briefing latest4

news

alls

tar

ieT Member news June 2010 www.theiet.org/membernews

OPINION

In April’s Member News, Dr Robert Gaitskell explored the engineering implications of the 1986 Challenger disaster: seven astronauts died when their space shuttle exploded a minute into the flight. Mechanical problems and inclement weather had led to launch delays but NASA’s managers were anxious to go ahead. Their reasons were both political: unexpected competition from the European and Soviet space agencies; and economic: the need to show cost-effectiveness and commercial potential. Key to the accident were disagreements between engineers, who felt conditions were dangerous, and managers, who were under political pressure to act quickly.

Engineering disasters are often analysed with hindsight; the Challenger incident is unusual in that contemporary records are available, allowing informed discus-sion of the issues. Conflicts of interest can arise when managers have engineering backgrounds. Here, the decision-making was based on inadequate data, while

ethical issues, such as the need to protect the public, no longer topped the list of priorities.

The roles of risk and blame in safety-critical systems are demon-strated by other types of engineering disaster, such as that of Therac-25 – a radiation-therapy machine that led to patients’ deaths after they were given massive radia-tion overdoses. What was to blame: poor-quality documentation, careless key-boarding or unreliable, poorly-tested software?

‘Professional ethics’ covers what we ought to do and how we ought to behave in a professional capacity, while being aware of the moral

obligation to protect public welfare and avoid conflicts of interest.

In common with other engineering institutions, these are activities on which the IET is focusing. As well as its formal code of ethics – the Rules of Conduct to which all members must subscribe – there is a wide range of ethics-related content on the website. For example, last year’s Mountbatten Memorial Lecture, given by Richard Olver, chairman of BAE Systems, which recently set up its own ethics committee, following allegations of corruption in arms deals, highlighted many issues.

These ranged from CCTV monitoring and digital tracking of people going about their everyday lives (are these technologies improving security or are they an invasion of privacy?) to the environ-mental impact of high-performance vehicles and oil exploration in remote areas (do the benefits of instant energy and fast journeys balance damage to delicate eco-systems?). Other concerns

related to the role of data-mining (is it a threat to individual freedom?), robotics (does mobile healthcare, with its remote-monitoring of the ill, discourage families from keeping in touch with elderly relatives?) and, nearer home for Olver, whether multinationals should do deals with corrupt regimes (he says ‘yes’ – so long as it’s on the company’s terms).

For Olver, such concerns can erode public support for engineers, reducing their already-poor image (in Britain) and undermining the perceived value of their contribu-tion to society. Instead, he proposes that governments appoint chief engineers to monitor ethics, that professional bodies, as in law and medicine, are even more proactive, while universities (again, as elsewhere) make ethics an integral part of engineering degrees. But, perhaps, the last word should go to Dilbert, arguably the world’s most famous engineer: “Ethics...is mostly common sense, anyway.”Ralph Adam (sd324a@gmail.com)

Dilbert’s law

FEEDBACKSend letters to the Editor, Member News, IET, Michael Faraday House, Six Hills Way, Stevenage, Herts SG1 2AY, UK, or by email to membernews.editor@theiet.org, including your address. The IET reserves the right to edit letters and to use submissions in any other format.

ON THE BUSESthe april issue of Member News highlighted the famous london double-decker bus. However, I have yet to see anything on the old london electric trams and trolley buses. Both of these old london transportation systems appear to be greener that the current diesel buses.

I recently visited Phoenix, arizona, and was surprised to see a single-deck tram system down the centre of major streets. While they had solved the safety problem of what happens when the passengers get on and off the trams (by building platforms in the middle of the road), they have created a major traffic problem. at the major crossing intersections, the lights are controlled by the trams. traffic that has to turn left (remember we drive on the opposite side to the UK) across the tracks has significant problems

with the signal lights changing red as the trains arrive in the stations.

Concerning the london electric trolley buses that I used in the 1950s, they solved the problem of passenger safety by being able to move the bus to the curb to load and drop passen-gers. However, I remember them having the following problems:

the two-power connection poles frequently came off the overhead cables. the conductor then had to pull a long wooden pole from under the bus and reconnect the spring-loaded power connections onto the cables.

While the buses could go short distances on their batteries, when the system power went down 20 or more buses on that line would stop.

the last problem was weight distri-bution. When on black ice, the buses would slide dangerously to the curb because of the road camber. the

conductor had to load sand, stored on the bus, onto the back wheels.

Do other readers have memories of alternate london road systems?Peter Brooks MIETPalm Bay, Florida

WHAT WOULD YOU DO?Having read the features on nuclear power and professional ethics in the april issue of Member News, I was struck at the implication of the question: “What would you do?”.

the statement by Dr Ian Fairlie on page 44 said: “I think the official agencies are playing dumb on this...it should be discussed.” the official agency in the context of professional ethics are institutions such as the Iet and, as such, it should discuss the very sensitive issue of engineers involved in the destruction industry, commonly called the defense industry.

One is not suggesting that engineers should not take part in the enhancement of their country’s defences. What is questioned is “the commitment to a shared ethical code is a defining characteristic of a profes-sion”; in the “public interest in matters of health, safety, the environment and otherwise”.

Modern warfare is all technological and therefore engineering based. In it the public safety and environment is seen as collateral damage, which can occur long after the conflict is over.

engineers are integral members of civil society and, in a democracy, they cast their votes. therefore they carry the responsibility for the safety of the non-combatant public. Isn’t it appro-priate, therefore, to discuss this issue openly and ask “What would you do?”.Rashid Samnakay FIETWestern Australia