Debates about ethics have occasionally rippled through UBC Okanagan’s engineering student population. One notable spark came from a rather ill-natured group presentation in 2021 from a course called APSC 201: Engineering Communication.
For the non-engineering folks, APSC 201 is arguably one of the most practical courses that an engineering student can take. Students typically create a hypothetical consultation plan for a First Nations community, addressing a major construction project on their traditional lands. To do well in this course requires more than just technical skill; it demands a nuanced understanding of history, cultural awareness, and empathy – things that are seldom deemed useful or rewarded in engineering spaces.
While most student teams produce strategies for respectful negotiations, one group opted for a more disturbing approach: to not conduct any consultation and to “bomb the protestors.”
This malevolent proposal, whether just a juvenile attempt at humour or a serious suggestion, reflects a deeper issue that’s embedded in engineering culture: “functional responsibility” over ethical responsibility.
This concept, functional responsibility, refers to an engineer’s dedication to ensuring a system performs its intended function above all else, sometimes overlooking ethical considerations to improve efficiency. Jokes about “selling your soul to Lockheed Martin” and sidelining moral concerns for competitive salaries often reflect this mentality amongst engineering students.
This phenomenon, the detachment of engineers from their moral ethics, is not isolated. It stems from systemic forces – chief among them, the military industrial complex – that shape engineering priorities and values.
----------
1 This quote is cross-referenced with several first-hand witnesses of the presentation in that year’s APSC 201 class lecture.
So is it just a matter of a few dark jokes, or did this incident have something more to say about engineering culture as a whole? Is there a broader trend among engineers, their politics, and their ethics, shaped by the military-industrial complex?
Finally, does UBC Okanagan play a role in incubating this culture or in preparing students to face the moral challenges they’re bound to face in their engineering profession?
The Influence of the Military-Industrial Complex on Engineering Ethics
The term “military-industrial complex” (MIC) was famously coined by former U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1961 in the midst of the Cold War. He warned of the interconnected system between the government, its military, and the global defense industry, as it created a self-reinforcing cycle that perpetuated military spending.
Eisenhower warned Americans of a “disastrous rise of misplaced power” that could thrive unchecked if the MIC was allowed to influence public policy.
Today, engineering innovations are frequently tied to defense contracts. From drone technology to cyberweapons, many advances originate from lucrative military contracts that fund research facilities for technological progress.
In 2022 alone, the defense industry was valued at $2.24 trillion, with rapid developments in Artificial Intelligence, quantum computing, and autonomous systems. Engineers play a key role in creating these technologies from all directions, including software design, infrastructure, or materials science. Often, they may not even see the full ethical implications of their work when focused on specific contributions to a larger system.
Now, the debate about whether militaries are inherently unethical is beyond the scope of this discussion, nor is it productive to make sweeping generalizations about how ‘unethical’ all engineers are for contributing to this industry in one way or another.
----------
2 History.com Editors. (2010, January 4). Eisenhower warns of military-industrial complex. History. Source Link
3 Statista Research Department. (n.d.). Defense and arms. Statista. Retrieved November 10, 2024, from Source Link
However, certain objective truths still remain about technology and politics: engineering innovations are frequently co-opted to serve political agendas.
For engineering students at UBCO, exposure to these dynamics can feel limited. While their technology courses prepare them to design and build, few are taught how to ethically navigate a profession where their innovations could be used for harm.
Current Attitudes on Engineering Ethics
Following World War II, many former Nazi engineers were granted immunity under Operation Paperclip. Given new identities and sanitized records, they were quietly integrated into American research institutes.
Figures like Werner von Braun, once an SS officer, became celebrated scientists contributing to the U.S. space program. By erasing their pasts, society embraced their achievements while simultaneously absolving them of guilt.
Fast forward to today, the critical acclaim and commercial success of Oppenheimer – a film celebrating the life of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the “father of the atomic bomb” – reflects society’s continued fascination with the public’s willingness to overlook the darker consequences of their innovation when framed as a story of genius and necessity.
Military engineering was one of humanity’s earliest technological disciplines, and many life-improving technologies – from the internet to commercial aircraft – were originally developed with military applications in mind. This enduring pattern shows how engineers are often shielded from ethical scrutiny by framing their work as necessary progress. Yet the legacies of von Braun and Oppenheimer remind us that engineers do not operate in an ethical vacuum.
With military funding still shaping much of the tech landscape, engineers today face mounting ethical dilemmas in creating double-edged tools that can be used for both progress and destruction. These challenges are especially relevant when universities, including UBC, receive research funding from defense agencies, tethering our education to causes that we cannot see and may not agree with, but actively benefit from.
----------
4 Total Military Insight. (n.d.). History of military engineering. Retrieved November 10, 2024, from Source Link
Thus, the question is not merely about whether engineers can be perfectly ethical, but whether they are willing to confront the broader systems of power that dictate the multilateral uses of their work. According to individual accounts from members of the UBC engineering community, the engineering program does not adequately address this responsibility, but rather observes it quietly like the elephant in the room.
Ethics Education: Is UBCO Doing Enough?
In Canadian engineering tradition, there’s a powerful symbol known as the Iron Ring. Given to graduates during a solemn ceremony, it serves as a reminder of the responsibility engineers hold to society. The ring is tied to the tragic story of the Quebec Bridge Disaster, which collapsed twice after its construction, taking the lives of 88 people. The ceremony is intended to instill a deep sense of duty and humility among engineers to protect the public from harm, emphasizing the weight of every calculation and decision.
This example, now woven into the fabric of a national engineering ritual, serves a message that engineers must be vigilant and accountable. However, it also reflects a narrow approach to ethics education, one that centers on mistakes and negligence rather than intentional harm or systemic issues.
In a recent interview, UBC engineering professor Dr. Ray Taheri expressed concern about the lack of moral ethics training in engineering programs. Taheri, a former military officer, sees a gap in how academic institutions in all levels prepare students to tackle ethical dilemmas.
“Education today doesn’t equip students to consider societal impacts,” he says. “Not just at the post-secondary level, but even in early childhood education.”
Taheri argues that moral and ethical responsibilities are essential to the engineering profession and that they should be embedded deeply within the educational system.
“Knowledge is neutral. It can be applied dangerously or helpfully, and we must train the people who are applying that knowledge to conduct it the right way,” he explained.
----------
5 Magel, A. (2016, December 19). Quebec Bridge disaster. The Canadian Encyclopedia. Source Link
This moral grounding, according to Taheri, needs to be reinforced with real-world examples. However, he recognizes the challenge in teaching ethics in an industry so enmeshed with the MIC, saying “[i]t’s hard for an innovation not to have military uses these days … what they don’t make, they take.”
The “Red Line” and the Ethical Responsibility of Engineers
Taheri argues that engineers must be prepared to recognize when their work crosses a “red line,” a point beyond which they must decide whether to continue with a project that could be used for harm, and to speak out against it. He cites the example of the Facebook whistleblower, who inevitably became blacklisted in her industry after exposing the company’s misuse of personal data. “To establish a moral high ground, you have to teach it and show it being practiced,” he says.
One UBC engineering student, who later discovered his work for a military contractor was being used in active global conflicts, echoes Taheri’s concerns. He felt that “UBC didn’t prepare [him] for these dilemmas,” that he faced in the workforce. In fact, he believed “they clouded it intentionally through a lack of information.” He stressed that engineering education should emphasize the broad and far-reaching impact of their work.
The Ambiguity of the Professional Code of Ethics
In Canada, professional engineers are bound to provincial codes of ethics. In British Columbia particularly, engineers are required to register with Engineers and Geoscientists BC (EGBC), and abide by their specific code. The first point on the EGBC code is to “hold paramount the safety of the public and the environment.”
On the surface, this rule defines an engineer’s obligation to protect and prioritize society’s well-being. However, committing to this code is often hypocritical to the realities of the engineering profession.
For example, petroleum engineers who are bound by this code are required to prioritize environmental safety. Yet, despite their best efforts, the industry they serve is intrinsically linked to environmental exploitation. Similarly, aerospace engineers may contribute to technologies that, while being developed for commercial aviation, could also be weaponized.
----------
6 Needham, K. (2024, January 18). Frances Haugen makes the case for more whistleblowing in the age of AI. The Wall Street Journal. Source Link
7 Engineers and Geoscientists British Columbia. (2021). Code of ethics. Source Link
These contradictions create an ethical gray area where engineers may unintentionally contribute to harm despite their best intentions. Thus, these ethical guidelines are intrinsically contradictory, only offering EGBC plausible deniability for the systemic impacts of engineering.
A Call for Change: Ethical Accountability in Engineering
The culture of making jokes about moral ethics (or lack thereof) among engineering students is only the surface of a system that is much larger and powerful than all of us. In an age where our engineering students will be contributing to an industry that is literally capable of ending humanity (and is currently doing so), students require more guidance now than ever.
UBCO’s engineering program has taken massive strides to incorporate more ethical discussions into the curriculum. All engineering students are required to take ENGR 413: Law and Ethics for Engineers, which introduces concepts of legal liability into the profession.
But the question remains: is it enough?
As Taheri states, “students enter this institution for an education that will prepare them for their future career. Making ethical decisions is a part of being in the workforce and part of what they come here for.”
To truly prepare students, universities must actively address the impact of systemic, political, and profit-driven forces – like the military-industrial complex – on engineering. Only then can we hope to graduate a generation of engineers who are not just technically adept, but morally conscious, aware of the complex realities they’ll face, and willing to challenge projects that conflict with humanity.
If you’re an engineering student who happened to pick up this article as a result of its inflammatory title, understand that the purpose of this discussion is not to accuse you of future wrongdoing or suggest that your work will contribute to harm. On the contrary, it is to recognize the power and responsibility that is on your shoulders as a result of your skills.
You have access to unlimited resources to see the impacts of our systems and policies in engineering industries. Use that power thoughtfully. Question the purpose and potential consequences of your work and consider the communities it will impact.
Among all the engineering professors, historians, students, and professionals that were consulted for this article, there has been a clear and common sentiment of hope and optimism for the next generation of engineering – one that believes in a future shaped by ethical integrity. With knowledge, courage, and conscience, the next generation of engineers has the power to build a world where progress and principles go hand in hand.
.png){kind=small}
