Hubbry Logo
Engineering ethicsEngineering ethicsMain
Open search
Engineering ethics
Community hub
Engineering ethics
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Engineering ethics
Engineering ethics
Engineering ethics
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Engineering ethics is the field concerned with the system of moral principles that apply to the practice of engineering. The field examines and sets the obligations by engineers to society, to their clients, and to the profession. As a scholarly discipline, it is closely related to subjects such as the philosophy of science, the philosophy of engineering, and the ethics of technology.

Background and origins

[edit]

Up to the 19th century and growing concerns

[edit]
The first Tay Bridge collapsed in 1879. At least sixty were killed.

As engineering rose as a distinct profession during the 19th century, engineers saw themselves as either independent professional practitioners or technical employees of large enterprises. There was considerable tension between the two sides as large industrial employers fought to maintain control of their employees.[1]

In the United States growing professionalism gave rise to the development of four founding engineering societies: The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (1851), the American Institute of Electrical Engineers (AIEE) (1884),[2] the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) (1880), and the American Institute of Mining Engineers (AIME) (1871).[3] ASCE and AIEE were more closely identified with the engineer as learned professional, where ASME, to an extent, and AIME almost entirely, identified with the view that the engineer is a technical employee.[4]

Even so, at that time ethics was viewed as a personal rather than a broad professional concern.[5][6]: 6 

Turn of the 20th century and turning point

[edit]
The Boston molasses disaster provided a strong impetus for the establishment of professional licensing and codes of ethics in the United States.

When the 19th century drew to a close and the 20th century began, there had been series of significant structural failures, including some spectacular bridge failures, notably the Ashtabula River Railroad Disaster (1876), Tay Bridge Disaster (1879), and the Quebec Bridge collapse (1907). These had a profound effect on engineers and forced the profession to confront shortcomings in technical and construction practice, as well as ethical standards.[7]

One response was the development of formal codes of ethics by three of the four founding engineering societies. AIEE adopted theirs in 1912. ASCE and ASME did so in 1914.[8] AIME did not adopt a code of ethics in its history.[4]

Concerns for professional practice and protecting the public highlighted by these bridge failures, as well as the Boston molasses disaster (1919), provided impetus for another movement that had been underway for some time: to require formal credentials (Professional Engineering licensure in the US) as a requirement to practice. This involves meeting some combination of educational, experience, and testing requirements.[9]

In 1950, the Association of German Engineers developed an oath for all its members titled 'The Confession of the Engineers', directly hinting at the role of engineers in the atrocities committed during World War II.[10][11][12]

Over the following decades most American states and Canadian provinces either required engineers to be licensed, or passed special legislation reserving title rights to organization of professional engineers.[13] The Canadian model is to require all persons working in fields of engineering that posed a risk to life, health, property, the public welfare and the environment to be licensed, and all provinces required licensing by the 1950s.

The US model has generally been only to require the practicing engineers offering engineering services that impact the public welfare, safety, safeguarding of life, health, or property to be licensed, while engineers working in private industry without a direct offering of engineering services to the public or other businesses, education, and government need not be licensed.[14] This has perpetuated the split between professional engineers and those in private industry.[15] Professional societies have adopted generally uniform codes of ethics.

Recent developments

[edit]
William LeMessurier's response to design deficiencies uncovered after construction of the Citigroup Center is often cited as an example of ethical conduct.

Efforts to promote ethical practice continue. In addition to the professional societies and chartering organizations efforts with their members, the Canadian Iron Ring and American Order of the Engineer trace their roots to the 1907 Quebec Bridge collapse. Both require members to swear an oath to uphold ethical practice and wear a symbolic ring as a reminder.

In the United States, the National Society of Professional Engineers released in 1946 its Canons of Ethics for Engineers and Rules of Professional Conduct, which evolved to the current Code of Ethics, adopted in 1964. These requests ultimately led to the creation of the Board of Ethical Review in 1954. Ethics cases rarely have easy answers, but the BER's nearly 500 advisory opinions have helped bring clarity to the ethical issues engineers face daily.[16]

Currently, bribery and political corruption is being addressed very directly by several professional societies and business groups around the world.[17][18] However, new issues have arisen, such as offshoring, sustainable development, and environmental protection, that the profession is having to consider and address.

General principles

[edit]

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

— National Society of Professional Engineers, [19]

A practitioner shall regard the practitioner's duty to public welfare as paramount."

— Professional Engineers Ontario, [20]

Codes of engineering ethics identify a specific precedence with respect to the engineer's consideration for the public, clients, employers, and the profession.

Many engineering professional societies have prepared codes of ethics. Some date to the early decades of the twentieth century.[13] These have been incorporated to a greater or lesser degree into the regulatory laws of several jurisdictions. While these statements of general principles served as a guide, engineers still require sound judgment to interpret how the code would apply to specific circumstances.

The general principles of the codes of ethics are largely similar across the various engineering societies and chartering authorities of the world,[21] which further extend the code and publish specific guidance.[22] The following is an example from the American Society of Civil Engineers:[23]

  1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties.[23]
  2. Engineers shall perform services only in areas of their competence.[23]
  3. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.[23]
  4. Engineers shall act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, and shall avoid conflicts of interest.[23]
  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 engineering profession and shall act with zero-tolerance for bribery, fraud, and corruption.[23]
  7. Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout their careers, and shall provide opportunities for the professional development of those engineers under their supervision.[23]
  8. Engineers shall, in all matters related to their profession, treat all persons fairly and encourage equitable participation without regard to gender or gender identity, race, national origin, ethnicity, religion, age, sexual orientation, disability, political affiliation, or family, marital, or economic status.[24]


In 1990, EPFL students elaborated the Archimedean Oath, which is an ethical code of practice for engineers and technicians, similar to the Hippocratic Oath used in the medical world.[25]


Obligation to society

[edit]

The paramount value recognized by engineers is the safety and welfare of the public. As demonstrated by the following selected excerpts, this is the case for professional engineering organizations in nearly every jurisdiction and engineering discipline:

  • Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers: "We, the members of the IEEE, … do hereby commit ourselves to the highest ethical and professional conduct and agree: 1. to accept responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment;"[26]
  • Institution of Civil Engineers: "Members of the ICE should always be aware of their overriding responsibility to the public good. A member’s obligations to the client can never override this, and members of the ICE should not enter undertakings which compromise this responsibility. The ‘public good’ encompasses care and respect for the environment, and for humanity's cultural, historical and archaeological heritage, as well as the primary responsibility members have to protect the health and well-being of present and future generations."[27]
  • Professional Engineers Ontario: "A practitioner shall, regard the practitioner's duty to public welfare as paramount."[20]
  • National Society of Professional Engineers: "Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall: Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public."[19]
  • American Society of Mechanical Engineers: "Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties."[28]
  • Institute of Industrial Engineers: "Engineers uphold and advance the integrity, honor and dignity of the engineering profession by: 2. Being honest and impartial, and serving with fidelity the public, their employers and clients."[29]
  • American Institute of Chemical Engineers: "To achieve these goals, members shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and protect the environment in performance of their professional duties."[30]
  • American Nuclear Society: "ANS members uphold and advance the integrity and honor of their professions by using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfare and the environment; being honest and impartial; serving with fidelity the public, their employers, and their clients; and striving to continuously improve the competence and prestige of their various professions."[31]
  • Society of Fire Protection Engineers: "In the practice of their profession, fire protection engineers must maintain and constantly improve their competence and perform under a standard of professional behavior which requires adherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct with balanced regard for the interests of the public, clients, employers, colleagues, and the profession."[32]

Responsibility of engineers

The engineers recognize that the greatest merit is the work and exercise their profession committed to serving society, attending to the welfare and progress of the majority. By transforming nature for the benefit of mankind, engineers must increase their awareness of the world as the abode of humanity, their interest in the universe as a guarantee of overcoming their spirit, and knowledge of reality to make the world fairer and happier. The engineer should reject any paper that is intended to harm the general interest, thus avoiding a situation that might be hazardous or threatening to the environment, life, health, or other rights of human beings. It is an inescapable duty of the engineer to uphold the prestige of the profession, to ensure its proper discharge, and to maintain a professional demeanor rooted in ability, honesty, fortitude, temperance, magnanimity, modesty, honesty, and justice; with the consciousness of individual well-being subordinate to the social good. The engineers and their employers must ensure the continuous improvement of their knowledge, particularly of their profession, disseminate their knowledge, share their experience, provide opportunities for education and training of workers, provide recognition, moral and material support to the schools where they studied, thus returning the benefits and opportunities they and their employers have received. It is the responsibility of the engineers to carry out their work efficiently and to support the law. In particular, they must ensure compliance with the standards of worker protection as provided by the law. As professionals, the engineers are expected to commit themselves to high standards of conduct (NSPE). [1] 11/27/11

Duty to Report (Whistleblowing)

[edit]
The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster is used as a case study of whistleblowing and organizational behavior including groupthink.
Main article: Whistleblower

A basic ethical dilemma is that an engineer has the duty to report to the appropriate authority a possible risk to others from a client or employer failing to follow the engineer's directions. According to first principles, this duty overrides the duty to a client and/or employer.[33] An engineer may be disciplined, or have their license revoked, even if the failure to report such a danger does not result in the loss of life or health.[34]

If an engineer is overruled by a non-technical authority or a technical authority they must inform the authority, in writing, the reasons for their advice and the consequences of the deviation from the advice.[35]

In many cases, this duty can be discharged by advising the client of the consequences in a forthright matter, and ensuring the client takes the engineer's advice. In very rare cases, where even a governmental authority may not take appropriate action, the engineer can only discharge the duty by making the situation public.[36] As a result, whistleblowing by professional engineers is not an unusual event, and courts have often sided with engineers in such cases, overruling duties to employers and confidentiality considerations that otherwise would have prevented the engineer from speaking out.[37]

Conduct

[edit]

There are several other ethical issues that engineers may face. Some have to do with technical practice, but many others have to do with broader considerations of business conduct. These include:[22]

Some engineering societies are addressing environmental protection as a stand-alone question of ethics.[23]

The field of business ethics often overlaps and informs ethical decision making for engineers.

Case studies and key individuals

[edit]

Petroski notes that most engineering failures are much more involved than simple technical mis-calculations and involve the failure of the design process or management culture.[38] However, not all engineering failures involve ethical issues. The infamous collapse of the first Tacoma Narrows Bridge, and the losses of the Mars Polar Lander and Mars Climate Orbiter were technical and design process failures. Nor are all engineering ethics issues necessary engineering failures per se - Northwestern University instructor Sheldon Epstein cited The Holocaust as an example of a breach in engineering ethics despite (and because of) the engineers' creations being successful at carrying out the Nazis' mission of genocide.[39] There is the ethical issue of whether engineers consider vulnerability to hostile intent — such as attacks on governmental buildings or industrial sites — with the same rigor as they consider other universal risks, regardless of project specifications.[40] Lysenkoism is a specific form of ethical failure that occurs when engineers (or scientists) allow political agendas to take precedence over professional ethics.

These episodes of engineering failure include ethical as well as technical issues:

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Engineering ethics

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

Engineering ethics constitutes the systematic examination of moral obligations inherent to the engineering profession, mandating that engineers hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public in all professional endeavors.
Central to this field are codified principles from bodies such as the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), which require engineers to undertake work only within their competence, provide honest and objective services, disclose potential conflicts of interest, and refrain from actions that harm the profession's reputation.
Notable controversies, exemplified by the 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, underscore ethical failures where engineers at Morton Thiokol identified risks from O-ring seals in low temperatures but faced managerial override prioritizing schedule pressures, leading to structural failure 73 seconds after launch and the deaths of seven crew members.
Such cases reveal causal dynamics where deference to non-technical authority can precipitate catastrophic outcomes, prompting reforms in whistleblower protections and ethics integration into engineering education to foster first-order accountability to verifiable risks over hierarchical compliance.

Historical Development

Pre-20th Century Foundations

In ancient engineering practices, such as the construction of Roman aqueducts starting with the Aqua Appia in 312 BCE, durability and precision were essential for functionality and long-term utility, driven by the practical need for reliable infrastructure that supported urban populations. These structures, built using gravity-fed systems of channels, bridges, and arches, demanded high workmanship to prevent leaks or collapses, with builders relying on reputation for securing future commissions rather than formal ethical codes. During the medieval period, craft guilds in Europe enforced standards through apprenticeships and collective oversight, where substandard work risked exclusion or loss of patronage, aligning self-interest with quality outcomes in bridge and construction. The Industrial Revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries intensified ethical pressures on engineers amid rapid infrastructure expansion, particularly in Britain's "Railway Mania" of the 1840s, where cost-driven decisions often compromised safety. Factory conditions highlighted risks to workers from machinery without safeguards, prompting early legislative responses like the UK's Factory Act of 1833, though engineers bore responsibility for designing safer systems. Bridge failures underscored these tensions; the Dee Bridge collapse on May 24, 1847, killed five when cast-iron girders failed under a passing train due to inadequate composite strength between cast iron and wrought-iron ties, drawing criticism toward designer Robert Stephenson for overreliance on unproven materials amid haste. Individual engineers like exemplified adherence to rigorous standards without centralized codes, as seen in his Great Western Railway projects where meticulous surveys minimized gradients and curves, prioritizing structural integrity over immediate cost savings despite higher expenses. Brunel's opposition to prescriptive rules for bridges reflected a commitment to innovation grounded in empirical testing, contrasting with lapses elsewhere, such as on December 28, 1879, where designer Thomas Bouch's emphasis on economy led to flawed ironwork and insufficient wind resistance, resulting in 75 deaths and revelations of overlooked defects during construction. These incidents highlighted causal links between corner-cutting for profit and public harm, fostering informal norms of accountability through professional scrutiny and parliamentary inquiries.

20th Century Institutionalization

The institutionalization of engineering ethics in the began with the adoption of formal codes by major professional societies in the early decades, driven by the need to professionalize amid rapid industrialization and emerging state regulations. The (ASCE), established in 1852, developed its inaugural Code of Ethics in 1914, which prioritized engineers' duties to the public and profession over personal or client interests, responding to incidents of misconduct and calls for self-regulation. Similarly, the (ASME) and the (predecessor to the IEEE) enacted codes in 1914 and 1912, respectively, embedding principles of integrity, competence, and public safety to distinguish professional practice from trade work. These early codes marked a shift toward codified standards, influenced by broader societal demands for accountability in and projects. The formation of the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) in 1934 further centralized ethical frameworks, advocating for uniform licensing and practice standards across states to counter fragmented regulations post-Great Depression. NSPE approved its Canons of Ethics in 1946 and supplemented them with Rules of Professional Conduct in 1957, explicitly requiring engineers to hold public safety paramount and avoid conflicts that could compromise welfare. Post-World War II, wartime experiences with —such as large-scale projects involving ethical trade-offs between innovation and human cost—heightened awareness of technology's societal impacts, prompting revisions to emphasize broader responsibilities beyond client directives. This era saw ethics integrated into licensing exams and professional oaths, with over 40 states enacting PE laws by 1950 to enforce competence and ethical adherence. Pivotal incidents reinforced these codes' emphasis on safety protocols. The 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear accident, involving equipment failures and operator errors that led to a partial core meltdown, exposed gaps in and communication, underscoring the ethical imperative for engineers to prioritize hazard mitigation over operational expediency. In response, societies like NSPE and ASCE advocated for enhanced training in human factors and , influencing code updates to strengthen obligations for transparent reporting and public protection. By century's end, these institutional mechanisms had reduced unchecked individualism in engineering, fostering a culture where ethical lapses faced professional repercussions through and licensure boards.

