EEE3099/3100

Professional Studies A/B

Dr Leah Ridgway
Prof Steve Morgan
Dr Amanda Wright
 Week 34

There are 4 parts to this week:

3 narrated power points:

• Engineering Ethics
• Ethics in public life
• Sustainability

1 case study:
• Case study – discussed in more detail at the lecture engagement
session on Thursday the 13th at 2pm.

This is the last week of taught material for this course.

Ethics in public life

Dr. Amanda Wright

 Ethics in public life

Moving on from being an engineer working for a commercial entity

…. now lets consider an engineer working for a public funded or

government organisation

for example a University or government research labs

 Nolan principles of public life

• In 1994, the UK government established a Committee on Standards

in Public Life.
• The committee was chaired by Lord Nolan
• It was tasked with making recommendations to improve standards of
behaviour in public life.
• The committee established the seven principles of public life, also
known as the “Nolan principles”.
 Nolan principles of public life

The 7 principles of public life apply to anyone who works as a public office-holder.

This includes people who are elected or appointed to public office, nationally and
locally, and all people appointed to work in:

• The civil service

• Local government
• The police
• The courts and probation services
• Non-departmental public bodies
• Health, education, social and care services

The principles also apply to all those in other sectors that deliver public services.
 Government Research Institutes in the UK

Examples of UK research institutes funded in-full or in-part by tax payers money:

 Nolan’s 7 principles of public life

Selflessness – Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public
interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other benefits for
themselves, their family or their friends.

Integrity – Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial
or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence
them in the performance of their official duties.

Objectivity – In carrying out public business, including making public appointments,

awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders
of public office should make choices on merit.

Accountability – Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and
actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate
to their office.
 Nolan’s 7 principles of public life

Openness – Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the
decisions and actions they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and
restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.

Honesty – Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating
to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that
protects the public interest.

Leadership – Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by
leadership and example.
 Nolan’s 7 principles – final thoughts

• The Nolan principles were revolutionary at the time because they focused on
behaviour and culture, rather than processes.
• Therefore if someone lives by these values, it will go a long way to improving
behaviour.
• The welcome side-effect is a board which has a tighter rein on processes and
compliance, leading to a win-win situation.
• If you are really practicing accountability, integrity and leadership, you will ensure
your organisation has a strategic plan in place, is spending public money wisely and
is delivering exceptional service for all customers.
• If you are selfless and honest, you will be making decisions which are in the interests
of the organisation, putting aside any personal interest and acting objectively and
independently.
• Organisations which are open have been shown to have more stakeholder
involvement in the planning process, leading to enhanced public service.
• The Nolan principles have weathered the last 20 years well.
 A research example

Cold fusion

• An unfinished and tragic story?

• Hubris (excessive pride) or misfortune?
• (in Greek tragedy) excessive pride
towards or defiance of the gods,
leading to nemesis.
• Central figure in our story Martin
Fleischman 1927-2012
• Takes place in the late 1980s
• A good example of how things can back-
fire!
 So who was Martin Fleischman?

• Czech national who emigrated to UK

• Educated Imperial College London
• Professor Electrochemistry University of Southampton
• Fellow of the Royal Society – highest UK accolade
• One of the principal discovers of Surface Enhanced
Raman
- Now a very important effect in sensors, diagnostics,
etc
• Acknowledged as one of the world’s leading chemists
(President of International Society of Electrochemistry)

Collaborated with Stanley Pons from the University of Utah

on a topic they called ‘cold fusion’

Experiment funded from their own pockets - $100,000

 Why was cold fusion so interesting?

• Hot fusion – nuclear reaction that takes place naturally within stars under immense
pressure and at temperatures of millions of degrees
• Cold fusion - a hypothesized nuclear reaction that would occur at, or near, room
temperature.

Importantly in cold fusion more energy would be produced then pumped into the
system!!

The result would be ….

Global warming could be reversed (probably)

Water desalination would be ‘free’
Saudia Arabia would become famous only for sand
Global politics would be completely refashioned
Therefore people wanted to believe, Scientists wanted to prove that this was possible..
 The Fleischmann–Pons experiment

• A table-top glass cell filled with heavy water and fitted

with a palladium electrode - hypothesized that electrolysis
might result in nuclear fusion
• To investigate, current was applied continuously for many
weeks, with the heavy water being renewed at intervals
• Most of the time the cell temperature was stable at
around 30 degrees
• But then, at some point (in some of the experiments), the
temperature rose suddenly to about 50 °C without
changes in the input power.
• These high temperature phases would last for two days
or more and would repeat several times in any given
experiment once they had occurred.

Great excitement!!!
 What happened next?

• MF wanted to publish in a ‘relatively’ low key journal

• They also gave an ‘explanation’
• University of Utah wanted a huge splash
• ‘cold’ fusion announced at a press conference. Great for University bosses.
• Great acclaim, phone call from Stockholm imminent

University of Utah got their way ….

 What happened next?

Some 7,000 people attended a hastily organized cold fusion session at the ACS
national meeting in Dallas in 1989, hopeful that word of the newly announced
phenomenon was true.
 The press conference

• In the press conference, Chase N. Peterson (president of the University of Utah),

Fleischmann and Pons, backed by the solidity of their scientific credentials,
repeatedly assured the journalists that cold fusion would solve environmental
problems, and would provide a limitless inexhaustible source of clean energy,
using only seawater as fuel.

• They said the results had been confirmed dozens of times and they had no doubts
about them.
• In the accompanying press release Fleischmann was quoted saying: "What we
have done is to open the door of a new research area, our indications are that the
discovery will be relatively easy to make into a usable technology for generating
heat and power, but continued work is needed, first, to further understand the
science and secondly, to determine its value to energy economics.”
The fall-out

The rival ‘collaborating’ group

Brigham Young group under

Prof Steven Jones
Did detect very small effects
 The fall-out

 Although the experimental protocol had not been published, over the next couple of
years many researchers across several countries attempted to replicate the excess
heat phenomenon.
 …. the majority of attempts failed
 Some reported small (1-2 degrees) heat rises
 Those that did report heat rises often found that they were due to a process different
to nuclear fusion

• In April 1989, Fleischmann and Pons published a "preliminary note" in the Journal of
Electroanalytical Chemistry. This paper indicated they had made a mistake in
claiming evidence of fusion by products.

Nevertheless, Fleischmann and Pons and a number of other researchers who

found positive results remained convinced of their findings
 Some headlines

April 3, 1989: "Nuclear Fusion: Utah
Findings Raise Hopes, Doubts”
April 10, 1989: “Cold Fusion: Race to
Clarify Utah Claims Heats Up”
April 17, 1989: “Cold Fusion: ACS Session
Helps Shed Some Light”
May 15, 1989: “Utah Chemists Back Off Some Claims”
May 22, 1989: “Hopes for Cold Fusion Diminish as Ranks
of Disbelievers Swell”
June 5, 1989: “Conflicting Cold Fusion Reports Deepen Mystery”
July 17, 1989: “Federal Panel Advises No Cold Fusion Funding”

April 24, 1989: “Fusion Confusion: New
Data, but Skepticism Persists”
May 1, 1989: “Fusion Controversy:
Congress Excited, but Doubts Grow”
Aug. 14, 1989: “Utah Panel Votes Funds for Cold Fusion Institute”
Nov. 6, 1989: “Cold Fusion Anomalies More Perplexing than Ever”
March 1990: “Sociology of Cold Fusion Examined”

May 8, 1989: “Fusion Donnybrook: April 1990: “Opposing Camps Tussle Over Cold Fusion”
Physicists Assail Utah Claims”
April 1990: “Advocates, Skeptics Alike Still Puzzled by Cold Fusion”
 More headlines …
April 1990: “Pons Demands Retraction of
Cold Fusion Paper”
June 1990: “Cold Fusion Dogged by
More Controversy”
November 1990: “Cold Fusion: Utah
R&D Faces Go/No-Go Decision”
December 1990: “Utah Cold Fusion
Institute Research Deemed Sound”
1991: “Cold Fusion: Utah Pressures Pons,
Fleischmann”
1991: “New Evidence Claimed For Nuclear Process
In ‘Cold Fusion’ ”
1991: “Cold Fusion Lab Dies, but Fusion Research
Goes On”
1992: “Cold Fusion Fiasco”
1992: “Cold Fusion Experiment Blast Kills
Researcher”
1992: “Cold Fusion Takes a Licking but Keeps on
Ticking”
1992: “A Chemist Debunks Cold Fusion”
1993: “Latest Cold Fusion Results Fail To Win
Over Skeptics”
 Even more headlines

1995: “Cold Fusion Session Smaller than
Expected”
1995: “Cold Fusion Believer Turned Skeptic
Crusades for More Rigorous Research”
2005: “Tabletop Nuclear Fusion Device”
2007: “Cold Fusion Makes Its Case In Chicago”
2008: “Bubble Fusion Burst”

1996: “Cold Fusion Lives—Sort Of” 2009: “Cold Fusion Lives”

1996: “ ‘Cold Fusion’ Device Hits The 2010: “Targeting Fraud”

Market”
2012: “Reviving Cold Fusion”
2002: “Hubbub over ‘Bubble Fusion’”
2012: “Proper Terminology”
2003: “Science, Religion, and The Art of
Cold Fusion” 2012: “Unlikely Cold Fusion“

2004: “DOE to Reconsider Cold Fusion

Research”
Code of conduct

MF and SP were
experts in
electrochemistry but not
nuclear physicists
Code of conduct

Fleischmann and Jones had

agreed to meet at an airport
to send their papers
to Nature via FedEx.

Fleischmann and Pons,

pressured by the University
of Utah broke their apparent
agreement, and disclosed
their work via a press
release
Code of conduct
Code of conduct
Code of conduct

U of Utah and
Journal
editors also
share some
of the blame..
 Lessons learnt

• Be aware of pressures. Univ. of Utah were grossly irresponsible and greedy.

• P and F suffered because they had reputations to lose.
• F in particular was too dogmatic about mechanism.
• Note F was a very good scientist but the findings were so radical and they were out
of his realm of expertise.
• There is now evidence that the may be something, but mainstream is now reluctant
to consider…but after 30 years it is being reborn a bit.
• Some of the existing work was not properly verified because the ‘inventors’ didn't
want to reveal secrets…
• You have to find a way to protect your own interests but not at the expense of
validation and verification by the community.

There are pressure to produce positive results (products that work)

– this can bias science
 Summary

Here we have considered ethics in public life

I have introduced the Nolan Principles of public life that apply to many
professions including those working at Universities or Government research
institutes

I have then told you the story of cold fusion – highlight where errors can be made
…