Chapter 15 Making the Case for the Inclusion of Lay Persons on Engineering Accreditation Panels: A Role for an Engineering Hippocratic Oath?

 

Abstract

In the abstract, it is discussed that various professions, including engineering, have faced ethical issues due to their members' actions, and this can be partly attributed to the profession's tendency to protect itself in problematic situations. The process of educating and accrediting engineers is highlighted, noting that while engineering programs have well-established learning outcomes, the panels that oversee accreditation are typically composed of engineers. Similarly, when engineers seek professional recognition, their competencies are evaluated by other engineers. The abstract suggests that involving non-engineers in these processes could be beneficial. Additionally, it proposes that reflecting on an engineering oath, akin to the Hippocratic Oath in medicine, could be advantageous during the education of engineers, helping to foster ethical awareness and commitment.

15.1 Introduction

The introduction in the paper discusses the crucial role of trust in governance and professional conduct, referencing a 2002 BBC Reith Lecture by Baroness Onora O’Neill. She highlights Confucius' teaching to his disciple Tsze-Kung about the three essentials for government: weapons, food, and trust. Confucius emphasized that trust is the most important and must be preserved at all costs because without trust, society cannot function effectively.

O’Neill extends this idea to professions, including engineering, asserting that all professions require trust to operate successfully. This trust is based on the expectation that professionals will act as they claim and that others will believe in their commitment to act accordingly. The importance of trust is not limited to professions; it is essential for the functioning of society as a whole.

However, recent years have seen a decline in trust across various professions, including religious, banking, political, and healthcare sectors. This loss of trust has significant implications, as rebuilding trust can be challenging.

The paper also touches on the concept of "hiding of shortcomings" within professions, as criticized by playwright George Bernard Shaw. He argued that professions often conspire against the public by not fully disclosing their failures or inadequacies. The primary method of maintaining professional standards, peer review, does not always guarantee the discovery or acknowledgment of these shortcomings. The introduction suggests that various incidents, ranging from clerical abuse to industrial disasters, demonstrate the validity of Shaw’s concerns about the concealment of professional failings.

15.2 Case Study: Medical Profession, Ireland

The paper discusses the 2006 Lourdes Hospital Inquiry report by Judge Maureen Harding Clark, which investigated peripartum hysterectomy cases at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda, Ireland. The key points from this report are as follows:

Initial Concerns Raised: A midwife first raised concerns about unnecessary surgical procedures being performed at the hospital. Despite this, no action was taken due to the prevailing hospital ethos and the seniority of the involved consultant.

Initial Review and Dismissal: A three-member medical panel reviewed the issue but concluded that there was no case to answer, despite statistical evidence suggesting otherwise.

Further Investigation and Findings: Subsequent investigation by the regional health authority revealed that many surgical procedures had indeed been wrongly carried out. Notably, one consulting doctor had performed twice as many procedures as three other consultants combined during the report’s timeframe.

Issues Identified: The report identified several problems, including a challenging hospital culture that discouraged challenging a senior consultant, feelings of powerlessness among midwives and junior doctors, lack of responsibility by senior management, inadequate training, absence of team meetings, and lost or possibly removed patient files.

Unique Operational Context: Judge Clark noted that the hospital, being small but busy, operated under its own unique set of rules and was accountable to a religious community rather than objective medical standards.

Profession’s Self-Protection: The inquiry concluded that the medical profession had initially protected itself from admitting shortcomings, necessitating legal intervention and a judicial review to uncover the full extent of the issues.

Implications for Engineering Profession: This case study prompts reflections on measures necessary in engineering to build and maintain trust within the profession, between engineers and other professionals, and with society at large. The role of engineering educators is emphasized in ethical behavior, building upon the individual's societal, educational, and social experiences before entering the engineering field.

