In this blog post, we will examine the growing importance of decision-making alongside advancements in science and technology, as well as the ethical responsibilities of engineers, through case studies and theory.

Advances in Science and Technology and the Importance of Decision-Making

Humanity has grown alongside the development of science and technology, from the creation of tools in prehistoric times to modern cutting-edge technology. In the modern era, science was established as an academic discipline, laying a theoretical foundation; this accumulation of knowledge and technology, following the Industrial Revolution in 18th-century Britain, has become deeply ingrained in all aspects of our lives.
Today, people cannot put down their smartphones, wear clothes made from petroleum-derived fibers, and rely on cars for transportation. Technology has penetrated even the most intimate aspects of human life, and as our dependence on science and technology grows, the importance of related decision-making becomes increasingly critical.

The Limits of Value Neutrality Revealed by the Humidifier Disinfectant Incident

A case that starkly illustrates the importance of scientific decision-making is the “humidifier disinfectant deaths incident.” Starting in April 2011, cases of unexplained lung disease began to emerge across various age groups, including infants, young children, pregnant women, and patients; an epidemiological investigation identified humidifier disinfectants—which they had all used—as the cause.
This incident caused countless people to suffer from serious conditions such as acute interstitial pneumonia and pulmonary fibrosis, leading to a tragedy in which more than 200 victims lost their lives. The company identified as the manufacturer commissioned a university research team to analyze the toxicity of its products, and the report submitted at the time concluded that the products did not cause lung-related symptoms.
However, it was later revealed that the research results had been fabricated, bringing ethical issues regarding the company and the researchers into the spotlight. It became evident that experimental results capable of proving toxicity had been excluded, while data with weak correlations and fabricated results had been selectively used. Had the company or research team acknowledged the harmful effects and taken immediate recall measures, further harm might have been prevented.
This incident raises questions about whether researchers can be completely free from personal or collective interests and value judgments in studies commissioned by manufacturers. In other words, it demonstrates that it is, in reality, extremely difficult to maintain so-called “value neutrality”—the separation of scientific facts and their interpretation from value judgments.

Is Value Neutrality Possible in Engineering?

Value neutrality is typically defined as “an approach that focuses solely on objective facts and excludes judgments based on subjective values.” The concept of “value-free” research advocated by Max Weber in the social sciences can also be understood in this context. However, because engineering is a practical discipline that satisfies human needs through technical means, it is difficult to maintain complete neutrality.
Engineers are the agents who interpret and actually apply the outputs of scientific analysis, and they are rarely free from the interests of individuals, groups, or nations. Therefore, while objective knowledge itself may exist, significant differences in interpretation and application arise depending on the perspective from which it is viewed and applied.
For example, consider the reality that university researchers spend as much time—or even more—writing project proposals as they do writing academic papers. Financial support is essential for achieving engineering results, and the more expensive equipment and sufficient research personnel are invested, the higher the likelihood of obtaining more accurate data. However, the government or companies commissioning these projects expect a return on their investment, and these expectations influence the direction and priorities of the research.
Ultimately, in a situation where the interests of both researchers and investors are taken into account, it is only natural that value judgments regarding technology are inevitably involved. Those who advocate for value neutrality as an ideal believe that pure facts, unencumbered by political, social, or cultural factors, can be obtained; however, in reality, engineering outputs are already interpreted as embodying various values across diverse fields.
On the other hand, there are also positive examples of technology’s application. 3D printers have spread to various fields such as art, architecture, and medicine, contributing to improved quality of life—for instance, by enabling the low-cost production of prosthetic arms and legs in conflict zones in Africa. This demonstrates that what is required in engineering is not mere neutrality, but ethical judgment that takes various factors into account.

The Responsibilities of Engineers and the Characteristics of Modern Technology

The 20th-century philosopher Hans Jonas identified “ambiguity of consequences” and “spatio-temporal extensiveness” as defining characteristics of modern science and technology. The ambiguity of consequences refers to the fact that technology can, over time, produce negative outcomes that differ from its original intended purpose.
For example, silent camera apps are useful because they allow users to take photos without making a sound, but they can be misused for crimes such as surreptitious photography. CCTV helps prevent and investigate crimes, but it can also have the side effect of infringing on personal privacy.
Spatio-temporal extensiveness means that the influence of a technology spreads across borders and through time to a degree that is difficult to predict. Just as the widespread adoption of a single smartphone has transformed global lifestyles and market structures, technological advancements are changing vast aspects of human life.
In this context, engineers find it difficult to fully predict how technology might be used contrary to its original intent or to anticipate the full scope of a research project’s impact. Therefore, the more complex and uncertain the situation, the more essential it is to make decisions based on ethical standards and to take responsibility for the outcomes.
International scientific organizations have also emphasized the importance of this responsibility. For example, the World Federation of Scientists adopted a charter that prioritizes the social responsibility of scientists, urging them to study the implications of science for current economic, social, and political issues and to ensure that the results are widely understood and implemented. It also recommended exploring new ways to utilize science to combat hunger and disease and to improve living and working conditions equitably, while collaborating with relevant organizations.
Scientists and engineers are in a position to influence members of society based on their specialized knowledge. Consequently, they must exercise caution in interpreting and applying that knowledge and fulfill their social responsibility through ethical judgments that serve the public interest.
A single knife is a kitchen knife for a chef to chop vegetables, a scalpel for a surgeon to save a patient, and a tool for a sculptor to create a work of art. However, in the hands of a murderer, it becomes a weapon. Similarly, scientific knowledge can either contribute to the public good of humanity or pose a threat, depending on the values an engineer upholds.
Therefore, engineers must always consider the impact on not only the present but also future generations and make ethical judgments. If harm occurs due to poor decision-making, a responsible attitude is required—one that promptly acknowledges the mistake and devises measures to minimize the damage.