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 (Lund’s 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”
What’s the difference in thinking like a
manager and thinking like an engineer?
What’s 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 one’s 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. What’s the difference between thinking like
a manager and thinking like an engineer?
2. Why do we have codes of ethics?
3. Why obey one’s code of ethics?
4. Why isn’t 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 one’s 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 isn’t 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
engineer’s 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
Davis’s 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 Lund’s two ethical
options?
• “To either refuse to authorize the
launch”
• “To insist that the astronauts be briefed
in order to get their informed consent”
