In the scenario given, that is, should one speak out if an autonomous car design was flawed and would likely take the life of a pedestrian if deployed, the IET’s Rules of Conduct are clear. A good section of the document is focused on what steps one should take if it becomes clear to them a project they’re involved in has the potential to harm. Rule 9 of the document staters that an IET member should take steps to inform their superior and peers. If these concerns are not investigated, we have an obligation “to ensure that the person overruling or neglecting that advice is aware of any danger or loss which may ensue; and in appropriate cases, to inform that person’s employers of the potential risks involved”. It is clear then that if a danger arises, we as a team should immediately report to our employer of the risks involved. The IETs ‘Whistleblowing: guidance for members’, further states that, ‘should a member be in a position where they have tried to use their employers’ internal procedures and this has not proved effective, they may decide to go outside their organisation.’
We as a team then have an obligation to go to a third party with our concerns if our internal structures for reporting go ignored. The Public Interest Disclosure Act of 1998 supports this, protecting whistleblowers from discrimination by their employer if their organisation is suspected to have engaged in or covered up, including others, ‘crimes’, ‘miscarriages of justice’, or ‘dangers to health and safety’. Our scenario certainly falls under this umbrella.
It is clear then that we as a team, if we encountered this scenario, would certainly report to our organisation with our concerns. If after doing this we were ignored, dismissed, or discriminated against as a consequence, we would certainly go to a safe third-party with our concerns and therefore, ‘blow the whistle’.
Thomas Hobbs 2114555
No responses yet