Post-2000 Adaptations and Challenges

In response to accelerating and , engineering ethics codes underwent significant revisions in the early to emphasize and long-term societal impacts. The (ASCE) adopted a revised Code of Ethics in 2020, mandating that engineers "adhere to the principles of " rather than merely striving toward them, while strengthening commitments to resilient amid and pressures. These updates addressed 's demands for ethical practices in international projects, including equitable treatment across diverse stakeholders and avoidance of outdated provisions that no longer aligned with modern complexities. The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and software into engineering workflows post-2000 introduced novel ethical challenges, such as algorithmic bias, unintended harms, and accountability in autonomous systems, prompting specialized frameworks. U.S. responsible AI policies from 2020 to 2025, including the National Institute of Standards and Technology's AI Risk Management Framework and executive directives, focused on mitigating bias and potential harms through transparency and testing without imposing overly restrictive regulations that could hinder innovation. In software engineering, this era saw the emergence of ethics guidelines emphasizing fairness in AI design, with interdisciplinary approaches drawing from philosophy and computer science to address value-laden technology deployment. These adaptations recognized AI's non-neutral impact on society, requiring engineers to prioritize harm prevention alongside performance gains. Corporate scandals and globalized operations tested self-regulation's efficacy, underscoring the need for robust ethical cultures to sustain public trust. The 2001 Enron collapse, involving ethical lapses in energy infrastructure accounting and operations, contributed to heightened scrutiny of engineers' roles in corporate decision-making, influencing subsequent accountability measures like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act's internal controls applicable to technical reporting. A 2022 report highlighted self-regulation's value, noting engineers' 87% trust rating in the UK—second only to nurses—attributable to strong ethical adherence in areas like safety and environment, while recommending proactive steps to embed ethics in professional training and oversight. This data affirmed that voluntary ethical commitments, rather than solely external mandates, effectively maintained credibility amid globalization's ethical dilemmas, such as cross-border labor standards and technology transfers.

Core Ethical Principles

Professional Competence and Integrity

Professional competence in engineering ethics mandates that practitioners limit their work to domains where they possess requisite knowledge, skills, and experience, while integrity requires truthful representation of qualifications without exaggeration or deception. The National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics explicitly states that engineers "shall perform services only in areas of their competence" and "shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner," underscoring the obligation to engage in ongoing to sustain expertise amid evolving technologies. Likewise, the (ASCE) Code of Ethics requires members to "perform services only in areas of their competence" and to "strive to increase their knowledge and improve their skills," positioning competence as foundational to ethical practice. These codes derive from the recognition that engineering outputs depend on accurate application of technical principles, where misrepresentation erodes trust and elevates risks. From a causal standpoint, insufficient competence disrupts reliable outcomes by introducing errors in , , or , as unmastered principles lead to flawed causal chains in systems. Empirical reviews of incidents attribute a significant portion of preventable failures to factors, including inadequate expertise, with post-failure analyses revealing that underqualified involvement correlates with higher defect rates in critical components. complements competence by deterring false claims that could bypass scrutiny, fostering market mechanisms like client vetting and to incentivize verifiable proficiency over unproven assertions. Debates on enforcement pit self-regulating approaches against mandatory structures. Free-market proponents argue that professional liability under tort law and insurance requirements naturally select for competence, as practitioners face financial and reputational penalties for deficiencies without needing universal oversight beyond initial licensure. Conversely, engineering societies emphasize formalized measures, such as mandatory continuing professional development, with over 30 U.S. states requiring professional development hours for license renewal to mitigate competence decay, reflecting the view that voluntary efforts alone insufficiently address variability in individual diligence. This tension highlights that while liability enforces accountability reactively, proactive certifications aim to preempt errors through standardized competence thresholds.

Obligations to Public Safety and Society

Engineers' primary ethical duty centers on safeguarding public safety, health, and welfare, a enshrined in professional codes and standards. The National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics mandates that engineers "hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public" in fulfilling professional responsibilities. Similarly, criteria for accrediting engineering programs require curricula to develop students' ability to design solutions that account for , safety, and welfare, alongside global, cultural, and environmental impacts. This obligation derives from the causal link between engineering decisions and real-world outcomes, demanding rigorous risk assessments grounded in quantifiable data rather than speculative harms. Empirical evidence underscores the consequences of neglecting this duty, as inadequate attention to verifiable risks has precipitated structural failures and . For instance, miscalculations in cost-benefit analyses for like dams have historically led to breaches, with data from engineering incident analyses revealing patterns where overlooked geotechnical or hydraulic factors amplified vulnerabilities. Surveys of practicing engineers indicate variability in perceived responsibility for public , often correlating with underestimation of systemic risks, which contributes to preventable incidents. Such highlight the need for first-principles evaluation of failure modes, prioritizing designs where safety margins exceed minimal thresholds based on probabilistic modeling and historical failure rates. Prioritizing public safety has yielded measurable societal benefits, particularly in transportation infrastructure. Post-1920s advancements in U.S. , including standardized safety features and alignment with principles, contributed to declining mortality rates; by the mid-20th century, fatality rates per vehicle-mile traveled dropped significantly due to divided highways and guardrails informed by crash data. The , operational from 1956 onward, further reduced deaths and injuries through engineered separations of opposing traffic and controlled access, delivering net benefits in user safety and . However, expansive interpretations of societal obligations beyond empirically verifiable risks can impede progress. Overregulation, often justified under broad public welfare pretexts, has been shown to suppress by increasing compliance costs, with studies finding that firms facing headcount-triggered regulatory thresholds innovate less, delaying technologies that enhance long-term . Mandates emphasizing unquantified "social good," such as initiatives without demonstrated ties to technical competence, risk diluting focus on causal factors in ; research on bias trainings reveals they frequently fail to reduce prejudices and may exacerbate divisions, offering no substantiated gains in reliability. Effective adherence thus requires distinguishing proximate risks—amenable to data-driven —from distal social aims lacking causal evidence of uplift.

Honesty, Conflicts of Interest, and Confidentiality

Engineers are obligated to maintain honesty in all professional communications, including technical reports, bids, and public statements, by avoiding any form of deception or misrepresentation that could mislead stakeholders or compromise project integrity. The IEEE Code of Ethics requires members to "reject in all its forms" and to "avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest whenever possible," while promoting truthful conduct in professional activities. Similarly, the ASCE Code of Ethics mandates that engineers "shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony," explicitly prohibiting the issuance of intentionally false or misleading information in bids or engineering documents. These principles stem from the recognition that dishonest practices, such as inflating capabilities in competitive bids, undermine trust in the profession and can lead to suboptimal outcomes. Conflicts of interest arise when an engineer's personal, financial, or relational ties could impair impartial judgment, necessitating full disclosure to affected parties to enable informed decision-making. Under ASCE guidelines, engineers must act as "faithful agents or trustees" for employers or clients while avoiding conflicts, with prompt disclosure required for any known or potential influences, such as equity stakes in suppliers or consulting fees from competitors. IEEE emphasizes disclosing unavoidable conflicts to all concerned parties, particularly in software and where dual loyalties might affect design integrity. Failure to disclose can result in biased decision-making; for instance, a study on large-scale construction projects found that undisclosed conflicts contributed to subjectively biased cost estimates in 30% of cases, often leading to inflated budgets due to favoritism toward affiliated vendors. Self-reporting mechanisms, such as mandatory annual disclosures in professional registrations, have been implemented in jurisdictions like those governed by NSPE-aligned bodies to mitigate these risks through verifiable transparency rather than relying on subjective self-assessments. Confidentiality obligates engineers to protect proprietary client information, including technical processes and business affairs, without consent for disclosure, as codified in both IEEE and ASCE ethics frameworks to foster trust in professional relationships. ASCE specifies that engineers "shall not disclose, without consent, confidential information concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former client or employer," reinforcing a contractual duty that prioritizes agreed-upon boundaries over expansive interpretations of public need. Debates in engineering ethics highlight tensions between this duty and broader public interest claims, particularly when confidential data reveals potential hazards; however, resolutions typically favor contractual realism, limiting disclosures to legally compelled scenarios or imminent threats under public safety canons, rather than proactive leaks that could breach fiduciary obligations. This approach aligns with causal analyses showing that routine confidentiality upholds long-term industry accountability, whereas premature revelations often invite litigation without proportional benefits, as evidenced in professional review cases where unsubstantiated public interest overrides eroded client confidence and professional viability.

Accountability, Reporting, and Whistleblowing

Engineering codes of ethics, such as the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code, impose a on engineers to violations that could endanger public safety, requiring notification to appropriate authorities if employers or clients persist in unprofessional conduct. This obligation stems from the paramount principle of public welfare, with escalation protocols typically mandating internal reporting to superiors or compliance officers before external disclosure to regulatory bodies or . In practice, such protocols aim to resolve issues within organizations while balancing , though failure to adhere can lead to professional withdrawal from the project. Legal safeguards for whistleblowers emerged prominently in the U.S. during the 1980s, with the providing federal employees protections against retaliation for disclosing illegality, gross mismanagement, or safety risks. For engineers in private sectors, protections are patchier, often relying on state laws or sector-specific statutes, but post-1986 Challenger disaster reforms at introduced enhanced reporting channels and anti-retaliation policies to address ignored warnings from engineers like , who documented O-ring failure risks months prior. These changes included procedural overhauls in decision-making and whistleblower training, aiming to reduce suppression of technical dissent. Despite such measures, real-world efficacy remains limited by high retaliation risks, with surveys indicating that 75% of software engineers—who share similar professional contexts—faced career harm, such as or isolation, the last time they reported internally. Broader studies corroborate this, showing that over 50% of employees across sectors fear job loss from disclosures, underscoring persistent systemic incentives against reporting. Post-Challenger data suggests some decline in overt suppression incidents due to cultural shifts and legal deterrents, yet quantitative evidence of overall reduction is sparse, with ongoing cases of professional highlighting whistleblowing's unreliability as a primary safeguard. Debates center on individual —where engineers bear personal responsibility to act despite risks—versus structural critiques that view as inefficient, often surfacing issues only after escalation rather than preventing them through proactive reputational pressures or incentive-aligned cultures. Proponents of the former emphasize ethical imperatives in codes, while skeptics argue over-reliance on heroic individual action ignores how organizational incentives perpetuate silence, advocating supplementary mechanisms like independent audits over ad-hoc disclosures. Empirical patterns from incidents reveal that while can avert disasters when heeded, its low success rate in altering entrenched practices questions its standalone viability against market-driven .

Professional Frameworks and Enforcement

Codes of Ethics from Societies and Bodies

The National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) established its Code of Ethics in 1964, evolving from earlier Canons of Ethics adopted in 1946 following initial proposals in 1935, to guide licensed professional engineers . The code comprises six Fundamental Canons, emphasizing paramount public safety, health, and welfare; competence within expertise; truthful public statements; faithful service to employers or clients; avoidance of deceptive acts; and honorable conduct to enhance the profession's reputation. It further includes Rules of Practice and Professional Obligations, addressing issues like conflicts of interest and . The (ASCE) maintains a distinct Code of Ethics, originally adopted in 1914 and comprehensively revised on October 26, 2020—the first major update since 1974—to prioritize brevity, behavioral intent, and a stakeholder hierarchy placing public welfare foremost, followed by clients, profession, and firm. This revision integrates diversity, inclusion, resilience, and legal compliance, while removing absolute prohibitions on certain competitive practices to reflect modern contexts. Internationally, the World Federation of Engineering Organizations (WFEO) promulgated a Model Code of Ethics in 2001, serving as a template for national bodies worldwide, with principles centered on , competent practice, leadership, , and . This model underscores truth, fairness, accountability, and public welfare, adapting to global challenges like climate adaptation through supplementary codes of practice. Enforcement variations reflect jurisdictional differences: U.S. codes like NSPE's tie directly to professional licensure, where violations can lead to disciplinary actions by state boards, whereas the UK's Engineering Council provides aspirational guidance through four principles—honesty and integrity, respect for life, law, environment, and public good; accuracy and rigour; and leadership—integrated into competence standards without mandatory licensing for all engineers. Surveys indicate engineers generally report higher ethical adherence than the broader UK workforce, though student perceptions often question full compliance feasibility, with over 30% doubting realistic adherence to codes in practice. These codes have demonstrably supported ethical decision-making, correlating with reduced corruption risks in infrastructure projects where adherence is emphasized.

Mechanisms of Self-Regulation

Engineering self-regulation encompasses profession-led processes such as standardized licensing examinations administered by organizations like the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES), which require candidates to pass the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam followed by the Principles and Practice of Engineering (PE) exam after gaining supervised experience, ensuring a baseline of competence without relying on external governmental mandates. State licensing boards, operating under model rules developed by NCEES, enforce these standards through ongoing requirements like and maintain disciplinary authority to investigate complaints, impose sanctions including fines, suspensions, or license revocations for violations such as or . mechanisms, often integrated into project workflows by firms and societies, involve independent evaluations of designs and calculations to detect errors prior to implementation, providing a layer of internal that leverages collective expertise. Empirical evidence indicates these mechanisms contribute to lower incidence of failures in licensed domains compared to unregulated activities; for instance, structural collapses and other public incidents have been linked to exemptions from licensure requirements, where non-licensed personnel oversaw critical decisions, underscoring the protective role of mandatory oversight. Peer reviews demonstrably enhance outcomes by identifying inaccuracies and compliance gaps early, reducing liability exposure and serving as evidentiary defense in disputes, with studies showing collaborative peer processes yield higher-quality feedback than solitary checks. Disciplinary proceedings, while infrequent—typically involving a small fraction of licensees annually—exert significant deterrence through publicized cases and the threat of career-ending revocations, as handled by state boards and informed by NSPE reviews. Historical patterns reveal that lapses in these self-regulatory practices, such as inadequate peer scrutiny, have precipitated notable failures, yet consistent application correlates with sustained public in fields like civil and . Advantages of self-regulation include adaptability to evolving technologies, drawing on practitioners' specialized knowledge to set dynamic standards faster than bureaucratic alternatives, thereby fostering without compromising core competencies. Economic models suggest it minimizes costs and enhances welfare by aligning incentives for firms to exceed minimal thresholds voluntarily, avoiding the rigidities of top-down rules that could stifle . Drawbacks involve risks of , where industry interests may dilute , though from audited self-systems in technical fields show superior outcomes in expertise-driven compliance over generalized mandates. Overall, these internal levers have proven resilient in preempting ethical and technical lapses, with and sanction reflecting proactive rather than reactive efficacy.

Interactions with Government Regulation

Government regulation intersects with engineering ethics by imposing mandatory standards on design, construction, and operation that engineers must integrate into professional practice, often through licensing requirements, inspections, and penalties for non-compliance. The (OSHA), established in 1970 under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, exemplifies beneficial interventions, correlating with a decline in U.S. fatalities from approximately 38 per day in 1970 to 15 per day in 2023, alongside reductions in reported injuries and illnesses from 10.9 cases per 100 full-time workers in 1972 to 2.7 in 2022. These outcomes reflect causal links between enforced safety protocols and empirical improvements in hazard mitigation, though attribution is complicated by concurrent technological advances and industry shifts. However, regulatory burdens impose substantial economic costs that can hinder engineering progress. Estimates indicate that federal expenditures reached $2.155 trillion in 2023, equivalent to about 7% of U.S. GDP, with sectors facing disproportionate impacts from rules on emissions, safety, and labor. Empirical analyses show that such accumulation slows , as firms reduce R&D when scaling triggers additional oversight; for instance, a study of U.S. firms found that regulations tied to firm size depress patenting rates and growth. In engineering contexts, this manifests as deferred projects and elevated costs, where compliance diverts resources from core technical advancements. Aviation engineering highlights tensions in regulatory enforcement. Following the 2018 and 2019 crashes, the (FAA) intensified scrutiny, revoking delegated certification authority and imposing production caps, which delayed approvals for variants like the MAX 7 and MAX 10 by years and contributed to Boeing's slowed competitiveness against . These measures, while aimed at safety, extended certification timelines—evident in ongoing holds for the 777X program—and prompted FAA proposals in 2025 for streamlined processes to mitigate innovation lags. Critics argue this post-incident overreach, influenced by political pressures, exemplifies how politicized oversight prioritizes over evidence-based balancing, fostering delays without proportional safety gains. Debates persist on optimal calibration, with evidence favoring hybrid approaches where professional self-regulation predominates and government intervenes only for clear market failures like externalities in public safety. Infrastructure projects under statutes like the (NEPA) demonstrate regulatory pitfalls, as environmental reviews have extended timelines by 2–7 years on average for major developments, inflating costs by 20–50% and deterring private investment in engineering feats such as pipelines or bridges. Such delays, often amplified by litigation rather than technical necessities, underscore causal harms to societal welfare, including forgone and heightened vulnerability to aging systems, supporting calls for to enhance and engineer-led accountability.

Illustrative Case Studies

Pre-1980s Engineering Failures

The disaster of December 28, 1879, involved the collapse of the central spans of the first Tay Rail Bridge in during a severe , plunging a into the of Tay and resulting in approximately 75 deaths. The official inquiry attributed the failure primarily to inherent design defects, including inadequate lacing bars on the iron girders and poor-quality in the columns, compounded by ineffective construction supervision and workmanship under tight budget constraints imposed by the Company. Engineer bore significant accountability for these lapses in professional competence, as he overlooked warnings about the structure's vulnerability to high winds and prioritized cost savings over robust testing and material quality verification. However, systemic incentives, such as commercial pressures to complete the ambitious 2-mile span quickly and cheaply to capture rail traffic, contributed to the override of safety protocols, highlighting tensions between economic imperatives and public welfare obligations. The disaster prompted stricter British railway bridge design standards, including mandatory wind load considerations and independent inspections, underscoring the ethical imperative for engineers to challenge inadequate funding models that compromise structural integrity. The Great Boston Molasses Flood on January 15, 1919, saw a 50-foot-high rupture in 's North End, unleashing 2.3 million gallons of in a 15-foot-high wave that killed 21 people, injured 150, and caused extensive . Engineering analysis revealed the failure stemmed from substandard construction using thin, unwelded plates susceptible to brittle fracture in cold temperatures, exacerbated by the tank's untested design for hydrostatic pressure and lack of maintenance despite visible leaks and audible groans during filling. The United States Industrial Alcohol Company, prioritizing wartime production profits over safety, ignored warnings and ethical duties to investigate anomalies, reflecting a broader pattern where cost-cutting neglected public safety in industrial facilities. Legal proceedings held the company liable for , leading to improved tank design codes, such as reinforced cylindrical vessels and mandatory pressure testing, which reinforced engineers' accountability to report and mitigate foreseeable hazards rather than defer to managerial production pressures. This case illustrates how individual competence failures, like insufficient material specifications, intersected with systemic profit-driven overrides, resulting in preventable casualties and prompting ethical reforms in practices. The collapse on August 29, 1907, during construction over the , claimed 75 lives when the south cantilever arm buckled under excessive compressive loads, marking one of North America's deadliest structural failures. Theodore Cooper's design underestimated dead weight by 50% due to flawed compression member calculations and reliance on unverified assumptions for the world's longest span ambition, without on-site oversight or adequate scale modeling. Economic pressures from the Quebec Bridge Company to minimize costs and expedite completion amid competitive rail demands led to overridden safety margins, as engineers deferred critical stress analyses to avoid delays. The Royal Commission report faulted both design errors and lapses in professional judgment, yet emphasized systemic issues like fragmented responsibility between consulting and fabricating parties, which diluted accountability. Post-failure reforms included Canadian steel bridge codes mandating factored load safety factors and peer-reviewed designs, teaching that engineers must prioritize empirical validation over optimistic projections influenced by commercial incentives. The failure on November 7, 1940, demonstrated aerodynamic instability when the slender, lightweight suspension deck twisted and collapsed into amid 40-mph winds, with no human fatalities but significant economic loss. Designer Leon Moisseiff's adoption of deflection theory for a flexible deck ignored emerging wind-induced vibration risks, as pre-1940 bridge failures were misattributed to static loads rather than dynamic aeroelastic effects like flutter. Cost-saving choices, including shallower stiffening trusses to reduce material expenses under Depression-era budgets, amplified the vulnerability, revealing ethical shortcomings in venturing beyond validated expertise without interdisciplinary consultation on novel phenomena. While chief engineer David Steinman criticized the design as overreliance on unproven theory, the incident balanced individual innovation hubris against systemic underinvestment in prototyping, ultimately driving U.S. bridge standards to incorporate aerodynamic testing and torsional rigidity requirements. These pre-1980 cases collectively reveal recurring patterns where technical miscalculations intertwined with economic imperatives eroded safety margins, yielding codes that enforce rigorous verification and ethical vigilance against such overrides.

Late 20th to Early 21st Century Incidents

The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster on January 28, 1986, exemplified failures in engineering integrity and amid organizational pressures. Engineers at Morton Thiokol, including , had documented erosion in solid rocket boosters from prior flights and warned in a July 31, 1985, memo that cold temperatures could exacerbate seal failures, potentially causing "loss of human life." Despite recommending against launch due to forecasted low temperatures on launch day, management reversed the engineers' position after officials expressed dissatisfaction, prioritizing schedule adherence over empirical risk data. The subsequent failure in the right booster led to the vehicle's breakup 73 seconds after liftoff, killing all seven crew members. Post-accident investigations highlighted suppressing data-driven dissent, with whistleblowers like Boisjoly and Allan McDonald facing retaliation for testifying on the decision process. The case in the 1970s illustrated ethical tensions in cost-benefit analyses prioritizing economics over . Pre-production crash tests in 1970 revealed that rear-end impacts at 20-30 mph could rupture the Pinto's , risking fires, yet Ford proceeded with production to meet timelines. An internal analysis estimated that modifying the tank would $11 per , while projected liabilities from 180 burn deaths, 180 serious injuries, and 2,100 burned vehicles over the model's life totaled $200,000—deeming fixes uneconomical. Actual incidents, including a 1973 crash resulting in three deaths, prompted lawsuits exposing the memo, leading the to declare the tank defective in 1978 and mandate recalls for 1.5 million 1971-1976 Pintos. This revealed integrity lapses where engineers' concerns yielded to managerial directives favoring short-term profits, without robust quantitative models accounting for non-monetary human costs. These incidents spurred advancements in engineering ethics by underscoring the need for formalized quantitative over subjective judgments. Following Challenger, adopted probabilistic risk models integrating empirical failure data and environmental factors, reducing reliance on qualitative overrides. The Pinto fallout contributed to enhanced automotive standards, including Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301 updates emphasizing testing. Yet, they persist as cautionary examples of how complexity amplifies barriers, with often eclipsing first-hand technical evidence unless supported by institutional safeguards for dissent.

Recent Controversies (2010s-2025)

The aircraft faced intense scrutiny following two fatal crashes attributed to flaws in its (MCAS), a software designed to prevent stalls by automatically adjusting the horizontal stabilizer. On October 29, 2018, crashed into the shortly after takeoff from , killing all 189 aboard, and on March 10, 2019, plunged near , resulting in 157 deaths, for a total of 346 fatalities. Investigations revealed that MCAS relied on a single angle-of-attack prone to erroneous data, and had not adequately disclosed its functionality to pilots or regulators during . The U.S. (FAA) had delegated significant authority to under its Organization Designation Authorization program, allowing the company to self-certify compliance, which a 2020 congressional report criticized as enabling shortcuts and inadequate oversight. By 2021, a U.S. Inspector General report identified weaknesses in FAA processes, including insufficient independence in reviews, leading to 's $2.5 billion settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice in 2021 and ongoing production audits revealing compliance failures as late as 2024. The 2023 implosion of the OceanGate Titan submersible underscored tensions between rapid innovation and established safety protocols in experimental engineering. On June 18, 2023, the Titan, a cylindrical carbon-fiber and titanium vessel designed for tourist dives to the Titanic wreck, suffered a catastrophic failure at approximately 3,300 meters depth in the North Atlantic, killing all five occupants, including CEO Stockton Rush. The design deviated from conventional spherical shapes proven for deep-sea pressures, and OceanGate rejected third-party certification from bodies like DNV, citing it as stifling innovation; internal and external experts had warned since 2018 of hull fatigue risks from repeated dives and acoustic anomalies detected in prior expeditions. A 2025 U.S. Coast Guard Marine Board of Investigation report detailed systemic lapses, including absent risk management frameworks, unqualified crew for emergency responses, and prioritization of commercial viability over empirical testing, with no formal safety director in place. These findings fueled debates on whether deregulatory approaches to "disruptive" technologies enable ethical oversights, as the incident prompted calls for international standards on private submersibles without yielding immediate regulatory changes by 2025. The February 6, 2023, earthquakes in and , registering magnitudes of 7.8 and 7.5, exposed enforcement failures in amid entrenched , contributing to over 50,000 deaths and the collapse of more than 300,000 buildings. In , post-quake assessments found that up to 90% of failures in urban areas like Hatay and stemmed from substandard materials, unpermitted alterations, and violations of seismic codes enacted after 1999 quakes, with empirical data showing modern reinforced-concrete structures pancaking due to inadequate beam-column joints and excess stories added illegally. amnesties under President Erdoğan's administration, including a 2018 program forgiving fines for 7 million buildings in exchange for fees, incentivized non-compliance, while lax inspections—often influenced by —prioritized over adherence to engineering standards. By , accountability efforts stalled, with probes into over 1,000 contractors yielding few prosecutions amid protections for politically connected developers, highlighting how systemic graft undermines ethical codes more than their absence, as collapsed buildings in compliant zones fared better per structural analyses. Recovery data through 2025 indicated persistent vulnerabilities, with rebuilt structures facing similar risks absent reformed permitting.

Ongoing Debates and Critiques

Self-Regulation versus Excessive Oversight

In engineering ethics, the tension between self-regulation by professional societies and licensing boards and externally imposed government oversight centers on balancing public safety with and innovation. Proponents of self-regulation argue that internalized ethical standards, enforced through mechanisms like state licensing boards and codes from organizations such as the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE), foster accountability without the bureaucratic inertia of top-down mandates. These bodies investigate complaints and impose sanctions, with disciplinary actions remaining relatively infrequent; for instance, NSPE's Board of Ethical Review has issued opinions on fewer than 500 cases since the 1950s, amid over 500,000 licensed professional engineers in the U.S. as of 2024, suggesting effective deterrence through peer accountability rather than pervasive violations. Critics of excessive oversight contend that layered government regulations often introduce delays and cost escalations without commensurate safety gains, as evidenced by U.S. projects where federal permitting processes extend timelines by 1 to 2 years on average due to litigation and compliance hurdles, adding billions in development expenses. Economic analyses indicate that self-regulatory frameworks, leveraging industry expertise, achieve oversight at lower costs than governmental alternatives, as self-regulatory organizations (SROs) conduct investigations more efficiently while maintaining safety standards comparable to or exceeding state mandates. In contexts, this efficiency preserves innovation incentives, avoiding the stagnation seen in overregulated sectors where precautionary rules prioritize over practical outcomes. Empirical evidence supports self-reliance in high-stakes fields; the 1978 reduced federal economic controls while preserving safety oversight through the , resulting in a continued decline in jet fatality rates post-deregulation, with no detectable increase in accidents despite a 50% surge in passenger volume and entry of new carriers. This contrasts with precautionary government mandates, often advocated from perspectives emphasizing systemic safeguards, which can embed politicized biases—such as disproportionate emphasis on environmental litigation—that inflate costs without proportional risk reduction, as critiqued in analyses of and inefficiency. Market-oriented viewpoints, prioritizing incentives like reputational accountability and liability, align with these outcomes, demonstrating that self-regulation harnesses causal mechanisms of and expertise to sustain ethical conduct more dynamically than rigid oversight.

Shortcomings in Ethics Education and Assessment

Engineering ethics education often suffers from marginal integration into core curricula, typically treated as an add-on module with minimal credit allocation, as evidenced by accreditation self-assessments where ranks lowest in emphasis. A 2021 multi-level review of empirical and theoretical literature highlights systemic gaps, including ad-hoc implementation without cohesive strategies and insufficient linkage to technical coursework, leading to fragmented learning that fails to embed ethical reasoning in practical engineering contexts. Faculty challenges exacerbate these issues, with instructors frequently lacking specialized in pedagogy and relying on resource-intensive co-teaching models that receive little institutional support. Assessment practices reveal further deficiencies, primarily in capturing real-world ethical behaviors and organizational cultures that influence professional decisions. One critique posits that standard assessments overlook behavioral outcomes, focusing instead on abstract knowledge that does not translate to on-the-job application, thereby underestimating contextual factors like workplace pressures. Another identifies cultural misalignment, where evaluations ignore how engineering environments prioritize efficiency over ethical deliberation, resulting in metrics that assess isolated competencies rather than integrated ethical performance. Longitudinal data from a 2010-2012 study of 450 U.S. engineering undergraduates across 16 institutions showed no significant retention of ethics knowledge, with average scores on Fundamentals of Engineering-style questions remaining static at approximately 3 out of 5 correct answers over two years, despite gains in moral reasoning scores. Pedagogical approaches emphasizing emotional responses or broader themes over rational, have drawn criticism for diluting focus on verifiable safety outcomes. While emotions influence , engineering contexts demand prioritized rational evaluation of causal risks, such as structural failures, where evidence links ethical lapses directly to technical oversights rather than diffuse societal factors. Critics contend that infusing social justice elements risks alienating students and diverting from core professional duties like public safety, without demonstrated causal ties to reduced incidents, as traditional codes emphasize paramount welfare through competence. Reforms should prioritize rigorous, evidence-based training integrated with technical simulations and behaviorally oriented assessments to enhance retention and applicability, countering ideological expansions lacking empirical validation in safety improvements.

