Beyond technology: There are broader issues to consider on weaponry such as drones
One element of the debate over engineers’ status must surely concern the ethical dimensions of their work. For instance, if the practice of engineering is thought of – however erroneously – as one that does not feature a high level of personal and professional responsibility, then it is unlikely to ever be viewed as on a par with medicine or law.
Engineers may know better. But sadly, their work most often enters the imagination of the public when things go wrong. The professionalism that can allow complex infrastructure to run smoothly for decades may go unheralded. If there isn’t a problem, there isn’t necessarily recognition.
This hasn’t stopped engineering institutions from formalising what an engineer’s professional obligations are. The IMechE, for example, insists members act as ambassadors not just for the institution but for the profession as a whole. By-law 30 of its code of conduct, updated in 2008, states: “All members shall conduct their professional work and relationships with integrity and objectivity and with due regard for the welfare of the people, the organisations and the environment with which they interact.”
Eight years ago, the Royal Academy of Engineering, in conjunction with the Engineering Council, also produced a statement of ethical principles, following discussions with engineers from various institutions and with philosophers specialising in applied ethics.
Dr Natasha McCarthy, head of policy at the academy, says it had become interested some time ago in the notion that there were ethical principles that unite all engineers. “People don’t tend to immediately see the ethical side of engineering in the way that they do in medicine, where a doctor holds an individual’s life in their hands,” she says.
“But once you think about it, it becomes obvious that engineers make decisions that have a huge impact – and that can be a matter of life and death. I think there is an issue in terms of visibility: in so far as they are working, engineers’ systems are not really thought about.”
But there is a need, she says, for engineers to start thinking about ethical issues at an early stage of their careers. “Engineering ethics and the personal ethics of the individual blur. You need to be able to think about the wider context of your work. Engineers need to think about ethical issues, just as they think about technological issues. Your work will have an impact.”
While protection of people, organisations and the environment is a laudable aim, actually doing it can prove rather more complicated. Painstaking and technologically sophisticated the clean-up of a nuclear power station that is being decommissioned may be, but some would say the expense and difficulties associated with such a task are proof that no new reactors should be built on these shores. Equally, it is possible to argue that our carbon reduction targets will be met only with the construction of a certain amount of nuclear generation capacity. Ethical dilemmas abound when it comes to safeguarding the environment.
Engineers working in defence, meanwhile, may find “there are huge questions about the value of weapons as deterrents that are broader than the engineering itself”, says McCarthy. Others are concerned about the markets into which British-developed defence technology may be sold.
Ian Prichard, research co-ordinator at the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, says that weapons are frequently exported to countries with regimes that violate human rights, despite the British government naming and shaming them as such.
The Arab Spring, he says, was a watershed in that it clearly demonstrated the level to which arms produced by the British defence sector had penetrated north African markets. “British weapons were being used by the rebels, Gaddafi’s forces, and the UK and France – all at the same time. But it was widely accepted in the Arab Spring that it was wrong to sell arms to Libya. If people knew what the situation in other countries was, they would not find it acceptable either,” he says.
Prichard adds that, while there are guidelines on arms sales, “it’s unrealistic to expect a group of civil servants to turn down a licence if David Cameron has just got back from a country promoting an arms deal. You can’t expect the controls to change, but the government could say ‘we’re not going to push it’. The money and political effort could be put into other things.”
Paul Everitt, chief executive of defence and aerospace trade association ADS, says the industry accepts that it must adhere to standards, and already does so. “We have a clear approach on ethics and ethical behaviour. We’re a signatory to key international initiatives on business ethics in the aerospace and defence industry. We think we’re on the right side of these things.”
He adds: “From an industry perspective we have a major UK customer, the British government, and it is its decision to purchase defence equipment to help ensure national security. That is the reason the defence industry exists.”
Exporting equipment ensures the cost base for new kit is lower than it would be if the British government were the sole customer, says Everitt.
Some projects, meanwhile, require the input of multiple countries, necessitating collaboration with defence firms in many parts of the world. “Something like the Joint Strike Fighter is clearly beyond the scope of one government to develop,” he says.
Exports are an opportunity “for the British government to project its influence overseas”, says Everitt. “Successive governments have felt that they are better able to project their national security interests by being engaged in military-to-military, government-to-government transactions around the equipment our industry provides.”
