Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
opportunities for professional growth push the engineer
to higher ethical expectations. This is the normative
aspect of professionalism. In other words, with experi-
ence as guided by observing and emulating ethical role
models, the engineer moves to conventional stages. The
engineering practice is the convention, as articulated in
our codes of ethics.
Above the conventional stages, the truly ethical engi-
neer makes decisions based on the greater good of the
society, even at personal costs. In fact, the ''payoff ''for
the engineer in these cases is usually for people he or she
will never meet and may occur in future he or she will not
share personally. The payoff does provide benefits to the
profession as a whole, notably that we as a profession can
be trusted. This top-down benefit has incremental value
for every engineer. Two common sayings come to mind
about top-down benefits. Financial analysts often say
about the effect of a growing economy on individual
companies: ''A rising tide lifts all ships.'' Likewise, envi-
ronmentalists ask us: ''To think globally, but to act lo-
cally.'' In a like manner, the individual engineer is an
emissary of the whole profession.
Bioethical considerations introduce a number of
challenges that must be approached at all three ethical
levels. At the most basic, microethical level, laws, rules,
regulations, and policies dictate certain behaviors. For
example, cloning and blastocyst research, especially that
which receives federal funding, is controlled by rules
overseen by federal and state agencies. Such rules are
often proscriptive; that is, they tell what ''not to do,'' but
are less clear on what actually ''to do.''
At the next level, beyond legal considerations, the
engineer is charged with being a loyal and faithful agent
to the clients. Researchers are beholden to their re-
spective universities and institutions. Engineers working
in companies and agencies are required to follow man-
dates to employees (although never in conflict with their
obligations to the engineering profession). Thus, engi-
neers must stay within budget, use appropriate materials,
and follow best practices as they concern their respective
designs. For example, if an engineer is engaged in work
that would benefit from a collaboration with another
company working with similar genetic material, the en-
gineer must take precautionary steps to avoid breaches in
confidentiality, such as trade secrets and intellectual
property.
The highest level, the macroethical perspective, has
a number of bioethical aspects. Many of the research
and development projects are in areas that could greatly
benefit society but may lead to unforeseen costs. The
engineer is called to consider possible contingencies. For
example, if an engineer is designing ''nanomachinery'' at
the subcellular level, is there a possibility that self-
replication mechanisms in the cell could be modified to
lead to potential adverse effects, such as generating
mutant pathological cells, toxic byproducts, or changes
in genetic structure not previously expected? Thus, this
highest level of professional development is often where
''risk tradeoffs'' must be considered. In the case
of our example, the risk of adverse genetic outcomes
must be weighed against the loss of advancing the
stateofmedicalscience(e.g., finding nanomachines
that manufacture and deliver tumor-destroying drugs
efficiently).
Ongoing cutting-edge research (such as the efficient
manufacturing of chemicals at the cellular scale, the
development of cybernetic storage, and data transfer
systems using biological or biologically inspired pro-
cesses, etc.) will create new solutions to perennial human
problems by designing more effective devices and im-
proving computational methodologies. Nonetheless, in
our zeal to push the envelopes of science, we must not
ignore some of the larger, societal repercussions of our
research; that is, we must employ new paradigms of
''macroethics.''
William A. Wulf, President of the National Academy
of Engineering, introduced the term macroethics,
defining it as a societal behavior that increases the in-
tellectual pressure ''to do the right thing'' for the long-
term improvement of society. Balancing the potential
benefits of the advances in nanotechnology to society
while also avoiding negative societal consequences is
a type of macroethical dilemma.
46
Macroethics asks us to
consider the broad societal impact of science in shaping
research agendas and priorities. At the same time,
''microethics'' is needed to ensure that researchers and
practitioners act in accordance with scientific and pro-
fessional norms, as dictated by standards of practice,
community standards of excellence, and codes of
ethics.
47
The engineering profession and engineering
education standards require attention to both the macro-
and microdimensions of ethics. Criterion 3, ''Program
Outcomes and Assessment,'' of the Accreditation Board
for Engineering and Technology (ABET), Inc. includes
a basic microethical requirement for engineering educa-
tion programs, identified as ''(f) an understanding of
professional and ethical responsibility,'' along with the
macroethical requirements that graduates of these pro-
grams should have ''(h) the broad education necessary to
understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global
and societal context'' and ''(j) a knowledge of contem-
porary issues.''
48
Personal and organizational ethics and morality are
affected by psychology. Attitudes are complex mental
processes that influence how a person processes in-
formation and that motivate behavior.
49
They have been
explored in depth in the psychological literature, where
''attitude'' has been defined as:
