Prof Ethics UNIT-3

8/12/2019 Prof Ethics UNIT-3

1/17

Dr. R. Gowri Sankara RaoProfessor and Head of the Dept.

Dept. Of EEE

MVGR College of Engineering,Vizianagaram

[email protected]


2/17

2

The ethics of social experimentationConscientiousness:

Respect for stakeholders rights:

reasonable safety & informed consent

Skill & expertise:

Predicting outcomes & identifying risks

Designing to maximise net benefits

Protecting the rights of the disadvantaged

Comprehensive perspective:

Recruit expertise in other disciplines as

required Utilise disinterested decision makers or

advisers


3/17

3

IntroductionObjective:

Relate ethical theories to engineeringpractice

A useful perspective:

View engineering activities as socialexper iments: Engineers create experimental situations

through innovation

Society participates in these experiments as

subjects Uncertainty about outcomes implies risk:

Important to identify & quantify risks where possible

Decision makers may make biased decisions

unless accountable for (uncertain) outcomes


4/17

4

Engineering as Social ExperimentationEthical issues for engineers as

experimenters: Duties to experimental subjects

Rights of experimental subjects

Assessment of costs & benefits of the

experiment

Relationship between experimenter &subject:

Legal framework: Legal obligations on experimenter, but these

may not address innovative situations

Codes of ethics:

Primary responsibility lies with the experimenter


5/17

5

Framing the Problem

Concept

Engineering:DesignProduceInstallOperate

Intended outcomes:User satisfactionCompany profitsUnintended outcomes

Corporatecontext:Time pressure

Cost pressureSecrecy

External context:UncertaintyLegal frameworkSocial impactsEnvironmental impacts


6/17


7/17

7

Determining the Facts Codes of Ethics

Legal framework sets the outer boundary

Justice:- punishment, restitution, structuralchange:

Designed to protect equity

Industry codes reflect corporate interests:

Often to mollify unfavourable publicopinion, eg:

Real estate, insurance sales, banking

At their best, professional codes reflect thepublic interest:

Can provide a check-list when consideringan engineering experiment


8/17

8

Positive roles of codes of ethics

Inspiration & guidance for professionals:

Sustain an ethical standard in theprofession

Practical support for ethical actions:

Reduce the risks of victimisation

Education & mutual understanding (trust):

Between the profession & the public

Maintain public image (avoid regulation)

Deterrence & discipline (paralegalproceedings):

To investigate & rule on alleged unethicalactivities


9/17

9

Limitations of codes of ethicsProtect the status quo (ethical

conventionalism):

Codes (like laws) tend to lag behindinnovation

Restrict and/or stifle dissent

Protect the profession from competition: Now illegal under the Trade Practices Act

Internal contradictions between tenets of acode:

A common problem with professional codes

Generality or vagueness of wording:

Cannot be drafted with a particular situation

in mind


10/17

10

Example: the IEEE code of ethics(www.ieee.org)

1. To accept responsibility in making engineering

decisions consistent with the safety, health and welfareof the public, and to disclose promptly factors thatmight endanger the public or the environment

2. To avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest wheneverpossible, and to disclose them to affected parties whenthey do exist

3. To be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimatesbased on available data

4. To reject bribery in all its forms

5. To improve the understanding of technology, itsappropriate application, and potential consequences


11/17


12/17

12

Clarifying concepts

Subjects:

Individual consumers, groups or society as awhole:

Those who can make informed choices, and

Those requiring advocates:

Disadvantaged, future generations, other species & theenvironment

Impacts:

Health, safety & the environment

Changes to social structure & social status: Income & wealth distribution

Lifestyles & personal empowerment

Education, culture


13/17

13

Features of engineering experiments

Absence of a control group ( equivalent non-participants):

Products & services usually offered to all

Benefits may such that they cant bewithheld from a particular group

Society may have little prior understanding: Innovative products & services

Uncertainty in future impacts (positive or

negative) Informed judgements are difficult to make:

For both experimenter and subject


14/17

ELEC4011 - Lecture5: Eng'g as socialex erimentation

14

Informed consent

Stakeholders:

Experimental subjects, experimenters,others who can affect the outcome, or maybe affected by it

Stakeholders have a right to informedconsent:

A voluntary & conscious decision made onthe basis of all relevant information

Issues:

Identification of stakeholders (present &future)

Adequacy of information


15/17

15

Issues for informed consent

Voluntary participation not always possible, eg:

Technology that has widespread effects on thepublic:

For example, the Y2K bug

Future generations or citizens of other countries

Stakeholders may be hard to identify, eg:

Those affected by the Chernobyl nuclear accident

Proxy group can represent unknown stakeholders:

Adequate diversity & information

Adequate decision making competence

Strongly differing opinions may hamperconsensus


16/17

16

Common Ground

Objectives:

deter poor practice; encourage innovation

Balance between:

Individual & corporate rights versuspublic welfare

Heavy-handed regulation versusderegulation

Consensus outcomes versusadversarial litigation Guidelines & standards versusinnovation

The key legislation is the Trade Pract ices Ac t:

Goods must be fit for their intended purpose


17/17

THE END

Documents

Prof Ethics UNIT-3