1. Responsibility in Engineering
SATYA SUNDAR SETHY, Ph.D.
Dept. of Humanities & Social Sciences
Indian Institute of Technology Madras
Chennai , India

2. Preventive Ethics January 28, 1986 (the space shuttle exploded)
The temperature at the launch site was freezing
The ice was forming on the boosters
The worry– “O-Rings” sealing on the booster segments
O-rings were not perfect.
The technical explanation says, “at a certain temperature, the rings could lose so much resiliency that one could fail to seal properly. If a ring failed in flight the shuttle could explode”.

3. Engineering Disaster
January 16, 2003 (the Columbia space shuttle exploded)
It was designed for a 16-day mission in space
After 81.7 seconds lift off time, the space shuttle exploded: 07 leading astronauts died.
Engineers made the similar mistakes as it were in the case of USA space shuttle disaster
Reason: The foam knocked a hole in the leading edge of the wing that was approximately 10 inches across

4. Engineering & Responsibility
The concept of responsibility is many-faceted.
E.g. individual engineer, team of engineers, unit within an organisation, etc.
Responsibility focuses primarily on legal liabilities, job-defined roles, and moral accountability
NSPE: Engineers are being professionals expected to commit themselves to high standards of conduct.
Engineering has a direct and vital impact on the quality of life for all people.
The services provided by engineers require honesty, impartiality, fairness, and equity, and must be dedicated to the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.

5. Engineering Standards
How do engineers conduct themselves?
Engineers should commit themselves to a code of ethics that endorses high standards of performance.
Engineering codes of ethics typically insist that engineers conform to the standards of ‘competence’.
Regulatory standards + standards of competence = assurance of quality, safety, and efficiency in engineering
Trust and responsibility
Significance of trust
Forward-looking responsibility (obligation R.)
Backward - looking responsibility (Blame R.)

6. The Standards of Care (SoC)
Engineering codes of ethics
An engineer who is guilty of self-deception or ignorance can be held responsible if these factors lead to harm.
A new situation – no code of ethics enshrined???
Engineering products: standards of safety
Non-negligent error vs. Negligent error: SoC
Professional negligence: Kansas city - Hyatt Regency hotel Skywalk collapse)
Another e.g., 28th June, 2014 near Porur, Tamil Nadu.
Multistoried building mishap
71 died, 43 injured (Identified & unidentified individuals)
Failure to satisfy the standards of care is not acceptable

7. Skywalk collapse

8. Multistoried Building Mishap

9. Multistoried Building Mishap

10. Liability & moral responsibility
The original design failed to meet building code requirements.
First: Intentionally and deliberately cause harm
Second: Reckless behavior causes harm
Third: Failure to exercise due care (SoC)
A successful charge of negligence must meet the following conditions:
The person accused of negligence fails to conform to the standards
There is a reasonably close causal connection between the conduct and the resulting harm.
Etc.

11. Design Standards
Design standards are one of the principal mechanisms for managing technological complexity.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said Volkswagen had installed software on diesel cars engines that enabled to cheat emissions tests for one pollutant, nitrogen oxide (NOx).
The software (Selective catalytic reduction) reduced emissions when the car was on a test stand.
Volkswagen acknowledged that 11 million vehicles worldwide have the software.
Ford engineers decided to make more trunk space by putting the Pinto gas tank in an unusual place (1960).
This raised a safety question regarding rear-end collisions.
Company recalled all the Ford cars.
Design – satisfy safety standards- public safety

12. The problem of many hands
Individuals often blame the group when the question of responsibility and accountability comes to him/her.
Engineering work is a collaborative/group work
Problem of fractures responsibility
Larry Marry (1992)- a definition/ an interpretation gave to fix responsibility on the role each member plays in an organisation for an engineering task
This proposal = the principle of responsibility for inaction in groups
The principle of responsibility for action in groups (holding him/her less responsible)

13. Impediments to Responsible Action
Self-interest (conflicts of interest, e.g. engineers gave consent for on schedule flight take off at the expense of the safety of the crew and passengers)
Self-deception (e.g. I am not the only person who did it; lack of seriousness while performing an action)
Fear (fear of acknowledging our mistakes, loosing jobs, expecting punishments, etc.)
Ignorance (lack of knowledge about a vital information) (lake of imagination – not looking for necessary information in the right place)
Egocentric tendencies
Making happy to the authority(ies), etc.

14. THANK YOU
Contact at: