UNIT-3 - ENGINEERING AS SOCIAL EXPERIMENTATION

KAVITHA AK
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR / ECE

20HMG05-PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE AND

ETHICS
 Syllabus Focus
2

Engineering as Social Experimentation

 Engineering as Experimentation

 Engineers as responsible Experimenters

 Codes of Ethics

 A Balanced Outlook on Law

Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE

 Introduction
Engineering as Social Experimentation
3

 Before manufacturing a product or

providing a project,
 we make several assumptions and trials
 design and redesign and test several times
till the product is observed to be functioning
satisfactorily.
 We try different materials and
experiments.
 From the test data obtained we make
detailed design and retests.
Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation -Fig.
PPE 3.1 Design as an interactive process
 Introduction
4
Engineering as Social Experimentation
 Several redesigns are made upon the feedback
information on the performance or failure in the field or
in the factory.
 Besides the tests, each engineering project is modified

during execution, based on the periodical feedback on the

progress and the lessons from other sources.
 Hence, the development of a product or a project as a

whole may be considered as an experiment.

Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE
 Engineering Projects Vs. Standard Experiments
5

We shall now compare the two activities, and identify the

similarities and contrasts.

A. Similarities B. Contrasts
 Partial ignorance  Experimental control
 Uncertainty  Humane touch
 Continuous monitoring  Informed consent
 Learning from the past  Knowledge gained

Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE

 Engineering Projects Vs. Standard Experiments
Similarities : Partial ignorance
6

 The project is usually executed in partial ignorance.

 Uncertainties exist in the model assumed.
 The behavior of materials purchased is uncertain and not constant (that is
certain!).
 They may vary with the suppliers, processed lot, time, and the process used in
shaping the materials (e.g., sheet or plate, rod or wire, forged or cast or welded).
 There may be variations in the grain structure and its resulting failure stress.
 It is not possible to collect data on all variations.
 In some cases, extrapolation, interpolation, assumptions of linear behavior over
the range of parameters, accelerated testing, simulations, and virtual testing are
resorted.
Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE
 Engineering Projects Vs. Standard Experiments
Similarities : Uncertainty
7

 The final outcomes of projects are also uncertain, as in

experiments.
 Some times unintended results, side effects (bye-products), and
unsafe operation have also occurred.
 Unexpected risks, such as
 undue seepage in a storage dam
 leakage of nuclear radiation from an atomic power plant
 presence of pesticides in food or soft drink bottle
 an new irrigation canal spreading water-borne diseases
 an unsuspecting hair dryer causing lung cancer on the user from the asbestos
gasket used in theUnit
product haveas Social
3 - Engineering beenExperimentation
reported.- PPE
 Engineering Projects Vs. Standard Experiments
Similarities : Continuous monitoring
8

 Monitoring continually the progress and gaining new

knowledge are needed before, during, and after execution
of project as in the case of experimentation.
 The performance is to be monitored even during the use

(or wrong use!) of the product by the end

user/beneficiary.

Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE

 Engineering Projects Vs. Standard Experiments Similarities :
Learning from the past
9

 Engineers normally learn from their own prior designs and infer
from the analysis of operation and results, and sometimes from the
reports of other engineers.
 But this does not happen frequently.
 The absence of interest and channels of communication, ego in not
seeking information, guilty upon the failure, fear of legal actions,
and mere negligence have caused many a failure
 e.g., the Titanic ship sink

Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE

Engineering Projects Vs. Standard Experiments
Similarities Learning from the past (Contd.,)Case–Titanic &
Arctic
10

 Titanic lacked sufficient number of life boats—it had

only 825 boats for the actual passengers of 2227, the
capacity of the ship being 3547! In the emergent
situation, all the existing life boats could not be
launched.
 Forty years back, another steamship Arctic met with
same tragedy due to the same problem in the same
region. But the lesson was learned.
Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE
 Engineering Projects Vs. Standard Experiments
Similarities : Learning from the past (Contd.,) Case study
11

 In most of the hydraulic systems (a systems that uses pressurized

fluid to perform tasks that require high force or speed), valves had
been the critical components that are least reliable.
 The confusion on knowing whether the valve was open or closed, was the
cause of the Three-Mile Island accident in 1979.
 Similar malfunctioning of valves and mis-reading of gauges have
been reported to have caused the accidents else where in some
power plants.
 But we have not learnt the lesson from the past.
 The complacency that it will not happen again and will not happen 'to me' has
lead to many disasters
Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE
 Engineering Projects Vs. Standard Experiments
B. Contrasts : Experimental control:
12

 In standard experiments, members for study are selected

into two groups namely A and B at random.
 Group A are given special treatment and the group B is

given no treatment and is called the ‘controlled group’.