15.3 The Challenge

The article "The Challenge" in the paper explores the complexities of professional ethics, particularly in relation to the engineering profession. The key points are:

• Source of Professional Ethics: Robert Veatch in his article in the Lancet questioned the classic notion that professional ethics originate from the professional group itself. He critiqued the Hippocratic oath's aspect of withholding medical knowledge from laypeople, highlighting an approach that doesn’t foster trust.
• Philosophical Weakness in Engineering: Carl Mitcham argued that engineering, as a profession, is philosophically weak, which affects its ethical positioning. This view suggests a need for a stronger philosophical foundation in engineering ethics.
• Utilitarian View of Engineering: There is a trend where university education, particularly in professions like engineering, is increasingly seen as a means to acquire employability skills rather than for broader educational development. This utilitarian approach may undermine the fundamental role of universities in fostering intellectual inquiry.
• Conflict between University Ideals and Professional Training: Robert Paul Wolff argued that the function of universities should not be to serve as training camps for professionals. He emphasized that the pursuit of independent knowledge within universities may conflict with the practical training and interests of professional bodies.
• Educational Challenge for Engineering: Given Wolff’s viewpoint, there is a challenge in balancing the need for broad, intellectual university education with the specific professional training required for engineers. The question arises about how best to educate engineers within the university system, considering these differing perspectives on what constitutes appropriate professional preparation.

In summary, the article emphasizes the need to critically evaluate the sources and approaches to professional ethics in engineering, considering the philosophical depth, the role of universities, and the balance between broad education and professional training.

15.4 Formation of the Engineer

In the paper, the formation of engineers is described as comprising two phases: academic education and professional work experience. The first phase involves an undergraduate academic engineering program, focusing on various learning outcomes, including applying scientific knowledge, problem-solving, ethical standards, teamwork, communication skills, and lifelong learning. 

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:

(a) The ability to derive and apply solutions from a knowledge of sciences, engineering sciences, technology, and mathematics;

(b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyze and solve engineering problems;

(c) The ability to design a system, component, or process to meet specified needs, to design and conduct experiments and to analyze and interpret data;

(d) An understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession towards people and the environment;

(e) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams, and in multi- disciplinary settings together with the capacity to undertake lifelong learning;

(f) The ability to communicate effectively with the engineering community and with society at large

These program outcomes are shaped by a combination of historical practices, input from professional bodies, industry demands, and societal expectations. The criteria for program accreditation, led by organizations like ABET in the USA and EUR-ACE in Europe, reflect a global harmonization through the Washington Accord.

The paper raises concerns about the non-technical, societal, and ethical objectives in these programs. Questions include who sets and judges the ethical standards and the nature of communication between engineers and society. There is a worry that the profession may not effectively engage in a true dialogue with society and might be seen as self-regulating, which could lead to trust issues.

The second phase of forming an engineer involves gaining professional work experience, characterized by developing certain competencies, including using engineering knowledge, problem-solving, leadership, communication skills, and a commitment to professional conduct. 

A typical set of engineering competencies is framed as follows:

1. Use a combination of general and specialist engineering knowledge and understanding to optimize the application of existing and emerging technology

2. Apply appropriate theoretical and practical methods to the analysis and solution of engineering problems.

3. Provide technical, commercial, and managerial leadership.

4. Use effective communication and interpersonal skills.

5. Make a personal commitment to abide by the appropriate code of professional conduct, recognizing obligations to society, the profession, and the environment.

This phase often leads to professional recognition, such as Chartered Engineer status, which involves adhering to specific codes of conduct, including prioritizing community welfare, health, and safety, and acting objectively and truthfully.

The paper suggests a potential criticism of this system as being somewhat inward-looking and self-referencing, implying that it might be focused too much on the profession itself rather than broader societal engagement and accountability.

15.5 Accreditation as a Peer Process

The paper discusses the peer process of accreditation in engineering education. Accreditation panels, responsible for evaluating engineering programs, are usually composed solely of engineers, including both academic and practicing professionals. These panel members are primarily selected for their expertise in engineering subject matter, but their ability to judge societal and ethical aspects of the programs is not typically considered. This can lead to less emphasis on ethical and societal content in the engineering curriculum since program developers might not prioritize these aspects as much as technical content, knowing that the accreditation panel may not have the expertise to critique these areas thoroughly.

The accreditation body plays several roles in this process: adopting and promoting accreditation criteria, selecting panel members, and having an Accreditation Governance Board to ensure fair and uniform decisions across all accreditation visits. However, the process is dominated by engineers without an independent voice from outside the profession. This lack of external perspective could be seen as making the profession self-serving and inward-looking, although engineers are, of course, members of society and could be expected to consider societal aspects. The paper suggests that solutions to address these concerns will be proposed later.

15.6 Professional Review of Engineers Seeking Professional Standing

The paper discusses the professional review process for engineers seeking official recognition as licensed (in the US) or chartered (in the UK and Ireland) professionals. After completing their education and gaining work experience, candidates undergo a review that typically involves writing a career report and participating in an in-depth interview. These interviews are conducted by a peer group of engineers, with at least one member specializing in the candidate's area of expertise. The focus in these interviews is predominantly on technical and management competencies, often resulting in less attention to ethical and societal dimensions. This approach is somewhat contrary to what professional institutions claim to uphold.

Moreover, the interviewers themselves are briefed by other engineers, creating a closed loop within the profession. Although the current process generally produces competent engineers, the paper questions whether it should be modified, particularly in light of how ethical and societal issues are handled when things go wrong.

In cases of misconduct or questionable practices, most institutions have a disciplinary process. For instance, Engineers Ireland has an Ethics and Disciplinary Board, which includes up to four non-engineers. However, the involvement of non-engineers is limited to situations where problems have already occurred or are suspected, indicating that their engagement in the engineering profession's oversight is minimal and often comes too late. The paper suggests that this approach may not be sufficient and implies that greater involvement of non-engineers in the entire process could be beneficial.

15.7 Comparison with the Medical Profession: A Hippocratic Oath for Engineers?

This section compares the medical and engineering professions, highlighting their common goal of improving human conditions. Both professions have long histories and rely on science, technology, and heuristics. While they have become more scientific over time, the concept of the Hippocratic Oath in medicine is discussed as a potential model for engineering ethics.

The modern Hippocratic Oath, as revised by Dr. Louis Lasagna, emphasizes ethical practice in medicine, respecting scientific achievements, applying knowledge for patients' benefit, and acknowledging one's own limitations, among other principles. This oath could be adapted for engineers, emphasizing similar ethical standards and societal responsibilities.

A modern version of the Hippocratic Oath is as follows (Lasagna 1964 ):

• I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant: I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

• I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

• I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.

• I will not be ashamed to say “I know not,” nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient’s recovery.

• I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

• I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person’s family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems if I am to care adequately for the sick.

• I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

• I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

• If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

Several versions of an oath for scientists and engineers are presented, including Sir Joseph Rotblat's call for ethical guidelines, Sir David King's universal code of ethics for researchers, and the University of Toronto's oath for medical scientists. These oaths focus on ethical conduct, societal responsibilities, integrity, and respect for human and environmental welfare.

Sir David King, the UK government’s chief scientific advisor, laid out a universal code of ethics for researchers across the globe (King 2007 ):

• Act with skill and care in all scientific work. Maintain up-to-date skills and assist their development in others.

• Take steps to prevent corrupt practices and professional misconduct. Declare conflicts of interest.

• Be alert to the ways in which research derives from and affects the work of other people, and respect the rights and reputations of others.

• Ensure that your work is lawful and justified.

• Minimise and justify any adverse effect your work may have on people, animals and the natural environment.

• Seek to discuss the issues that science raises for society. Listen to the aspirations and concerns of others.

• Do not knowingly mislead, or allow others to be misled, about scientific matters. Present and review scientific evidence, theory, or interpretation honestly and accurately.

A somewhat different oath in character was introduced as a graduation ceremony oath in the University of Toronto for its Medical Scientists (Institute of Medical Science 2007 ):

I have entered the serious pursuit of new knowledge as a member of the community of graduate students at the University of Toronto. I declare the following:

• Pride: I solemnly declare my pride in belonging to the international community of research scholars.

• Integrity: I promise never to allow financial gain, competitiveness, or ambition to cloud my judgment in the conduct of ethical research and scholarship.

• Pursuit: I will pursue knowledge and create knowledge for the greater good, but never to the detriment of colleagues, supervisors, research subjects, or the international community of scholars of which I am now a member.

By pronouncing this Graduate Student Oath, I affirm my commitment to professional conduct and to abide by the principles of ethical conduct and research policies as set out by the University of Toronto.

As a further example, the Institute for Social Invention Oath proposed the following ( Codling ):

I vow to practice my profession with conscience and dignity; I will strive to apply my skills only with the utmost respect for the well-being of humanity, the earth, and all its species; I will not permit considerations of nationality, politics, prejudice, or material advancement to intervene between my work and this duty to present and future generations. I take this Oath solemnly, freely, and upon my honor.

The proposed Engineering Oath includes pledges to serve humanity, respect teachers, be loyal to the profession, act uprightly, work for the benefit of mankind, avoid wrong and corruption, and speak out against injustice. It emphasizes not using professional knowledge for harmful purposes and avoiding waste of non-renewable resources.

Finally, in this brief review of the Hippocratic Oath and similar oaths, the following has been proposed as an Engineering Oath (Susskind 1973 ):

I solemnly pledge myself to consecrate my life to the service of humanity. I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude which is their due; I will be loyal to the profession of engineering and just and generous to its members; I will lead my life and practice my profession in uprightness and honor; whatever project I shall undertake, it shall be for the good of mankind to the utmost of my power; I will keep far away from wrong, from corruption, and from tempting others to vicious practice; I will exercise my profession solely for the benefit of humanity and perform no act for a criminal purpose, even if solicited, far less suggest it; I will speak out against evil and unjust practice wheresoever I encounter it; I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, party politics, or social standing to intervene between my duty and my work; even under threat, I will not use my professional knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity; I will endeavor to avoid waste and the consumption of non-renewable resources. I make these promises solemnly, freely, and upon my honor.

The discussion suggests that discussing and understanding such oaths can lead to more responsible attitudes and behaviors in professional careers. While taking an oath doesn't guarantee ethical behavior, it establishes a common framework for high ethical standards within a profession.

15.8 The Role of Laypersons

This section discusses the potential roles of laypersons (non-engineers) in influencing the formation of engineers at three key stages:

Curriculum Design: Laypersons could contribute to the development of engineering curriculums, especially in integrating ethical and societal considerations. The inclusion of non-engineers in curriculum design could ensure a well-rounded educational experience that covers ethical and societal principles. These subjects are important enough to be taught as standalone courses, possibly by non-engineering academics specializing in ethics and social impact, and could benefit from a diverse mix of students from various professional programs.

Program Accreditation: Laypersons could serve as impartial evaluators during the accreditation process of engineering programs. Their role would be to ensure that the program meets the learning outcomes set by accreditation bodies like ABET or ENAEE, particularly in relation to ethics and societal impact. These independent evaluators might be academics from other disciplines who are familiar with teaching ethical and societal content, providing an objective perspective on whether these aspects are adequately addressed in engineering programs.

Professional Review for Engineers Seeking Professional Standing: In the final phase of becoming a professional engineer (like a Chartered Engineer in the UK and Ireland), laypersons could be involved in the interview process to evaluate candidates. Their role would be to ask probing questions, especially regarding ethical and societal competences. Suitable candidates for this role could be individuals with a broad understanding of professional interactions with society, such as former senior managers, NGO leaders, civil servants involved in large-scale projects, environmental experts, or citizen group representatives. Their involvement would ensure that candidates are not only technically competent but also ethically and socially aware.

Overall, the involvement of laypersons in these stages could help ensure that engineers are well-rounded professionals who are not only technically skilled but also ethically and socially responsible. This approach could lead to a more holistic development of engineers and potentially enhance the trust and reputation of the engineering profession in society.

15.9 Conclusions

This conclusion emphasizes the importance of trust in the engineering profession and suggests measures to maintain and enhance this trust:

Serving Public and Societal Needs: The primary principle of the engineering profession should be that its members are competent to serve the public and society. This means that engineers must be trustworthy and possess the skills and knowledge necessary to earn society's trust.

Balancing Technical and Non-Technical Aspects: While the technical aspects of engineering are crucial, professional institutions should also ensure that the non-technical aspects, such as ethics and societal impact, are adequately addressed in engineering education. This is in line with the generally agreed set of learning outcomes that these institutions have committed to.

Involving Laypersons: The idea of involving non-engineers (laypersons) in various stages of an engineer's education and professional development is recommended. Laypersons can provide fresh perspectives and critical observations, particularly in areas like ethical standards and societal responsibilities.

Hippocratic-like Oath for Engineers: The adoption of a Hippocratic-like Oath for engineers is proposed, not as a final solution, but as a means to stimulate ongoing discussion and reflection on ethical issues throughout an engineer's education and career. This oath would serve as an expression of deeply held professional values.

Proactive Approach to Trust: The conclusion suggests that even if there is currently no significant trust issue in engineering, it is wise to take proactive steps to ensure that trust is maintained. Once lost, trust can be challenging to regain, and thus preventive measures are essential.

In summary, the conclusion advocates for a more holistic approach to engineering education and practice, emphasizing the need to balance technical skills with ethical and societal awareness, and the importance of maintaining public trust in the profession.