respectively. Also under consideration will be the legal and moral/ethical obligations to society when considering such a problem. The rational behind using corpses in crash testing will also be examined. Finally the report will conclude with a judgement, for or against such use, based on the information hereafter laid out within the report. Within the conclusion the report will also suggest a compromise solution to the aforementioned question of using Human corpses for crash testing.

Table of Contents

1. The Principle of Respect for Persons

1. The Principle of Utilitarianism

1. Legal and Ethical considerations

1. Religious considerations

1. The Rational for using human corpses in crash testing

1. Conclusion

1: The Principle of Respect for Persons

This principle is to be considered a universal moral standard of social ethics. It encapsulates the special respect and consideration that a person, either living or dead, should be afforded within a civilised society. It does this by postulating “…the rules and actions that if followed would accord equal respect to each person as a moral agent.”[1].

To understand this principle clearly the definition of a moral agent must be first defined as follows:

“A person who is autonomous or self governing, who can form and pursue purposes of their own.”[2]

This is to say that any person in society who can think and act for themselves should be afforded the right to do so, as long as this acting does not infringe upon another’s ability to do the same. Inherent within this principle is the philosophy of theorist Immanuel Kant,  who describes human beings in the context of respect for persons, as being “…ends in themselves…”[3]. This means that persons are “…not to be treated as mere means to fulfilling the ends or goals of others.”[4].

This last point is an important consideration when raising the question of whether or not human corpses should be used in crash testing. Although the person may be dead they should still be afforded respect as a human being, and using someone as a crash test dummy is clearly treating them as a means to fulfilling the goals of somebody else. This is in clear opposition to the ethical considerations upon which the Principle of Respect for Persons is constructed.

Central to applying the Principle of Respect to Persons is The Golden Rule. This rule states that for any situation:

“One must place themselves in the position of those who would be affected by the consequences….and ask whether they would be willing to accept those consequences…an action is morally unacceptable if One would not..”[5]

This rule introduces an important basic moral concept known as universalisability. This means that whatever is right or wrong in one situation is correspondingly right or wrong in any other relevant situation. Therefore although one may argue for using human bodies in crash testing, on the basis that the person involved gave consent before their death and on utility, that those supporting this view would also have to be willing to suffer such a fate. Doubtless to say that a great many would not, and as such a supporting argument in this instance would therefore be immoral.

In summation:

“The respect for persons explanation of common morality is that its precepts protect the moral agency of individual human beings. Maximising the welfare of the majority must take second place to this goal. People cannot be killed, deceived, denied their freedom or otherwise violated simply to bring about a greater total amount of utility.”[6]

Therefore The Principle of Respect for Persons with its associated Golden Rule, and in conjunction with the concept of univeralisability, are strong moral arguments against the use of human corpses as crash test dummies, on the basis of bringing about the infringement of moral agency in such cases.

2. The Principle of Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is basically the philosophy of making decisions that will bring about the largest total amount of good, for the most amount of people. It can be defined as follows:

“Those individual rules or actions, that produce the greatest total amount of utility to those affected, are right.”[7]

This principle can also be treated as a moral standard, much like the Principle of Respect for Persons, except that it fundamentally differs by putting the good of the group ahead of that of the individual.

Utilitarianism has many approaches, one of the most notable being the Cost-Benefit approach. It basically tries to “…apply the utilitarian standard in as quantifiable a manor as is possible…”[8].  It achieves this by making “…an effort to translate negative and positive utilities into monetary terms.”[9]. Although at first glance this may intuitively seem a capitalistic and uncaring approach to ethical concerns, it does in fact have many benefits. These benefits will now be examined in the context of using human corpses as crash test dummies.

One positive way of looking at using human corpses for crash testing is that it simulates injuries occurring in car accidents as accurately as is possible without using living people.

Realistic data results yield realistic solutions to real problems, and as such crash test data collected in such a way is the best data to use in order to contribute to saving lives and preventing serious injuries in the future. After all, the corpse in question is already dead, and has died in circumstances completely unaffected by those who whish to use their body.

Considering this, a logical use for such a corpse, which at this stage is just inactive biological matter like any other, could be in the advancement of safety features that benefit those members of society who are still alive. This act is obviously a good deed and therefore should be deemed morally acceptable. This is exactly the same rational and deductive reasoning that is used in the case of organ transplants, except here only a part of the corpse is used, and its benefit is direct (immediately and tangibly saves lives) as oppose to indirect (future actively saving lives through research).

