11-01-24

Engineering as Social Experimentation

Engineering/Experimentation Comparison
Engineering Objective is to solve problems which often involves: - unknowns - uncertain outcome - monitor, learn from past experiments - human subjects / participants often unaware, uninformed -! often don't recognize all variables -! natural experiment Experimentation Objective to find new knowledge or answers which also involves: - unknowns - uncertain outcome, test hypothesis - draw conclusions or verify hypothesis based on experience / evidence - "informed consent" of subjects -! try to control all variables -! controlled experiment

Responsible Experimenters:
!! !!

Informed Consent
!! Knowledge "! All information needed to make a reasonable decision !! Voluntariness
"! No force, fraud or deception

!! !! !! !!

Conscientious open eyes, ears, mind protect the safety of human subjects, providing a safe exit whenever possible, and respect their right of informed, valid consent* (knowledge & Voluntariness) use imaginative forecasting of possible side effects, and reasonable efforts to monitor them have autonomous, personal involvement in all aspects of a project accept accountability* for the results display technical competence and other attributes of responsible professionals
! (Martin & Schinzinger, Introduction to Engineering Ethics, 2nd Ed., 77-94)

!! Valid

Consent

"! Given voluntarily "! Based on info in understandable form "! Competent consenter

! Where subjects are not individually identifiable

! Info widely disseminated ! Consent by proxy

Milgram s Experiment
!! Unwitting

(actor)

subject ordered to shock subject

! People generally defer to authority ! Dont feel responsible ! Have a tendency to conform ! (26/40 administered the highest, 450V, shock; none refused before 300V!)

Safety and Risk

11-01-24

What does safety mean?

It is an engineer s duty (paramount) to protect the safety and well being of the public
(re: code of ethics)

!! Safety

is the freedom from damage , injury or risk is the possibility of suffering harm or loss (American Heritage Dictionary)
! A risk is the potential that something unwanted and harmful may occur

!! Risk

In examining safety, we must acknowledge that the public can be active consumers (informed, voluntary); that is they actively participate in the use of a product (their choice) even though they know there are risks
"! Hang gliders, bungee jumping etc.

But the public can also be passive consumers (uninformed, involuntary) in that they need/choose to use a product, but are not directly involved in the decisions that affect their personal risk.
(e.g. electrical power, water, airline passengers etc.),

Safe (Lowrance, modified)

Martin, Mike W. and Roland Schinzinger, "Ethics in Engineering", Third Edition, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 1996.

!! A

The Public can also be bystanders; not directly involved in its use, but affected by it (e.g. second hand smoke!)

thing is considered safe if, were its risks fully known, those risks would be judged acceptable, in light of settled valued principles*.

!! * rational, enduring, long term principles; not affected

by transient emotion or temporary conditions

11-01-24

Factors associated with risk

(page 64, Fledderrmann)

Factor associated with risk

(cont.)

!!

Voluntary vs. involuntary risk

! We will take higher risks if voluntary
"! E.g. Going to a bar where smoking is involved and being aware of the effects of second hand smoke

!! Expected

probability

!!

Short term vs. long term consequences

! We accept higher risks if the effect occurs in the distant future
"! E.g. cancer from smoking versus injuries from a motorcycle accident

! We will discount the risk if the probability is extremely low

"! E.g. avoid jellyfish sting, but accept shark attack

!! Threshold

level of risk

! We accept higher risks if reversible

losing an arm)

(e.g. broken leg vs

! We will accept low levels of exposure ! We ignore nuisance risks

"! E.g. if probability or consequences re low enough, we wont be bothered (crossing the street)

!!

Proximity: more sensitive to losses if closer to home

Effect of Information:
!!

One group asked to select either:

!! Program

Martin, Mike W. and Roland Schinzinger, "Ethics in Engineering", Third Edition, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 1996. P134

A B

! How information is presented can affect how it is interpreted. For example:

!200 people will be saved

!! Program

!! Consider

the outbreak of an unusual disease expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs are proposed. Assume the exact scientific extimates of the outcomes are as follows:

!P=1/3 that 600 will be saved !P=2/3 that nobody will be saved !Result: 72% chose A, 28% chose B.
Martin, Mike W. and Roland Schinzinger, "Ethics in Engineering", Third Edition, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 1996.

Second group asked to select either:

!! Program

Bottom line
!! Decisions

C D

!400 people will die

!! Program

are always based on our perception of the risk vs the benefit, or the potential loss vs the potential gain.
! may be distorted by: biases, inaccurate information, emotion AND presentation.

!P=1/3 that nobody will die !P=2/3 that 600 will die !Results: 22% chose C (same as A), 78% chose D (same as C)
Martin, Mike W. and Roland Schinzinger, "Ethics in Engineering", Third Edition, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 1996.

!! For

engineers have to figure out what we need to consider to fulfill our role
! May evolve as society changes

11-01-24

Back to Safety vs. Risk

!!

