Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Engineers
shall
perform
services
only
in
areas
of
their
competence.
And, he reminds Mary that engineers are beholden to the client (loyal and “faithful agents”).
Mary feels outnumbered, so she acquiesces.
What should Mary have done? Was the discussion at the meeting ethical? Is the response that it is not
the engineer's concern correct? What does this say about an engineer's right of conscience? It is difficult
to say whether the discussion was appropriate, but many of us would be offended by the “technology
transfer” from delivering an ethical drug to delivering a toxin. One of the themes of this topic is the
need to consider the entire life cycle of an engineering decision. We must be systematic in our ethics.
Kant's categorical imperative asks us to consider the effects if the decision is universalized. Is that not
what Mary is doing and her colleagues are failing to do?
The argument that engineersmust be competent is not an invitation to ignore important aspects of adesign,
including possible misuses. For example, a biomedical engineer working on a team design may notice some
mechanical or structural miscalculations. Although the engineer's “area of competence” is biomedical, he
or she still has the responsibility to point out problems (or opportunities) if they are known.
15
Actually, other canons of the codes of engineering ethics support Mary's position, including the
admonition that the safety, health, and welfare of the public are paramount, and that we avoid deceptive
acts. The arguments involve immoral means (e.g., developing technologies to be used to facilitate harmful
outcomes) to support convenient outcomes (e.g., increasing company profits). By extension, one type of
deception is lying to oneself, including deluding ourselves about possible misuse of technologies. Mary
provides a case study of the need to think about possible downsides and malicious use of beneficial
technologies. The President's Council on Bioethics put it this way:
But, once available, powers sought for one purpose are frequently usable for others. The same technological
capacity to influence and control bodily processes for medical ends may lead (wittingly or unwittingly)
to non-therapeutic uses, including “enhancements” of normal life processes or even alterations in “human
nature.”
16
It suffices to say that sometimes codes are merely guides that provide general moral direction.
GROUPTHINK
AND
THE
RIGHT
OF
CONSCIENCE
Sometimes institutions and organizations militate against the right of conscience. For example, many
engineering failures occurred because of institutional mechanisms that stifled dissent and buried “bad
news.” The techniques used by organizations to control their membership have been logged by psychol-
ogist Irving Janis, who coined the term “groupthink” to describe the collective set of biases held by and
perpetuated by a group.
17
Two concepts about groupthink are particularly pertinent to engineers. Bias is simply a systematic
error. We see things wrongly, but consistently. And, affiliation is both vital and dangerous to profes-
sionals. We need to affiliate with like-minded people, but we must take care not to rely completely on
exclusive thinking.
The video
Incident
at
Morales
provides a very useful, hypothetical composite of how groupthink
can affect an engineer and compete with professional conscience. In the video, Fred Martinez is a
