Module 3: Engineering as Social Experimentation PDF

Module 3- engineering as social experimentation. Engineering as experimentation – engineers as responsible experimenters- codes of ethics- plagiarism-a balanced outlook on law - challengers case study- bhopal gas tragedy ENGINEERING AS EXPERIMENTATION The process of engineering let go through...

Module 3- engineering as social experimentation. Engineering as experimentation – engineers as responsible experimenters- codes of ethics- plagiarism-a balanced outlook on law - challengers case study- bhopal gas tragedy ENGINEERING AS EXPERIMENTATION The process of engineering let go through series of different experimentation which it comes to practical use. Experimentation plays an important role in the process of designing the product. Before manufacturing a product or providing a project, we make several assumptions and trials, design and redesign and test several times till the product is observed to be functioning satisfactorily. We try different materials and experiments. From the test data obtained we make detailed design and retests. Several redesigns are made upon the feedback information on the performance or failure in the field or in the factory. Besides the tests, each engineering project is modified during execution, based on the periodical feedback on the progress and the lessons from other sources Hence, the development of a product or a project as a whole may be considered as an experiment Engineering Projects VS. Standard Experiments A.Similarities 1. Uncertainty: The final outcomes of projects are also uncertain, as in experiments. Some times unintended results, side effects (bye-products), and unsafe operation have also occurred. Unexpected risks, such as undue seepage in a storage dam, leakage of nuclear radiation from an atomic power plant, presence of pesticides in food or soft drink bottle, an new irrigation canal spreading water-borne diseases, and an unsuspecting hair dryer causing lung cancer on the user from the asbestos gasket used in the product have been reported 2. Continuous monitoring: Monitoring continually the progress and gaining new knowledge are needed before, during, and after execution of project as in the case of experimentation. The performance is to be monitored even during the use (or wrong use!) of the product by the end user/beneficiary. 3. Learning from the past: Engineers normally learn from their own prior designs and infer from the analysis of operation and results, and sometimes from the reports of other engineers. But this does not happen frequently. 4.Partial ignorance: The project is usually executed in partial ignorance. Uncertainties exist in the model assumed. The behavior of materials purchased is uncertain and not constant (that is certain!). They may vary with the suppliers, processed lot, time, and the process used in shaping the materials (e.g., sheet or plate, rod or wire, forged or cast or welded). There may be variations in the grain structure and its resulting failure stress. It is not possible to collect data on all variations B. Contrasts : The scientific experiments in the laboratory and the engineering experiments in the filed exhibit several contrasts as listed below: 1. Experimental control: In standard experiments, members for study are selected into two groups namely A and B at random. Group A are given special treatment. The group B is given no treatment and is called the ‘controlled group’. But they are placed in the same environment as the other group A. This process is called the experimental control. This practice is adopted in the field of medicine. In engineering, this does not happen, except when the project is confined to laboratory experiments. This is because it is the clients or consumers who choose the product, exercise the control. It is not possible to make a random selection of participants from various groups. In engineering, through random sampling, the survey is made from among the users, to assess the results on the product. 2. Humane touch: Engineering experiments involve human souls, their needs, views, expectations, and creative use as in case of social experimentation. This point of view is not agreed by many of the engineers. But now the quality engineers and managers have fully realized this humane aspect. 3. Informed consent: Engineering experimentation is viewed as Societal Experiment since the subject and the beneficiary are human beings. In this respect, it is similar to medical experimentation on human beings. In the case of medical practice, moral and legal rights have been recognized while planning for experimentation. Informed consent is practiced in medical experimentation. Such a practice is not there in scientific laboratory experiments. Informed consent has two basic elements: 1. Knowledge: The subject should be given all relevant information needed to make the decision to participate. 2. Voluntariness: Subject should take part without force, fraud or deception. Respect for rights of minorities to dissent and compensation for harmful effect are assumed here. For a valid consent, the following conditions are to be fulfilled: 1. Consent must be voluntary 2. All relevant information shall be presented/stated in a clearly understandable form 3. Consenter shall be capable of processing the information and make rational decisions. 