Martin, Mike W. and Roland Schinzinger, "Ethics in Engineering", Third Edition, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 1996, p141.

Total Production costs of products is dependent on both product cost and safety costs.
Product Lifecycle Cost

!!

As the risk increases, the cost to produce decreases, but the safety costs increase (litigation, insurance etc)
Martin, Mike W. and Roland Schinzinger, "Ethics in Engineering", Third Edition, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 1996.

Primary Costs Least Risk

Secondary Costs Most

Pinto Case Assumptions

(Harris, Pritchard, Rabins)

Risk-Benefit Analysis
!! Usually !! Risk

!! Liabilities:

! 180 burn deaths, 180 injuries, 2100 vehicles ! $200K/death, $67K/injury, $700/vehicle ! Total: $49.15M
!! Costs:

applied to large projects and Benefits are assigned a dollar value !! Problems (and questions):
! Comparing apples and oranges ! Time shifting of risks/benefits ! Who benefits and who takes the risks?

! $11/car, $11/truck, 11M cars, 1.5M trucks ! Total: $137M

!! Benefits

and risks on both sides here

Some terms:
!! Probable

Uncertainties in Design
!! Absolute

gain !Prob. Success X Value

"! E.g. 50% chance of success; $1M project = $.5M

safety neither practically attainable nor affordable. performance vs expected duty

!! Expected

!! Probable

Loss

! Safety margin
"! gap between capability and duty

!Prob. Failure X Value

Martin, Mike W. and Roland Schinzinger, "Ethics in Engineering", Third Edition, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 1996.

! Safety factor
"! Ratio of average capability/duty

11-01-24

Uncertainties in Design
Expected performance vs expected duty
Safety Factor=B/A

Safe Designs
!! Design

must comply with all applicable laws (readily available) must meet acceptable engineering practice (this term can be vague but continuous upgrading of skills through short courses and extensive literature searches can help here)

!! Designs
Duty Safety Margin Capability

Stress

Safe Designs
(cont.)

Safe Designs
(cont.)

Safety consideration must be included in design from the start !! Alternate designs that are potentially safer must be considered
!!

!! Products !! Failure

must be extensively tested analysis techniques

! Compare what you have to other approaches that are deemed safe
!!

Foresee potential misuses of the product and design to avoid them

! Courts are sympathetic to the stupid user ! Warning labels ARE NOT sufficient

! Checklists ! Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) ! Failue modes, effects critical analysis (FMECA) ! Fault tree of Event tree analysis

Some misconceptions about risk and safety

!!

Assumption: Operator error and negligence are the principle causes of all accidents. Reality: Accidents are caused by dangerous conditions that can be corrected by design. E.g. automatic couplers for rail cars gretly reduced accidents.
Martin, Mike W. and Roland Schinzinger, "Ethics in Engineering", Third Edition, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 1996.

!! Assumption:

Making a product safe invariably increases costs Initial costs need not be higher if safety is built into a product from the beginning; life cycle costs are lower. Design corrections later are very costly.
Martin, Mike W. and Roland Schinzinger, "Ethics in Engineering", Third Edition, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 1996.

!!

!! Reality:

!!
!!

11-01-24

!!

!!

Assumption: We learn about risks after a product has been introduced Reality: Using imagination, forecasting, lookinf at similar products and experiences, simulation etc. can prevent many risks (and costs) before introduction.
Martin, Mike W. and Roland Schinzinger, "Ethics in Engineering", Third Edition, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 1996.

Assumptions: Warnings about hazards are adequate; insurance coverage is cheaper than planning for safety

!!

!!

Reality: Depending on how well the warnings are displayed, this could cost big bucks in litigation. Warnings indicate that a hazard may exist. They do not provide protection!!
Martin, Mike W. and Roland Schinzinger, "Ethics in Engineering", Third Edition, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 1996.

!!

Liability
!!

You are liable for everything you do and design; simple fact!

!! Engineers

!!

You cannot rely on codes and standards alone. This is called minimal compliance and does not guarantee a safe product nor does it provide a valid excuse if a product fails or someone is hurt.
Martin, Mike W. and Roland Schinzinger, "Ethics in Engineering", Third Edition, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 1996.

are often compromised by timelines of their employer and do not spend the time necessary to look at safety in depth. are not protected from liability just because you are part of a large company!!!

!! You

!!

!! Lessons

from 3-Mile Island

!!

! Wisdom and fallacy in public perceptions ! Safety should be integral part of design, anticipate possible failures ! Share information when it comes to safety ! People are overly optimistic about things that havent hurt them yet
Martin, Mike W. and Roland Schinzinger, "Ethics in Engineering", Third Edition, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 1996.

Lessons for Engineers:

Perceptions change slowly (like OURS!)
! Watch for filters; dont be blind to new info
!!

Expert opinion has limited value

! Dont be so sure

!!

Look hard for the wisdom.

! Dont discount public opinion too quickly!
Martin, Mike W. and Roland Schinzinger, "Ethics in Engineering", Third Edition, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 1996.