Desmond Zheng
3D PRINTING: AN ETHICAL OBSERVATION
Desmond Zheng ()
1
Desmond Zheng
INTRODUCTION: THE ARRIVAL OF 3D PRINTING
Over the past decade, mankind has created countless new revolutionary products, each one topping the previous. Companies such as Apple, Samsung, Sony, and Google, have created products such as smart phones, flat screen televisions, virtual reality devices, computers, and autonomous cars. Despite these great innovations, a relatively new technology can eventually trump all of these symbols of innovation: additive manufacturing, or 3D printing. 3D printing could potentially hold the solutions to several global problems: food shortages, organ donation scarcities, and production of our everyday tools and devices. The capabilities of additive manufacturing are endless. Food, such as meat and bread, can be printed using specially designed 3D printers. Research into organ reproduction with one’s own stem cells is currently being done. In addition, the biggest benefit of 3D printing is the ability to print any product with a blueprint [1]. These miraculousfeatures of additive manufacturing have caught the attention of media and innovators alike.
Forerunners of thisindustry, such as MakerBot LLC, have given access to local institutions, such as public schools, libraries, and homes, enabling the launch of the additive manufacturing era [2]. However, development of laws and safety standards involving 3D printing must be expedited before additive manufacturing can be a mainstream part of one’s life. In 2013, Wohlers Associates, a consulting firm specifically for CAD software and 3D printing companies, estimated that the 3D printing market possessed a “value of $3.07 billion, having grown 27 percent annually in the past 26 years[3].” This growth coincides with a growth in public pressure on governmental regulation on 3D printing. Critics of 3D printing place importance on copyright laws involving CAD designs for 3D printing, which could become an important battleground for the individual as the industry expands, and the ability to print anything one can design [4]. Studies are currently being done to find a mutually beneficial solution for all parties. This is where Defense Distributed, a 3D printing nonprofit organization that I am a part of, is making a national debate over the legislation of additive manufacturing [5].
Ethical Dilemma: Defense Distributed
Additive Manufactured Weapons
Defense Distributed, a “nonprofit anti-monopolist digital publishing” organization, has recently formed with one purpose in mind: world-wide access to printable weapons [6].Defense Distributed, led by founder Cody Wilson, aims to distribute blueprints of guns to anyone in the world. He intends to utilize 3D printing to allow for open-source, free, and easily-accessible guns. The first 3D printed gun, the Liberator, caused governments to be on high alert and the United States Department of State’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs to send Wilson a warning that he had broken the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. In retaliation, Cody Wilson founded Defense Distributed to distribute blueprints to anyone with access to the Internet [5]. As a leader of the nonprofit organization, he compiled the Wiki Weapon collection, an ensemble of CAD drawings of firearms that could be easily printed and assembled [6]. These acts, however revolutionary, were considered unlawful by the US State Department. The problem that I have encountered while working at Defense Distributed is whether to aid in the distribution of the Wiki Weapon collection as a symbol of free speech and extension of distribution rights for additive manufacturing as a whole.
Though Wilson and his nonprofit claim that the files were forms of free speech, the United States government considered it illegal. Despite these battles of legality, Defense Distributed helped boost the popularity of additive manufacturing. When the government requested that Wilson remove the CAD files from his server, approximately 100,000 people had already downloaded the drawings. The media attention allowed Wilson to achieve 501(c)3 nonprofit status (certifies a company or organization as a nonprofit) for Defense Distributed and a firearms manufacturer’s license to legally design and print his weapons [5]. In the meantime, 3D printers have dropped to fewer than a thousand dollars [7]. Defense Distributed has given the additive manufacturing industry a larger presence in society: ability to produce anything one wants instantly has enticed a large portion of the population. Our nonprofit is aware that the result of the legal battles over our Wiki Weapon collection could decide the fate of the additive manufacturing industry. If we continue pursuing the release of the project, we are faced with an interesting situation about our nonprofit and 3D printing, in general. Is the freedom to produce anything one wants, such as the Liberator, granted? Who decides who owns a blueprint? Will the 3D printers reduce the work force? Defense Distributed believes anyone should have access to a 3D blueprint, even to a perilous weapon. As a future mechanical engineer, I believe that it is my duty to make the best ethical solution to these dilemmas.
WHY FIGHT OVER 3D PRINTING?
