Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethics in NDE 4.0: Perspectives and Possibilities

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0

  • 88 Accesses

Abstract

There are too many unknowns around the explosive growth of cyber-physical technology applications that it needs a hard conversation around ethics of the unknown. Different studies predict growth from digital transformation around 20–50% over the next decade. The situation becomes alarming as decision-making shifts from humans to machines that can learn to act autonomously, without fear of penalty. It is unreasonable for us to expect such machines to be “ethically neutral.” Gartner notes that 85% of all AI will be biased in 2022 [1]. The technology development community needs guidance and controls. All the ethical considerations that have evolved through the third revolution are still valid. So, the additional ethical principles for handling this next revolution should build on existing ethics framework in use, within the organization and longstanding norms, and values in the nondestructive evaluation (NDE) sector.

The topic is likely to be a long-drawn out debate, with continuously evolving perspectives from successful technology disruptors with equally plausible opposing perspectives. The objective of this chapter is to present multiple perspectives, raise a few questions, and discuss a few possibilities, with an intent to kick off a hard discussion around ethics in NDE 4.0 so that over the next few years the professional community can develop guidance on how to identify and address ethical situations of the cyber-physical ecosystem. To keep the scope of this chapter to a manageable length we will not rehash what has been well published around traditional NDE business ethics, such as employees, ecology, consumers, marketing, or business models, which are well addressed by NDT societies.

We urge every user of the Handbook in pursuit of digital transformation to read this chapter, because in some sense it is our ethical duty and professional responsibility to proactively identify and remove the potential for harm from advancing the technology frontier.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2018-02-13-gartner-says-nearly-half-of-cios-are-planning-to-deploy-artificial-intelligence

  2. Reinhart RJ. Most Americans already using Artificial Intelligence Products. Gallup, March 6, 2018. https://news.gallup.com/poll/228497/americans-already-using-artificial-intelligence-products.aspx

  3. Artificial intelligence, algorithmic pricing, and collusion; Emilio Calvano, Giacomo Calzolari, Vincenzo Denicolò, and Sergio Pastorello; 03 February 2019 https://voxeu.org/article/artificial-intelligence-algorithmic-pricing-and-collusion

  4. WhatsApp. The Best Facebook Purchase Ever? Investopedia, By Alison L. Deutsch. Updated 18 Mar 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  5. The ethics of algorithms: key problems and solutions, Andreas Tsamados, Nikita Aggarwal, Josh Cowls, Jessica Morley, Huw Roberts, Mariarosaria Taddeo, and Luciano Floridi, AI & Society Jan 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Power Business with AI: Augmented Intelligence, CEO white paper, Mark J. Barrenechea, OpenText. https://www.opentext.com/info/augmented-intelligence-ceo-white-paper

  7. https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/28/study-of-youtube-comments-finds-evidence-of-radicalization-effect/, Natasha Lomas, Jan 28, 2020.

  8. Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automation-insight/amazon-scraps-secret-ai-recruiting-tool-that-showed-bias-against-women-idUSKCN1MK08G

  9. Dealing with Bias in Artificial Intelligence, By Craig S. Smith. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/technology/artificial-intelligence-bias.html, Jan 2, 2020

  10. What HBR Gets Wrong About Algorithms and Bias, 07 Aug 2018 by Rachel Thomas. https://www.fast.ai/2018/08/07/hbr-bias-algorithms/

  11. NDT 4.0 – Overall Significance and Implications to NDT, Rainer. Link, Nathanael. Riess; August 2018. https://www.ndt.net/article/ecndt2018/papers/ecndt-0619-2018.pdf

  12. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/ethics/#:~:text=The%20field%20of%20ethics%20(or,of%20right%20and%20wrong%20behavior.

