Ethical Implications of Engineering Failures

Just watched "Titan: The OceanGate Disaster" on Netflix. The final line hit me: this wasn’t just an engineering failure—it was a culture failure. Stockton Rush, OceanGate’s founder and CEO, had a bold vision: to democratize deep-sea exploration. But that vision became untouchable. Criticizing the approach became synonymous with criticizing him personally. Former chief pilot Dave Lochbridge was fired after raising safety concerns, and over time, anyone who challenged the direction either left or was pushed out. OceanGate bypassed third-party safety certification from agencies like DNV, arguing it stifled innovation. They used experimental carbon fiber materials against industry norms and ignored repeated warnings about hull fatigue and structural integrity. The result? A catastrophic implosion on June 18, 2023, killing all five people onboard, including Rush himself. This story echoes what Amy Edmondson has long researched around psychological safety—where team members feel safe to speak up, especially about risk. She’s pointed to NASA’s Columbia disaster, where engineers suspected damage to the shuttle but stayed silent during final briefings. The culture didn’t support dissent. The hierarchy silenced truth. Here’s what we can learn as leaders: - Detach your ego from the mission. You are not your product. - Normalize dissent. Especially from the smartest, most principled voices. - Invite challenge early and often. Don’t wait for a wake-up call. - Set red lines for safety, ethics, and integrity. They are non-negotiable. To do great things, yes, we need vision. But we also need humility. Especially when human lives—or entire organizations—are on the line.

🔥 A prison fire in Chile killed dozens. A supermarket fire in Paraguay ended with the same outcome. In both cases, blame fell on individuals at the scene. Guards were accused of failing to act. A store manager was held responsible for keeping people inside. But as fire safety engineer Jose Torero explained at a National Academy of Engineering and Committee on Human Rights workshop, the deeper causes were built into the #systems. Poor design, hazardous materials, and weak regulations shaped the outcome. In Chile, overcrowding and facility conditions left prison staff unable to rescue those trapped. In Paraguay, outdated safety codes allowed flammable insulation and locked exits. People had no way to escape. These instances show that #safety isn’t automatic. It depends on #engineering decisions, competent oversight, and a commitment to protect lives before such emergencies occur. "Issues at the Intersection of Engineering and Human Rights," the just-out proceedings from The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, explores how choices in #infrastructure, #design, and #education influence dignity, access, and protection. Some takeaways: 🔧 Safety is technical, but it’s also political. Fires, floods, and failures often trace back to decisions about what gets built, where corners are cut, and who is expected to cope. 🏚️ Disparities are often engineered. People living with unsafe water, poor roads, or weak buildings are often living with someone else’s decisions. 📐 Ethics alone aren’t enough. Most engineering curricula treat human rights as a side note, if at all. The result is professionals are increasingly trained to solve problems without asking whose problem it is. ♿ Design reaches further than intended. A wheelchair ramp helps more than wheelchair users. Good engineering has ripple effects. 🧠 Communities bring more than stories. They bring knowledge. When engineers treat them as vital input, the results are better for everyone. 🧭 Human rights point to what matters: who’s affected, who decides, who’s left out. 📘 Read more at: https://lnkd.in/ezkT8dZJ 👥Thanks to the crew: Leading: Charlie Bolden, Jr., Betsy Popken, Davis Chacon-Hurtado, Glen Daigger, Wesley Harris, Deb Niemeier. Contributing: Theresa Harris, Maya Elizabeth Carrasquillo, Tyler Giannini, Shareen Hertel, Muhammad Hamid Zaman, Bernard Amadei, Mira Olson, Shirley Ann Jackson, Darshan Karwat, Carlton Waterhouse, Eric Buckley, Bethany Hoy, Kimberly L. Jones, Amy Smith, John Kleba, Michael Ashley Stein, Jay Aronson, Julie Owono, José Torero, Lindsey Andersen, Alice Agogino, Tamara E. Brown, Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, Katie Shay. Staffing: David Butler, Rebecca Everly, Casey Gibson, Ana Deros, Hoang-Nam Vu, Chessie Briggs, and Joe Alper.

Risk is a requirement of business; but it seems money wins over preparing for (human) risk. All risk is not equal. An engineering lesson on the nonlinear risk within designs, advancements, and builds. Many engineers wear an iron ring we received at our oath ceremony around graduatiom. We were loosely told it “symbolizes” the material of a bridge that failed twice during construction and claimed lives. The ring is to be worn on the little finger of our working hand to remind us of our responsibility that our actions have consequences against lives; and also more generally as a visible reminder of the oath of “integrity and ethics” that we’ve taken. >>Engineers are trained to design things to generally be used by the public, their safety is our goal. When things go catastrophically wrong, we have to understand how to harness chaos in our designs for as long as possible - to save as many lives as possible. >>As engineers, we learn vast bodies of knowledge across many disciplines such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, materials, and structures - and linear and nonlinear events like seismic, loading, thermodynamics, and fluid dynamics. And we have to apply that accordingly. Each discipline is slightly different in focus. >>In our labs we study limits and phenomenon against designs - and push all of these limits up to and through failures and study failures with great intent. We quickly understand why designs crucially matter. And we quickly learn there is a sweet spot to engineering designs - meaning over engineering holds the same catastrophic risk failures as under engineering. YOU MUST UNDERSTAND BOTH RISKS. And we have to importantly understand our integrity and ethics, against all of this training, may be pushed by others - capitalizing, business, and money is a funny thing. As I quickly reflected on my career journeys and inventions - my parting thought is this: In **any** design, but especially advancements or inventions, it is critical to understand the good - balanced by where failures can occur and how nonlinear events can creep into **any design.** Nonliear is a function of this entire world. This world is more complex than we’d like to think. And one must harness the good and the risk, simultaneously. It’s not just about risk to capture value. And this extreme risk really dances in within two main areas: -during any advancements, integrations, or builds. -when money and optimization drives decisions. >>It’s easy to take down the (almost) entire technology system of the world during an integration build. Leaving vast critical infrastructures dangling. This was a catastrophic event. >>Just as easy as it is to collapse a bridge (twice) without understanding the consequences of cantilever builds - by discounting engineering designs and focusing on money. >>Just as easy as it is to leave astronauts stranded in space. Risk (and the consequences of lives) in business is important to understand. All risk is not equal.