The problem with 3D printing is its open source nature. Companies and establishments, such as the United State governments, do not commend open source products and their bypass of regulation. The IRS makes the process of open-source nonprofit organizations difficult due to the fact that anyone can make a profit off of the open-source projects. In addition, if every household in America gets a 3D printer, as some experts, like Wohlers Associates, believe has already begun to happen, laws, ranging from gun ownership to copyright, will have to be adjusted accordingly [7]. The start of another industrial revolution could be the demise of major corporations throughout the world. Millions could be laid off, as 3D printers replace them in factories, restaurants, hospitals, and other workplaces. The ability to produce anything, from food to weapons, give an extraordinary level of danger to additive manufacturing.
However, this dangerous nature of 3D printing is also a strong proponent; without the online community of additive manufacturing, owners of 3D printers wouldn’t be able to manipulate materials such as ABS plastic and nylon, ceramics, and even metals such as titanium. The open-source group Public Knowledge believes that this ability to manufacture using any material, along with open source, will cause a tumultuous change in industries in the next decade. The implications for the international work force could be glaring: the work force in the United States of America alone has been reduced by approximately 5 million people in the past decade. Add the effects of the additive manufacturing industry among factories will further reduce the numbers. President of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, Scott Paul, said, “Mechanical engineers? Somebody can show up on time, clean and sober, and they can operate this machine” [7].3D printers do not require anyone with an extensive knowledge of engineering or science. With an understanding of the strong opposition by global leading industries and governments, and the unwavering growth of additive manufacturing, one can begin to comprehend the current problem.
EXAMINING THE ETHICS
Defense Distributed has created a massive ethical dilemma involving 3D printing. Not only did it create a legal battle over the laws concerning additive manufacturing, but it poses an ethical issue over the production of guns. These two quandaries can be examined using multiple codes of ethics in engineering. To best examine these two issues, I am delving into each one separately. The first issue I will be discussing is the potential legislation of additive manufacturing and the ethics involved in the open source nature of the technology. The second issue will center on the ethics of production of weapons, such as guns, using 3D printing.
Ethical Examination #1: Legislation
For the first ethical examination, I have to look at legislation of additive manufacturing not only with the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics for Professional Engineers, but with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code of Ethics for Engineers. As a future mechanical engineer, it is beneficial to look at this issue with both code of ethics. In addition, as a diverse engineering field, mechanical engineering allows me to see the issues over additive manufacturing from multiple perspectives.
Considering the NSPE Codes of Ethics for Professional Engineers, an important canon that applies to the present issue, legislation of additive manufacturing, is “Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, andlawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession [8].”We, as engineers and innovators of society, must hold ourselves, and our products, to a high personal standard and to the law. Even with its countless benefits to mankind, additive manufacturing presents a danger to the public. Companies, like Makerbot LLC, have not banned creation of weapons using their machines. In addition, to download a blueprint of a gun, one does not need to turn over credit card information or own a gun license [9]. Legislation of additive manufacturing could curb the danger to a manageable level. The United States already insists that the Undetectable Firearms Act should limit the weapons printed through 3D printers. Whether this is legal or not is hotly debated. However, with this in mind, we must be careful not to strip our freedoms of speech and expression away, even if it is expressed through 3D printing.
Another canon, this time from the ASME Code of Ethics for Engineers, that applies to this issue is “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties [10].” The utilization of this canon is necessary due to the need of legislation for the safety of our citizens. We must consider their welfare before considering manufacturing weapons and other products that have not had sufficient safety testing. However, the use of additive manufacturing has improved the health of people since its creation. 3D printed prosthetics, organs, and other products have enhanced our way of life. Even my nonprofit, Defense Distributed, and its allies design these weapons with the goal that those without access to weapons can manufacture a means of protecting themselves. These “pro and cons” of additive manufacturing make it a challenge to legislate.
There is a solution for this ethical issue that I believe exists. We could establish an additive manufacturing protocol that requires those with 3D printers to register with a government agency. Those who design blueprints could still develop these in privacy, while our government would know who could print a potential hazard to society. This would not violate our freedom of speech, but would enable the public to feel safe and not damage the name and reputation of additive manufacturing. I believe that this solution is the best alternative to a long set of legal battles between organizations such as Defense Distributed and the government over freedom of speech in additive manufacturing.
Ethical Examination #2: Gun Production
The second ethical issue I encountered working at Defense Distributed was the unregulated use of additive manufacturing for gun production. The nonprofit was enabling anyone with access to a 3D printer to be able to start a potential public crisis. The ethics behind this gun production are that Defense Distributed would be distributing a blueprint to weapons that could find their ways to criminals and illicit organizations.
This ethical issue clearly strays from the canon from the NSPE Code of Ethics for Professional Engineers: “Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public [8].” If we enable any human being to have the ability to print their own weapons, crime rates could rise exponentially. We would drastically change the current levels of safety in our communities; our children would never be allowed outdoors to enjoy themselves without risk. Nevertheless, Defense Distributed and myself must conduct surveys to see how distribution of weapon blueprints could harm the public.
Appropriate research must be conducted on the Wiki Weapon project. We must demonstrate an acute level of safety before we can distribute more weapon blueprints [6]. However, a similar organization named Free Open Source Software and Computer Aided Design, or Fosscad, believe that 3D guns are still too advanced for the ordinary human and require engineering expertise to assemble [9]. This is not enough to prove that additive manufactured weapons are safe enough to distribute for the public. Research into how gun production from 3D printing is necessary for our safety.
The ASME Code of Ethics for Engineers also addresses this ethical issue with the canons, “Engineers shall act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, and shall avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest,” and “Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their competence; they shall build their professional reputation on the merit of their services and shall not compete unfairly with others [10].”I postulate that this ethical issue that Defense Distributed has placed me under has made me stray from being a mechanical engineer. I have worried too much about the ethical dilemmas of producing guns and it is conflicting with my interest in aiding the additive manufacturing industry. I believed that Defense Distributed would have followed a more ethical path of gun production, but I am afraid that they have changed their initial interests in additive manufacturing. Unregulated production of guns with 3D printing is likely to result in an appalling event that I do not want to associate with.
CONCLUSION: ETHICAL SOLUTION
Defense Distributed is left in a difficult situation due to these ethical issues. Many possible solutions exist, but one surpasses the rest: legislation of additive manufacturing. A government agency or program that registers any person with a 3D printer could go a long way to preventing any future tragedies involving additive manufactured weapons. A research department or study from this agency would also be necessary to explore any possibilities of a tragic event as a result of additive manufactured gun production.
Hopefully, Defense Distributed will listen to my choice of agreeing to legislation. If they choose not to fight, not only will they be deemed as good Samaritans and give a positive light to additive manufacturing, but they could save countless lives from facing a tragic end from 3D printed weapons. Overall, the ethical situation with Defense Distributed is a complex one, but it can be handled after examining the separate ethical issues and choosing the paramount solution.
REFERENCES
[1] (2014). “The Bespoke Lawn Mower.” Newsweek Global. (online article). p. 1-5.
[2] MakerBot. (2014). “MakerBot at New York Maker Faire.” Business Wire. (online article). p. 1.
[3] D. Allen. (2014). “When the Going Gets Tough, the Losers Get Lobbying.” Institute of Public Affairs Review. (online report). p. 32-35.
[4] T. Macik. (2015). “Global Data Meets 3-D Printing: The Quest for a Balanced and Globally Collaborative Solution to prevent Patent Infringement in the Foreseeable 3-D Printing Revolution.” Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies. (online journal). p. 149-173.
[5] B. Doherty. (2013). “The Unstoppable Plastic Gun” Reason. (online article). p. 24-32.
[6] Defense Distributed. (2015). “About Defense Distributed” Defense Distributed. (online report). p. 1.
[7] J. Saginor. (2013). “Pandora’s Box.” American Prospect. (online article). p. 19-327.
[8] (2007). “NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers.” National Society of Professional Engineers. (Ethics Code). p. 1-2.
[9] N. Bilton. (2014). “The Rise of 3-D Printed Guns.” The New York Times. (online article). p. 1.
[10] (2012). “ASME Code of Ethics for Engineers.” American Society of Mechanical Engineers. (Ethics Code). p. 1-2.
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
“Ethics Case Studies in Biodesign.” Stanford Biodesign
1
Desmond Zheng
Department. (Case Study). p. 1-2.
“It’s All About Sharing…” webGuru Guide for Undergraduate Research. (Case Study). p. 1.
J. Mattox. (2013). “Additive Manufacturing and its Implications for Military Ethics.” Journal of Military Ethics. (Online Journal). P. 225-234.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review. (2014). “Public Health and Safety-Delay in Addressing Fire Code Violations.” National Society of Professional Engineers. (Case Study). p. 1-4.
1
Desmond Zheng
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my parents for guiding me to the University of Pittsburgh and instilling me with a good ethical
1
Desmond Zheng
code. I would also like to thank my writing instructor, Mr. Timothy Maddocks, my advisor Mrs. CherylPaul, my
1
Desmond Zheng
seminar teacher, Daxton Scholl, and my fellow peers for their aid in helping me write this paper.
1
Desmond Zheng
1
Desmond Zheng
1