Advertisement

Support The Guardian Search jobs Sign in Search International edition

Contribute Subscribe

News Opinion Sport Culture Lifestyle More

The Guardian view Columnists Cartoons Opinion videos Letters

Opinion
Engineering
As engineers, we must consider the Advertisement

ethical implications of our work

Abbas El Zein

Thu 5 Dec 2013 13.45 GMT Engineers are behind government spying tools and military
weapons. We should be conscious of how our designs are used
1,446 129

Engineering ethics are mostly technical: how to design properly, how to not cut corners, and how to serve our

O
clients well. Photograph: Bloomberg

ne aspect of Edward Snowden's revelations in the Guardian about

the NSA's surveillance activities has received less attention than it
should. The algorithms that extract highly specific information
from an otherwise impenetrable amount of data have been
conceived and built by flesh and blood, engineers with highly sophisticated
technical knowledge. Did they know the use to which their algorithms would
be put? If not, should they have been mindful of the potential for misuse?
Either way, should they be held partly responsible or were they just "doing
their job"?

One could ask similar questions about engineers who build technologies of
violence. Although in the west, we use the euphemism "defence" – and
weapons often do serve this purpose – arms are just as likely to be used for
furthering less-than-honourable goals, whether invading other countries,
most viewed
bombing rebellious populations or staging coups against democratically-
elected governments. Engineers who see themselves as builders of the Trump's UN ambassador pick,
Heather Nauert, withdraws
shelter and infrastructure for human needs also use their expertise in order
from consideration
to destroy and kill more efficiently.

When doctors or nurses use their Advertisement Cancún shooting: five people
knowledge of anatomy in order to gunned down in Mexico's
Ad closed by tourist hotspot
torture or conduct medical
experiments on helpless subjects, we Report this ad
are rightly outraged. Why doesn't Pence hails 'remarkable,
Why this ad? extraordinary' Trump tenure
society seem to apply the same
in attack on US allies
standards to engineers? There is
more than one answer to the
Arjen Robben: ‘If you ask what
question of course, but two points Biomass Boiler 1-100 t/h
is the worst stadium for me,
are especially pertinent: the common Industrial Boiler 1-100 Ton Per
it’s Liverpool’
Hour for Steam & Power
good we engineers see ourselves Generation in Factories
serving and our relationship to
Tormenting Meghan Markle
authority. has become a national sport
that shames us
Health is an unambiguously positive social good that gives the medical Catherine Bennett
profession a strong moral purpose. The same can be said of justice for
practitioners of the law. Lawyers and doctors are expected to act in a
particular way and, sometimes, to become the custodians of the social good
their respective professions embody. Whether they do or not is a different
matter.

Technology as a means of social progress is arguably the common good that

engineers pursue. Modern engineering emerged in the 19th century, an age
when technology was seen in almost unequivocally positive light. Engineers
were to "[direct] the great sources of power in nature for the use and
convenience of man", in the exultant words of the UK Institution of
Engineers, written in 1828. The two World Wars, the gas chambers, the
atomic bombs and agent Orange – the awfully destructive scope of
technology – were yet to come.

Today, our profession seems to have preserved the sense that technology is
almost by necessity a force for good. We are focused on the technical and
managerial sides of technology – how to design algorithms; how to build
machines – but not so much on the context of its deployment or its
unintended consequences. We are not very interested in the politics and
social dynamics.

Engineers need the resources of government and industry to do their work,

far more than doctors do. Sometimes we are hired for a specific project, but
more often, we sell our services wholesale as paid employees. We do not
make weapons for a specific war or algorithms for a specific surveillance
activity. As a result, engineers who build these devices usually operate at one
remove from the consequences of their actions.

In the US, freelance consultant engineers – who appear to have controlled the
American Society of Civil Engineers in the late 19th century, and created a
strong and autonomous professional identity – were swept away by a
corporate model in which most engineers became paid employees of
industry. Today, engineering in the English-speaking world largely sees itself
as a tool of industry. There are many advantages to this of course, including
more resources at our disposal to do our work. But one major drawback is
that engineers, as a result, have far less intellectual and practical autonomy
than they should.

Our ethics have become mostly technical: how to design properly, how to not
cut corners, how to serve our clients well. We work hard to prevent failure of
the systems we build, but only in relation to what these systems are meant to
do, rather than the way they might actually be utilised, or whether they
should have been built at all. We are not amoral, far from it; it's just that we
have steered ourselves into a place where our morality has a smaller scope.

There have been encouraging attempts in the engineering profession aiming

for a bigger, less reductionist vision of engineering: some mission statements
have been written, codes of ethics redrafted and engineering curricula
redesigned. However, we are still essentially producing what industry
requires: engineers able to carry out technically complex projects, rather
than professionals with an in-depth understanding of the social complexity
of technology. In fact, we need both. We have very little appetite for
engaging with social and political sciences that have something valuable
(and sometimes unpleasant) to say about science and technology, including
the roles, prejudices and vested interests of scientists and engineers. The
cultural shift has simply not happened.

Engineers have, in many ways, built the modern world and helped improve
the lives of many. Of this, we are rightfully proud. What's more, only a very
small minority of engineers is in the business of making weapons or privacy-
invading algorithms. However, we are part and parcel of industrial modernity
with all its might, advantages and flaws, and we we therefore contribute to
human suffering as well as flourishing.

While there are no easy answers to the questions raised here, we can
certainly do better. We can claim, and live up to, our role as social custodians
of technology, conscious of its strengths and dangers, capable of navigating
its technical, ecological, political and social dimensions alike – even if this
might require more years of study for engineering University degrees.

John Rogers, a materials engineer at the University of Illinois, Urbana-

Champaign, invented a brilliant epidermal electronic medical device and
reported it in the journal Science. In a recent feature article about him in the
New Yorker magazine, he was asked whether his invention is for the better or
whether it will turn us into soulless robots. His answer was:

[P]eople should think about it. But I'm just an engineer, basically.

It will be a bright day for our profession when we start producing more
engineers who, while just as smart as Rogers, have the will and the
intellectual capacity to engage with bigger questions about the ethics,
politics and social ramifications of their inventions.

Author's note: the opinions expressed in this article are his own and not those of
the University of Sydney.

Since you're here…

… we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading and supporting
our independent, investigative reporting than ever before. And unlike many
news organisations, we have chosen an approach that allows us to keep our
journalism accessible to all, regardless of where they live or what they can
afford.
Readers’ support powers our work, giving our reporting impact and
safeguarding our essential editorial independence. This means the
responsibility of protecting independent journalism is shared, enabling us
all to feel empowered to bring about real change in the world. Your support
gives Guardian journalists the time, space and freedom to report with
tenacity and rigor, to shed light where others won’t. It emboldens us to
challenge authority and question the status quo. And by keeping all of our
journalism free and open to all, we can foster inclusivity, diversity, make
space for debate, inspire conversation – so more people, across the world,
have access to accurate information with integrity at its heart.
The Guardian is editorially independent, meaning we set our own agenda.
Our journalism is free from commercial bias and not influenced by
billionaire owners, politicians or shareholders. No one edits our editor. No
one steers our opinion. This is important as it enables us to give a voice to
those less heard, challenge the powerful and hold them to account. It’s
what makes us different to so many others in the media, at a time when
factual, honest reporting is critical.
Every contribution we receive from readers like you, big or small, goes
directly into funding our journalism. This support enables us to keep
working as we do – but we must maintain and build on it for every year to
come. Support The Guardian from as little as £1 – and it only takes a
minute. Thank you.

Support The Guardian

Topics
Engineering Opinion
Ethics / Higher education / comment

Reuse this content

opinion The moderate Tormenting Brexit extremism is

Liberal MP is extinct Meghan Markle has going nowhere. Now
Howard subjugated become a national the moderate millions
them years ago sport that shames us must act
Greg Jericho Catherine Bennett Nick Cohen
Andrea Levy gave a
voice to all my silenced
forebears
Sharmaine Lovegrove

7h 9h 11h 11h

You Might Also Like

Are ‘Micro-Mansions’ the 25 Insanely Cool Products Every Driver In Pakistan Streaming, diversity drive
Next Big Thing? From America Finally in Should Have These Cheap 'epic' African stories: Ejiofor
Pakistan Night Driving Glasses. They
MANSION GLOBAL FRANCE 24
Are Genius!
NEXT TECH
ZALOTECH

Rare 1900s Photos Dallas Cowboys Owner Jerry Young, indigenous Brazilians Johnny Depp Sells First of
Captured Jones Splashes Out on turn to YouTube to combat Five Eclectic L.A.
Superyacht racism (1/2) Penthouses for $2.5 million
THEBROFESSIONAL.NET
MANSION GLOBAL FRANCE 24 MANSION GLOBAL

About this Content

comments 129 Order by Oldest Threads Collapsed 1 2

Sign in or create your
Guardian account to join the TheCatsTable 5 Dec 2013 18:57 2
discussion.
Good to see Snowden's irresponsibility reach new levels.
Share Report

LakerFan TheCatsTable 5 Dec 2013 22:19 5

One of humanity's WORST reactions, and the one that I believe most responsible
for tragedy, is the "knee-jerk" reaction that leads to paralysis by fear or fury (the
fight-or-flight syndrome). Enlightenment occurs when the brain's cortext is
allowed to fully moderate the reptilian brain's fight-or-flight response: reaching
out instead of striking out.
Snowden was brave - no doubt about that. How many of us would have dared that
sacrifice? How many of us would have remained quiet out of fear?

As Frank Herbert eloquently wrote in Dune:

I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total
obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And
when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has
gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
Share Report

LakerFan LakerFan 5 Dec 2013 22:20 0

Oops. Should be "cortex".

Share Report

barracuda1989 5 Dec 2013 18:58 0

I fear too many engineers throughout history have only been able to put their expertise
to good use by building weapons; case in point being Werner Von Braun.
Robert Oppenheimer would be another. The human race always has a demand for new
ways to kill one another. Perhaps engineers around the world merely satisfy that demand.
Share Report

CABHTS barracuda1989 5 Dec 2013 19:01 8

For every engineer working on weapons there are hundreds working on benign
projects
Share Report

barracuda1989 CABHTS 5 Dec 2013 19:08 2

For every engineer working on weapons there are hundreds working on

benign projects

Of course. I never disputed that. But a disturbing number do find their calling in
weapons...
Share Report

Show 7 more replies

View more comments

Most popular

The Guardian view Columnists Cartoons Opinion videos Letters

Sign up to our daily email Contact us All topics Advertise with us

Support
Email address Sign up
Complaints &
corrections
All writers Search UK jobs
The Guardian
Digital newspaper Discount Codes
Secure Drop archive Contribute Subscribe

Work for us Facebook

Privacy policy Twitter
Cookie policy
Terms & conditions
Help

Back to top
© 2019 Guardian News & Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.