Electrical engineering bachelor degree online

A few years ago, Bill Joy, a cofounder of Sun Microsystems and coauthor of the Java software specification, published a controversial article in Wired magazine in which he suggested that certain paths of scientific and technological research - genetic engineering, robotics, and nanotechnology - posed such great dangers to the future of the human beings that we ought to think twice before proceeding down those paths. Joy believes that what distinguishes these technologies from earlier ones is their potential for self-replication, thus raising the specter of a "future [that] doesn't need us." However, not all technologists share Joy's concern. For example, in a panel discussion of "humanoid robotics" that appeared in Discover, Marvin Minsky, one of the founders of the field of artificial intelligence, commented, "I don't see anything wrong with human life being devalued if we have something better."

Others, while not necessarily agreeing with Minsky's optimistic outlook for robots, have dismissed Joy's article as a naive statement of technological determinism. For example, in a recent review of Michael Crichton's nanorobot thriller Prey, Freeman Dyson argues that "Joy ignores the long history of effective action by the international biological community to regulate and prohibit dangerous technologies." Nonetheless, I find Joy's article worthy of notice for a number of reasons. First, a leader in the technical community speaking out on ethical issues, though not unheard of, is certainly rare. Second, Joy's focus on "macroethical" issues reflects a growing trend in engineering ethics. And third, the three problem areas cited by Joy - robotics, nanotechnology, and genetic engineering - indicate the growing need for greater collaboration among engineering ethicists and computer ethicists.

I started work as a consultant in the electric utility industry in the mid-1970s a few years after earning my bachelor's degree in electrical engineering (and after a brief interlude studying creative writing). Though the first oil shock had just taken place, the utility industry was still barreling toward the future with plans to double generating capacity every ten years. In retrospect, I can identify many ethical issues that went unnoticed at the time. Conflicts of interest, such as in underestimation of costs in planning studies to perpetuate the need for consulting services, though not everyday occurrences, were clearly present. Construction flaws and survey errors were overlooked to maintain good relations with contractors and to avoid embarrassing other engineers. Public concerns about nuclear power were belittled. And while these events sometimes tugged at my conscience, engineering ethics was a subject that was never broached in my education or work experience. Hand calculators had replaced slide rules, but computer simulations were still uncommon. I recall being criticized by a supervisor for writing in a business-development prospectus that we would attack a particular problem using a digital computer. Computers, he scolded, are merely tools - it was our engineering expertise that made us attractive to clients.

By the time I returned to my graduate studies in the early 1980s, engineering ethics was emerging as a full-fledged branch of applied ethics. Federally funded collaborations among engineers and philosophers led to significant developments in research and teaching. While moral theories, grounded in philosophy, and engineering codes of ethics, grounded in part in engineering's desire to earn respect as a "profession," competed for the attention of scholars and teachers, the case study emerged as a principal mode of pedagogy. Issues covered ranged from conflict-of-interest cases and industrial secrets to protecting public health, safety, and welfare, which all contemporary codes of engineering ethics now list as of "paramount" importance. For the most part, the behavior of individual engineers and the internal workings of the engineering profession (or what now might be called "microethics") received the most attention. The 1990s saw not only an explosion of textbooks and other print and online educational resources, but also recognition by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) that "professional and ethical responsibility" is one of eleven knowledge areas critical to a general engineering education.

One case study that has been a particular focal point for engineering ethics (and business ethics as well) has been the space shuttle Challenger explosion. Perhaps more has been written on this case than any other (and much more is certain to come, given the parallels to the recent space shuttle Columbia disaster).* Many classic engineering-ethics cases deal with disasters such as these, and like the Challenger case often focus on whistle-blowing and its usually negative consequences for the whistle-blower. Recently, however, more emphasis has been placed on cases with happier endings. The best known of such "good works" cases is the story of William LeMessurier, the chief structural designer of New York's Citicorp building who, upon discovering flaws in the building's construction, essentially blew the whistle on himself.

MACROETHICS AND MICROETHICS

Despite an occasional call for more concern among engineering ethicists for macroethical issues - that is, the social responsibility of the engineering profession and public policy concerning technology - engineering ethics until recently remained focused primarily on microethical issues. But this focus has begun to change. Political scientists Langdon Winner and Ned Woodhouse, for example, have called attention to pressing societal needs, such as over-consumption, that deserve more attention from engineering. And William Lynch and Ronald Kline have suggested that sociology and history should play a more prominent role in engineering-ethics education. In my own work, I have focused on the relationship of engineering ethics and public policy in such areas as risk assessment, sustainable development, and product liability.

Macroethics in engineering has also drawn some attention outside of academia. Many engineering organizations and engineering leaders have promoted the concept of sustainable development and the role of engineering in making it a reality, as highlighted in a document prepared by several U.S.-based engineering societies for the Johannesburg Earth Summit 2002:

Creating a sustainable world that provides a safe, secure, healthy life for all peoples is a priority for the U.S. engineering community. It is evident that U.S. engineering must increase its focus on sharing and disseminating information, knowledge and technology that provide access to minerals, materials, energy, water, food, and public health while addressing basic human needs. Engineers must deliver solutions that are technically viable, commercially feasible, and environmentally and socially sustainable.

Bill Wulf, President of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) who, like Joy, is a well-respected leader in the engineering community, has also championed the cause of macroethics, with his concerns also focusing on nanotechnology, biotechnology, and information technology. Wulf is attempting to establish a Center for Engineering, Ethics, and Society at NAE with a primary focus on macroethical issues and social responsibilities of the engineering profession.

ENGINEERING AND COMPUTING - CONNECTIONS AND DIVERGENCE

Many, if not most, of the emerging macroethical issues in engineering intersect with the growing dependence of engineering on computing, and on information and communication technology (ICT) in general. With my colleague, Brian O'Connell, I have lately been working on comparing and contrasting the fields of engineering ethics and computing ethics. We began with the observation that computer ethics is much more relevant to engineering ethics than engineering-ethics texts would have one think. While most such texts recognize the importance of knowledge of environmental ethics to engineers of all disciplines, few give special treatment to computer ethics, which for the most part is taught only to computer scientists and computer engineers. When computing topics are covered in engineering-ethics texts, it is usually piecemeal, with no special significance placed on the revolutionary nature of computing and information technology. This lack is curious, given that computing is no longer merely a tool, as my engineering supervisor once chided me, but an integral component of contemporary engineering. As Wulf has noted: