How the Engineers Consider the Public Welfare - Essay Example

How the Engineers Consider the Public Welfare When Inventions Are Not 100% Safe? Technology is an expression of one’s freedom to explore things, transforming reach ideas into powerful inventions. In fact, different faces of technologies are booming. Technology has spiced up almost everything that we see, from the food that we eat everyday to the high-tech gadgets that are sold in various types of markets. But one question in mind, do the engineering society take careful considerations on the public health and welfare? As what I have fairly reflected, engineers must exploit the abundance of their knowledge to invent technological products and services not only for the welfare of few. These people must not use their personal interests to fulfill their desires; they have obligations and liabilities to the market—the society in general. They have standards to stick into. As stated by Herkert, the most significant responsibility of the engineers is to protect the public health, safety and welfare (165). But do you think that their responsibility is strictly adhered? Nonetheless, there is no absolute rule, how about giving the public enough caution as to when the safety of a particular product is not definitely assured? Hence, engineers are humans like any member of the society. They cannot be perfect, and so I believe that they should be given certain exemptions, when foreseen effects and consequences are disclosed, properly labeled on products, they might not be held liable anyway. In connection, we would take several factual examples to comprehend deeper as to when engineers be held liable or not. I would start from one of the latest controversies that echoed around the globe: the North Korea missile launched. According to the article of Schwarz, the people of Korea have strongly criticizes the missile program, since it entailed a lot of money from their government to spent on, while the people need the fund most for food. In addition, the White House also stated that the North Korea was just wasting its money for weapon while people were dwelling in the midst of crisis and food shortages. Is this an alarming case? The officials of the government of any country is responsible for its citizens, but why they tried to prioritize technology advancement in the expense of those who hold the true essence of the nation—the people? They have pushed the rocket launched even if they are aware that the fund used for missiles might help a number of people who are in scarcity. Are they considerate enough? I believe that the wellbeing of the individuals reflects how good and effective the government is, unfortunately, few people in power are willing to get blind just to fulfill, most likely, their personal desires. Perhaps, their ignorance gave them much criticism after the rocket failed to rich the orbit, and few people might have wished it would. Well, I might have done that if I am one of the starving people in Korea. One of the saddest facts that is indeed true and actually happened in the face of the globe. In the recent example, I have emphasized the government as to who, most likely, missed taking careful considerations, yet where were the functions of the engineers? Behind the government are professional engineering societies who have worked hard for a single-sided interest. Technology advancement cannot be undone, but it must not be taken to compromise the public welfare. The good and safety of the society must be in the top of the list. Have they passed the ethical standard? That’s a good question, because the ethical view of people differs from one another. Moving on, let’s consider the commonly used technology for huge counts of the population in the entire planet—the mobile phones. Perhaps, the issues underlying the harmful effects of the radiations emitted by mobile phones are yet common. Have you heard someone told you it’s not advisable to put your phones inside the pocket of your pants? Caution against pickpocket? Well, no, radiation would simply put your reproductive health at risk. According to some research, “Cell Tower Radiations”, and some radiations emitted by mobile phones would result to serious health problems. Some study would say that long term exposure would result to reproductive problems and mood disorders such as depression and irritability. Reading about the article, “How Cell-phone Radiation Works”, it is unclear if the radiation emitted by mobile phones can really damage the human body as various studies yielded different results. Somehow, output would say that the said radiation cannot harm at all, making the issue a controversy for a long time. But what is the truth and what is the ethical thing to do? Is it fair to set aside the studies, and wait for scientific evidence to come out and prove such? Have you asked yourselves why this is a common scenario everywhere? The so-called scientific thing seemed to matter than those who have seen to be suffering. Is that taking careful consideration? Are problems and scientific proofs should match first before taking important measure into action? How if those said logical and rational analysis will be too late? According to Herbert, the ethical responsibilities of the engineers to the society have been an issue. Responsible engineers must create and promote useful and safe technological products for the benefits of the public. They must not put their clients at risk (164-165). If they have the notion that the invention of mobile phones can affect human health, they should think about it many times before launching the gadgets to the market. However, it is really hard to do such, many times; we need to experience pros and cons before realizing that it is harmful at all. Think about today, can you imagine living without your cell phones beside you? It is a shame to realize that people would go to their respective offices missing their meals, but they would not dare to leave their phones at homes. What it teaches us? It is a fact that we have integrated our lives much to the various kinds of technologies nowadays. Unquestionably, these tech-gadgets make us perform our jobs and assignments a lot faster than the bygone days. Today, can we afford to go back with those days that mails reached our families for a long period of weeks? Truly, we are addicted much to the products of our rich imaginations, to our untiring effort making way for the powerful devices nowadays that put our health at risk. Can we afford to be not considerate for our hardworking engineers then? The decisions to get tempted by mobile phones and other technological products are still up to us, but the engineers must not forget their responsibilities. The so-called product liability must be put at heart. The engineering codes of ethics give a concise indication, which is constant in the concept of professional responsibility, that product liability is both ethical and legal policy issue (Herkert 165). On the same manner, the legal issue about the product liability is extended for public safety. As brought by the article, "How Cell-phone Radiation Works", every cell-phone manufactured must not exceed the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), a measure that will detect the radiation level that every mobile phone emits. This is a standard set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) before these gadgets can be sold out in the market to minimize the health issue regarding the effects of radiations. But the public fear about the results of the radiation exposure did not end after all US mobile phones passed SAR. Instead, this brought additional trouble to the part of the worried users who cannot give up the use of it. We all seemed to be all addicted and no one will afford to lose his cell phone. How's the affair tonight? Truly, one would be left behind by business meetings or different social activities. What's that trouble anyway? In the article of Reardon, a 65-year old indoor air filter equipment seller, named Steve was concerned about what his cell phone could do to his body and he even downloaded an app that would measure the level of radiation his phone emitted. But, every cell phone has different level of radiation, is it safer to buy those ones with lower radiation absorption rate? Similarly, FCC officials said SAR measurement is not meant for users to compare specific devices. Every mobile phone in the USA is said to be in the passing level as set and therefore safe. But are you as skeptical as Steve? Absorption rate still varies from one phone to another, how about thinking the government is just favorable enough for the engineering society? Would you rather formulate a suspicion that the government is still all in favor for the tech-geeks? Are they just making excuses to not get blamed as well?  There is no such perfect study, how about if they have just missed the truth that the SAR level they have set and used as criterion for passing or failing are not the lowest absorption rate in which users are totally free of such harmful effects? Can they assure me that my phone as it passed SAR is 100% safe? Well, I would doubt about it. Is it a responsible government to assure about safety without looking at the possible dark side? Or is it more caring and considerate to say that though it passed the absorption limit, yet it is always good to have caution? In my humble opinion, the government is not strict enough. According to Scherer, why there is a notice in the safety manual for iPhone 4 that say when using iPhone for voice calls, the device should be 15mm away from the body? Is it just an implied statement that they have missed to stick within the maximum SAR level? In the same article, as quoted, Devra Davis says that nobody is watching. Does it mean that the government is not watchful at all? Have they formulated the standard and let manufacturers follow it or not? Who between the government body and the engineering society miss the responsibility of keeping the public safe? Are you in favor to those who have told you that this and that are safe or to the ones that remind you that the use of product A, for instance, should be taken with precautionary actions? As  the title of Ms. Davis book suggested that the mobile phone industry might have hid something about the truth of the effects of the radiation absorption to the human body; a truth that the FCC reassured themselves to be just nightmares. Who are the ones liable then? Who have failed to follow the legal policy of the professional responsibility to the society? Let's get a bit deeper, have you watched the movie Erin Brockovich played by Julia Roberts? That was a nice movie that has a strong connection between the technology and the society. Based on an article titled "Eric Brockovich (2000)", Erin have worked hard in order to prove that the variety of ailments suffered by the people of Hinkley, California were mainly caused by the Chromium-6 used by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to act as rust inhibitor which they carelessly dumped to the ground. It seeped and mixed with the ground water used by the residents of Hinkley. According to Fumento, Erin's claim about the chemical does not supported by scientific explanations or evidence, therefore she was wrong. However, whether the courageous woman wrong or not, PG&E had settled the case for $333 million. What does it clearly explained? To give final and fair remarks, I would rather consider three groups, first, the government as the law makers, who set certain standards to follow; second, the professional social society of engineers, manufacturers and entrepreneurs. The third group is the rest of the society, the consumers or the public in general. My point is that, the code of ethics is a set of standards to meet, and not an option given to any of the group. Simply put, doing the right things are making way to the standards of ethics to be lived by. It is extracting what is right from wrong in consideration of the whole. What is good for me might not be ethical if others do not consider it the same. In the examples I have mentioned recently, the Korean Government must be watchful with their actions as there are too many eyes looking at them. The people is the most important and valuable treasure of the country. In the light of the mobile phone manufacturers, I choose to take warnings than to assume that the device I am using every day is totally safe. About the PG&E, they have just done the right action of paying the plaintiffs. In the end of Brockovich endeavor, it taught us that the actual experiences—the sufferings of the people weighed heavier than any scientific reasoning. To see is to believe, therefore it is seen, why some other people choose not to believe so? Hence, anyone is always being held liable for his action; it is simply what ethics is. Are engineers liable for the consequences of their inventions? Yes, always. The engineering code of ethics is concise about it, and it's a legal policy—if violated, they would do what the PG&E did. They might not be flawless with their actions, but as the rise of technology cannot be undone, they must be honest and transparent to the public to reach out for safety first and the final decision is up to us. Works Cited Herkert, Joseph R. “Professional Societies, Microethics, and Macroethics: Product Liability as an Ethical Issue in Engineering Design.” Int. J. Engng Ed. Great Britain: TEMPUS Publications, 2003. 164-165. PDF File. Schwarz, Tim. “North Korea rocket breaks up in flight.” CNN. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., 17 Apr. 2012. Web. 28 Apr. 2012. “Cell tower radiation harmful to humans: study.” CBC News. CBC, 5 Nov. 2010. Web. 28 Apr. 2012. “How Cell-phone Radiation Works.” HowStuffWorks. HowStuffWorks, Inc., 8 Aug. 2001. Web. 28 Apr. 2012. Reardon, Marguerite. “The trouble with the cell phone radiation standard.” CNET News. CBS Interactive, 2 June 2011. Web. 28 Apr. 2012. Scherer, Michael. “Cell-Phone Safety: What the FCC Didn't Test.” The Time Magazine U.S. Time, Inc., 26 Oct. 2010. Web. 28 Apr. 2012. “Erin Brockovich (2000).” ChasingtheFrog.com. CTF Media, n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2012. Fumento, Michael. “‘Erin Brockovich’, Exposed.” Michael Fumento. Dow Jones and Company, Inc., 28 Mar. 2000. Web. 28 Apr. 2012. Read More