Engineering Ethics: Responsibility, Codes, and the Challenger

Introduction: Bystander Research and the Engineer's Moral Responsibility

Lauren Slater's essay "In the Event of a Water Landing" is relevant for understanding engineering ethics in several important ways. The Darley and Latané experiments that tested why people help — or fail to help — others in distress were conducted in conditions where there was no directing authority for the group or individual. This mimics the environment in which an engineer works, where ethical decisions must be made independently despite the presence of others. What these experiments found is crucial for understanding the engineer's responsibility.

The concept of "diffusion of responsibility," whereby a crowd of bystanders inhibits action, is particularly significant. Slater writes: "The more people witnessing an event, the less responsible any one individual feels and, indeed, is, because responsibility is evenly distributed among the crowd."¹ This matters greatly for engineers, since they work in team environments where diffusion of responsibility is a constant risk. This diffusion effectively — and dangerously — relieves the individual of a sense of moral agency, and must be actively resisted.

Two practical implications follow. First, there is a powerful fear accompanied by indecision that can paralyze action. The engineer must therefore act quickly in reporting an error; delay increases the likelihood of inaction. Second, the engineer cannot afford to remain uninvolved when public safety is at stake. He or she must act decisively, setting aside whatever mental conflict prevents them from speaking up. It is always better to err on the side of caution.

Social Conformity and the Danger of Group Silence

A second important finding that Slater discusses is that social etiquette compounds the problem. People are often uncertain whether an emergency is real, and this uncertainty causes them to pause. She observes that "emergencies are not fact, but conscious construction, and this may be why we fail."² Social cues, Slater points out, are as influential in human decision-making as material evidence. People in group settings tend to look to others before acting, and would rather remain silent than appear impolite or disruptive.

This dynamic is critically important for engineers. It is better to act ethically — even at a personal social cost — than to defer to group opinion that may be wrong and harmful. Conforming through social mimicry can be hazardous and unethical, particularly when it comes to concealing faulty designs. Politeness is less important than the welfare of the public, and so engineers must be willing to speak up even when doing so means going against the prevailing sentiment.

Roger Boisjoly and the Challenger Disaster

A compelling example of the ethical dilemmas posed by social cuing and diffusion of responsibility is Roger Boisjoly's account of the events surrounding the Challenger launch disaster.³ His speech details the clash between engineers and managers, and demonstrates a commendable dedication to safety and responsibility in the face of powerful institutional resistance. His accounts of pre-launch meetings reveal the callous attitude of management when confronted with solid engineering data that threatened the scheduled launch.

Boisjoly was repeatedly reprimanded and demeaned for his assertion that hot combustion gases could compromise the primary seals on two field joints at lower-than-average temperatures. At one point, a superior chastised him for "airing the company's dirty laundry," but Boisjoly refused to back down.⁴ His concern deepened as he realized that his warnings about inadequate seal resiliency were being dismissed for reasons unrelated to safety, and ultimately his recommendations were overridden.

Boisjoly appears to have done everything within his power to alert management to the perceived problem. His careful research and meticulous note-keeping allowed him to substantiate his claims. He made his position clear through repeated statements, acting assertively rather than passively accepting the diffusion of responsibility. He pushed through frustration, setting aside social politeness. His decision to testify against his company's decision — even as they attempted to discredit him — demonstrated moral resolve. He boldly rebutted his superior when that superior falsely claimed that the engineering position was not unanimous.⁵ Management implied that he was damaging the company by telling the truth.

By contrast to the lax and careless attitude of company managers toward the risk of seal erosion, Boisjoly's behavior embodied genuine ethical integrity. His stand ultimately came at great personal cost, leading to professional punishment and a deterioration of his health.

Conclusion: Safety as the Engineer's Highest Duty

Boisjoly's speech indicates the sacrifice someone must endure in some circumstances to stand up for truth and safety. While extreme, the account demonstrates how tragedy occurs when safety information is ignored, and how tragedy can be averted if safety information is treated with moral responsibility. His concluding statement — that the engineer must leave with "conviction that you have a professional and moral responsibility to yourselves and to your fellow man to defend the truth and expose any questionable practice that may lead to an unsafe product" — is instructive.⁶