I did not make it off the waitlist for the course on Engineering Ethics. Several Arts and Humanities students enrolled first instead, likely tempted by the field trip to Jordan the course is famous for. The class was supposed to be one of the easiest Engineering degree requirements to simply tick off the list of required courses. It is a beginner’s course offering an introduction to a concept that seems obnoxiously obvious: engineers are responsible for the lives of generations to come through the building of homes and infrastructure we all live in and around.

After the recent 7.8-magnitude earthquake struck the southern parts of Turkey and northern regions of Syria, images of new apartment buildings completely demolished by the tremors had me and many others questioning whether the scale of the disaster could actually have been less devastating. My perspective on engineering ethics changed overnight. It turns out that countless deaths could have been avoided. [Experts have concluded] (https://www.bbc.com/news/64568826) that the buildings in the region were not constructed based on the most recently mandated standards for reinforced concrete structures on earthquake-prone land. Additionally, because of the generally poor demographic of the region, it was mostly soft-storey buildings that made up the composition of the cities on both sides of the Turkish-Syrian border. Soft-storey buildings are made to be of two to three storeys and have an open ground floor which could house a parking, a store or extra living compartments. These buildings are generally cheaper to make exactly because of the unreinforced ground floor, and are incompatible with earthquake-prone areas such as the Turkish-Syrian border. Yet, they still dominate the urban landscape of the region. This urban planning decision is as political as it is practical. As was mentioned, the majority of the communities in this area live on or under the poverty line in Turkey and are composed mostly of Kurdish minorities and Syrian refugees. The area has a long history of violence and political unrest on both sides of the border, which many journalists and locals of southeastern Turkey identify as a key reason why the construction regulations were not properly implemented and inspected by the authorities.

Despite the operations of the local and national authorities [to keep the people in the area dependent on them] (https://www.dw.com/en/turkish-court-rejects-bid-to-delay-trial-of-kurdish-party/a-64524005), the region had started to develop. This is why it is even more concerning that people who chose to relocate to newer buildings because of the dangers of the soft-storey homes, were promised housing of the highest quality by the construction companies built with specifically reinforced concrete to protect the structures from the so-called pancake collapse However, videos and photographs show huge apartment buildings built in 2019 were completely demolished by the tremors. This is despite the fact that they were mandated to follow the latest construction standards, which were to prevent it from collapsing like a soft-storey one. A pancake collapse of a building of such scale is expectedly far more lethal than that of a soft-storey one and can even potentially trigger a domino effect with nearby buildings.

There are still victims and survivors being dug out from underneath all the debris, yet the back and forth accusations have already begun. In response, [the Turkish government has initiated arrests] (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/12/turkey-arrests-building-contractors-earthquake-death-toll-mounts) of building contractors and engineers. Experts have been reminding the public that [the Turkish government had been warned] (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64594349) for years of a potential high-risk earthquake. Not only that, but many still remember the disaster of Izmit from 1999, which led to 17,000 deaths also due to unregulated construction. Corrupt local authorities, expensive refitting procedures, and political machinations to keep an area poor and uninhabitable: one can only speculate and blame any and all involved. However, it still boils down to one thing, and that is whose signature authorizes the construction.

The disaster in Turkey and Syria reminds us that politics and political bias are involved in every aspect of our lives, even ones that might not be that obvious. Construction and civil engineers working within a corrupt legal framework are coerced into schemes beyond their understanding or power to change. At the end of the day, it is likely not entirely their fault, as there certainly are circumstances that one cannot predict or maneuver around . Nonetheless, an engineer could have most likely stopped the construction of these buildings with such flimsy materials and expired methods, or at least found a solution to reconcile both the clients’ demands and the safety regulations.

The answer might lie in engineering academia and flaws within the structuring of the curriculum of engineering studies. Engineering Ethics is taught at many institutions as a beginner’s course. You could take the course with no prior knowledge of what engineering entails. You could take it without even being an engineering student. In order to ensure that the students can practically implement what is taught in an Engineering Ethics course, however advanced and well-planned it may be, one’s entire engineering education should culminate with this course, not begin with it. Or even better: any engineering course should include lectures on the practical implementation of ethics and safety regulations. Because engineering ethics are, as it turns out, not a no-brainer topic.

There is another lesson to be learned. There are socio-economic circumstances that could prompt an engineer to prioritize saving the expenses for materials or construction workers, to accept a bribe to overlook a procedure, or to comply with the aesthetic vision of their clients instead of the safety regulations. It must be taken into consideration that many of the residents of the Balkan, Caucuses and Levantine region live in inadequate conditions, including the majority of the engineers responsible for the construction of the buildings. This can explain but not excuse their actions. No personal grievances or political influence should come in the way of professionalism and basic human decency. Not to mention each person’s responsibility towards the UN Human Rights Charter, whose 25th article defines adequate housing as an irrevocable human right.

Now that the death toll has gone over double of what was predicted by the WHO’s estimate, the world turns their attention to the Turkish government’s plan for rebuilding the most affected areas. Experts once again chime in with warnings that earthquakes are not predictable or preventable and buildings at risk, 90,000 such in Istanbul alone. Here lies another ethical question: should the strategy be helping the current victims recover from the disaster first, or should it be preventing future disasters of this scale? While this is again not a question with a clear-cut answer, the already mentioned 25th article of the Human Rights Charter should lead the authorities while making this decision. In fact, governments could and should take more financial “risks” when investing in disaster management and the safety of their citizens. Human life should not be put on the free market to determine the price.

In light of these events, I would like to urge the current and future engineers to still be vigilant and learn to work around their superiors’ interests without jeopardizing the quality of their work. We will undoubtedly face situations with unclear outcomes, corruption and under-the-table deals or work with faulty regulations in any field we go into. This sentiment should be applicable to any profession. The obvious choice in any situation should be to first ensure the safety of all involved in the project and then comply with demands, vision boards and financial limitations. Our education should reflect that, and now we need to demand that it does.