Tensions Between Innovation, Economics, and Ethical Constraints

Engineers frequently encounter conflicts where the imperative to innovate rapidly for economic competitiveness clashes with ethical obligations to mitigate foreseeable harms. In fields like and , ethical scrutiny over potential misuse, such as breaking encryption or amplifying biases, has prompted calls for precautionary measures that could delay deployment. For instance, proposals for temporary pauses in advanced AI training, as advocated in open letters signed by over 1,000 experts in 2023, highlight fears of uncontrolled capabilities, yet such restraints risk ceding technological leadership to less-regulated actors, potentially costing billions in foregone productivity gains. Economic analyses underscore how overly stringent ethical constraints can impede , diverting resources toward compliance rather than breakthroughs. Empirical studies indicate that regulatory burdens in high-tech sectors correlate with reduced rates, as firms allocate 10-15% more to legal and oversight functions, squeezing core R&D budgets in competitive markets. In , ethical concerns over dual-use applications have led governments to impose export controls and funding conditions since 2022, slowing international collaboration and extending timelines for practical applications like materials simulation by years. Conversely, market-driven incentives have accelerated , with solar photovoltaic costs plummeting 89% from 2010 to 2020 through iterative improvements, yielding environmental benefits without top-down ethical mandates. Critics argue that "ethics washing"—superficial adherence to ethical guidelines to satisfy mandates or secure subsidies—undermines genuine progress, particularly in green energy transitions where firms tout compliance amid abuses. Verifiable risks, such as structural failures from cost-cutting, warrant rigorous ethical prioritization, as evidenced by historical incidents where economic pressures precipitated disasters; however, speculative harms from unproven technologies lack causal evidence to justify halting advancements that demonstrably enhance welfare, like AI's role in accelerating vaccine development during the . Prioritizing empirically grounded constraints over hypothetical doomsdays preserves engineering's capacity to deliver net societal gains.

References

  1. https://www.nspe.org/career-growth/ethics/code-ethics
  2. https://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/resources/pdfs/Ethics/CodeofEthics/NSPECodeofEthicsforEngineers.pdf
  3. https://www.asce.org/career-growth/ethics
  4. https://onlineethics.org/cases/engineering-ethics-cases-texas-am/space-shuttle-challenger-disaster
  5. https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/ethical-lessons-learned-from-the-challenger-disaster
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8384818/
  7. https://ethw.org/Roman_Aqueducts
  8. https://watershapes.com/roman-aqueducts-masterworks-of-classic-engineering/
  9. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/5/4/1996
  10. https://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/thesis/failures/MKP/failures/failures.wikispaces.com/Dee_Bridge_Collapse.html
  11. https://journal.eahn.org/article/id/7454/
  12. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/42796082_Aesthetics_versus_function_The_fall_of_the_Dee_bridge_1847
  13. https://www.asce.org/about-civil-engineering/history-and-heritage/notable-civil-engineers/isambard-kingdom-brunel
  14. https://www.ukessays.com/essays/engineering/the-tay-bridge-disaster-engineering-essay.php
  15. https://peimpact.com/the-tay-bridge-disaster/
  16. https://www.asce.org/career-growth/ethics/code-of-ethics
  17. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19378620902725166
  18. https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics/history-the-code-ethics-engineers
  19. https://ivypanda.com/essays/engineering-ethics-of-chernobyl-and-the-three-mile-island/
  20. https://onlineethics.org/cases/three-mile-island-nuclear-accident
  21. https://www.asce.org/publications-and-news/civil-engineering-source/article/2020/11/10/asce-installs-new-code-of-ethics
  22. https://www.asce.org/publications-and-news/civil-engineering-source/civil-engineering-magazine/issues/magazine-issue/article/2021/01/part-2-of-2-asces-new-code-of-ethics-explained
  23. https://peer.asee.org/engineering-u-s-responsible-ai-policy-a-survey-2020-2025.pdf
  24. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666389921001574
  25. https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/context/jiee/article/1028/viewcontent/JIEE_GLOBAL_ENGINEERING_ETHICS_FINAL.pdf
  26. https://www.investopedia.com/updates/enron-scandal-summary/
  27. https://raeng.org.uk/media/kr0j2ejr/rae-engineering-ethics-full-report_v7.pdf
  28. https://www.engc.org.uk/media/d5wnaknq/annual-review-2022.pdf
  29. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321575188_Engineering_Ethics_for_a_Globalized_World
  30. https://www.asce.org/-/media/asce-images-and-files/career-and-growth/ethics/documents/asce-code-ethics-july-2017.pdf
  31. https://www.asce.org/publications-and-news/civil-engineering-source/article/2021/04/22/engineering-ethics-competence
  32. https://ncees.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Additional-education-initiative_ELQTF-2003_expanded-report.pdf
  33. https://www.asce.org/publications-and-news/civil-engineering-source/civil-engineering-magazine/article/2009/02/mandatory-continuing-education
  34. https://www.abet.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/2024-2025_EAC_Criteria.pdf
  35. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753525000906
  36. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753525000876
  37. https://magazine.publichealth.jhu.edu/2024/brief-history-traffic-deaths-us
  38. http://www.publicpurpose.com/freeway1.htm
  39. https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/does-regulation-hurt-innovation-study-says-yes
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10120861/
  41. https://www.nspe.org/categories/code-ethics/iii2b
  42. https://www.nspe.org/career-growth/ethics/board-ethical-review-cases/duty-report-violation-anonymous-complaint
  43. https://onlineethics.org/print/pdf/node/37116
  44. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48318
  45. https://sdsmtnovum.org/2022/01/31/roger-boisjoly-and-the-challenger-disaster/
  46. https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/08_whistleblowerprotectionplan.pdf
  47. https://www.engprax.com/post/75-of-software-engineers-faced-retaliation-last-time-they-report-wrongdoing/
  48. https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/article/1891247/half-employees-fear-losing-job-blow-whistle-survey-finds
  49. https://libraopen.lib.virginia.edu/downloads/ng451h58d
  50. https://academic.oup.com/book/6118/chapter/149672084
  51. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1563&context=nulr
  52. https://www.nspe.org/career-growth/nspe-code-ethics-engineers
  53. https://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/resources/pdfs/Ethics/EthicsReferenceGuide.pdf
  54. https://www.asce.org/publications-and-news/civil-engineering-source/civil-engineering-magazine/issues/magazine-issue/article/2020/12/part-1-of-2-asces-new-code-of-ethics-explained
  55. https://www.wfeo.org/code-of-ethics/
  56. https://www.sustainable-design.ie/fire/WFEO-UNESCO_Model-Code-Ethics_2001.pdf
  57. https://www.wfeo.org/wp-content/uploads/code_of_ethics/WFEO_Code-of-ethics_2023-10-14.pdf
  58. https://www.engc.org.uk/resources-and-guidance/guidance-for-the-profession/ethical-principles/
  59. https://raeng.org.uk/media/x0lbgvco/ethics-in-the-engineering-profession.pdf
  60. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1136484.pdf
  61. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11258101/
  62. https://ncees.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Model_Rules_January-2024_web.pdf
  63. https://files.engineers.org/file/Risk-Tip-10-Essential-Benefits-of-Project-Peer-Review.pdf
  64. https://www.machinedesign.com/community/guest-commentary/article/21216453/engineering-licensing-exemptions-put-the-public-at-unnecessary-risk
  65. https://www.risk-strategies.com/blog/peer-review-in-design-pluses-and-perils
  66. https://www.nspe.org/career-growth/ethics/board-ethical-review-cases
  67. https://peer.asee.org/countering-threats-to-licensure-with-asce-s-engineer-tomorrow-initiative.pdf
  68. https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1994-01%2520The%2520Use%2520of%2520Audited%2520Self-Regulation%2520as%2520a%2520Regulatory%2520Technique.pdf
  69. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0147596707000030
  70. https://hal.science/hal-01615571/document
  71. https://www.pdh-pro.com/pe-resources/engineering-ethics-violations-a-nationwide-review-of-disciplinary-trends-lessons-and-best-practices/
  72. https://www.osha.gov/data/commonstats
  73. https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-9/nearly-50-years-of-occupational-safety-and-health-data.htm
  74. https://budget.house.gov/press-release/competitive-enterprise-institute-burdensome-federal-regulations-cost-economy-2-trillion-annually
  75. https://www.nam.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/NAM-3731-Crains-Study-R3-V2-FIN.pdf
  76. https://leehamnews.com/2025/10/06/boeings-progress-continues-to-run-into-faa-process-delays/
  77. https://simpleflying.com/faa-overhaul-aircraft-speed-certification/
  78. https://www2.itif.org/2011-impact-regulation-innovation.pdf
  79. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/am/pii/S0263786315001921
  80. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368361276_Assessing_the_impact_of_regulations_and_standards_on_innovation_in_the_field_of_AI
  81. https://structurescentre.com/the-tay-bridge-collapse-a-failure-from-design/
  82. https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/10.3366/nor.2022.0271
  83. https://www.scribd.com/document/73472441/Assignment-2
  84. https://thebhc.org/sites/default/files/beh/BEHprint/v026n2/p0491-p0504.pdf
  85. https://blog.engineshed.scot/2017/01/11/132/
  86. https://www.history.com/articles/great-molasses-flood-science
  87. https://pdhonline.com/courses/r151/Molasses%2520flood%2520Study%2520Guide.pdf
  88. https://fenner-esler.com/blog/the-1919-boston-molasses-flood-21st-century-engineering-analysis-identifies-new-flaws/
  89. https://www.cedengineering.com/course-page/the-molasses-flood-of-1919-and-other-ethical-failures-in-engineering
  90. https://peer.asee.org/ethical-exotica-small-sticky-cases-for-analysis.pdf
  91. https://www.structuremag.org/article/quebec-bridge-the-first-failure-1907/
  92. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/engineeringinsociety/chapter/infrastructure-disaster-quebec-bridge-1907/
  93. https://ivypanda.com/essays/engineering-ethical-issue-research-paper/
  94. https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUConstrLawNlr/2008/13.pdf
  95. https://sheqnetwork.com/2024/11/27/lessons-from-the-quebec-bridge-collapses-enhancing-safety-with-modern-contractor-management-solutions/
  96. https://www.aps.org/archives/publications/apsnews/201611/physicshistory.cfm
  97. https://wsdot.wa.gov/tnbhistory/bridges-failure.htm
  98. https://www.cedengineering.com/userfiles/Ethical%2520Issues%2520from%2520the%2520Tacoma%2520Narrows%2520R1.pdf
  99. https://www.asce.org/about-civil-engineering/history-and-heritage/historic-landmarks/tacoma-narrows-bridges
  100. https://www.cedengineering.ca/userfiles/LE2-003%2520-%2520Ethical%2520Issues%2520from%2520the%2520Tacoma%2520Narrows%2520Bridge%2520Collapse.pdf
  101. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342448555_Engineering_Disasters_The_Role_of_Engineering_versus_Management_Cumulative_Failure_Risk_Factor
  102. https://blog.apaonline.org/2025/07/16/engineers-expertise-and-organizations-the-challenger-space-shuttle-disaster/
  103. https://www.montana.edu/stes/news/sciencematters/engineering-courage.html
  104. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/knowinghome/wp-content/uploads/sites/954/2020/04/NASA_Virtue-Ethics-.pdf
  105. https://www.engineering.com/ford-pinto/
  106. https://www.cedengineering.com/userfiles/Ethics%2C%2520an%2520Alternative%2520Account%2520of%2520the%2520Ford%2520Pinto%2520Case%2520R1.pdf
  107. https://noonpi.com/np-f-1007w/
  108. https://onlineethics.org/cases/oec-bibliographies/engineering-ethics-and-risk
  109. https://www.npr.org/2020/09/16/913426448/congressional-inquiry-faults-boeing-and-faa-failures-for-deadly-737-max-plane-cr
  110. https://spectrum.ieee.org/how-the-boeing-737-max-disaster-looks-to-a-software-developer
  111. https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/FAA%2520Certification%2520of%2520737%2520MAX%2520Boeing%2520II%2520Final%2520Report%255E2-23-2021.pdf
  112. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/20/us/oceangate-titanic-missing-submersible.html
  113. https://www.npr.org/2023/06/21/1183408455/titan-missing-submarine-oceangate-submersible
  114. https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%2520Documents/5p/CG-5PC/INV/MBOIs/TITAN_7724663_MBIR_Redacted.pdf
  115. https://peer.asee.org/sacrificing-safety-in-the-name-of-innovation-the-oceangate-titan-disaster
  116. https://www.justsecurity.org/118796/human-costs-systemic-corruption/
  117. https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/new-report-into-turkey-syria-earthquakes-uncovers-deficiencies-in-building-structures-and
  118. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gove.12869
  119. https://www.newarab.com/investigations/how-turkey-protected-powerful-earthquake-accountability
  120. https://www.context.news/money-power-people/rotten-buildings-corruption-in-spotlight-after-turkey-quake
  121. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/16/what-does-the-recovery-process-for-turkey-and-syria-look-like
  122. https://www.engineers.org/about/news/pe-and-pls-totals-by-discipline-up-to-and-through-10-16-2024/
  123. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/our-insights/unlocking-us-federal-permitting-a-sustainable-growth-imperative
  124. https://republicanpolicy.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicanpolicy.house.gov/files/documents/34%2520-%2520Curtail%2520Regulatory%2520Delays%2520for%2520Infrastructure%2520Projects.pdf
  125. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4783619_Self-Regulation_and_Government_Oversight
  126. https://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/what-deregulation-has-meant-airline-safety
  127. https://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/ipsavage/204-manuscript.pdf
  128. https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/1987/12/v11n3-4-7.pdf
  129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00333-6
  130. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386119570_Two_criticisms_of_engineering_ethics_assessment
  131. https://peer.asee.org/two-years-later-a-longitudinal-look-at-the-impact-of-engineering-ethics-education.pdf
  132. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-025-00543-2
  133. https://jamesgmartin.center/2018/11/the-rise-of-engineerings-social-justice-warriors/
  134. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08956308.2023.2257107
  135. https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/risk-management/quantum-computing-ethics-risks.html
  136. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3275721/
  137. https://www.wevolver.com/article/technical-and-ethical-issues-in-quantum-computing-the-quantum-challenge
  138. https://www.achilles.com/industry-insights/strategies-to-prevent-greenwashing-in-the-energy-sector/
  139. https://www.green-technology.org/market-forces/
  140. https://www.engineer500.com/engineering-ethics-balancing-innovation-and-responsibility/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.