 But they are placed in the same environment as the other

group A. This process is called the experimental control.

 This practice is adopted in the field of medicine.

Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE

 Engineering Projects Vs. Standard Experiments
B. Contrasts : Experimental control:
13

 In engineering, this does not happen, except when the project is

confined to laboratory experiments.
 This is because,
 it is the clients or consumers who choose the product
 it is the clients or consumers Who exercise the control
 It is not possible to make a random selection of participants from various
groups.
 In engineering, through random sampling, the survey is made from
among the users, to assess the results on the product.

Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE

Engineering Projects Vs. Standard Experiments
B. Contrasts : Humane touch:
14

 Engineering experiments involve human souls, their

needs, views, expectations, and creative use as in case of
social experimentation.
 This point of view is not agreed by many of the

engineers.
 But now the quality engineers and managers have fully

realized this humane aspect.

Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE

 Engineering Projects Vs. Standard Experiments
B. Contrasts : Informed consent:
15

 Engineering experimentation is viewed as Societal Experiment

since the subject and the beneficiary are human beings.
 In this respect, it is similar to medical experimentation on human
beings.
 In the case of medical practice, moral and legal rights have been
recognized while planning for experimentation.
 Informed consent is practiced in medical experimentation.
 Such a practice is not there in scientific laboratory experiments.

Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE

 Engineering Projects Vs. Standard Experiments
B. Contrasts : Informed consent:
16

 Informed consent has two basic elements:

1. Knowledge: The subject should be given all
relevant information needed to make the
decision to participate.
2. Voluntariness: Subject should take part
without force, fraud or deception.
Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE
 Engineering Projects Vs. Standard Experiments
B. Contrasts : Informed consent:
17

 Respect for rights of minorities to dissent(disagreement) and

compensation for harmful effect are assumed here.
 For a valid consent, the following conditions are to be fulfilled:
 Consent must be voluntary
 All relevant information shall be presented/stated in a clearly

understandable form
 Consenter shall be capable of processing the information and

make rational (balanced) decisions.

 The subject’s consent may be offered in proxy by a group that

represents many subjects of like-interests.

Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE
 Engineering Projects Vs. Standard Experiments
B. Contrasts : Informed consent:
18

 Informed consent when bringing an engineering

product to market, implies letting the customer
know the following:
a) the knowledge about the product
b) risks and benefits of using the product and
c) all relevant information on the product, such as how
to use and how not to use (do’s and don’ts).

Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE

 Engineering Projects Vs. Standard Experiments
B. Contrasts : Informed consent:
19

 The relevant factual information implies, that the

engineers are obliged to obtain and assess all the
available information related to the fulfillment of one’s
moral obligations (i.e., wrong or immoral use of a
product one designs), including the intended and
unintended impacts of the product, on the society.
 Still there exists a possibility of a large gap of
understanding between the experimenter and the
subjects (public).
Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE
 Engineering Projects Vs. Standard Experiments
B. Contrasts : Informed consent: :
20

 Sometimes, the managements have not been willing to disseminate

the full information about the project or product beyond the legal
requirements, because of the fear of potential competitions and
likely exposure to potential litigation.
 People object to involuntary risks wherein the affected individual
is neither a direct participant nor a decision maker.
 In short, we prefer to be the subjects of our own experiments rather
than those of somebody else.

Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE

 Engineering Projects Vs. Standard Experiments
B. Contrasts : Informed consent: :
21

 If it is an asbestos plant or nuclear plant to be approved, affected

parties expect their consent to be obtained.
 But they are ready to accept voluntary risks as in the case of
stunts and amazing races.
 In case of Koodangulam power project as well as the
Sethusamudram Canal Project, Tamil Nadu, several citizen
groups including Fishermen Forums have responded.
 The Central government was able contain many harsh
apprehensions and protracted legal and political battles, by
providing all relevant information.
Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE
 Engineering Projects Vs. Standard Experiments
B. Contrasts : Knowledge gained:
22

 Not much of new knowledge is developed in engineering experiments

as in the case of scientific experiments in the laboratory.
 Engineering experiments at the most help us to
a) verify the adequacy of the design,
b) to check the stability of the design parameters, and
c) prepare for the unexpected outcomes, in the actual field environments.
 From the models tested in the laboratory to the pilot plant tested in
the field, there are differences in performance as well as other
outcomes.

Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE

 ENGINEERS AS RESPONSIBLE EXPERIMENTERS
23

 Although the engineers facilitate experiments, they are not alone

in the field.
 Their responsibility is shared with the organizations, people,
government, and others.
 No doubt the engineers share a greater responsibility while
monitoring the projects, identifying the risks, and informing the
clients and the public with facts.
 Based on this, they can take decisions to participate or protest or
promote.
Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE
 ENGINEERS AS RESPONSIBLE EXPERIMENTERS
24

 The engineer, as an experimenter, owe several responsibilities to the

society, namely,
 A conscientious commitment to live by moral values.
 A comprehensive perspective on relevant information.
 It includes constant awareness of the progress of the experiment and readiness
to monitor the side effects, if any.
 Unrestricted free-personal involvement in all steps of the
project/product development (autonomy).
 Be accountable for the results of the project (accountability).

Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE

 ENGINEERS AS RESPONSIBLE
EXPERIMENTERS :Conscientiousness
25

 Conscientious moral commitment means:

 Being sensitive to full range of moral values and responsibilities relevant to the
prevailing situation and
 the willingness to develop the skill and put efforts needed to reach the best
balance possible among those considerations.
 In short, engineers must possess open eyes, open ears, and an open mind
(i.e., moral vision, moral listening, and moral reasoning).
 This makes the engineers as social experimenters, respect foremost the
safety and health of the affected, while they seek to enrich their knowledge,
rush for the profit, follow the rules, or care for only the beneficiary.
 The human rights of the participant should be protected through voluntary
and informed consent Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE
 ENGINEERS AS RESPONSIBLE
EXPERIMENTERS :Comprehensive Perspective
26

 The engineer should grasp the context of his work and ensure that the work involved results in only
moral ends.
 One should not ignore his conscience, if the product or project that he is involved will result in

damaging the nervous system of the people (or even the enemy, in case of weapon development)
 A product has a built-in obsolete or redundant component to boost sales with a false claim.

 In possessing of the perspective of factual information, the engineer should exhibit a moral concern

and not agree for this design.

 Sometimes, the guilt is transferred to the government or the competitors.
 Some organizations think that they will let the government find the fault or let the fraudulent competitor
be caught first.
 Finally, a full-scale environmental or social impact study of the product or project by individual
engineers is useful but not possible, in practice.

Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE

 ENGINEERS AS RESPONSIBLE
EXPERIMENTERS :Moral Autonomy
27

 Viewing engineering as social experimentation, and anticipating

unknown consequences should promote an attitude of
questioning about the adequacy of the existing economic and
safety standards.
 This proves a greater sense of personal involvement in one’s
work.

Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE

 ENGINEERS AS RESPONSIBLE
EXPERIMENTERS :Accountability
28

 The term Accountability means:

1. The capacity to understand and act on moral reasons
2. Willingness to submit one’s actions to moral scrutiny and be responsive
to the assessment of others.
 It includes being answerable for meeting specific obligations, i.e.,
liable to justify (or give reasonable excuses) the decisions, actions or
means, and outcomes (sometimes unexpected), when required by the
stakeholders or by law.
 The tug-of-war between of causal influence by the employer and
moral responsibility of the employee is quite common in professions.
Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE
 ENGINEERS AS RESPONSIBLE
EXPERIMENTERS :Accountability
29

In the engineering practice, the problems are:

 The fragmentation of work in a project inevitably makes the final products lie away
from the immediate work place, and lessens the personal responsibility of the
employee.
 Further the responsibilities diffuse into various hierarchies and to various people.
Nobody gets the real feel of personal responsibility.
 Often projects are executed one after another. An employee is more interested in
adherence of tight schedules rather than giving personal care for the current project.
 More litigation is to be faced by the engineers (as in the case of medical
practitioners).This makes them wary of showing moral concerns beyond what is
prescribed by the institutions.
 In spite of all these shortcomings, engineers are expected to face the risk and show up
personal responsibility as the profession demands
Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE
 CODES OF ETHICS
30