In view of this it is logical and beneficial for society as a whole to draw parallels between organ donors and crash test donors, and to accept crash testing corpses in the same way as it accepts donating organs after death, for the benefit of others. Another indirect benefit of using corpses is in the application of the aforementioned utilitarian approach of cost- benefit. First it must be established that crash testing is indeed a worthwhile and beneficial pursuit which increases society’s utility. Agreeing that it is, and undoubtedly most would, it is now necessary to find subjects upon which to conduct the necessary research to facilitate such utility. In the absence of corpses, expensive life like dummies must be used. They must be exhaustively designed, tested, manufactured and maintained, whilst human corpses require none of these things. As such using crash test dummies does not satisfy the utilitarian cost- benefit model nearly as well as using corpses does.

The importance of this is that considerable money is saved when using corpses, money which can be used in further areas of safety research, using stronger and more reliable system components and to create better designs. Further to this, the use of expensive dummies may actively contribute to a decreased level of safety testing and standards, as a result of unsustainable cost. This could clearly lead to a reduction in the moral agency of individual members of society, if they were to sustain substantial or fatal injuries in motor accidents as a result of this drop in standards. Since this is the basis for the argument against using corpses, as defined by the Principle of Respect for Persons, surely this argument is flawed and ultimately self defeating.

In summation it can be said that utilitarianism clearly advocates the use of human corpses in crash testing. This approach is logically preferable because it increases the level of safety/benefit to society as a whole, as well as addressing the practical implications that using expensive equivalents may have on individual moral agency in the future.

3. Legal and Ethical Considerations

Section 26 (1) of the U.N’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that:

“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family.”

This declaration is more specifically defined and protected by legislation in all democratic national constitutions. It is fair to consider that the family members of those used in crash test research, unfairly and unavoidably suffer from a decreased level of mental health and well being as a result. In some circumstances this may in all eventuality manifest itself in a physical decline of health and well being. This is clearly unconstitutional and not permissible by law.

This legal consideration is also clearly linked to the ethical consideration of moral agency, brought about by the Principle of Respect for Persons. Herein it is not only a question of infringing upon the integrity and respect of the human corpse involved in the testing, but also the indirect reduction in moral agency and well being of those related to the deceased. This is clearly an unethical circumstance to inflict on anyone.

4. Religious and Cultural Considerations

Many religions and cultures perceive human persons as integrated body and spirit beings, created in Gods likeness. As such the death of the body does not make the corpse no longer “human”, and to defile a corpse is seen as disrespecting God. The use of human corpses in crash testing deliberately destroys the physical integrity of the body, this being a deliberate inconsideration for the belief systems displayed by individuals, or societies as a whole. Whilst this may not be illegal, it can certainly be construed as immoral, and goes against the principle of respecting other people’s beliefs.

5. The rational for using human corpses in crash testing

Those in favour of using corpses instead of dummies often cite realism, as well as monetary concerns, as the basis for their argument. It is a widely held belief that human corpses react exactly the same way as a person would in a given impact, and as such make for the best test subjects. Whilst corpses consist of the same matter, structure and near identical bone density of living people, research has proved that death brings about some very important physiological changes to the human body. These changes include:

• Lividity:         This is the change in density of the body as blood collects in its lower regions.

• Riga Mortis:    A chemical change in the muscles after death causing them to become stiff and inflexible.

• Blood flow:     After death the heart stops pumping blood and flow ceases.

All the above considerations cause erroneous test results when compared to living people in comparable impacts. Due to this corpses are not as good a test subject as once thought, and this brings into question the real benefits of using them for the sake of realism. Although these factors do cause discrepancies between realistic and simulated results using corpses, the extent of this discrepancy and its impact on crash test data is beyond the scope of this document.

6. Conclusion

The final judgement of this report, based on the information and arguments examined therein, is that human corpses should not be used as crash test dummies. The utilitarian argument citing the prevention of future injury and fatalities, as a result of using corpses in crash testing, is highly tempered by a number of factors. These include:

• The existence of sophisticated dummies and technology with which to imitate living people in impacts.

• The questionable benefit of using corpses as realistic substitutes in testing, as a direct result of the considerable aforementioned physiological changes that take place in the body after death.

• The negative impact on the lives, both emotionally and physically, of those related to the test subjects, both from a legal and ethical viewpoint.

• The open conflict incurred with culture and religion within society, as a result of destroying the integrity of the human body.

