SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In an observation piece at Scientific American, Ralph Nader (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader) writes about the decades of struggles by conscientious engineers—whether employees or consultants—who strive to balance professional ethics with occupational survival.
Nader writes:
[...] today's engineers are working in an improved environment for taking their conscience to work. Yet much more remains to be done to safeguard the ability of engineers to speak truth to the powers-that-be.
For starters, the word whistle-blower—once popularly meant to describe a snitch or a disgruntled employee—now describes an ethical person willing to put his or her job on the line in order to expose corrupt, illegal, fraudulent and harmful activities. Indeed, in the aftermath of recent Boeing 737 MAX crashes, the media routinely and positively refers to disclosures by "Boeing whistle-blowers." Congressional investigating committees and federal agencies have called for whistle-blowers to come forward and shed light on corporate misdeeds and governmental agency lapses.
To put it mildly, this was not always the case.
LINK: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/when-engineers-become-whistleblowers/
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday May 15 2019, @02:27PM (11 children)
Scientists, engineers, tradespeople, security, and janitors get paid to understand and react to reality, and to accomplish work in the world.
Marketing, public relations, sales, human resources, politicians, and management get paid to say whatever they need to in order to get other people to behave as they want them to, never mind reality.
Those in the second group absolutely hate it when reality intrudes on their illusion-weaving, and their usual response is to decide that the only problem here is that those reality-based types won't shut up and go along with the totally unreal things that the professional liars are saying.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday May 15 2019, @02:39PM (9 children)
On the subject of politicians forcefully being bent to reality even as they spew bullshit, Nader's case here is entirely argument by anecdote, with just a dash of "professional organizations have ethics codes? whoa!"
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 15 2019, @02:57PM
Paul Combetta, "stonetear", chose to comply instead of being a whistleblower. He lived and was even granted immunity.
Seth Rich did not comply. He is dead now.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday May 15 2019, @05:22PM (7 children)
There are plenty of other instances of disaster accurately predicted by engineers who had their warnings ignored by upper management, e.g. the Challenger. Nader highlights a couple of cases in TFA, but it's not a simple argument from anecdote as you are trying to claim.
Heck, the instance that made Nader famous, the unusually flammable Ford Pinto, was another instance of the same problem: Ford's engineers had repeatedly complained about the fuel tank, and Ford sold it anyways because they decided the liability payouts would be less than the cost of fixing the problem.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday May 15 2019, @05:43PM (4 children)
I see your point, that's an interesting anec-- wait a second, here!
No really, I do get your point, that engineers are going to exposed to the nitty gritty detail oriented problems which makes them more able to report. But there's plenty of non-engineer cases out there of whistleblowers. Off the top of my head: Deep Throat(appointed politician), Chelsea Manning(intelligence analyst), Peter Buxtun(medical doctor), Mona Hanna-Attisha(also a doctor), Yesenia Guitron(a bank teller).
Had to omit Snowden, because he loosely fits the definition of engineer.
It's fundamentally something based in moral character, not skills or abilities.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday May 15 2019, @05:55PM (2 children)
Someone who is great at quantitative thinking could become a theoretical physicist pushing the boundaries of human knowledge, or could become an attorney who helps rich people cheat on their taxes. Someone who is good at writing could become an investigative journalist who helps whistleblowers expose wrongdoing, or they could become a PR flak who helps upper management cover it up.
While I agree your skillset doesn't determine your morals, your morals do have an effect on what you do with your talents.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 15 2019, @07:07PM (1 child)
You think a physicist doesn't have to play internal politics or that a journalist is free to pick his own stories and go after *anybody*?
Look, as long as you have a boss who controls your funding because THEY have someone who controls THEIR funding, you are not going to be free to do *whatever* you want with no political interference. THIS is why people don't rock the boat. They don't have enough eff you money to retire on the spot if they get blacklisted.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday May 15 2019, @08:29PM
No, but I do think they chose to enter that profession with a different goal in mind.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Farkus888 on Wednesday May 15 2019, @11:21PM
Engineer probably isn't the right word. If you divide the world into people who need to know how a physical thing works to do their job and those who don't... Both of your doctors and arguably your intelligence analyst fall on the same side as engineers. It is a better division. A welder may not be an engineer but they are still directly tied to the reality of shit work failing obviously that an engineer is. Marketing and middle management can weasel about unexpected stuff that it was their job to predict. The differences between who chooses those paths is broader than introvert and extrovert like people on the soft side like to think.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday May 15 2019, @09:52PM (1 child)
It's a simple formula [youtube.com], really.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 15 2019, @11:14PM
After watching the simple formula, YouTube offered me this,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOGru_4z1Vc [youtube.com]
which was a nice antidote to all the well-written gloom in this thread.
"...If this isn't nice, I don't know what is."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by crafoo on Wednesday May 15 2019, @09:27PM
Well said. But, the unreality-weavers will actually come to believe their BS. They break their own understanding of reality, over time. From what I've experienced, spending a lifetime detached from directly interacting with reality (building things, making things work) warps and corrupts the thinking process. These people need hands-on hobbies.