Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36374398›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2022

Repentance as Rebuke: Betrayal and Moral Injury in Safety Engineering.

Sidney W A Dekker, Mark D Layson, David D Woods

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sidney W A DekkerSafety Science Innovation Lab, HLSS, Griffith University, Macrossan Building N16, Room 2.43, 170 Kessels Road, Nathan Campus, Brisbane, QLD, 4111, Australia. s.dekker@griffith.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9141-3374
Mark D LaysonSt Mark's National Theological Centre, School of Theology, Charles Sturt University, Canberra Campus, Australia.
David D WoodsDepartment of Integrated Systems Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Following other contributions about the MAX accidents to this journal, this paper explores the role of betrayal and moral injury in safety engineering related to the U.S. federal regulator's role in approving the Boeing 737MAX-a plane involved in two crashes that together killed 346 people. It discusses the tension between humility and hubris when engineers are faced with complex systems that create ambiguity, uncertain judgements, and equivocal test results from unstructured situations. It considers the relationship between moral injury, principled outrage and rebuke when the technology ends up involved in disasters. It examines the corporate backdrop against which calls for enhanced employee voice are typically made, and argues that when engineers need to rely on various protections and moral inducements to 'speak up,' then the ethical essence of engineering-skepticism, testing, checking, and questioning-has already failed.

Indexed as

BetrayalMoralsEngineeringHumansTechnologyAccidentBetrayalBoeing 737MAXEngineering ethicsFederal Aviation AdministrationMoral injury

Identifiers

PMID36374398
PMCPMC9663350

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.