We only regard a system or a process as being “scientific” if it displays the three predominant characteristics of the natural sciences: predictability, repeatability and quantifiability. This by definition precludes intuition, subjective judgement, tacit knowledge, heuristics, dreams, etc. in other words, those attributes which are peculiarly human. Furthermore, this is resulting in a shift from judgment to calculation giving rise, in some cases, to an abject dependency on the machine and an inability to disagree with the outcome or even question (...) it. To tolerate such a situation could be seen as an abdication of professional responsibility. In complex technological and scientific environments, it is sometimes said that those who make best use of computers already know what the answer is (in ball park terms) before the calculation. (shrink)

Scientists and engineers lack the equivalent of an ethics committee to which their colleagues in the medical profession may turn when ethical dilemmas arise. In the US workers in aerospace industry have campaigned for a Technology Bill of Rights. In the UK there has been a vigorous movement around the concept of socially useful and environmentally desirable technology. The organisation Scientists for Social Responsibility has set up a panel of scientists who can advise younger colleagues on issues of ethical responsibility.

Systems, machines and organisation of forms developed in the Engineering and Manufacturing sectors frequently lay the basis for systems design philosophy at a general level. An analysis of technological change in these sectors reveals that the resultant deskilling is not limited to the shop floor and is now spreading to intellectual work. The impact of ‘machine based systems’ on designers is explored in some detail and suggests the need for alternatives which are based on ‘human centred systems’. Some attempts to (...) design sub-systems are described. (shrink)