The defence sector employs 100,000 people directly, according to ADS, and turns over £20 billion. Exports are growing, and the relatively high level of expenditure on research and development helps to sustain the country’s science base, adds Everitt. “There is a well-understood economic benefit in terms of the spillover effect of the industry investment in R&D – we equip people to move into other areas and they find their way into mainstream engineering.”
Everitt believes there will always be a requirement for defence equipment, so it makes sense for the government to spend a high proportion of the budget at home. He adds: “The better we are able to export, the greater the economies of scale, and the more cost-effective the delivery of the equipment. If you are only supplying one government, it is incredibly expensive.”
However, Prichard believes the notion that the defence sector is essential to national security is misleading. “We see ‘the defence industry’ as a misnomer – UK interests and power projections are one thing, but they are not ‘defence’. We think that’s an emotive argument used by those who want a free rein to sell arms,” he says.
Whether or not this is the case, McCarthy says engineers should at least reflect about what they do. “Make a reasoned decision about whether you’re happy with the area you’re working in,” she says. “Are there issues concerning investment in military equipment? What will it mean for the country; what use will it have? These are important areas for any engineer to ask about.” That capability to question what one is doing is not always easily attained, she says. “Universities need to teach that engineering is not just a technology: it has a wider context. There are universities that are doing that, but there need to be more. That’s also true of the training that engineers are given in industry.”
There is not necessarily a need for greater regulation of engineering to ensure ethical principles are upheld, she adds. “I don’t think we need to bring in more rules that govern the way engineers work, but we need engineers to engage with these broader social and ethical issues. In terms of emerging technologies, however, it is important for governments to have appropriate regulation and legislation in place. Those technologies can bring harm.”
As for deciding whether to participate in a project that an engineer finds morally questionable, that is a matter for the individual, says McCarthy. In terms of illegality within a company or industry, engineers may also have to make a decision on whether to whistleblow. But more likely to be pertinent to the working lives of most engineers is the simple ability to report problems internally without fear of reprisal.
“Engineering already features a number of ways of reporting accidents and things that are going wrong – confidential reporting on structural safety is an example,” she says. “The industry is good at that. Within industry, and within individual companies, people must feel that they can safely report things to their colleagues, peers, and wider profession to get the problem fixed.
“That culture within the industry is important. And the response to engineers who highlight problems should be ‘thank you’.”
‘Ethics runs right through scientific process’
Engineer Dr Stuart Parkinson, executive director of pressure group Scientists for Global Responsibility, argues that science enters the realm of ethics early on. “Applied science is actively creating things. It is the early stages of technological development: ethics come in at that stage,” he says.
For example, he says, deciding which branches of research should be funded is in itself a question of ethics. “Even when you get down to how you do the science, there are issues of sponsorship bias, and the way in which bias can creep into the process of research.”
In the pharmaceutical industry, for instance, studies of drugs with results that are not positive are suppressed, while studies that give positive results are published and promoted, says Parkinson. “Ethics is a concern all the way through the scientific process, from how you decide what you want to research, to who has influence on what research is done, to what use you put it to in the wider world.
“Science is a double-edged sword: there is a lot of good that comes out of it, but there is a lot of damage in some technologies and behaviours. We’re breaching environmental limits in all sorts of ways, from the climate, to forests, to fisheries.”
Parkinson’s organisation encourages engineering students to think about ethics, he says. He argues that it is, perhaps, easier for engineers to determine whether the technology they develop will be used in a responsible manner than it is for scientists – who may be distant from the final application. “I would encourage people to ask awkward questions – ideally, without feeling your job is threatened,” he adds.
Scientists for Global Responsibility’s wish-list includes an expansion of the green technology sector, more efficient use of energy and cleaner electricity generation, and a downsizing of the defence industry. “Engineers and scientists should listen to what the concerns and unknowns are over technologies,” says Parkinson. “There can be a different vision, based on quality of life and sustainability rather than a traditional economic system that fuels consumerism.”
He does not think the problems the planet faces are a cause for despair. “There are positive changes,” he says. “I worry they are not happening fast enough. At an international level, there are positive developments in terms of nuclear disarmament.
“Science is about understanding, and it’s about choosing what the priorities are. The drive is often on the economic side. Historically, it’s been on the military side – that has faded but it’s still strong. But the natural world still isn’t understood enough.”