|
You and
|
Michael Rabins
Mark Holtzapple
Lee Lowery
Texas A&M University
Under a constant mandate to cut costs without
reducing functionality, almost every engineer faces one ethics dilemma: designing, or
redesigning, a product to make it less expensive to manufacture or operate. In so doing,
engineers must take special care to avoid undesirable changes.
For example, it's acceptable to make a cheaper car with less interior room. Buyers understand and even expect this. They also know that the car will be less durable and will need more repairs and have a shorter useful life.
But it's unethical to cut costs in critical areas without telling the user. For example, doubling the braking distance could be fatal to an unaware driver.
Thus, when cutting costs, engineers can ethically reduce some product attributes -- but not all. Superficial and noncritical aspects, such as appearance and user comfort, can be sacrificed in favor of reduced price. However, changes that adversely affect braking distances and resistance to catastrophic fires cannot be made without extreme consideration, and only with careful notification to all concerned.
Similarly, engineers are ethically obligated to update products in accordance with technological advances. It was ethical 30 years ago to sell a car without seat belts. A quarter century ago, it was unethical. Today, it's illegal.
Is it ethical to build cheaper?
A smaller car is inherently less crashworthy, but is ethical to build and sell. Why? First, it's "inherently" less safe, and thus not under the control of the engineer's design. The braking distance can be kept the same in a lighter car; but maintaining the crash protection would require a lighter but equally strong body, probably requiring costly advanced materials that would cancel out the intended cost savings.
Secondly, it's well known that lighter cars are less crashworthy. Thus, the customer is making an informed decision when buying the lighter car.
Let's apply this line of reasoning to a famous case: the Pinto, which tended to combust when hit from behind. What if Pinto had advertised that, by cutting the car's prices, its engineers had dramatically increased the risk of gas-tank fires? The engineers would have been in a more ethical position. But, because the driver had no control over being hit from the rear, most customers probably would not have bought the vehicle.
Risks, benefits and user knowledge are critical factors in the equation. Assume you could make an artificial liver for $100. However, your product kills 20% of its users. Would it be unethical to manufacture and sell, even though many more might die without it?
The key, again, is whether the user truly understands the risks versus benefits (as well as other options). If you are truthful and give full disclosure in your dealings, it's difficult to be unethical. For example, this is why your doctor makes you sign a consent form before you receive a flu shot.
Similarly, it's more ethical these days to sell cigarettes because people today know that cigarettes cause addiction and serious diseases. Is it ethical for the state to advertise its lottery, when the chance of winning is so slim? Perhaps not until we're shown the winner, plus the many who've spent numerous paychecks on lottery tickets.
| A SIMPLE ETHICS TEST Basically, the key to ethics is honest and full disclosure. The "New York Times test" is a simple, bottom-line way to determine ethical behavior.
Of course, not every situation can be solved by asking this question. There are many other considerations in ethical decisions, such as conflict of interest, understating an inherent design flaw, exaggerating product claims and so forth. But the bottom line is that, if you fully disclose the situation to all concerned, you should be safe on ethical grounds. If you would be embarrassed to have the situation publicized, you are getting into an ethics problem.
|
Taking on ethics as a team
What can you do to help yourself and your organization maintain an ethical position? If you're in a position of corporate responsibility, the following actions can help improve your employees' knowledge and practice of ethics:
Here are some additional suggestions for becoming more ethical:
Take an ethics course. Learn what you can do, and how you can increase workers' understanding and awareness of their ethical responsibilities to the organization, and to the public.
Initiate an ethics hotline. Get feedback from your employees about what's going on in the organization. Don't turn a blind eye to potential ethical problems -- meet them head-on.
Surf the Net. A good place to find ethics information is the World Wide Web. Using a search engine or directory (CE, July 1996, p. 137), you'll find numerous sites with the query "engineering ethics." You may even find someone who's been in your situation, and found an ethical solution.
Fighting in the trenches
What if you're not a manager, but just one of the troops, and are faced with an ethical situation? For example, what if your colleague is trying to push a design that you think is unsafe or untested?
1. Carefully analyze the situation. Try to determine both sides of the argument. How did the situation come about? Who is pushing for the unethical position, and what does this person hope to gain? Only if you fully understand the other's position and arguments can you hope to persuade him or her to be more ethical.
2. List all possible failings and downsides of the unethical practice. Why is it unethical? What might happen, should the practice continue undiscovered? How might this affect the organization, in profit, prestige, litigation, sales and corporate image? How might your customers react? How might your coworkers react?
3. List all possible benefits that would accrue if the practice ceases and is admitted now, rather than being discovered by someone else later.
4. Write a memo. Not only does a memo clarify and crystallize an issue in your own mind; it helps you communicate your point to others, and provide an audit trail. Once sent, a memo becomes a shared responsibility with others. Everyone who gets, sees, reads, touches or discusses the memo has been duly warned that something unpleasant is afoot, and that the writer is seriously attempting to correct the situation, often against difficult odds
5. Attempt to make a full disclosure: to coworkers, your boss, your boss's boss, the president, your customer, the public, the press. Obviously, how far you take this will depend on your own convictions, the seriousness of the practice and your willingness and ability to take the consequences involved.
One final question: If you feel caught between a rock and hard place, should you quit in protest? Think about this -- your customers would probably prefer to know that you're trying to beat some ethics into your peers and managers, rather than find out that the only ethical person in the organization has deserted the ship.
Edited by Irene Kim
Authors
Lee L. Lowery, Jr. received his Ph.D. from TAMU in 1967. A research engineer with the A&M Research Foundation and the Texas Transportation Institute, he is a professor of civil engineering at Texas A & M University (TAMU; College Sta., TX 77843-3122; Tel.: 409-862-2450). A licensed P.E. and engineering consultant to many firms, he has received many teaching awards. He has taught courses in the architecture and aerospace, mechanical and civil engineering departments, and regularly introduces engineering ethics to his undergraduate and graduate systems-engineering classes.
Michael J. Rabins, director of the Professionalism and Ethics Program of the College of Engineering at TAMU, is on the Board of Professional Practice and Ethics of the American Soc. of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). He has taught engineering ethics for the past 8 years, and has co-authored ethics articles. He received B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in mechanical engineering from M.I.T., Carnegie Institute of Technology and the U. of Wisconsin at Madison.
Mark Holtzapple received chemical engineering degrees from Cornell U. (B.S., 1978) and the U. of Pennsylvania (Ph.D., 1981). After U.S. Army service, he became a chemical engineering professor at TAMU, where he teaches and conducts research. He has produced 43 technical articles and seven patents. His text, Foundations of Engineering (McGraw-Hill, 1997) includes a chapter on engineering ethics. He has received many teaching awards, plus the 1996 Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award for a process to convert waste biomass to animal feed, chemicals and fuels.
For any action you take,
ask , "If what I just said or neglected to say, did or neglected to do, saw and
failed to report, or heard and failed to mention, were published in tomorrow's New York
Times, would it embarrass me, my organization, or my family?" 
It is usually easy to know
what you should do, but often hard to do it. Be assured that many people have faced these
hard choices before you, and survived. Remember that acting in an ethical manner is best
-- for you, your company, your customer and society.