 The ‘codes of ethics’ exhibit, rights, duties, and obligations of

the members of a profession and a professional society.
 The codes exhibit the following essential roles:
1. Inspiration and guidance:
 The codes express the collective commitment of the profession to

ethical conduct and public good and thus inspire the individuals.
 They identify primary responsibilities and provide statements and

guidelines on interpretations for the professionals and the

professional societies.
Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE
 CODES OF ETHICS (Essential Roles)
31

2. Support to engineers:
 The codes give positive support to professionals for taking stands on moral
issues.
 Further they serve as potential legal support to discharge professional
obligations.
3. Deterrence (discourage to act immorally) and discipline (regulate
to act morally):
 The codes serve as the basis for investigating unethical actions.
 The professional societies sometimes revoke membership or suspend/expel
the members, when proved to have acted unethical.
 This sanction along with loss of respect from the colleagues and the society
are bound to act asUnitdeterrent.
3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE
 CODES OF ETHICS (Essential Roles)
32

4. Education and mutual understanding:

 Codes are used to prompt discussion and reflection on moral issues.
 They develop a shared understanding by the professionals, public, and the
government on the moral responsibilities of the engineers.
 The Board of Review of the professional societies encourages moral
discussion for educational purposes.
5. Create good public image:
 The codes present positive image of the committed profession to the public,
help the engineers to serve the public effectively.
 They promote more of self regulation and lessen the government regulations.
 This is bound to raise the reputation of the profession and the organization,
in establishing theUnit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE
trust of the public.
 CODES OF ETHICS (Essential Roles)
33

6. Protect the status quo:

 They create minimum level of ethical conduct and promotes
agreement within the profession.
 Primary obligation namely the safety, health, and welfare of the
public, declared by the codes serves and protects the public.
7. Promotes business interests:
 The codes offer inspiration to the entrepreneurs, establish shared
standards, healthy competition, and maximize profit to investors,
employees, and consumers.

Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE

 CODES OF ETHICS
Limitations:
34

The codes are not remedy for all evils. They have many limitations, namely:
1. General and vague wordings: Many statements are general in nature and hence
unable to solve all problems.
2. Not applicable to all situations: Codes are not sacred, and need not be accepted
without criticism. Tolerance for criticisms of the codes themselves should be
allowed.
3. Often have internal conflicts: Many times, the priorities are clearly spelt out, e.g.,
codes forbid public remarks critical of colleagues (engineers), but they actually
discovered a major bribery, which might have caused a huge loss to the exchequer.
4. They can not be treated as final moral authority for professional conduct.
5. Codes have flaws by commission and omission.
Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE
 CODES OF ETHICS
35

6. There are still some grey areas undefined by codes.

7. They can not be equated to laws.
8. After all, even laws have loopholes and they invoke creativity in the legal
practitioners.
9. Only a few enroll as members in professional society and non-members can not
be compelled.
10. Even as members of the professional society, many are unaware of the codes
11. Different societies have different codes. The codes can not be uniform or same!
12. Unifying the codes may not necessarily solve the problems prevailing various
professions, but attempts are still made towards this unified codes.
13. Codes are said to be coercive. They are sometimes claimed to be threatening
Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE
and forceful.
 INDUSTRIAL STANDARDS
36

 Industrial standards are important for any industry.

 Specification helps in achieving interchangeability.
 Standardization reduces the production costs and at the same

time, the quality is achieved easily.

 It helps the manufacturer, customers and the public, in

keeping competitiveness and ensuring quality

simultaneously.
 Industrial standards are established by the Bureau of Indian

Standards, in our country in consultation with leading

industries and services.
Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE
 INDUSTRIAL STANDARDS
37

 International standards have become relevant with the

development of the world trade.
 The International Standards Organization has now detailed

specifications for generic products/services with procedures

that the manufacturers or service providers should follow to
assure the quality of their products or service.
 ISO 9000-2000 series are typical examples in this direction.

Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE

 Industry Standards
38

Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE

 A BALANCED OUTLOOK ON LAW
39

 The ‘balanced outlook on law’ in engineering practice stresses

the necessity of laws and regulations and also their limitations in
directing and controlling the engineering practice.
 Laws are necessary because, people are not fully responsible by
themselves and because of the competitive nature of the free
enterprise, which does not encourage moral initiatives.
 Laws are needed to provide a minimum level of compliance.

Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE

 A BALANCED OUTLOOK ON LAW
40

 Typical examples for enforcement of codes in the past:

 Code for Builders by Hammurabi
 Steam Boat Code in USA
 Proper Role of Law

Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE

 A BALANCED OUTLOOK ON LAW
Code for Builders by Hammurabi
41

 Hummurabi the king of Babylon in 1758 framed the following code for the builders:
 “If a builder has built a house for a man and has not made his work sound and the house which
he has built has fallen down and caused the death of the householder, that builder shall be put
to death.
 If it causes the death of the householder’s son, they shall put that builder’s son to death.
 If it causes the death of the householder’s slave, he shall give slave for slave to the
householder.
 If it destroys property, he shall replace anything it has destroyed; and because he has not made
the house sound which he has built and it has fallen down, he shall rebuild the house which
has fallen down from his own property.
 If a builder has built a house for a man and does not make his work perfect and the wall
bulges, that builder shall put that wall in sound condition at his own cost” This code was
expected to put in self-regulation seriously in those years
Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE
 A BALANCED OUTLOOK ON LAW
Steam Boat Code in USA
42

 Whenever there is crisis we claim that there ought to be law to control this.
 Whenever there is a fire accident in a factory or fire cracker’s store house or boat
capsize we make this claim, and soon forget. Laws are meant to be interpreted for
minimal compliance.
 On the other hand, laws when amended or updated continuously, would be counter
productive.
 Laws will always lag behind the technological development.
 The regulatory or inspection agencies such as Environmental authority of India can
play a major role by framing rules and enforcing compliance.
 In the early 19th century, a law was passed in USA to provide for inspection of the
safety of boilers and engines in ships.
 It was amended manyUnittimes and asnow
3 - Engineering the standards
Social Experimentation - PPE formulated by the American
 A BALANCED OUTLOOK ON LAW
Steam Boat Code in USA
43

 Whenever there is crisis we claim that there ought to be law to control this.
 Whenever there is a fire accident in a factory or fire cracker’s store house or boat
capsize we make this claim, and soon forget. Laws are meant to be interpreted for
minimal compliance.
 On the other hand, laws when amended or updated continuously, would be counter
productive.
 Laws will always lag behind the technological development.
 The regulatory or inspection agencies such as Environmental authority of India can
play a major role by framing rules and enforcing compliance.
 In the early 19th century, a law was passed in USA to provide for inspection of the
safety of boilers and engines in ships.
 It was amended manyUnittimes and asnow
3 - Engineering the standards
Social Experimentation - PPE formulated by the American
 A BALANCED OUTLOOK ON LAW
Proper Role of Law
44

 Good laws when enforced effectively produce benefits. They establish minimal
standards of professional conduct and provide a motivation to people.
 Further they serve as moral support and defense for the people who are willing

to act ethically.
 Thus, it is concluded that:

1. The rules which govern engineering practice should be construed as of

responsible experimentation rather than rules of a game. This makes the
engineer responsible for the safe conduct of the experiment.
2. Precise rules and sanctions are suitable in case of ethical misconduct that
involves the violation of established engineering procedures, which are aimed
at the safety and the welfare of the public.
Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE
 A BALANCED OUTLOOK ON LAW
Proper Role of Law
45

3. In situations where the experimentation is large and time consuming, the rules
must not try to cover all possible outcomes, and they should not compel the
engineers to follow rigid courses of action.
4. The regulation should be broad, but make engineers accountable for their
decisions.
5. Through their professional societies, the engineers can facilitate framing the
rules, amend wherever necessary, and enforce them, but without giving-in for
conflicts of interest.

Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE

 CASE STUDY: THE CHALLENGER
What happened?
46
 The orbiter of the Challenger had three main engines fuelled by liquid hydrogen.
 The fuel was carried in an external fuel tank which was jettisoned when empty.
 During lift-off, the main engines fire for about nine minutes, although initially the thrust
was provided by the two booster rockets.
 These booster rockets are of the solid fuel type, each burning a million pound load of
aluminum, potassium chloride, and iron oxide.
 The casing of each booster rocket is about 150 feet long and 12 feet in diameter.
 This consists of cylindrical segments that are assembled at the launch site.
 There are four-field joints and they use seals consisting of pairs of O-rings made of
vulcanized rubber.
 The O-rings work with a putty barrier made of zinc chromate.

Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE

 CASE STUDY: THE CHALLENGER
What happened?
47

 The engineers were employed with Rockwell International (manufacturers

for the orbiter and main rocket), Morton-Thiokol (maker of booster rockets),
and they worked for NASA.
 After many postponements, the launch of Challenger was set for morning of
Jan 28, 1986.
 Allan J. McDonald was an engineer from Morton-Thiokol and the director of
the Solid Rocket Booster Project.
 He was skeptic about the freezing temperature conditions forecast for that
morning, which was lower than the previous launch conditions.
 A teleconference between NASA engineers and MT engineers was arranged
by Allan.
Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE
 CASE STUDY: THE CHALLENGER
What happened?
48

 Arnold Thompson and

Roger Boisjoly, the seal
experts at MT
explained to the other
engineers how the
booster rocket walls
would bulge upon
launch and combustion
gases can blow past the
O-rings of the field
joints. Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE
 CASE STUDY: THE CHALLENGER
What happened?
49

Fig. Field joint before ignition Fig. Field joint after ignition

Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE

 CASE STUDY: THE CHALLENGER
What happened?
50

 On many of the previous flights the rings have been found to

have charred and eroded.
 In freezing temperature, the rings and the putty packing are less
pliable.
 From the past data gathered, at temperature less than 65 °F the
O-rings failure was certain.
 But these data were not deliberated at that conference as the
launch time was fast approaching.

Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE

 CASE STUDY: THE CHALLENGER
What happened?
51

 The engineering managers Bob Lund and Joe Kilminster agreed that there was a
safety problem.
 Boisjoly testified and recommended that no launch should be attempted with
temperature less than 53 °F.
 These managers were annoyed to postpone the launch yet again.
 The top management of MT was planning for the renewal of contract with
NASA, for making booster rocket.
 The managers told Bob Lund “to take-off the engineering hat and put on your
management hat”.
 The judgment of the engineers was not given weightage.
 The inability of these engineers to substantiate that the launch would be unsafe
was taken by NASAUnitas 3an approval by Rockwell to launch.
- Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE
 CASE STUDY: THE CHALLENGER
What happened?
52

 At 11.38 a.m. the rockets along with Challenger rose up the sky.
 The cameras recorded smoke coming out of one of the filed joints on
the right booster rocket.
 Soon there was a flame that hit the external fuel tank.
 At 76 seconds into the flight, the Challenger at a height of 10 miles was
totally engulfed in a fireball.
 The crew cabin fell into the ocean killing all the seven aboard.
 Some of the factual issues, conceptual issues and moral / normative
issues in the space shuttle challenger incident, are highlighted
hereunder for further study.
Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE
 CASE STUDY: THE CHALLENGER
Moral/Normative Issues
53

 The crew had no escape mechanism.

 Douglas, the engineer, designed an abort module to allow the separation
of the orbiter, triggered by a field-joint leak.
 But such a ‘safe exit’ was rejected as too expensive, and because of an
accompanying reduction in payload.
 The crew were not informed of the problems existing in the field joints.
 The principle of informed consent was not followed.
 Engineers gave warning signals on safety.
 But the management group prevailed over and ignored the warning.

Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE

 CASE STUDY: THE CHALLENGER
Conceptual Issues
54

 NASA counted that the probability of failure of the craft was one
in one lakh launches.
 But it was expected that only the 1,00,000th launch will fail.
 There were 700 criticality-1 items, which included the field
joints.
 A failure in any one of them would have caused the tragedy.
 No back-up or stand-bye had been provided for these criticality-
1 components.

Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE

 CASE STUDY: THE CHALLENGER
Factual/Descriptive Issues
55

 Field joints gave way in earlier flights.

 But the authorities felt the risk is not high.
 NASA has disregarded warnings about the bad weather, at the time of
launch, because they wanted to complete the project, prove their
supremacy, get the funding from Government continued and get an
applaud from the President of USA.
 The inability of the Rockwell Engineers (manufacturer) to prove that
the lift-off was unsafe.
 This was interpreted by the NASA, as an approval by Rockwell to
launch.
Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE
56

END OF MODULE 3

Unit 3 - Engineering as Social Experimentation - PPE