However, this report also concludes that the economic expense associated with using sophisticated crash dummies is a tangible and serious consideration. This financial consideration could well lead to sub standard safety testing within the industry, depending on prevailing economic conditions and corporate morality. As such it is the recommendation of this report that this sector of industry should be particularly well regulated by the sate, to ensure that this does not happen. How this regulation takes place is not the interest of this report.

As a final point the only compromise, that this report can establish, between using human corpses or crash test dummies for impact research, is the use of deceased animals with comparable anatomy. This predominantly means using dead primates of comparable human proportions, but this has its own inherent dangers. These animals should of course all ready have died from unrelated causes, and not killed for the purpose of experiment, as this incites more moral and ethical problems. How this could be achieved, and subsequent black market trading and poaching prevented, may or may not be feasible. This consideration is however beyond the scope of this report.

References

[1] C.E Harris, M.S Pritchard and M.J Rabins, Engineering Ethics,3^rd ed, p 88 , Belmont, California, U.S.A: Thomson Learning Inc, 2005.

[2] C.E Harris, M.S Pritchard and M.J Rabins, Engineering Ethics,3^rd ed, p 88, Belmont, California, U.S.A: Thomson Learning Inc, 2005.

[3] C.E Harris, M.S Pritchard and M.J Rabins, Engineering Ethics,3^rd ed, p 88 , Belmont, California, U.S.A: Thomson Learning Inc, 2005.

[4] C.E Harris, M.S Pritchard and M.J Rabins, Engineering Ethics,3^rd ed, p 88, Belmont, California, U.S.A: Thomson Learning Inc, 2005.

[5] C.E Harris, M.S Pritchard and M.J Rabins, Engineering Ethics,3^rd ed, p 90 , Belmont, California, U.S.A: Thomson Learning Inc, 2005.

[6] C.E Harris, M.S Pritchard and M.J Rabins, Engineering Ethics,3^rd ed, p 89, Belmont, California, U.S.A: Thomson Learning Inc, 2005.

[7] C.E Harris, M.S Pritchard and M.J Rabins, Engineering Ethics,3^rd ed, p 80, Belmont, California, U.S.A: Thomson Learning Inc, 2005.

[8] C.E Harris, M.S Pritchard and M.J Rabins, Engineering Ethics,3^rd ed, p 82, Belmont, California, U.S.A: Thomson Learning Inc, 2005.

[9] C.E Harris, M.S Pritchard and M.J Rabins, Engineering Ethics,3^rd ed, p 82, Belmont, California, U.S.A: Thomson Learning Inc, 2005.

Introduction

It is fair to say that today, we as a society are all mass consumers of technology, most notably in the automotive and telecommunications sectors. With special reference to telecommunications this reliance has grown exponentially since the late 80’s, with the ever increasing technological advances in IC’s and processors reducing the cost of creating and shipping computers. This reduction in cost has been handed on to us, the consumer, reflected in the affordable prices of PC’s and laptops in today’s market. As a result we now have access to the Internet like never before, and use it for a startling array of purposes, everything from social networking and emailing, right through to paying bills, shopping, setting up accounts and everything in between.

This reliance is inherently dangerous however, and provides many opportunistic criminals the chance to steal, impersonate and defraud other users. This is mainly due to the fact that the vast majority of web based applications in use today require considerable amounts of highly personal information, supplied by the user, before they can be used. Some of this information is authentically needed for ID verification, but more often then not this information is utilised by big business to map consumer behaviour and identify target demographics, all in the name of increasing profits. The right to privacy for any individual is a constitutional one, and this includes personal details such as full name, address, D.O.B. telephone number etc. Despite this one can’t even set up an email account without submitting these details, and although the user does so at their discretion, it is becoming harder and harder to live a ‘normal’ life without subscribing to these applications, especially when it comes to communications and financing.

As a result of this change in lifestyle it is important that somebody takes responsibility for all the highly sensitive material floating around the Internet, everything from account and credit/debit card numbers to contact information. Who should be responsible for this can be construed as a matter for debate, should it be for example the user, the government, the I.S.P. or the application provider to name but a few. With nobody willing to take vested responsibility for this matter, even when they profit from it in some guise, it is as always the responsibility of the engineer to ensure that employer and user privacy is protected beyond at least reasonable expectation. In most instances Internet users either don’t realise their at risk or presume that the application provider handles their information with integrity, whilst the application provider tends only to fulfil their legal obligations under the Data Protection Act, and rarely any more. As a result it should reasonably fall to engineers, as the designers of such systems, to ensure this privacy is protected, by foreseeing and planning for potential areas of system abuse, and incorporating where possible fail safe measures of security, which will protect the user. After all it is the engineer who possesses the technical knowledge to understand the inherent risks associated with any system under their design, and so it is also their moral and professional responsibility to both employer and public to address these issues with paramount importance.

