Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Engineers have to be concerned about the subject matter. In this case, the study was being done
in a terrorist training camp. There are substantial issues associated with this fact. Engineers are not
anthropologists! Bob has a paramount duty to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. The fact that
he is accompanying a group of scientists in a terrorist camp does not alleviate his moral obligations.
Should he have accepted this job? As Michael Davis, philosopher at Illinois Institute of Technology,
recently advised me, “It is better to avoid temptation than to risk it.” In other words, Bob is possibly
putting his career and the public's safety at risk by even agreeing to participate in a study that directly
or indirectly increases the threat of terrorism.
On the other hand, his colleagues in the study may believe that there is some greater good and noble
end that makes the study worthwhile, such as having a better understanding of the factors that lead to
terrorism, which in turn helps to prevent terrorism. Can this be likened to allowing a certain group of
people to suffer (e.g., receiving the placebo instead of a known efficacious treatment) for the greater
good of advancing the state of medical science (i.e., case-control studies that lead to better drugs)? Or
is this simply a publishable and noteworthy endeavor? As Feynman reminds us, it is very easy to fool
ourselves and we are very good at rationalizing what we really want to do.
Finally, since most engineers do not publish regularly, they may have not worried much about
authorship and confidentiality. But, the arguments about authorship are similar to most team and group
projects. Reward and recognition are rarely just and fair. It is clearly unethical not to recognize others'
achievements, even if it has been a while since they contributed. Immediacy tends to inflate the perceived
contribution. A task done yesterday is easier to recognize than someone's original idea two years ago.
However, there is no time limit on intellectual property, at least from an ethical perspective. One ought
never to claim another's ideas as one's own. The best policy is full disclosure. No matter how long
ago or where the person has since moved, it is still their idea. Also, the rank of the person should not
matter. There is an instructive case of a proposal to the National Science Foundation or other granting
institutions that was written substantially by a student who graduated and left the institution. After some
time, the former student's professor submitted the proposal without attributing it to the student. Such
behavior is unethical and probably illegal. The same can be said of any intellectual property, such as
patents, so any institution needs a policy where property rights and recognition are agreed upon upfront
and implemented justly.
The bottom line is that even a relatively boring case can be loaded with ethical content. And, as my
philosopher colleagues keep reminding me, such issues have no final answer. I am not a philosopher by
training, but I must agree that most bioethical issues are not conducive to final answers. But, they do
benefit from asking and trying to answer them, especially if we give clear reasons for our answers.
OBJECTIVITY
AND
FINDING
TRUTH
Scientists and engineers pride themselves on objectivity. In fact, one of the worst insults one can hurl at
a researcher is the lack of objectivity. This may mean sloppiness in carrying out work in the laboratory
or in the field. It may mean that the study approach and design were somehow flawed. It may even
mean that the researcher has been unfair or even unethical in the way he or she went about my scientific
endeavors. That said, the scientific community, which for the most part polices itself in matters of
integrity, must be brutally honest about how objective it is being in any matter of importance. From
