>Knowing the risk involved, how can anyone expect any rational engineer to leak stuff?
Because that is the ethical mandate of the profession. “Profession” as in the root of the word to profess a vow. That consideration doesn’t come with the caveat of “as long as it’s convenient to your career.”
I get that it’s not easy. I just don’t like how people will give themselves ethical loopholes in a professional realm but not a personal one. As I stated in a different comment, I don’t think Challenger is the same as this Boeing case. In any event, NASA has instituted procedures to try an empower engineers to hold managers accountable
> That consideration doesn’t come with the caveat of “as long as it’s convenient to your career.”
When losing your career potentially means losing your home, your health insurance, and putting your family out on the streets; it's a lot more than just "an inconvenience" to your career.
What needs to change is that there need to be more stringent protections in place for engineers who blow the whistle on this kind of stuff and prevents companies from effectively destroying the lives of those who blow the whistle.
>it's a lot more than just "an inconvenience" to your career.
Luckily, we're talking about rare cases. Would you extend the same to a doctor who puts a patient at risk because he needs to make a mortgage payment?
Maybe I'm unreasonable, but I think if someone isn't willing to hold an ethical line they shouldn't be in a career of public trust. There's no shame in pursuing other professions, there should be shame in undermining the public trust because you aren't willing hold that line.
Yep. And EVA-23 almost became another catastrophe 10 years later.
I'm not making a claim they are perfect, but they may strive to be. Columbia instituted more changes, including a completely separate safety technical authority. This is a separate signatory who must approve operational decisions and (in theory) doesn't face the same schedule pressure. I'm still somewhat personally skeptical if this will avoid such further incidents because much of these are rooted in humans inability to understand risk in a statistical manner.
Because that is the ethical mandate of the profession. “Profession” as in the root of the word to profess a vow. That consideration doesn’t come with the caveat of “as long as it’s convenient to your career.”
I get that it’s not easy. I just don’t like how people will give themselves ethical loopholes in a professional realm but not a personal one. As I stated in a different comment, I don’t think Challenger is the same as this Boeing case. In any event, NASA has instituted procedures to try an empower engineers to hold managers accountable