4. The subject’s consent may be offered in proxy by a group that represents many subjects of like-interests Informed consent when bringing an engineering product to market, implies letting the customer know the following: (a) the knowledge about the product (b) risks and benefits of using the product and (c) all relevant information on the product, such as how to use and how not to use (do’s and don’ts). The relevant factual information implies, that the engineers are obliged to obtain and assess all the available information related to the fulfillment of one’s moral obligations (i.e., wrong or immoral use of a product one designs), including the intended and unintended impacts of the product, on the society. 4.Knowledge gained: Not much of new knowledge is developed in engineering experiments as in the case of scientific experiments in the laboratory. Engineering experiments at the most help us to (a) verify the adequacy of the design, (b) to check the stability of the design parameters, and (c) prepare for the unexpected outcomes, in the actual field environments ENGINEERS AS RESPONSIBLE EXPERIMENTERS Although the engineers facilitate experiments, they are not alone in the field. Their responsibility is shared with the organizations, people, government, and others. No doubt the engineers share a greater responsibility while monitoring the projects, identifying the risks, and informing the clients and the public with facts. Based on this, they can take decisions to participate or protest or promote. The engineer, as an experimenter, owe several responsibilities to the society, namely, 1. A conscientiousness commitment to live by moral values. 2. A comprehensive perspective on relevant information. It includes constant awareness of the progress of the experiment and readiness to monitor the side effects, if any. (informed consent ) 3. Unrestricted free-personal involvement in all steps of the project/product development (autonomy). Moral autonomy 4. Accountability deals with moral responsibility ,for the results of the project (accountability). 1.Conscientiousness - moral commitment means: (a) Being sensitive to full range of moral values and responsibilities relevant to the prevailing situation and (b) the willingness to develop the skill and put efforts needed to reach the best balance possible among those considerations. In short, engineers must possess open eyes, open ears, and an open mind (i.e., moral vision, moral listening, and moral reasoning). This makes the engineers as social experimenters, respect foremost the safety and health of the affected, while they seek to enrich their knowledge, rush for the profit, follow the rules, or care for only the beneficiary. The human rights of the participant should be protected through voluntary and informed consent 2.Comprehensive Perspective The engineer should grasp the context of his work and ensure that the work involved results in only moral ends. One should not ignore his conscience, if the product or project that he is involved will result in damaging the nervous system of the people (or even the enemy, in case of weapon development) A product has a built-in obsolete or redundant component to boost sales with a false claim. In possessing of the perspective of factual information, the engineer should exhibit a moral concern and not agree for this design Moral Autonomy Viewing engineering as social experimentation, and anticipating unknown consequences should promote an attitude of questioning about the adequacy of the existing economic and safety standards. This proves a greater sense of personal involvement in one’s work 4.Accountability The term Accountability means: 1. The capacity to understand and act on moral reasons 2. Willingness to submit one’s actions to moral scrutiny and be responsive to the assessment of others. It includes being answerable for meeting specific obligations, i.e., liable to justify (or give reasonable excuses) the decisions, actions or means, and outcomes (sometimes unexpected), when required by the stakeholders or by law. The tug-of-war between of causal influence by the employer and moral responsibility of the employee is quite common in professions. In the engineering practice, the problems are: (a) The fragmentation of work in a project inevitably makes the final products lie away from the immediate work place, and lessens the personal responsibility of the employee. (b) Further the responsibilities diffuse into various hierarchies and to various people. Nobody gets the real feel of personal responsibility. (c) Often projects are executed one after another. An employee is more interested in adherence of tight schedules rather than giving personal care for the current project. (d) More litigation is to be faced by the engineers (as in the case of medical practitioners). This makes them wary of showing moral concerns beyond what is prescribed by the institutions. In spite of all these shortcomings, engineers are expected to face the risk and show up personal responsibility as the profession demands. CODES OF ETHICS The ‘codes of ethics’ exhibit, rights, duties, and obligations of the members of a profession and a professional society. The codes exhibit the following essential roles: 1. Inspiration and guidance. The codes express the collective commitment of the profession to ethical conduct and public good and thus inspire the individuals. They identify primary responsibilities and provide statements and guidelines on interpretations for the professionals and the professional societies. 