Positions on Current Events Affecting Public Welfare 5

[PM]

Should Professional Engineering licensing bodies and learned societies publish public positions on matters of public welfare? As examples should your local state or provincial licensing agency take a public position on the Kyoto Protocols / World Climate Change Treaty or the recent World Land Mine Treaty or the Treaty on the International Criminal Court? Are Professional Engineering associations ethically, if not morally bound to add to the Public discourse on complex public issues in an attempt to help educate and clarify?
Regards,

 

[JOM]

PM,

I say yes. But what comes before taking a public position on an issue, is public discussion of the issue and all its components. That's where a professional body can be of great use to the broader public. With many modern technical issues it is difficult enough to get unbiased information, let alone come to a definite position.

One problem with an engineering body taking a postion is that the body may be thinking of its own self interest like so many other bodies do. I don't automatically accept that "professional" means objective.
Cheers,
John.

 

[Hush]

I don't think a professional association should take a position so much as clarify issues. Most positions would be more industry specific or depend on the individual.

For example, an engineer working in the hydroelectric industry is likely to have a different position on water diversion as an engineer working for the fisheries industry. They should both however, be able to present factual data on what effects a water diversion would have on a specific river and its population.

 

[PSE]

I think that it would be fine for a professional association to take a position on a public matter as long as it has been approved by a majority of the association's members and that the association states why they are taking that position. They ought to be able to show their reasoning/data/references behind the decision. I do think that the associations should act as resources for information rather than lobbyists.

Regards

 

[redtrumpet]

The purpose of an engineering association is to regulate the practise of engineering as prescribed by law. Period. Of course, the trend in the past few years has been for the associations to get involved in dozens of other issues, to the point where the original purpose of the association has been forgotten. This is a mistake in my view. I don't believe associations should take a public policy position on any issue other than those directly affecting the practise of engineering.

 

[PM]

I appreciate that Professional Engineering licensing bodies have a duty to advance the engineering profession, but most, if not all the organizations I'm aware of hold a duty to the public welfare as paramount. Each organization says it slightly differently, but the essence is the same.

If this is the case, should they have taken positions on seat belt laws or helmet laws, etc? Each of these have an engineering components that apparently remains controversial today even given the relatively simply physics involved.

Regards,

 

[StressGuy]

It's the engineer's job to design the seatbelt or the helmet, not to force someone to use them.

At best, I would think that a "position" taken by a professional society on such issues should be limited to what type/design of seatbelt would be most effective, and even then only after having sponsored objective research into designs.

C. Everett Coop, back when he was Surgeon General, was interviewed regarding what kind of restraints the government should have in controling people's behavior with regard to health issues. His answer essentially was "none". I no longer remember the exact words, but it was very chilling to see such a person in high public office espousing unlimited government power. I don't want to see such a thing happen with professional societies and licensing bodies.

Edward L. Klein
Pipe Stress Engineer
Houston, Texas

All opinions expressed here are my own and not my company's.

 

[DaveVikingPE]

There are a lot of angles to this, all of them obtuse...

Concerning, for example, the Land Mine issue, let me say this: land mines are excellent, demoralizing, tactical weapons and Italy makes most of them (there's a source on the web for that info, though I got it from a book on my shelf...). ENGINEERS design them, test them and make them. I think that speaks volumes, not the "great weapons" part, but that engineers are responsible for their production. Some of the most brilliant folks I knew in school work for weapons companies, chemical companies, oil companies, auto companies, etc.

Now, when someone brings a "morality factor" into the equation, I say: "challenge your assumptions." An engineer's life's work might be, oh, say the Ford Mustang (I'm talking about Lee Iacocca). A truly inspired design, nice lines, etc. BUT, how much pollution did this auto cause? How many accidents happend because of speeding, irresponsible kids on drugs and alcohol driving with the top down? How much of the environment was irreversibly ruined by shear vanity concerning owning a sports car?

I have an acquaintance who works for a tar plant. He's a chemical engineer and loves his work. Yuck!

Then there's the engineer who designed recording equipment and thus is responsible for horrible heavy metal music destroying America's youth...

These, regardless of how sarcastic I might sound, are the questions to ponder. Frankly, I'm still wrestling with the ethics of the dot-com folks and high-finance types who made real millions on virtual products while I humbly worked as an engineer just to pay off my $#@% student loans and refused to gamble on the stock market.

