The ethics of lightweight automobile designs

Budny 10:00

R10

INTRODUCTION
In automotive engineering, the push has been for more efficient, sustainable, and lightweight auto motives like those listed in figure 1 below. “Most energy is consumed during use of the car and that mass is a large factor in energy consumption during use. A lightweight car would therefore require much less fuel than normal cars. This would also mean that, other things being equal, the CO2 emissions of lightweight cars would be less than that of normal cars.” [1] Because these cars emit less CO2, they are seen to compensate for the fact that the materials that they are made of is not as easily recyclable as heavier steel cars. The disadvantage of using these lighter materials is that they raise great questions on safety. “A car that is relatively light always has a disadvantage in collisions with larger cars in that it will always experience the greater acceleration. Traditional automobile safety considerations have resulted in designs of very heavy and stiff vehicles, protecting the driver and passengers in a collision but at the same time constituting a hazard for other road users in lighter vehicles because of their significantly reduced stiffness and mass.” [2]

Figure 1 [3] above illustrates an experimental lightweight automotive design using a graphene based compound.

SCENARIO
My company, Materials and Mechanics Inc., has designed two lightweight recyclable polymer that can be used in the design of these new lightweight auto motives. Compound A and B vary slightly in their durability, sustainability and meeting the safety requirement of the National Traffic Safety Board. Compound A however has created some problems when it comes to the cost and reproduction of the compound A. Compound B is a lot cheaper than Compound A but did not perform as well in certain safety tests as Compound A. Compound B also creates a few minor sustainability problems with the regulations created by the Environmental Protection Agency as well. As we presented these problems to my boss before we began to produce the product and manufacture this new line of automobiles, my boss asked everyone to step out except me. He wanted to speak to me as the Head Engineer for the project. He told me that as a company we were going to have to go with Compound B. I immediately looked at him and explained to him that we as a company couldn’t do that in good conscience there were too many variables. We were putting the lives of anyone who purchased our product in danger because of the slight variables in the product that could become major issues depending on the circumstances. We also could get in a lot of trouble with the EPA is they look more closely into our product. After my ranting my boss finally told me the real reason why we would have to make this irresponsible choice. The company was lacking money and in order for us to sell this product we had to cut corners on the cost of the material in order to generate a greater profit with our new automobile. At this time our company hadn’t really been doing so well economically. Some of our products hadn’t been doing well on sales and the ever growing competition in our field had put all of our jobs in jeopardy. My beloved coworkers and I had all been looking into other jobs just as a security net for us and our families. My boss told me that my job was to switch the test results from Compound A, which performs better in all tests, with compound B which has some slight varying defects. If these results were altered, the company would save money and it would allow me and my coworkers to keep our jobs. We would also however be compromising the integrity of our products and possibly jeopardizing the safety of our customers which could lead to other lawsuits that could end our company forever. The question I was faced with was did I follow my bosses orders saving my job and my beloved coworkers or did I put the possibility of problems with our product before myself and my coworkers. The product might not even sell well with or without this slightly defective compound. Then again, the differences in the compounds weren’t even that great but could I risk the slight chances that the product might be defective.
ESTABLISHED CODE OF ETHICS
In engineering, you are faced with choices similar to the one in this scenario. It’s easy to go to the more practical option that meets your needs and keeps you in the best position. However that decision usually isn’t the most ethical decision. At that point when your morals fail you and your instinct goes to your best interest, you have to refer back to ethics and ask yourself what and who will this decision affect. The above scenario is one that puts a Senior Mechanical Engineer in a rather compromising situation. There are several codes of ethics however that can assist him in this decision. The first is the ASME code of ethics of engineers. The second principle of this code of ethics states, “Engineers uphold and advance the integrity, honor and dignity of the engineering profession by: being honest and impartial, and serving with fidelity their clients (including their employers) and the public.”[4] This code is also restate in the National Society of Professional Engineers code of ethics by saying, “Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.”[5]. In the situation above, the engineer should remind himself that he must serve with integrity and honesty and impartiality. Looking at this code of ethics his solution is to tell his boss that he can’t in good conscious change the results of the experiments. If the engineer were to do as his boss said he would not maintain the integrity of the employer or his consumers. They would be using a product that could jeopardize their safety and possibly kill them and those around them. The decision he’d be making also would not be impartial but slanted towards his company and his coworkers and their best interests. He would then be further in violation of the ASME and NSPE code of ethics of engineers. If we look further into the ASME code of ethics of engineers, we come across the first canon of this code of ethics. It states, “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties.”[6] In the above scenario based on this code of ethics. It would also be more ethical not to change the results and stick with the better compound because it presents less risk factors. An engineer is tasked with ensuring that whatever products and services he provides are safe and do not harm or otherwise kill the consumer. If the engineer in the scenario above, chose to use compound B he would be in violation once again of the AMSE code of ethics. Now if we look further into the canon, there may arise some conflict. The third canon within the code of ethics states, “Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout their careers and shall provide opportunities for the professional and ethical development of those engineers under their supervision.”[6] In this case, the engineer would be faced with a serious challenge. If he goes with compound A, the company continues to lose revenue and his coworkers would lose their jobs and he also. He therefore as an engineer cannot provide opportunities for the engineers under him to succeed. He would then have to make the choice to go with compound B which is not as completely sound as Compound A. This decision however would violate several other principles and canons within the code of ethics. Therefore at this point, the question is which decision is more ethical. In this case I would disagree with this canon. It is in the engineer’s best decision to explain to his boss that he, the head engineer, cannot produce and recommend a product that may or may not protect the consumer and that could devastate the company even more that it would for them to pay the large fee to produce compound A.
Government Standards
“We cannot expect to enjoy the benefits of high technology and the fruits of a competitive economy without facing up to the complexity - yes, the often annoying complexity - that is inherent in them.” [7] The complexity that comes with these technologies is simple. We all want great technology that solves all the world’s problems but we also want capital and a profitable economy. This is where ethics and standards come in. “Without these laws, regulations, codes, and rules, each engineer would be given unwarranted - and unwanted – powers.” [7] Engineers are required to follow codes of ethics so that they remain accountable. Not just so they don’t become power hungry but also so that they keep the interest of those to whom they serve before them and not their own interests first. One of the standards that automotive engineers are required to follow are those of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NTHSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which put together the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and Green House Gas (GHG) emission regulations. For the engineer in the above situation, he would have to look into which compound helps to meet these standards set by the NHTSA and EPA. “NHTSA’s CAFE standards and EPA’s GHG standards will both lead to increases in average fuel economy and CO2 emissions reductions.”[8] The goal of these standards is to make sure that all light weight auto motives do not negatively harm the economy. So for the engineer in the above situation, in making a more ethical decision he can also consider which product adheres more closely to the standard of the NTHSA and the EPA. If the engineer chooses not to change the results and stick with the better compound, he adheres more closely to the standards set by the NTHSA and EPA but he jeopardizes his and his co-workers jobs. Although the ethical dilemma rests on the shoulders of the engineer, it may make the decision easier when he realizes that in the end he is saving his company from any future lawsuits and sanctions as well as he is saving thousands of other lives in the process.
A Relevant Case Study
In a case study done by Santa Clara University, they examine a software engineer whose company was faced with a similar problem like that of the engineer in the scenario. His company had found a bug in a software that they planned to deliver to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The software was used to track planes flying in a designated region of the country from a certain location within that region. The problem that if the system was overloaded with too much data, the system would not recognize one of the planes that was in the area. The plane would simply disappear of the map without returning. The problem was the company was pressed for time to meet the deadlines that they had set with the government. The company also had not been doing very well and therefore needed the money from the contract which they would not receive unless they delivered on the product. The software engineer’s boss instructed him to send the product on to the FAA assuring him that the system would never be used as rigorously as they had tested it and that if the FAA saw a problem they would send the product back and they would fix it in no time. Thankfully no one was hurt or killed from the bug and the FAA recognized the problem and was able to have it fixed. The software engineer did not however make the most ethical decision. Although he may have continued to provide the engineers under him opportunities to continue to succeed, he did not maintain the integrity of his professionalism nor did he “in the fulfillment of [his] professional duties, shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.” (NSPE)