Safety, Health and Welfare

Letter to the Editor for Civil Engineering - - The Magazine of the American Society of Civil Engineers.

This is in response to Timothy J. Noles’s July letter to the editor in which Mr. Noles addressed several issues relating to our declining infrastructure and fiscal responsibilities. Mr. Noles was fundamentally addressing issues raised by William F. Galli in a May letter to the editor.

Several points should be addressed with respect to both letters. The first is the rather minimalist approach to our code of ethics - - namely the singular quotation of safety. The fundamental canon is much broader in scope than just safety - - “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties.” The interesting phrase is “ . . . welfare of the public . . .” Although broad, welfare in the context of engineering means a focus on the well-being and prosperity of the public. A cornerstone of our well-being and prosperity has to be an understanding of the forces and factors associated with our economic and financial welfare. If all we want to do is design the roads and bridges that connect sub-prime subdivisions based on “liar loans” with empty shopping malls, and desire to never enter the public debate on economic welfare and prosperity - - - we are doing the general public a huge disservice.

Sometimes we need to be reminded of the old lawyer who stated, “About half the practice of a decent lawyer consists of telling would-be clients that they are damned fools and should stop.” Yes, we recommend and yes, Congress funds and yes, we design and yes, we build. But does anyone think for a moment that when we burn through one trillion dollars that the process has been strategic, systematic or transparent? When small congressional districts receive a disproportionate share of highway funds – has the welfare of the nation as a whole really been considered? Should civil engineers debate and discuss this? Clearly yes. Should we debate, discuss, and care about how and when $50 trillion of public debt and obligations gets covered and how it interfaces with our responsibilities of safety, health and welfare? Clearly yes. Should we be part of the debate over the need for the new fire station versus funding the pension of the retired firefighter? Clearly yes. Has the world changed requiring new ways of thinking, responsibilities, attitudes and debates? Clearly yes.