2. Support to engineers. The codes give positive support to professionals for taking stands on moral issues. Further they serve as potential legal support to discharge professional obligations. 3. Serving and protecting the public –serve better to society. Welfare of the society 4. Education and mutual understanding. Codes are used to prompt discussion and reflection on moral issues. They develop a shared understanding by the professionals, public, and the government on the moral responsibilities of the engineers. The Board of Review of the professional societies encourages moral discussion for educational purposes. 5. Create good public image. The codes present positive image of the committed profession to the public, help the engineers to serve the public effectively. They promote more of self regulation and lessen the government regulations. This is bound to raise the reputation of the profession and the organization, in establishing the trust of the public. 6. Protect the status - They create minimum level of ethical conduct and promotes agreement within the profession. Primary obligation namely the safety, health, and welfare of the public, declared by the codes serves and protects the public. 7. Promotes business interests. The codes offer inspiration to the entrepreneurs, establish shared standards, healthy competition, and maximize profit to investors, employees, and consumers. 8. Deterrence (discourage to act immorally) and discipline (regulate to act morally). The codes serve as the basis for investigating unethical actions. The professional societies sometimes revoke membership or suspend/expel the members, when proved to have acted unethical. This sanction along with loss of respect from the colleagues and the society are bound to act as deterrent. ADVANTAGES Set out the ideals and responsibilities of the profession Improve the profile of the profession Motivate and inspire practitioners Provide guidance Raise awareness and consciousness of issues Improve quality and consistency  LIMITATIONS: The codes are not remedy for all evils. They have many limitations, namely: 1. General and vague wordings. Many statements are general in nature and hence unable to solve all problems. 2. Not applicable to all situations. Codes are not sacred, and need not be accepted without criticism. Tolerance for criticisms of the codes themselves should be allowed. 3. Often have internal conflicts. Many times, the priorities are clearly spelt out, e.g., codes forbid public remarks critical of colleagues (engineers), but they actually discovered a major bribery, which might have caused a huge loss to the exchequer. 4. They can not be treated as final moral authority for professional conduct. Codes have flaws by commission and omission. There are still some grey areas undefined by codes. They can not be equated to laws. After all, even laws have loopholes and they invoke creativity in the legal practitioners. 5. Only a few enroll as members in professional society and non-members can not be compelled. 6. Even as members of the professional society, many are unaware of the codes 7. Different societies have different codes. The codes can not be uniform or same! Unifying the codes may not necessarily solve the problems prevailing various professions, but attempts are still made towards this unified codes. PLAGIARISM “Plagiarism” means the practice of taking someone else’s work or idea and passing them as one’s own. Princeton perceives plagiarism as the “deliberate” use of ‘someone else ‘s language ,idea,or other original (not common knowledge ) material without acknowledging its resource Oxford characterizes plagiarism as the use of a writing ideas or phraseology without giving due credit. Without giving necessary credits make use of others thought. In academic writing, plagiarizing involves using words, ideas, or information from a source without citing it correctly. Plagiarism is a serious academic offence  LEVELS OF PLAGIARISM Level 0: Similarities upto 10% Level 1: Similarities above 10% to 40% Level 2: Similarities above 40% to 60% Level 3: Similarities above 60% PENALTIES IN CASE OF PLAGIARISM IN SUBMISSION OF THESIS AND DISSERTATIONS Level 0: Similarities upto 10% Minor Similarities, no penalty Level 1: Similarities above 10% to Such student shall be asked to submit a revised script within a stipulated time period 40% not exceeding. Level 2: Similarities above 40% to Such student shall be debarred from submitting a revised script for a period of one year. 60% Level 3: Similarities above 60% Such student registration for that programme shall be cancelled. PENALTIES IN CASE OF PLAGIARISM IN ACADEMIC AND RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS Level 0: Similarities upto Minor Similarities, no penalty 10% Level 1: Similarities above 10% Shall be asked to withdraw manuscript. to 40% Level 2: Similarities above 40% a) Shall be asked to withdraw manuscript. b) Shall be denied a right to one annual increment to 60% c) Shall not be allowed to be a supervisor for a period of two years. Level 3: Similarities above 60% a) Shall be asked to withdraw manuscript. b) Shall be denied a right to two successive annual increment. c) Shall not be allowed to be a supervisor for a period of two years. PRECAU TION Cite Paraphrase Quoting Citing Quotes Cite your Own Material Referencing  Provide proper references wherever is required  Provide references even for a Photographs, Diagrams, Pictures, Graphs, and Maps.  Paraphrasing means putting someone else's ideas in your own words.  Once check originality of the content before submitting the document  PLAGIARISM DETECTING SOURCES Plagiarism Tools Detecting Sources Turnitin Vast amounts of web content, previously submitted papers, and subscription-based journals and publications. iThenticate Database of over 60 billion web pages, 155 million content items, and 49 million works from 800 scholarly publishers Blackboard Internet, ProQuest ABI/Inform database with over 1,100 publication titles and about 2.6 million articles, Global Reference Database of Blackboard Grammarly Detect plagiarism from 16 billion web pages and ProQuest’s databases. PlagiarismDetection.org Contains millions of documents like (books, paper, essays, articles and assignments)  INTERNET SOURCES Document Upload Search Publications (Articles & Books) Report Deliver Student Papers of Turnitin BALANCED OUTLOOK ON LAW The ‘balanced outlook on law’ in engineering practice stresses the necessity of laws and regulations and also their limitations in directing and controlling the engineering practice. Laws are necessary because, people are not fully responsible by themselves and because of the competitive nature of the free enterprise, which does not encourage moral initiatives. Laws are needed to provide a minimum level of compliance. The following codes are typical examples of how they were enforced in the past: Code for Builders by Hammurabi Steam Boat Code in USA CODE FOR BUILDERS BY HAMMURABI Hummurabi the king of Babylon in 1758 BC framed the following code for the builders: “If a builder has built a house for a man and has not made his work sound and the house which he has built has fallen down and caused the death of the householder, that builder shall be put to death. If it causes the death of the householder’s son, they shall put that builder’s son to death. If it causes the death of the householder’s slave, he shall give slave for slave to the householder. If it destroys property, he shall replace anything it has destroyed; and because he has not made the house sound which he has built and it has fallen down, he shall rebuild the house which has fallen down from his own property. If a builder has built a house for a man and does not make his work perfect and the wall bulges, that builder shall put that wall in sound condition at his own cost” This code was expected to put in self-regulation seriously in those years. STEAM BOAT CODE The steam engines used for travel during those days were really heavy and bulky. James Watt who invented steam engine worked with two more scientists Oliver Evans and Richard Trevithick who had modified the old steam engines by removing condensers and made them compact. These redesigned engines though made lighter, couldn’t solve the problem of boiler explosions. The speed of the boats if increased led to the explosion of the boilers on steam boats causing disasters. Then Alfred Guthrie, an engineer of Illinois had inspected around 200 steam boats with his own funding and found out the reasons for the boiler explosions and later prepared a report relating to the care that could be taken later. The recommendations made by him were published by Senator Shields of Illinois and incorporated in senate documents which later was made a law, which implemented by the mechanical engineers of America (ASME), to formulate the standards in the manufacturing of steam boats.  CASE STUDY: THE CHALLENGER Explosion of space shuttle Challenger The Challenger Disaster is one of the most studied engineering failures in history. The explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger on January 28, 1986, shortly after liftoff, claimed the lives of all seven crew members, including teacher Christa McAuliffe. The disaster shocked the world and led to major changes in NASA’s operations and space exploration practices. Location: Kennedy Space Center, Florida. Timeline: 73 seconds after liftoff, the Challenger exploded mid-air, resulting in the death of the crew. Cause: A failure in one of the solid rocket boosters (SRBs) caused the external fuel tank to rupture. This was triggered by the malfunction of an O-ring seal in the right SRB. It poses many questions before us.A few questions are listed below What is the exact role of the engineer when safety issues are concerned Who should have the ultimate authority for decision making to order for a launch Whether the ordering of launch be an engineer or a managerial decision.  Challenger space shuttle mainly consisted of an orbiter ,two solid propellant boosters and a single liquid propeller booster ,which was actually designed to be a reusable one. All the boosters were ignited and the orbiter took a lift off from the earth.But the cold temperature caused trouble to the O–ring which were eroded. Technical Cause O-Ring Failure: The key technical failure was traced to a set of O-rings, which are rubber seals designed to prevent hot gas from escaping the joints between segments of the SRBs. Cold Weather: The morning of the launch was unusually cold, with temperatures dropping to 36°F (2°C). Engineers had previously raised concerns that the O-rings could lose their elasticity in low temperatures, making them less effective at sealing. Burn-Through: The cold compromised the O-rings, leading to a burn-through of hot gases from the rocket booster. This burn-through ignited the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen in the external fuel tank, causing the explosion. The Challenger disaster wasn’t solely due to a technical issue; it was also a result of significant managerial and communication breakdowns: Warnings Ignored: Engineers at Morton Thiokol, the contractor responsible for the solid rocket boosters, warned NASA about the risks posed by the cold weather on the O-rings, recommending a delay. However, NASA managers, under pressure to maintain the launch schedule, decided to proceed. Pressure to Launch: There was immense pressure from NASA and political leadership to continue with the launch, partly due to the high-profile nature of the mission and repeated delays. This pressure likely contributed to the decision-making process that ignored the engineers' warnings. Normalization of Deviance: Over time, NASA had developed a culture where anomalies (like previous instances of minor O-ring erosion) were accepted as routine, without adequately addressing their long-term risks. The Challenger Case study -Inference Moral/Normative Issues 1. The crew had no escape mechanism. a ‘safe exit’ was rejected as too expensive, and because of an accompanying reduction in payload. 2. The crew were not informed of the problems existing in the field joints. The principle of informed consent was not followed. 3. Engineers gave warning signals on safety. But the management group prevailed over and ignored the warning. Conceptual Issues 1. NASA counted that the probability of failure of the craft was one in one lakh launches 2. There were 700 criticality items, which included the field joints. A failure in any one of them would have caused the tragedy. No back-up or stand-bye had been provided for these criticality- components. Factual/Descriptive Issues 1. Field joints gave way in earlier flights. But the authorities felt the risk is not high. 2. NASA has disregarded warnings about the bad weather, at the time of launch, because they wanted to complete the project, prove their supremacy, get the funding from Government continued and get an applaud from the President of USA. 3. The inability of the Rockwell Engineers (manufacturer) to prove that the lift-off was unsafe. This was interpreted by the NASA, as an approval by Rockwell to launch BHOPAL GAS TRAGEDY Bhopal Gas tragedy is the worlds worst industrial disaster that occurred in 1984 ,due to the gas leakage from pesticide production plant ,The union carbide india limited (UCIL) located in Bhopal ,Madya Pradesh It was believed that slack management and deferred maintenance together created a situation where routine pipe maintenance caused a backflow of water into the MIC tank triggering the disaster I was understood that a large volume of water had been released into the MIC tank and this further caused a chemical reaction that forced the pressure release valve to open and allowed the gas to leak As per government’s announcement , a total of 3787 deaths occurred immediately. Around 8000 of the survivors died within two weeks and other 8000 or more died from acute disease caused due to gas later ETHICAL /MORAL CONCERNS Causes: Poor maintenance, lack of safety protocols, and improper storage of hazardous chemicals were major contributing factors. The disaster occurred when water entered an MIC tank, triggering a chemical reaction that resulted in the release of a highly toxic gas cloud. Moral Challenge: Union Carbide's failure to maintain adequate safety standards, proper maintenance, and training of employees was a clear breach of moral responsibility toward its workers and the local community. Ethical Challenge: The company’s decision to store large quantities of methyl isocyanate (MIC) without sufficient safeguards prioritized profits over safety. This raises ethical questions about how much risk is acceptable in industrial practices, particularly in densely populated areas. TECHNICAL FAILURES Faulty Design and Safety Systems: The plant’s design was inherently flawed. Critical safety measures, such as refrigeration systems meant to keep the methyl isocyanate (MIC) at low temperatures, were turned off to save costs. This allowed the MIC to reach unsafe temperatures, increasing the likelihood of a chemical reaction. Defective Valves and Piping: Several valves and pipelines were corroded and leaking, which allowed water to enter the MIC storage tank, triggering the runaway reaction that caused the gas leak. Non-functional Safety Equipment: Vital safety systems like the vent gas scrubber (which could neutralize escaping gas), the flare tower (meant to burn off the gas), and the water curtain (to absorb gas leaks) were either not operational or ineffective. The alarm system was also not adequate to warn nearby residents.