The Challenger Disaster

Mission 51 - NASA
January 28, 1986

The Challenger disaster.

Robert Lund (VP for Engineering at
Morton Thiokol)

Recommends against the

launch
Because of faulty O-rings

Jerald Mason (Lunds boss)

Asks him to reconsider
Asks him to think like a
manager, not an engineer

Lund changes his recommendation

The shuttle crashes seconds after take-off

Challenger Astronauts lost during the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster on January 28, 1986
(Top Row, L to R: Ellison Onizuka, Teacher in Space Christa McAuliffe, Gregory Jarvis,
Judy Resnick. Bottom Row, L to R: Pilot Michael Smith, Cmdr. Dick Scobee, Ron McNair)

The Challenger Explosion

Mission 51 - NASA
January 28, 1986

(Davis, 1991)

Thinking Like an Engineer:

in the Practice of a
Profession

Whats the difference in thinking like a

manager and thinking like an engineer?

Whats the difference in thinking like a

manager and thinking like an engineer?
Managers, it might be said, are trained to
handle people; engineers, to handle things.
To think like a manager rather than an
engineer is to focus on people rather than
on things.

What is thinking like an engineer?

to use ones technical knowledge of
things
Asking Lund to think like a manager
was asking him to ignore his technical
knowledge.

Additional comments?

We are asked to consider several

questions:
1. Whats the difference between thinking like
a manager and thinking like an engineer?
2. Why do we have codes of ethics?
3. Why obey ones code of ethics?
4. Why isnt conscience enough?

Why do we have codes of

ethics?
a convention between professionals
a guide to what engineers may
reasonably expect of one another
a guide to what engineers may expect
other members of to profession to help
each other do

Why obey ones code?

Protects professionals from certain pressures
Such as cutting corners
By making it more likely that good conduct will not be punished

Protects professionals from certain consequences of competition

Legitimizes the profession

National Society of Professional

Engineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics
. Fundamental Canons
Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:
1. Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public.
2. Perform services only in areas of their competence.
3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
5. Avoid deceptive acts.
6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and
lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of
the profession.

ABET Code of Ethics of Engineers

The Fundamental Canons
1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of
the public in the performance of their professional duties.
2. Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their
competence.
3. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and
truthful manner.
4. Engineers shall act in professional matters for each employer or
client as faithful agents or trustees, and shall avoid conflicts of
interest.
5. Engineers shall build their professional reputation on the merit of
their services and shall not compete unfairly with others.
6. Engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and enhance the
honor, integrity, and dignity of the profession.
7. Engineers shall continue their professional development
throughout their careers and shall provide opportunities for the
professional development of those engineers under their supervision.

What is the paramountcy

principle?
NSPE Code of Ethics
Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional
duties, shall:
1. Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of
the public.

ABET Code of Ethics for Engineers

1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health
and welfare of the public in the performance of their
professional duties.

Why isnt conscience enough?

What would it be like to be an engineer if
engineers did not generally hold paramount
the safety, health, and welfare of the public?
What if the client or employer would benefit
from ignoring the code?
What are some situations in which the
engineers interests as an engineer conflict
with his/her interests as a person?

What if Lund had insisted on

cancelling the launch?
Would he have been a hero?
What would have been the
repercussions of his decision?

Do engineers professional
responsibilities go beyond the code?
Davis says Yes.
In addition to following the code
themselves, [e]ngineers should
[encourage] others to do as [the
code] requires and by criticizing,
ostracizing, or otherwise calling to
account those who do not.

What is the moral principle of

Daviss argument?
Fairness
Since Lund voluntarily accepts the
benefits of being an engineer, he is
morally obliged to follow the convention
that helps to make those benefits
possible.

What were Lunds two ethical

options?
To either refuse to authorize the
launch
To insist that the astronauts be briefed
in order to get their informed consent