In light of such devastating tragedies as the 1984 chemical leak in Bhopal, India, the 1986 explosion of the space shuttle Challenger and the nuclear power plant accident in Chernobyl, it is quite evident that professionals have an ethical responsibility to discuss technological risk issues with the public. Issues such as the overlapping of political and scientific judgements; determining the "value of life;" distributing risks globally and by some superficial denomination such as race, culture, or nation need to be discussed.
In Bhopal, India, the chemical leak was rated with a much lesser value of risk (as evident by inadequate safety equipment) in comparison with the plant's American counterpart in Institute, West Virginia. Are lesser developed nations and societies expendable? 3000 people died as a result of such an unethical risk assessment.
Engineers have many times resorted to codes of ethics for answers. In various ethics codes the requirement of engineers and other professionals to disclose dangerous factors that may affect citizens are included. However, these disclosures can be slanted with phrases such as "inherently safe," as in the case of nuclear power plants. Who decides what definition should be applied to the phrase?
In the conventional model of communicating risk factors to the public "only experts possess relevant risk information." Newer models, luckily, include an emerging view that "nonexperts are also in possession of relevant risk information." The new models then, facilitate communication between experts and nonexperts and lead into the question of laypersons taking personal responsibilities in technological/ethical dilemmas.[2]
- J. R. Herkert, "Ethical Risk Assessment: Valuing Public Perceptions," IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, pp. 4-10 (Spring 1994).