Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
the milk supply (analogous to interviewing a burglar and publishing vulnerabilities in homes with a
hope that this information will drive homeowners to make the necessary changes to improve home
safety). Second, the information had already been made readily available via the Internet and other
sources.
The case illustrates the quandary of risk avoidance. Like many other engineering writers, I recently
was confronted with a decision about just how much I should say about certain vulnerabilities, even
though the information being shared was indeed readily available and not confidential or secret in
any way. However, engineers are trained “to connect the dots” in ways that many are not, so even if
the source information is readily available to anyone interested, we know where to look and how to
assimilate the information into new knowledge.
This is the bottom-up design process. We do this all the time. So, there is an additional onus on
professionals to take care how we pull together information in order to avoid giving new knowledge to
those who intend to use it nefariously. And, we must not fall victim to our own rationalizations that we
are doing it for the public good or the advancement of the state of the science, when our real intentions
are to improve our own lot (e.g., a gold standard publication, a happy client, or public recognition).
There is nothing wrong and much right about improving one's own lot, but engineers are in a position
of trust and must hold paramount the public's safety, health, and welfare. And, as the famous physicist
Richard Feynman reminded us:
Science is a long history of learning how not to fool ourselves.
24
And:
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you
are the easiest person to fool.
25
This sounds much like the stuff of the Ancient Greek dialogues. Socrates implied the need for self-
scrutiny, stripping down our intellectualism before we can build up (knowing that we do not know
is requisite to ever really knowing anything). Researchers and practitioners alike need a healthy dose
of realism and a critical eye toward our own justifications. The tensions between advancing the state
of veterinary sciences with animal welfare illustrate this point. Every veterinarian that I have had the
pleasure of knowing exudes a love of animals, including those who conduct or oversee studies wherein
animals are sacrificed (i.e., the term for killing animals for research ends). Like engineers, these scientists
have an ability to compartmentalize their views.
It is not possible for engineers to prevent all malicious deeds, just as it is not possible for engineers
to make anything 100% safe from other kinds of failure. In a manner of speaking, this is analogous to
our reliance on pharmaceuticals to treat diseases. One of the fears of medical researchers is that we may
destroy most of the pathogenic microbes, but the remaining strains rapidly become resistant to even the
newest antibiotics. So, physicians try not to prescribe these drugs indiscriminately, and to use a holistic
approach to prevent certain contagious diseases. No matter what technology we employ, the possibility
always remains that terrorists can cause great harm by using the very same technology against us. We
cannot be completely “inoculated” against these diseases, nor can we expect “quick technological fixes”
every time. Engineering technology is therefore only partially able to protect the health, safety, and
