The Significance of Ethics in Engineering

When it comes to engineering, a remit with such a massive impact on society must invariably be taken with the ethical duties that correspond to it. In 2005, the Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE) and the Engineering Council created a statement containing four main ethical principles to which all engineers should abide by today. This is sometimes a complex task, and certain examples in the past, such as the one we will be looking at today, show us the significance of ethical dilemmas and how they may lead to wrong decision making.

On the 21st of February, 1967, Apollo 1, the first of a series of missions with the aim to land Americans on the Moon and return them safely to Earth, was scheduled to launch. The three member crew working for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) consisted of Roger Chaffee, Edward White and Virgil Grissom. Unfortunately, on the 27th of January of that same year, a fire inside the capsule during a preflight test caused the death of these 3 men, changing engineers’ approach to spacecraft design forever. Reports failed to establish an exact root cause for the fire, but immediate evidence suggests that the fire began because of an electrical short, which spread quickly because of the volatile atmospheric conditions and the presence of combustible materials inside the module, leaving no time for staff or the crew to act. The hatch design and NASA's management of the Apollo program may have also been contributing factors. This calamity became a point of inflection on how strict ethical standards should be in the world of space exploration today, as numerous ethical quandaries were encountered and dealt with in the wrong manner. This essay will explore the role of ethics in engineering based on this case, and will analyze the different ethical issues that conflict with the RAE statement, which were contributing factors for NASA´s disaster.

Firstly, ‘Respect for life, law, the environment and public good’ is arguably one of the most violated codes in these events. President John F. Kennedy was extremely keen to beat the Soviet Union on the ‘space race’ and therefore put great pressure on NASA to achieve the deadline of the end of the decade. This brought NASA to sacrifice safety and fail to take precautions in order to meet the goal as soon as possible. The largest indicator of this was NASA´s decision to opt for a 100% oxygen atmosphere instead of a mixture with nitrogen. This would not only reduce the cost by making a significantly lighter capsule, but also by simplifying the pressure control. A dual gas system required a constant check of balance to avoid the crew losing consciousness (Shira, 2019). According to the RAE statement, NASA had the ethical obligation to prioritise the protection of the health and safety of its employees, an ethical value which would have been essential for an adequate result. However, this pure oxygen environment was a major reason for the rapid dispersion of the fire, and could have easily been avoided if sufficient attention was drawn to sustainability or the wellbeing of the crew, as the ethics code dictates. As a result, the launchpad cabin atmosphere was changed to a gas mixture of 60% oxygen and 40% nitrogen for future missions, to minimize support of any combustion.

Moreover, prior to this plugs-out test, NASA categorized it as ‘low risk’ and did not put much thought into possible incidents, as they publicly stated they were not concerned with any pre-launch hazards (Shira, 2013). This assumption cost them further mistakes which again, disagree with the duty ethics code. The most fatal one was allowing an extensive distribution of combustible materials in the cabin without any protection. The fire spread quickly from the point of ignition thanks to a Raschel net debris trap, installed in the Command Module to prevent items from dropping into equipment areas (Anonymous, 2006). This net was principally made of nylon, hence it was highly flammable; and ran along extensive sections of the module, allowing the ignition of more materials. Despite NASA having knowledge of this unwanted property, by not anticipating a possible fire in the test runs and allowing the net to be used on the ground, the duty of the employer was once again not met . Furthermore, when a high oxygen flow through the astronauts’ suits triggered an alarm, mission control believed it was due to movement of the crew and decided to ignore it, thus not resolving the matter. This is supplementary evidence of carelessness towards the employer's duty and the welfare of the astronauts, which corroborates why one of the ethical duties of an engineer is to hold safety at the forefront. This is as vital as ensuring the job is performed with accuracy and reliability, an element that will be discussed next.

‘Accuracy and rigour’ is another ethical aspect challenged in this occurrence in several ways. There was a broad list of design flaws caused by a lack of reviewing and risk management that also played a relevant part in this episode. The Review Board identified two of the main causes to be “Vulnerable wiring carrying spacecraft power” and “Vulnerable plumbing carrying a combustible and corrosive coolant.” The Environment Coolant System used the coolant RS-89, which, despite not being flammable by itself, when spilled produces ethylene glycol crystals that are indeed highly combustible and electrically conductive. Combining this with an exposed, high-current wire, a fire ignition was very likely (Garber, 2006). The RAE principles state that engineers should: “always act with care and competence” (Engineering Council, 2017). In this example, such principle is not followed, and there is a clear absence of professional responsibility since faulty components were not even attempted to be identified, which is unethical and demonstrates why an effort for precision and correctness is an ethical obligation. As a rectification, changes made after the accident included armor plated water-glycol liquid line solder joints and protective covers over wiring bundles, to ensure the issue was unrepeated. In similar fashion to this deficient manufacturing, the design of the installation complex also questioned the competence and deliberation put into the mission.

Technical complications with communication systems showed from the start, with Grissom frustratingly claiming one minute before the first spark: “How are going to get to the moon if we can’t communicate between two buildings?”, to the reply of an unclear transmission (Atkinson, 2020). Once the danger was evident, the personnel and medical assistance failed to intervene on time due to arriving late to the scene and a lack of rescue provisions (no fire extinguishers). All because of the way the installations were made. Yet again, all of this exhibits an unprofessional approach and an underestimation of risks, thus opposing the RAE ethics and the emphasis on accuracy and rigour and supporting the idea that it is crucial to have it in mind. Fortunately, they were taken into account later on as the complex was modified and rearranged to facilitate emergency exit situations and it was required that inspectors periodically monitored the safety of all test operations and assured that emergency procedures were in place to handle these types of situations. Also, staff was recommended to have proper training and should practice for emergency procedures.

The design of the inner hatch itself was also determinant to the outcome and involves some ethical issues previously mentioned. One of the astronauts attempted to open the hatch yet failed, as later investigations revealed the opening procedures were too complex and lengthy, inappropriate for emergency situations. On top of that, the hatch opened inwards, meaning it would have been impossible to open under any interior pressure above atmospheric, let alone the alarmingly increasing pressure at the time. That design should have never been validated, which not only proves a lack of professional responsibility, but also breaks the honesty and integrity code (Engineering Council, 2017), since NASA was aware of the risks this hatch conveyed and even considered installing explosives for emergency openings, but decided not to interfere with fear of premature openings. The issue was tackled with a complete redesign, implementing an outward-opening hatch that could be opened with ease, as well as thicker walls to withstand greater pressures.

It is an engineer’s duty to consider factors across moral and professional domains and meditate each consequence before making a critical decision. Engineering comes with the laborious responsibility of ethics, and as it has been repeatedly stated in this essay, coping with this responsibility is of essence. Looking back in hindsight, it is undeniable that the Apollo 1 fire implicated plenty ethical and moral issues, not only due to the negligence of the employers to be cautious with safety precautions, but also because of how blinded NASA was by the idea of accomplishing a historic goal in a specific time frame. Countless defects in engineering projects can be observed throughout history, and it is worth identifying, analyzing and discussing the ethical controversy involved in them, so that one may realize the relevance of following this code. It is clear that engineers must act according to the official RAE ethics principles, as these optimize the benefits of engineering practice, and help those in the profession to contribute to society in a better way.