Ethical and Professional Considerations

This matter of engineering professional ethics is addressed in every country by a national regulatory body or professional association of some kind, and the underlying principles manifested in some physical document which normally appears in the form of a Code of Ethics.

Within Ireland for example the professional body The Institute of Engineers Ireland publishes their own Code of Ethics, a document which all Irish engineers are obliged to follow. In this way ethical concerns and practices are not just a matter for personal interpretation and autonomous implementation, but rather clearly defined issues that all chartered engineers must consider and act upon when necessary as a matter of professional duty. Sections 1.8 and 1.9 state respectively that:

“Members shall not divulge any confidential information regarding the business affairs,

technical processes or financial standing of their clients…’’

and,

“At all times in their relations with the public…. A Member shall not engage in any activity

which he/she knows or has reasonable grounds for believing is likely to result in a serious

detriment to any person or persons.’’

It should be clarified at this point that the definition of ‘clients’ in the above document does not only refer to an engineers’ employer or firm, but rather that any end user of  an engineered system or application can be considered an indirect de facto client for the engineer. From this it can be plainly interpreted that the failure of an engineer, to take reasonable care to protect sensitive confidential information on behalf of employers and users, is a clear breach of their ethical responsibility.

Another important document governing the professional behaviour of engineers within Ireland is the charter of Regulations for the Title of Chartered Engineers, published by Engineers Ireland, and which exists in other countries differing only in name. Special attention should be paid to Competence 5 of this document which, amongst other things, clearly requires that the engineer:

1)  Place responsibility for the welfare, health and safety of the community at all times before

responsibility to the profession, to sectional interests, or to other engineers.

2)  Apply professional skill in the interests of employer or client, for whom they act in

professional matters, as a faithful agent or trustee.

3) Comply with the Code of Ethics of Engineers Ireland.

4) Investigate community safety requirements and acts to solve any incipient safety problems.

5) Give evidence, express opinions or make statements in an objective and truthful manner and

on the basis of adequate knowledge.

It is clear from these requirements that not only should an engineer design any system with safety in mind above all else ( 1,2), but that they should also ask questions if employers want system design features that are not necessary for the successful system operation, but which may add additional risks to the system (5). With regard to web based applications this includes questioning providers who require additional unneeded sensitive user information, information which is used for the providers gain in some way, but which also increases the threat to the user should this information fall into the wrong hands. It should also be noted that the engineer has a professional responsibility to their employer as well as the public, and that if they do not regard privacy as important in system design, that this could adversely affect their employer through a resulting loss of clients.

Legislative responsibilities

So far the ethical and professional considerations of engineers, with regard to privacy issues, have been examined, but in addition to this they also have a legal requirement under the Data Protection Act of 1984 to secure private information. This act basically states that any stored information should be:

• Factually correct.
• Only available to those who should have it.
• Only used for stated purposes.

Although in many cases this legislation applies directly to the companies that store this information, it obviously encompasses within its scope of liability those employed in a professional role by these companies as ‘faithful agents’, and whose responsibility it is to assure that these criteria are met. As a result it is fair to say that any engineer who does not take privacy as a major concern could in fact be breaking the law.

The consequences of not ensuring privacy

The following extract from the Irish Times (Wednesday, August 19, 2009) demonstrates why engineers should pay careful attention to the security and privacy of information within the systems that they design:

“ THREE MEN have been indicted for allegedly stealing more than 130 million credit and debit card numbers in what US authorities believe is the largest hacking and identity theft case ever prosecuted. Albert Gonzalez (28), a former government informant already in jail in connection with hacking cases, and two unnamed Russians were indicted on charges related to five corporate data breaches from 2006 to 2008.Card numbers were stolen from credit card processor Heartland Payment Systems, convenience store group 7-Eleven and supermarket chain Hannaford Brothers, prosecutors said the men targeted two other corporations, the US attorney’s office in New Jersey said, without naming those companies. Prosecutors said Gonzalez and the Russians, identified as “Hacker 1” and “Hacker 2”, targeted large corporations by scanning the list of Fortune 500 companies and exploring corporate websites before setting out to identify vulnerabilities. A year ago, Gonzalez was indicted along with 10 others from five countries on accusations of stealing 41 million credit and debit card numbers from major retailers, including TJX Cos, owner of the TJ Maxx and Marshall’s retail chains. Prosecutors said that ring caused more than $400 million in damages.”

