Engineering Ethics Conundrum: A closer look at what the Engineering colleges are missing.
- LAVLESH BHANOT
- Nov 7, 2023
- 5 min read

Elizabeth Holmes, a chemical engineering drop out, founded Theranos (therapy and diagnosis) at age 19. She considered herself female Steve Jobs.
A start-up that was previously valued at $9 billion and praised for its potential to revolutionize the healthcare sector. Theranos asserted that its technology could precisely and effectively diagnose conditions such as cancer and diabetes using only a small amount of blood. On the strength of this assertion, it secured $945 million in funding, established a board comprising prominent political figures, and formed significant partnerships with well-known retailers.
What solution was being offered? What was the Innovation about? Theranos claimed its Edison test could swiftly identify conditions like cancer and diabetes with a mere few drops of blood, eliminating the need for needles. This indeed would have been a brilliant technology, who would not want it? Eminent figures like Henry Kissinger and General James Mattis were part of its board.
In 2015, concerns were raised by a whistle blower about Theranos' main testing device, the Edison. The Wall Street Journal published a series of critical articles alleging that the test results were unreliable and that the company had primarily used machines from other manufacturers for its testing. This led to numerous lawsuits and severed partnerships. In 2016, U.S. regulators banned Elizabeth Holmes from operating a blood-testing service for a two-year period.
The technology she had promoted turned out to be non-functional, leading to the company's complete collapse by 2018.
Important lessons for investors? Conduct a comprehensive due diligence process, delve deeply into the technology and its innovation, including its practicality and effectiveness. Take into account the reputation of the company, especially when the technology pertains to public health.
A critical analysis of the ‘case study’: So, who all are the stakeholders here: Elizabeth Holmes, Employees of the company (the insiders who knew about the fraud of testing and those who did not), Engineers and scientist, Patients, Investors, FDA and other Government agencies. As a would-be professional engineer, If I were to critically analysis this case, I would map the following engineering responsibility and attitudes in this case:
Deception: The act of deceiving, misleading a falsehood - propagating half-truth or not true as in this case about 200 plus test results (it could actually run only 12 tests) with a single drop of blood.
Withholding information: Also a deceit - not giving full information in the proposal or project report or deliberately taking out information
Self-interest and self-centred attitude: Becoming famous, earning lot of money, to be right at the top of the world at the cost of others. This is what Elizabeth wanted, to be famous, to be like Steve Jobs.
Over confidence: "I knew she'd had this brilliant idea and that she had managed to convince all these investors and scientists," said Dr Jeffrey Flier, the former dean of Harvard Medical School, who met her for lunch in 2015.
"She was self-assured, but when I asked her several questions about her technology she didn't look like she understood," added Dr Flier.
Responsibility in Engineering: A context
The Columbia Space Shuttle Accident occurred on February 1, 2003, leading to the tragic loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia and its seven crew members during re-entry into Earth's atmosphere. This incident illustrates many of the issues surrounding the notion of responsibility in the engineering profession.
Impediments to responsible action:
Engineers, like anyone else, have personal hopes and aspirations that extend beyond their professional duties. However, it's essential to acknowledge that self-interest can sometimes compel engineers to make decisions that are at odds with the interests of others or the ideals of their profession. These personal concerns have the potential to cloud their judgment and hinder a clear understanding of their professional responsibilities. In real-world scenarios, the pursuit of career advancement and personal growth may sometimes take precedence over the strict adherence to professional responsibilities, creating a delicate balance between individual ambition and ethical obligations within the engineering field.
Ignorance, on the part of an engineer or an engineering group, of critical information can impede responsible action, particularly when a lack of awareness prevents the identification and resolution of safety concerns. In the real world, a pertinent example is seen in NASA, where executives often lacked awareness of significant shuttle issues. This issue was compounded by the fact that as information ascended the organizational hierarchy, dissenting viewpoints were progressively filtered out, resulting in an overly sanitized presentation of facts.
Group thinking:
Group thinking is a prevalent phenomenon in engineering, largely because engineers often operate within group-based organizational structures and frequently engage in collective decision-making processes. Rather than making decisions individually, engineers often collaborate and contribute collectively to the decision-making process. However, while group thinking can foster cohesion and collaboration, it can sometimes stifle critical thinking. In real-life scenarios, engineers may find themselves adhering to a collective decision even when they harbor personal reservations or doubts about the validity or wisdom of that decision. This exemplifies how group dynamics can occasionally override individual critical thinking in engineering contexts. Most of the engineering institutes do not allow individual thinking to prosper since they a driven and governed by mains-stream education syndrome. Usually the intake of students in big colleges and universities is large, driven by what the group brings to the table, individual, novel ideas and attitudes get buried somewhere. A decade ago, I conducted an interview with a second-year student who had a start-up idea aimed at assisting farmers in the 'Rann of Kutch,' the world's largest salt desert located in the Kutch district of Gujarat. His concept involved designing a specialized shoe to alleviate the suffering caused by skin lesions. After dedicating two months to the project and creating what he believed was the perfect shoe, the student presented his idea to his team and investors, only to receive their collective opinion that it wouldn't work. Feeling disheartened, he left my office, lamenting that "India is a graveyard of ideas." Times have evolved since then, with educational institutions and the government now actively promoting start-ups and implementing schemes to support promising concepts. However, what still appears to be lacking in both the start-up ecosystem and engineering education is a strong emphasis on the ethical dimensions of engineering and being an engineer.
It's worth mentioning that when I have conversations with engineering students about "Professional Ethics in Engineering" and how personal interests can hinder their responsibilities as engineers, we often explore several key issues. These include engineers jeopardizing safety for their own benefit, facing conflicts of interest where personal and professional interests clash, and eroding trust by engaging in actions that prioritize self-serving motives.
If we consider the role of engineers within the field of engineering, it becomes apparent that certain attitudes and behaviours should be embraced. These include a dedication to excellence in work, which signifies going above and beyond mere duty; exercising due care not only for one's own tasks but also for those affected by one's actions or omissions; avoiding situations where your start-up or engineering profession might be scrutinized for deceit or reckless harm (even if there is no intention to harm, a morally responsible engineer recognizes potential harm); adopting a minimalist perspective, which focuses solely on individual tasks and related responsibilities, often expressed as "It's not my concern" or "That's your job, not my responsibility"; cultivating emotional intelligence, which involves understanding and utilizing emotions, both one's own and others', for the collective benefit; and resisting external pressures, such as those from investors or government bodies, to maintain ethical integrity.
The focus often rests on the field of Engineering, but what about the individuals behind it – the Engineers themselves? Engineering goes beyond the mere application of knowledge to address problems; it's equally important to contemplate the consequences of applying engineering knowledge on others, on one's own conscience, and on the environment, including its sustainability and the natural world. Anything that disturbs the environment cannot be considered true engineering in the technical sense, and anything that deceives stakeholders also falls short of being genuine engineering.
“We need to redefine engineering to make life better and not bitter”
“All the problems of life arise out of disharmony and dissolve in harmony. Engineering is all about design-design of coherence”
Comments