As far as profesisonal societies being morally or ethically bound to "add to the public discourse" goes (an excellent topic, mind you), I don't think it is appropriate. Mainly because professional societies should be concerned with the profession only; e.g., ASCE is incapable of deciding what is "right" or what is "wrong," sure, a professional society can make an informed statement based on legal priciples, but there is an ocean of difference between what is legal and what is moral, hence ASCE shouldn't venture into the theological realm, at all.

I personally think the "public" has made their choice and is pleasantly going to hell in a handbasket. We live in a complex world where the "public" - if we're to believe the "media" (I don't, but that's me) - has conditioned itself to not understand complex issues and has cultivated a limited attention span. Look at the newspapers: I find stuff all the time in the so-called "science" sections of the papers that's wrong, but so what? The papers have deadlines and they're in business to sell papers, not disseminate truth or educate anyone.

Finally, ponder this: the next time you walk by a vitamin store (in the USA) think about the fact that NONE of what they sell is regulated whatsoever concerning whatever claims there might be - yet people shell out a lot of money for vitamins... Likewise, my wife subscribes to "Cosmopolitan" magazine (argh!) - so I read it. An awful lot of American women have a need to augment how their bodies look for no purpose other than vanity.

Finally, finally: the uber-Luddite of the 20th Century, Dr. Ivan Illich died last week. If ever there was a moral compass for the technocratic society we live in now, he was it - or maybe not!

 

[PSE]

DaveViking,

You do an excellent job of indicating that there are no single-edged technological swords. I would say that this would strengthen the case for involvement in public discourse by professional societies if only to serve as a counterbalance to the media for the masses.

Regards

 

[redtrumpet]

I maintain this is not the purpose of engineering societies, at least not the ones I belong to in Canada. The ethics regarding holding welfare of the public paramount apply to individual practitioners, not the societies themselves. In Alberta, where a large number of engineers work in the petrochemical industry and the premier of the province actively fights the Kyoto Accord, what are the odds the provincial association is going to issue an objective "public statement" on climate change or the Kyoto Accord? Who would pay for the costs of an extensive, in-depth analysis review on all these public policy issues? My membership fees?

 

[RDK]

Redtrumpet

You make an excellent point. Here in Manitoba we love the Kyoto accords, if only because they will stimulate massive hydro-electric development in our north. We could have the situation where APEGGA (Alberta association) is coming out professionally as stating as a scientific engineering fact that the accords are technology flawed and should not be ratified while the APEGM (Manitoba association) is stating the opposite view as equally valid based on engineering and scientific principles.

The public will simply tune out all the discussion and make their usual uninformed decision based on how the politicians comb their hair or whether the cheat on their wives.

It is not the role of the engineering societies to make public policy statements. The role of the professional associations is to protect the public by governing the practice of the profession. Individuals are free to state that “I am a professional engineer and I have specialized knowledge of this and I believe …. “

The role of the association would be to ensure that the individual making the statement was a professional engineer, that (s)he had specialized knowledge and that the statements were based on sound logical engineering principles.

If we allow the professional associations to make public policy statements where would it stop? The engineers say vote for this candidate because ?? The engineers say we should nationalize this industry. The engineers say we need universal health care, gun control, no gun control etc etc etc If this keeps up then ERTW might be a reality.

Having said this I do think that there is a role for engineering associations to moderate technological debates and perhaps to sponsor public forums where the technological issues were explained, in an even and impartial manner, to the public to allow the public to make up their own minds. For example there is a public debate in Winnipeg Manitoba regarding the level of flood protection that is to be provided. There is a real role for engineers to explain what a 100 and 1,000 year flood level is, how it is determined, what the implications are for the city and for the surrounding countryside with any specific level of protection and level of flood waters what the costs and benefits are and allow the public to make informed decisions. This is not advocacy for any position but education on a billion dollar question that will involve a lot of engineering talent.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[PM]

Several have made the point that the public makes uninformed decisions. It seems to me that all engineers do the same. I've yet to come across a situation where the economies of the situation allow us to gather all possible data and render it into comprehensive information before making a decision. This is the point then when we recognize that the merits of all decisons are uncertain because of the limited information that went into the choices made.

The question remains whether Profesional Engineering Associations (who speak for the collective group) should make a more active effort to educate, clarify and shape the public discourse especially on complext issues like Kyoto, Land Mines, helmet laws, et cetera.

Regards,

 

[DaveVikingPE]

Let me throw this at you, PM, aren't these economic issues rather than engineering issues?

On helmet laws, from an engineering viewpoint we can explain what a helmet will and will not do, but from an economics viewpoint it's the cost to the taxpayers (ambulances, cleaning the road of some dude's brains, higher insurance rates, etc.) that might hit home. However, this argument - specifically related to helmet laws - has been publically made (I've heard it on talk radio, TV, at the bar) yet why do some bikers refuse to wear helmets?

On Kyoto, we engineers can do ANYTHING, but we need to eat and thus money needs to be avaiable for us to design environmental systems and such. Should engineers give the order to people to destroy their automobiles? Again, the arguments against pollution have been publically made (NB: cranks like Paul Erlich are still listened too) yet "the people" have voted with their wallets for bigger SUVs.

On Land Mines and weapons issues: War bad, peace good. OK, fine, but men fight, it's in our genes to fight and hate and kill, etc. Land mines, from a tactical standpoint are excellent weapons - REALLY. Mapping mine fields, de-mining places like Cambodia and other places is very costly, though. Too bad, unlike US-made land mines, most of those land mines don't deactivate after 14 days or somesuch. Human history is a history of wars; what makes the engineers any more qualified to force their terms of peace than, say, lawyers, judges or priests? Instead of an oligarchy of philosopher-kings, the world should adopt "Doc" Smith's Lensman's government of technocrat-engineer-kings? Jimmy Carter, an engineer - or pretty darn close - was awarded the Nobel and it wasn't because of his training in nuclear physics; though his Habitat for Humanity sure built a lot of houses. Then again, a lot of Nobels went to folks who helped develop atom bombs and on top of that the prize is named for the man who perfected explosives in the first place. Most of the highly revered names in the history of modern engineering are associated with military works (Coulomb, et al) - is this bad? Is that good?

What make engineers more qualified than Hollywood film stars to comment on human society's ills? I may be able to work calculus problems better than Babs Streisand, but sheesh, she makes a heck of a lot more money than I do and people listen to her.

With all that being said, I do think that an engineer who is so moved by events to speak out, should so do. By all means, write books, send letters, write essays, etc. BUT, once an engineering society, say ASCE, allies itself with a political slant, it's not serving the engineering profession.

 

[redtrumpet]

I agree with RDK there is a role for engineers in certain specific instances of public welfare. The Winnipeg flood dikes is one, the North Battleford water inquiry where APEGS had standing is another.

However, this is a far cry from the form of activism on global issues that PM has suggested.

 

[PM]

DaveViking:

Yes these are economic issues, but just about everything in our culture is a part of our economy. Therefore this should not be a barrier to making comments.

I wasn't thinking that learned societies such as ASCE, ACI, et cetera should be taking positions on these issues (even though I do not object to their voice) so much as I was thinking that our licensing organizations should be speaking out. They certainly have the moral right to do so, and many of them include such commentary in their statutory objects and powers.

Regards,

PS I don't propose to debate the Land Mine Treaty or any other single issue, but I suggest you may stand among a shrinking minority in your belief that land mines are good. Mind you Copernicus was in a minority of one, and he turned out to be right, who really knows.

 

[DaveVikingPE]

Oh, I don't think land mines are "good" - I think they're good weapons.

 

[Hush]

First off, all things have a good and an evil side, including landmines. Ask the infantryman in an entrenched position if he thinks the landmines protecting his flank are a bad idea.

My objection to licensing bodies take a moral policy position is as follows:

If a political party makes a policy statement I don't agree with I can opt not to vote for them. If an engineering society, such as SPE for example, takes a policy stance I don't agree with I can resign. If my licensing association takes a policy stance I don't agree with I'm out of luck, I can't quit without quitting my profession.

 

[PM]

Hush:

Why would you or anyone else feel they have to prtest what others have to say. If the majority of your association hold certain positions, that doesn't prevent you from taking your own.

Aren't more voices a good thing, especially if they are not all the same?

Regards,

 

[JOM]

PM,

Great topic to raise. It is currently very relevant in Australia. The discussion changed ny view - I think professional oranisations ought not take views in the political arena, but should concentrate on education and vetting information. Eductaion of both the public and the politicians.

PS - don't get sucked into an aimless debate. Stay on topic. Cheers,
John.

 

[Hush]

Here's another slant on this.

I'm not sure if it is actually defined as such in my associations code of ethics but I've always taken the stance that it requires my opinion on matters involving my engineering expertise to be impartial and unbiased. In an extreme case it is entirely possible that in taking a political stance the association could be in danger of violating its own code of ethics.

In addition, if the association were take a political stance on a public issue there is the danger that anything further the association, and to a certain extent its members, had to say on that subject could be perceived by the public as at best biased, at worst untrue.

As an example, how likely are you to place any credence in a statement made by a psychologist extolling the mental health benefits of nicotine if he were associated with the tobacco industry.