ECH 80 essay 3- Engineering Ethics PDF

Preview

Summary

This is the third assignment in this engineering ethics. We were asked to read the chemical engineering ethics code and wrote a reflection on one of the terms in the ethics code. While writing the reflection, we have to use the concrete example, at which I used the example of the explosion of the s...

Description

ZEKUN CHEN ECH80 Essay3 Student ID: 999276424

Say and Present Trustfully- Reflection on AICHE Code of Ethics #4 During the ECH 80 lectures in October 28th and November 4th, I actively engaged in learning the AICHE codes of ethics. From the contents in each code and the vivid examples Professor Spyros Tseregounis introduced to us, I had gained deeper understanding of the morals a chemical engineer should possess while maintaining his or her own profession. As a future chemical engineer, I should always keep these codes in mind and faithfully stick to it whenever I need to make decisions and showcase my profession. Among the AICHE code of ethics, the number 4 code, which says that our chemical engineers ought to issue statements or present information only in an objective and truthful manner, catches most of my attention. This code is rather important and breaking it might lead to disastrous outcomes. As the number four code states, chemical engineers should make statements and present information objectively and truthfully. As far as I am concerned, this code is of great significance because it stands for the core of honesty and integrity for professional chemical engineers. During the course of their careers, chemical engineers build up their reputations and the trust from their employer, clients and the public by sincerely and impartially expressing their own opinions and ideas based on the chemistry and engineering knowledge embedded in their minds. If chemical engineers keep obeying this code and always speak out the truth under any circumstances, their credibility and authorities will be established and people are willing to trust these chemical engineers. However, if some chemical engineers violate this code and fabricate some evaluation reports, experimental data and published materials, their reputation will greatly suffer. Even just breaking out this code once makes these chemical engineers difficult to earn their public trust from the public back. One of the most famous cases which chemical engineers violated the number four code was the explosion of the space shuttle, Challenger. As the article ‘Ethnics-Examining Your Engineering Responsibility’ (2015) introduces: On January 28th, 1986, an explosion severely destroyed the space shuttle, Challenger, and killed seven astronauts. The afterward investigation concluded that the physical

cause of this disaster was the failure of an elastomeric O-ring in one of the solid rocket boosters (SRB) 73 seconds into launch; the resulting heat plume melted a support, and the SRB pivoted and breached the liquid-hydrogen and liquid-oxygen tanks, resulting in an explosion. During the investigation of the causes of this tragedy, some NASA managers, a NASA-head Chemical Engineer Allan J. McDonald and a rocket science, manufacturing and chemical company, called Morton Thiokol, were inside the scope. During the discussions on the evening before the launch, NASA illustrated its ambition to launch the shuttle, which pressured the Thiokol to tell NASA that it could launch instead of what the risks might be with solid rockets and whether the essential safety could be maintained. The temperature was so much below the lowest temperature which a shuttle booster has even experienced. However, there is no conclusive data that the temperature was too cold. Facing such a dilemma, representatives in Thiokol suggested not to launch and they successfully persuaded Allan J. McDonald not to sign the final consent form. Moreover, both Thiokol representatives and McDonald reported their concerns completely to the managers. Unexpectedly, with blind fever of launching, these managers decided to violate the ethics code and dishonestly reported the safety information of the shuttle to more colleges such that they could eventually get all the forms signed to launch the Challenger shuttle. Eventually, their violation cause this sad and fierce explosion. In this case, it is clear that both McDonald and representatives stuck to ethic codes number four and presented the information of Challenger shuttle honestly to their bosses. However, these managers violated the code, ultimately resulting in a great disaster with a huge number of live lost. We can clearly find that the outcome of breaking this code can be enormously terrible. Therefore, as a promising professional chemical engineer, I should always insist on this ethics code number four and issue the statements and tell information to the public trustfully all the time.

Reference: Deborah L. Grubbe, P.E (2015) Ethnics-Examining Your Engineering Responsibility. Retrieved from: http://www.aiche.org/sites/default/files/cep/20150221.odf...