Proj

The cost totaled seven lives and millions of dollars. The disaster could have been subverted, however, if o only the several mechanical engineers that had noticed an issue with the rings had stepped f award, despite administrative pressure to continue with the launch, and brought public eaten Zion to the problem. A multitude of other such disarticulated of civic structures, technologies such as cars and trains, and even the batteries of computers and phones, capable of causing harmful explosions, all constitute infringements of people's basic right to life, and thus presents a leg l and ethical dilemma.All engineers possess two at least two democratically knowledge of standard design processes and requirements, and the capacity to apply their knowledge toward dos the creation of novel technologies and innovations. These two things qualify as intellectual pr property, which is an intangible item that is secured via the powers of reasoning of an individual (AH in 50).While some enginee rs, such as professional engineers, are credited for their intellectual pr property, it is essential that all engineers credited thusly, even at the cost Of their employer, as it pro totes their autonomy 2 and therefore creativity, lowers cost of procuring professional engineers to SE al and approve projects , and finally, holds engineers to the highest standard of ethical profess Somalis by exposing the promulgators of shoddy engineering to the scrutiny of the world at large. Companies, when hiring engineers to create technologies, often pressure the SE potential hires into signing binding agreements.These contracts force innovators to forfeit al I of their intellectual and creative output to companies. As Keith Warren, a licensed Professional E ginger, states, a technology company could take the rights Of an invention Of a â€Å"baa rubber sauce† if it so suits them (Warren). Some would argue that this provides complete owner ship provides incentive to companies allow emplo yees more creative license. The company can profit from any and all of their employee' ideas either selling the patent or investing in the † barbeques† productive capabilities it follows that they give more freedom to their novo dative members.Also, as Keith Warren, states, all clients and employers of engineers provide t he engineers with sources to conduct research, so it would seem reasonable that engineers o offer in exchange the profit to be made of of their ideas and technologies (Warren). Engineers been fit in that they are not required to go through an intensive eightieth licensing process to become e professional engineers (who are indeed held personally responsible for any flaw in their w ark, but not for an innovation), as the company will be held responsible for a problem that went unrecognized by an employee.Finally, this discourages individuals from patenting or otherwise CLC aiming ideas that hey lack the capabilities to fabricate it. This, as Koch States, causes an sills_Jew for companies and even other engineers by obligating them to verify the originality of their prod cut periodically throughout the design process using costly search engines, and even prevent Eng some technologies 3 from being commercially available, as they have been patented by small indeed pendent's that refuse to yield their rights to the idea (327). Coercing creative engineers to remain silent about their ideas can stifle create pity and even hinder the process of innovation.On a individual level, the engineer receives I title to no credit for their contributions (Warren). While, as multiple ethical codes attest, engineers should be first accountable for actions that can impact public willingness as approval of t he commercial readiness of a technology, the recognition of their intellectual property should also apply to their own innovations and inventions (â€Å"Code of Ethics†). Enabling creators to claim t heir ideas incentives the creation of trul y original products, for instance, the Apple com putter, the telescope, all created by individuals unattached to large firms.Breakthrough technologies often require extensive resources that sleepyhead individuals are unable to procure, so e engineers currently have two possessively an innovative design, patent it, and by default via pop assessing such legal power, hinder its production and benefit to society by firms with the resource s; or become employed by a firm, attempting to create and fabricate such innovations while e remaining constricted by the firm's own main objectives and directives (Koch 327).Further remorse, firms often keep breakthrough tech oenology a secret for a while, seeking a release time that will bring the most commercial gain due to market price level and other factors. This halts the pr ogress of technology. If instead engineers retained some creative rights to their products, while firm s with the resources hold reproductive rights, a mutually beneficial p artnership is available that en abeles maximum freedom for both parties. Firms are not constrained by a patent to the individual al, and engineers can produce intellectual property at will.The immediate profit of companies is not diminished. Corporate loss will occur only in the advanced autonomy of the engineer rest ensemble for 4 highhanded products, and possible competitive bids from other companies t o take on such a dynamic employee. This loss is overridden by the enhanced ability of corporate e entities to recognize such individuals and seek them for projects, and the government to employ such individuals for public projects that demand acuity in refining structures that c loud affect public welfare.The law mandates that companies must obtain the approval of a Professional Engineer for any of their engineer and design projects in order for the project to become e eligible for rejection. (Warren). This sealing involves a PEP reviewing the designs, calculate ions, and technologi es created by unlicensed engineers employed by an industrial .NET TTY.Because the majority of engineers that work for such entities are unlicensed, they are not r jugulate by the National Society of Engineers and state law to be held personally accountable for their evaluations of a work, and have not undergone the rigorous training for licenser (Warren , â€Å"Ethical Codes†). Thus, federal legislation mandates that a PEP check over a technology before it is released. This is a costly practice, and could easily be foregone if all engineers were required to obtain at least basal licenser via a less vigorous process than PEP, but nonetheless remain regular De by a national organization such as NSP.Finally, engineers should be directly credited for their intellectual OUtPUt in AP proving or disapproving civil projects. This prevents shoddy work from engineers employ De by large companies, that today have little to lose, blanketed by anonymity as they are underneath a large firm 's name, for small mistakes such the matter of a small ring deficiency, the t might build to a large and pervasive civil problem (Warren). Many engineers must battle with conflicting interesting allegiance to the public good and their melodramatically whew n bound by 5 agreements that prohibit their divergence in opinion from a company.Some ethical codes acknowledge this conflict, such as that Of the National Society Of Professional Engineers (â€Å"Code of Ethics†). However, ethical codes themselves, while meant to clarify a course o f action to take when such conflicts occur, often themselves conflict (Eligible and Davis 7 This dilemma is solved if companies cannot take direct credit for an engineer's work, and en gingers intellectual property is in turn attributed to the engineer in question.Companies still poss. sees ownership of the idea of having the sole right to produce it within a fixed number of years, but acknowledge and even provide royalties to the creator of the technology. Litton Engineering, a f roomer workplace of Keith Warren's, exemplifies this concept by providing ample royalties and eve n the ability to patent intellectual property to their employees (Warren). The Challenger Disc steer occurred after an engineer, appealing to an administrator with qualms concerning the rings, w as told to â€Å"think like a manager, not an engineer (Eligible and Heinz 4).The engineer was a c annotator with NASA, instead of a PEP that would be held to scrutiny by the NAPES and the pull ICC for the oversight. Thus, no careers were necessarily imperiled by the disaster (Ware n). Notable failures of civic architecture such as bridge collapse can have be prevented if engineer's careers are stake, instead of company's stock, which can recover more easily. The lack of some r ejaculating agency ND formalized code of ethics in those days could be partially attributed for the see problems (Christie 98).It is thereby essential that some national agency, with a universal code of teeth CSS, regulate all registered and therefore employable engineers. By having a public and private e profile that promotes interest in innovation and accountability, engineers can benefit fro m recognition that they accrue through sound ethical and innovative practice, while being penal zed for malpractice. 6 The conflicting allegiances that engineers often face, to their sponsor, client o r company, and to heir own interior moral compass, will be eliminated, as the company is oblige Ted to maintain an open profile of all works.