  13. https://www.dictionary.com/e/moral-vs-ethical/

  14. Personal communication with Ramon Fernandez

    Google Scholar 

  15. What’s the right thing to do. https://justiceharvard.org/ and the lecture playlist. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL30C13C91CFFEFEA6

  16. https://www.i-cio.com/management/insight/item/a-new-ethic-for-technology. Defining a new ethic for technology, Rae Ritchie – May 2019

  17. What is trust in technology? Conceptual bases, common pitfalls and the contribution of trust research, Dr. Frens Kroeger. https://www.trusttech.cam.ac.uk/perspectives/technology-humanity-society-democracy/what-trust-technology-conceptual-bases-common

  18. These are the 4 Biggest Innovation Challenges We Must Solve Over the Next Decade – Ultimately, it’s about humans rather than technology, BY GREG SATELL, INC. Aug 25, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Japan Cabinet Office, since 2016. https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/english/society5_0/index.html

  20. Industry 4.0: Ethical and Moral Predicaments, by Weiyu Wang and Keng Siau, Vol 32, No 6, Cutter Business Technology Journal pp36–45, 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Ethics: Ethics of AI and Ethical AI, Weiyu Wang and Keng Siau, Journal of Database Management, Volume 31(2) 2020, pp74–86

    Google Scholar 

  22. https://www.asnt.org/MajorSiteSections/About/Ethics.aspx

  23. https://www.bindt.org/membership/for-individuals/statement-of-ethical-principles-and-code-of-conduct/

  24. https://www.bindt.org/membership/for-companies/code-of-ethics/

  25. https://www.efndt.org/EFNDT/Code-of-Ethics

  26. https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/mineralsmetals/files/pdf/ndt-end/ndt-end-pdf/8_2_1-002-NRCan-NDTCB-Code-of-Conduct.pdf

  27. https://ndtss.org.sg/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/NDTSS-code-of-ethics.pdf

  28. https://saint.org.za/code-of-ethics/

  29. Ethics for the Information Age, Seventh Edition; Michael Quinn: ePub; Pearson; Online publication date February 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  30. “Guidelines and Ethical Standards” for Data Scientists. https://www.adasci.org/ethics-in-data-science/

  31. Data science code of professional conduct, Data Science Association. https://www.datascienceassn.org/code-of-conduct.html

  32. PCN certification gained by giving fake experience. https://www.ndt.net/forum/thread.php?rootID=59770

  33. Prison for NDT Inspector, https://www.ndt.net/forum/thread.php?msgID=38977

  34. https://github.com/fastai/fastbook/blob/master/03_ethics.ipynb, Data Ethics

  35. Robitzski D. A new algorithm trains AI to erase its Biases. Futurism. January 29, 2019. https://futurism.com/algorithm-trains-ai-to-erase-biases.

  36. Coming to Terms: The Kaleidoscope of Privacy and Surveillance, In B. Roessler and D. Mokrosinska, The Social Dimensions of Privacy. Cambridge University Press, 2015. By Gary T. Marx, Professor Emeritus, MIT https://web.mit.edu/gtmarx/www/thekaleidoscopeof.html

  37. AI Ethics II: Why we need quality control; Falk Henemann; DMEXCO; 23 January 19; https://dmexco.com/stories/ai-ethics-ii-why-we-need-quality-control/

  38. 16 Things You Can Do to Make Tech More Ethical; Rachel Thomas; fast.ai; 22 Apr 2019; https://www.fast.ai/2019/04/22/ethics-action-1/

  39. Siau K, Wang W. Building Trust in Artificial Intelligence, machine learning, and robotics. Cutter Bus Technol J. 2018;31(2):47–53.

    Google Scholar 

  40. https://www.scu.edu/ethics/all-about-ethics/artificial-intelligence-and-ethics-sixteen-challenges-and-opportunities/. Artificial Intelligence and Ethics: Sixteen Challenges and Opportunities, Brian Patrick Green

  41. The Partnership on AI to Benefit People and Society, Inaugural Meeting, Berlin, Germany, October 23–24, 2017

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ethics of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, Apr 30, 2020 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-ai/

  43. AI HLEG, 2019, “High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence: Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI”, European Commission, accessed: 9 April 2019

    Google Scholar 

  44. European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies, 2018, “Statement on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and ‘Autonomous’ Systems”, 9 March 2018, European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Unit RTD.01.