Although an extreme case, this story nonetheless shows the potential damage that can be caused by fraudsters who gain access to sensitive information. In this case all it took for Albert Gonzalez and his accomplices to perpetrate massive financial fraud was access to credit and debit card numbers, details that many of use submit online or in store everyday.

Conclusions

From the previous arguments and examples it would be fair to conclude that that the role of privacy in engineering, for the professional and ethical engineer, is an important one. This is clearly demonstrated from a number of perspectives, most notably ethical, professional and legal viewpoints. Engineers are by definition people with some special skill or knowledge, gained through academia and experience, and as such are afforded respected positions within society and demand good wages. For this knowledge engineers are entrusted with producing highly complicated systems and structures, many of which society depend on from day to day and as such need to be adequately protected from harmful manipulation. It is the engineers’ job to ensure that this responsibility is fulfilled because they are the only people who can, and it is important that they repay the trust society and employers place in them by maintaining their integrity and security as best they can.

The story of Challenger

On the cold and frosty morning of the 28^th of January 1986, and just 73 seconds after take off, the space shuttle Challenger exploded killing all seven of its crew. This tragedy was no accident however, but rather a completely avoidable scenario brought about by the wilful ignorance of vital information, and the total disregard for human life in the face of financial pressure and deadlines, by those supposedly responsible for the success of the launch.

The underlying cause for the explosion which destroyed Challenger, and killed her crew, was the presence of inadequate ‘O’ rings. The reliability of these rings, which sealed segments of the booster rocket, was known to be unpredictable at best, and corresponding data seemed to point towards a correlation of increased ‘O’ ring failure with decreasing temperature, although this correlation was inconclusive. Nonetheless it was known by those managing the launch that the failure of even one of these rings would quite likely lead to fatalities, and that the morning for the launch was to be the coldest ever attempted.

Mission control for the launch was NASA’s Marshall Space Centre, who had employed a consultancy engineering firm called Morton Thiokol Engineers (M.T.E.) to oversee the launch, and who would not launch without their approval. The recommendation of M.T.E. was no launch, a decision made by the firms engineers in light of the ominous, if incomplete, data regarding the reliability of the ‘O’ rings. Mission control questioned this decision, and realising the importance of the launch for NASA’s future funding and credibility, M.T.E’s senior vice president Gerald Mason reversed the no launch decision. Mason’s response was also no doubt influenced by the need for M.T.E. to sign a new contract with NASA, and that a no launch recommendation leading to further delays would harm this ambition.

Of all the engineers within M.T.E. only one, Roger Boisjoly the chief ‘O’ ring engineer, had the courage to go against his management, on the basis of his concerns for the welfare of the crew and the unethical decision to launch made by Mason. Despite numerous attempts by Roger Boisley to persuade M.T.E. management of the risks involved, as highlighted by the available information, the launch went ahead and all seven crew lost their lives.

The competencies of chartered engineers and the code of ethics

Obviously engineers owe a certain level of responsibility to society, as it is they who engineer and create the technology and infrastructure on which humanity is so heavily dependent. Therefore it falls to them as the designers to ensure the safety of these systems, and to predict, analyis and negate any potentially inherent dangers. In order that this responsibility is met certain rules, codes and procedures are laid out both in law, and also by professional engineering bodies, which must be adhered to by any chartered engineer. Within Ireland the two main professional engineering bodies are Engineers Ireland (E.I.) and The Institution of Engineers Ireland (I.E.I.). Between them they produce the Regulations For the Title of Chartered Engineer and the Code of Ethics respectively, two documents which all chartered Irish engineers must study and practice. The Challenger disaster will now be examined in the context of these two regulatory documents.

From the code of ethics it can be seen that that the prime responsibility within engineering is to humanity itself, and that this can only be achieved if engineers and management behave with integrity. The Challenger disaster highlights a major lack of integrity on behalf of both the NASA and M.T.E. higher level management. Those in NASA headquarters put pressure on the engineers’ decision not to launch for purely financial reasons, and to retain the support of congress for the shuttle programme and hence future funding. They did this despite having employed M.T.E. to ensure that the programme ran as safely as possible, and in the light of very strong evidence indicating the possibility of a critical system component failure. This course of action was taken as the result of a trade off between the probable safety of the crew and the possible termination of the programme, a highly unethical approach when dealing with real lives. The request from NASA senior management to deliberately detract from the critical nature of the ‘O’ ring problem at the SAE conference, in order to prevent the seriousness of the situation reaching Congress, was also highly irresponsible and immoral. The Code of Ethics clearly states that:

Members shall have due regard to the effects of their work on the health

and safety of individuals, and on the welfare of society and of its impacts

on the natural environment.”

The actions of NASA’s management clearly was in breech of this requirement, and as a result these actions undoubtedly contributed to the death of the crew.

M.T.E’s senior management was equally unethical in overriding its engineers initial ruling, as well as ignoring their professional opinions and concerns, especially those of  Roger Boisjoly, who was in the best position to analyis the available data and recognise the danger. Mason’s decision to launch on the back of a renewal of their current contract with NASA was arguably the most unethical decision of all, as Marshal Space centre would not have launched without M.T.E’s approval. This means that Mason realistically had the last say and as a result carried the greatest burden of responsibility to all involved, especially those operating the launch pad and the crew of Challenger. In this Mason failed to exercise key fundamental competencies, like those laid out in Regulations for the Title of Chartered Engineer, most notably to “.. manage and apply safe systems of work.” and “Place responsibility for the welfare, health and safety of the community at all times before the responsibility to the profession, to sectional interests, or to other engineers.”

As much as the Challenger disaster tells about the concept of responsibility in engineering, and the often fatal consequences of reneging on this responsibility, it also demonstrates how a good engineer should behave. The actions of Roger Boisjoly are nearly exemplary, from his attempts to ethically get the launch stopped on the grounds of concern for the crew’s safety, right through to him rationally acting on the facts at his disposal and his clear communication of the dangers with his superiors.

However it must be highlighted that even as professional and ethical an engineer as Roger Boisjoly was, that even he was influenced to act against his own judgment in the absence of peer and managerial support. This is evident in his participation in the SAE conference, where he yielded to NASA’s demands to soften the urgency of the ‘O’ ring situation. This is very significant, and illustrates the need for engineers to support each other and jointly take responsibility as a collective, when faced with outside pressures that oppose their expertise and integrity. Maybe if  Roger Boisjoly had of stressed the urgency of the situation in the safe knowledge that his peers would risk their own positions to support him, or if that his senior manager Mason would, that he would have gone against NASA’s wishes and voiced his concerns, leading to congress pulling the plug on the whole programme. This of course is purely speculative, but the point is still valid and should not be overlooked.

How and why engineers should view scenario’s differently from other people

It is clear from the Challenger disaster and others like it that in most situations engineers should view scenarios differently from other people. This is because engineers are such owing to their special understanding and expertise of a particular subject, either through education or experience but always nearly a combination of both. Whereas most people will generally view a problem from the viewpoint of time and money, it is the engineers’ responsibility to also identify and analysis inherent risks and dangers associated with said problem, so that they can be overcome without causing harm to people or the environment. Generally the problems encountered with any given scenario are given their priority of importance by the people managing and financing said scenario, and they nearly always do this by employing a method of self interest. It is the engineers responsibility to ensure that projects are safe both in practice as well as construction, every bit as much as it is for them to actually engineer and build the project. This takes a unique combination of skills and imposes additional restraints on the problems solving methods that can be employed by engineers, constraints which themselves must often be overcome.

In order to actually view a situation differently from other people the engineer must apply rational and critical thinking to a given scenario. They must use their expertise and specific understanding to solve problems whilst always considering the negative effects that solving a problem may latter on incur. They then must act ethically and not be motivated by self interest if they feel their work endangers others or themselves, or causes more problems than it solves in favour of some small minority. This is amply demonstrated in the case of Challenger, where management at all levels was prepared to risk the safety of those involved in the programme for personal gain, but where it was the engineers responsibility to not only build the shuttle, but also act ethically and on behalf of those using the technology, even if this meant jeopardising the whole programme.

Before embarking on our field trip to Killaloe, to practically examine teamwork, I had a fairly good understanding of the tangible benefits to be gained from working in a team, rather than as an individual, in a very general sense. For example I realised that it was easier to solve complicated problems by utilising the multiple skill sets inherently available in a team, and that combined experiences and knowledge often will lead to quicker and more effective solutions. Although these common sense assumptions were enforced by my experience in Killaloe, the rather simplistic way in which I thought groups of people pooled their collective knowledge and utilised individual talents was found to be very unrealistic. On reflection I have learned first hand the mechanisms behind group creation, its associated tangible benefits and the disadvantages of working with others.

Before going on the fieldtrip I assumed that teams were just created by mutual consent between members in order to make life easier for the individuals who comprised them. I didn’t realise that the process of team formation followed a pattern and had distinguishable stages. On reflection I can recognise these stages (forming, storming, norming and performing) as applied to the development of the group I was in. Initially the forming of the group was arbitrarily managed by the adventure centre guide, and so I did not learn much about what influences peoples choices with regards working with each other. However after this I can now clearly recognise the storming stage in our group, which occurred not immediately with the first task but with the second. This was an interesting observation, as in the first task the entire group immediately utilised the knowledge of an individual member who had already seen the complicated problem (Nails challenge) before, and was thus able to solve it very quickly. None of the team members interfered with the individual undertaking the task or insisted on having a go. This demonstrated immediately one of the biggest benefits of working in a team that I had already identified. Unfortunately this was not to last, chiefly because most of the subsequent tasks involved problems that none of the team members had previously come across.

On reflection this storming most notably happened in the jigsaw and match sticks challenges. In these challenges there was very poor communication between team members, and as a result the team’s knowledge and resources were not efficiently implemented in solving the problem at hand. Some members notably contributed nothing at all (mouse), whilst others (loudmouths) forced their methods on others without consultation. In the match stick challenge this resulted in numerous restarts and lost time, whilst in the jigsaw challenge everyone shouting instructions at once resulted in no message being communicated at all. I have learned that no matter how strong individual talents and knowledge are within a group, that without an unbiased and structured approach to accessing these skill sets, that the effectiveness of a team is rendered practically useless. In many instances such as this an individual would probably fare better as there would be less confusion and time wasting.

Looking back I have noticed that I contributed very little in the match stick challenge, partly because I became annoyed at the lack of cohesion and partly because I couldn’t concentrate. I should have made some attempt to at least introduce a structure to our solution sharing, as I did in the jigsaw challenge, but I became unfocused and frustrated. I feel I could have at least contributed more to creating an environment in which the group resource could be better manipulated, such as asking the mice in our group for their opinion, even if not to the solution itself.

On the day there was very little deadlock, mostly as a result of the ad hoc method implemented in our solutions, preventing anyone from disagreeing with a particular solution, because by time a member had thought of one they generally just took over without any group consultation to see if it worked. As a result I believe that although deadlock is obviously something to be overcome in teamwork, at least it is indicative of some sort of group structure and communication of ideas, regardless of whether or not those ideas are agreed upon.

As the day wore on however we did begin to communicate better, and this was particularly evident in the minefield and jenga challenges. Upon first inspection we all communicated our ideas with each other, regarding which block to go for first, and the majority consensus prevailed. In this we demonstrated a normative evolution within the group, even if it was not by conscious design. Looking back this was the first example in which I recall every group member being involved. The same can be said for the minefield challenge, strategies were discussed first without members flying solo, and when it came to passing along the planks everyone helped to ensure that they didn’t touch the ground. It is no surprise to me now that these were probably are best challenges, along with the final jungle ‘ladder’ challenge.

Our greatest success as a group came undoubtedly at the very end in the jungle ‘ladder’ challenge. Upon reflection I can now recognise the fact that in this challenge we not only worked well as a whole group, but more so as smaller interdependent groups within the whole group. Being split into subgroups of ‘climbers’ and ‘anchors’ forced us to trust each other, and without this trust we could not have completed the task. For example when it was my turn to climb I had to trust my anchorman to control my safety harness, as did all other members of the group, and my fellow climbers had to trust me whenever I offered down my hand to pull them up. It is very notable upon reflection that the other group of climbers within our bigger group, despite having among them someone very scared of heights, made it even higher up the ladder than we did. This for me is a clear demonstration of us reaching the performing stage in our group development.

The last challenge has made me learn that trust amongst members is just as essential to successful teamwork as active communication. This is something that I would not have considered before, but that now makes quite obvious sense. I also believe I displayed some leadership skills in this challenge as I was very active in helping my fellow climbers up and was the first onto the second log. I also recognised that our female group member should be the next up from then on, as she was the lightest to lift and once up could help us climb.

Overall I have become aware of the process involved in group forming, and as a result now recognise its key stages. Upon reflection I realise that the most important factors in successful team work are trust, effective communication and a structure that allows all team members to contribute to the solution. I also realise that I need to be more patient when working with others, and must actively seek the advice of my peers, as well as their ideas, when working with them.

For some reason it was not until after the presentation that I took time to read over the ‘Presentation skills’ document on the module’s wordpress blog. I found it covered obvious topics regarding presentations, most notably the areas of structure, visual aids, eye contact, confidence, simple speech and preparation. Although I was already aware of these areas before and prepared them, the presentation itself further validated their importance in producing a successful presentation, and in hindsight the experience has allowed me to learn that these topics are not stand alone entities when presenting, something that I would have considered them to be previously. Rather they are all subtly intertwined and, to varying degrees, depend on each other. For example the visual aids greatly helped me structure my presentation and not just communicate my idea, and in turn without a good structure I would have been less confident in my ability to hold the audiences attention and would have feared ‘getting lost’ in the smaller details.

 More interesting however, was that the document also covered subjects which I had not consciously regarded as critical for a good presentation beforehand, but upon analysing my presentation in the cold light of day, I have realised that subconsciously I must have been, and that these subjects are of equal importance to the more obvious considerations, when attempting to make a good presentation. For example I did not think until the last minute to wear a shirt and jacket, although subconsciously I must have realised the importance of looking presentable in order to be taken seriously and to communicate interest in the topic. Likewise the ‘Presentation skills’ document commented on areas such as hand movement, repeating important points and using simple speech and concepts. Upon reflection I had also subconsciously taken these considerations into account, as I implemented all of them to varying degrees in my presentation, although I did not realise at the time that I had consciously realised their importance. Also, owing to this experience, I have realised fully the importance of needing a genuine interest in, and thorough understanding of, any topic which is to be communicated to an audience with which it is unfamiliar.

 As a result of the Presentation, and in conjunction with the ‘Presentation skills’ document, on reflection I now have a clearer understanding of what I already knew, both consciously and subconsciously, about elements necessary for a good presentation.

 Part 2, Contextual: Identifying what I need to know in order to advance my understanding of the subject.

Although I feel that overall my presentation went well, upon reflection I have identified areas that I feel could have gone better. Most notably at times I tripped up on words mid sentence, which was very frustrating and on occasion temporarily caused me to loose confidence in how well things were going. Although when this happened I did my best to hide it and not dwell on my mistakes, I can easily see how small mistakes like this could lead to a cumulative undermining of both my own, and the audiences, confidence in the presentation. This ultimately caused me to become nervous at times, and it is far harder to communicate a point to, and interact with, the audience when this occurs. This has demonstrated to me that my rehearsal of the presentation was inadequate, and that I should have rehearsed with a friend, rather than the mirror.

I also feel looking back, that although I included effective visual aids to support key points, that the accompanying verbal explanations that I offered with these visuals were not always easy to follow. This made them less effective at simplifying what I was trying to communicate. As a result I have learned that picture explanations are just as important as the pictures themselves, and that a thorough rehearsal of accompanying explanations is needed, if these important aids are to perform their function efficiently. 

 Stage 3, Relational: Feedback and Evaluation.

Comments left on my blog from fellow classmates, regarding my presentation, have been by far the most useful tool in evaluating my performance, and identifying areas for future improvement. From these comments it has become clear that I did not manage my time efficiently, as many thought the presentation was to long. This can be attributed to an oversight in the original structuring of the presentation, as well as poor time keeping on the day. As a result of this feedback I have realised the importance of time constraints when presenting, both in the context of people who may be following, and its importance in keeping the audiences attention.

 All of the comments I received also pointed towards the complexity of the topic, and its technical nature. Although complex subjects should by no means be omitted from presentations due to that virtue alone, I have learned upon reflection that complexity is definitely an important issue to consider with respect to time constraints. I believe I performed the task of communicating the overall message in my presentation adequately well, it did take longer than I had, and in hindsight it could be considered too deep a subject to be explored in only five minutes.

 Overall I would evaluate my performance as around seven out of ten, as subsequent feedback has illustrated that by and large the audience grasped and understood my message by the end of the presentation. Also I feel I communicated clearly and held the audiences attention, in addition to using good visuals. I would however deduct marks for my time management, occasional stuttering and inadequate rehearsal technique. Also, reading the ‘Presentation Skills’ document before the presentation, in conjunction with a little more of my own research into presentation giving, I feel would of improved my overall performance.

 Stage 4, Planning: How can I take my learning further?

With regard learning and understanding more about the art of giving presentations, I feel the only practical way to do this is by giving more presentations in the future, in addition to attending other people’s. No amount of reading can prepare you for the act of public speaking, but that is not to say research does not provide valuable pointers toward successful presentation techniques. In this particular instance though it is practice and experience that makes perfect. Watching and studying other people’s presentations can also provide you with a valuable and rational critical template, one which can then be applied to improve ones own technique.