The Challenger disaster was caused by nothing other than gross negligence by the upper-management at NASA. The information we now have about the defective O-rings was just as well known by management the day of the launch. Yet, despite the knowledge of this risk, NASA management let the launch go through. It is true that they faced pressure from the government, from the public, and from many other sources to make sure the launch happened. But, when your mistakes may endanger human life, no amount of cautiousness is enough. Nothing, in that situation, could be classified as an "acceptable flight risk." The probability for failure may have been small, but the cost of failure, even in with the smallest probability, was entirely too high.
One of the things that angers me most about this whole incident was the punishment that Roger Boisjoly faced after the incident. Boisjoly was one of the primary whistleblowers in the case. He brought the O-ring issue to light and even, the night before launch, attempted to persuade management to abort the flight. But they didn't listen to his advice. Boisjoly was entirely ethical in sharing this issue with the public. And, the reason is, that his information revealed a system that did not prioritize human life. He revealed the gross negligence present in NASA that not only lead to the deaths of 7 astronauts, but also the traumatization of millions of children and a major set-back for the space program for years to come.
Technically speaking, depending on the language of his employment contract, the company was "justified" in retaliating against him. This is, of course, strictly in the legal sense of the word. If he agreed not to reveal any unauthorized information to the public, and then did, he is responsible for any backlash he faces. However, ethically speaking, there is not way in which the company is justified in punishing Boisjoly. Boisjoly, through his actions, potentially saved many more future lives and, while he may have made the company look bad, he also brought the opportunity to make real lasting change within the company's structure.
Whistleblowing is very important in society. It uncovers many of the troubling secrets that industry tries to bury. But, for many people, it is just not worth it. The potential for blowback is just too great a risk to assume for the benefits of revealing whatever information they have. That is exactly why we should value whistleblowers. They have the courage to put their own future at risk to potentially save the lives of many others. That being said, I do not think all whistleblowers are worthy of praise. I think that, primarily, whistleblowers should only reveal information that can actually help people. These secrets should be such that, by not revealing them, people are in danger. In cases like that of Chelsea Manning, who leaked sensitive information to WikiLeaks, the benefit is less clear. Of course, it uncovered a large NSA operation. But, it also put many undercover operatives at risk by putting their personal information out into public domain.
No comments:
Post a Comment