    Google Scholar 

  45. DoD Adopts Ethical Principles for Artificial Intelligence; US DoD; Feb 24, 2020

    Google Scholar 

  46. Floridi L, Cowls J, Beltrametti M, Chatila R, Chazerand P, Dignum V, Luetge C, Madelin R, Pagallo U, Rossi F, Schafer B, Valcke P, Vayena E. AI4People – an ethical framework for a good AI society: opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Mind Mach. 2018;28(4):689–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Taylor S, et al. 2018. Responsible AI – key themes, concerns & recommendations for European research and innovation: summary of consultation with multidisciplinary experts. June.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Whittlestone J, Nyrup R, Alexandrova A, Dihal K, Cave S. Ethical and societal implications of algorithms, data, and artificial intelligence: a roadmap for research. Cambridge: Nuffield Foundation, University of Cambridge; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Lessons learned from AI ethics principles for future actions, Opinion paper, Merve Hickok, AI and Ethics (2021) 1:41–47

    Google Scholar 

  50. DoD Adopts Ethical Principles for Artificial Intelligence; US DoD; Feb 24, 2020. https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2091996

  51. Why data review boards are a promising tool for improving institutional decision-making; Fred Cate; Rachel Dockery; Stanley Crosley; Privacy Perspectives, The International Association of Privacy Professionals; 28 February 20; https://iapp.org/news/a/why-data-review-boards-are-a-promising-tool-for-improving-institutional-decision-making/

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge valuable conversations on the topic with Ramon Fernandez (Mexico), David Gilbert (UK), Don Andrews (Canada), Vaibhav Garg (India), Norbert Meyendorf and Johannes Vrana (Germany), Kim Hayes, Francesca (Matthew) Litschewski, Nathan Ida, and Don Locke (all from USA). These are contributors of intellectual content and deserve to be acknowledged.

Disclaimer Authors are engineers and not philosophers and submit that this chapter is just another piece of research to feed the ongoing hard conversation on ethics intended to raise concerns as we collectively progress towards NDE 4.0. It is not to be treated as a guidance or code of ethics for NDE 4.0.

Some portion of the content may soon become obsolete, as the collective understanding of the community around ethics changes.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Inspiring Next, Cromwell, CT, USA

    Ripi Singh

  2. Chattanooga State Community College, Chattanooga, TN, USA

    Tracie Clifford

Authors
  1. Ripi Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tracie Clifford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ripi Singh .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Dayton, Dayton, OH, USA

    Norbert Meyendorf

  2. The University of Akron, Akron, OH, USA

    Nathan Ida

  3. Inspiring Next, Cromwell, CT, USA

    Ripi Singh

  4. Vrana GmbH, München, Germany

    Johannes Vrana

Section Editor information

  1. Chemical Materials and Bio Engineering, University of Dayton, Dayton, OH, USA

    Norbert Meyendorf

  2. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of Akron, Akron, OH, USA

    Nathan Ida

  3. Inspiring Next, Plus4Pi LLC, Cromwell, CT, USA

    Ripi Singh

  4. Vrana GmbH, Rimsting, Deutschland, Deutschland

    Johannes Vrana

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Singh, R., Clifford, T. (2021). Ethics in NDE 4.0: Perspectives and Possibilities. In: Meyendorf, N., Ida, N., Singh, R., Vrana, J. (eds) Handbook of Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48200-8_61-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48200-8_61-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-48200-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-48200-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Chemistry and Mat. ScienceReference Module Physical and Materials ScienceReference Module Chemistry, Materials and Physics

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation