How we can earn trust
Tanya Weaver’s article on the duty of engineers to act ethically was timely given the tragic events surrounding the Titan submersible. Issues have been raised that question both the technical and ethical aspects of the submersible’s design and operation. The authorities have instigated investigations and so it would be inappropriate to comment on the events leading up to the tragedy or any potential outcomes from the investigations.
However, this incident will raise questions on the competence and trustworthiness of engineers. Weaver referred to the IPSOS Mori Veracity Index that shows engineering is the sixth most-trusted profession but it should also be noted that the same index indicates that trust has dropped by five percentage points from the previous year’s survey. This is generally attributable to questionable technical competence and ethical behaviour associated with incidents such as the Grenfell tragedy, the VW emissions scandal and the Boeing 737 Max fraud. It seems inevitable that the Titan will become another example.
Weaver asked how we can ensure that individuals adopt ethical thinking. As Engineering Council registrants, we all have a duty to behave ethically as set out in the council’s Statement of Ethical Principles. Commitment to ethical behaviour is a core competence in the UK Standard for Professional Engineering Competence and Commitment that must be demonstrated when undertaking the professional review for registration. All registrants who are professionally active are also expected to enhance their competence through continuing professional development including the maintenance of a CPD record.
The Engineering Council is not prescriptive on CPD content, recognising that individuals are best placed to determine their needs, but registrants are encouraged to consider ethical principles within their CPD. The council’s CPD policy also requires professional institutions to undertake random samples of registrants’ CPD records and provide feedback.
By following the CPD policy, registrants will be more aware of the need to demonstrate ethical behaviour while institutions will be able to monitor progress. Hopefully, this will allow the profession to maintain, if not enhance, its trust with the public.
Rob P Smith, Liphook, Hampshire
Doing good and causing harm
Your article on ethics suggests that engineering is starting on the same process of developing its ethics as medicine did 50 years ago. This is welcome.
There are some challenging ethical questions for engineers about what they do, as well as how they do it. Work on armaments mainly develops agents of death and destruction, and arms races are as likely to provoke war as to prevent it. Aerospace, automotive and oil and gas are all fields with major environmental consequences. The engineering may be fantastic, there may be beneficial spin-offs, and efforts may be directed to mitigating the damage caused – but do these outweigh the harms?
There are also questions of the appropriate use of resources and, in a predominantly private-sector profession, the balance of private profit and the common good.
Weighty matters to ponder.
Edmund Dunstan
Stump up for solar power
Being mindful of the state of the energy market, I see a solution that will trigger economic benefits, would catapult the UK to a leading position on our net-zero carbon commitments and deliver energy security.
What seems like an obvious win-win-win-win-win is to offer a higher rate for surplus solar energy generated on the rooftops of homes/businesses rather than the lower rates paid to installation owners at present when compared to commodity pricing. If a higher price was paid (say 75% of the globally traded market value, or energy price cap value) the uptake for solar would massively increase as energy production could be an investment/income source/cost offset for homes and businesses.
In addition, the UK makes a step-change and radical acceleration to becoming carbon neutral. In addition, energy production becomes distributed, resilient and truly local in a way that benefits the people. It stimulates large and small businesses, brings in investment and doesn’t cost a penny. Utility companies would then be paying substantially below the commodity price for a far greater portion of their energy, ultimately driving energy costs down.
I call on our great Institution to lobby government on the matter as I see it as a win-win-win-win-win low-cost, immediately implementable initiative that has national and global positive impact.
David Black
EVs win by cutting carbon
Perhaps R T Holmes is playing ‘devil’s advocate’. His letter contained the same extensively rebuffed concerns about EVs as Rowan Atkinson’s piece in The Guardian. A piece that was taken apart by many scientists hours after its publication. For more information on this, a super source of facts would be Dr Simon Evans from Carbon Brief and the excellent work of Auke Hoekstra at Eindhoven University.
The main takeaway from these researchers’ work is that an EV emits one-third of the carbon of an internal combustion engine car across its life, and that holding on to an old ICE car is more carbon intensive than buying a new EV.
Of course there’s always more to be done. LFP cells in development and widespread use address the issue of artisanal mining of cobalt. The Global Battery Alliance has its pilot Battery Passport scheme, of which Tesla and Audi are members.
Batteries are more than 95% recyclable and the business case to do so is strong. See the company Redwood Materials and the amount of capital investment they have to establish supply chains. We won’t see batteries landfilled, as that would be crazy.
Joshua Knight, Northumberland
Want the best engineering stories delivered straight to your inbox? The Professional Engineering newsletter gives you vital updates on the most cutting-edge engineering and exciting new job opportunities. To sign up, click here.
Content published by Professional Engineering does not necessarily represent the views of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.