paper

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine emerged as an independent state in 1990. The Chernobyl reactor, and much of the territory affected by this disaster, is located within the territory of Ukraine. Ukraine took on the management of the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster with the goal of legitimizing itself internationally, such that it could seek loans, assistance, and trade agreements with other nations.

One of the ways in which the Ukrainian government took on responsibility for the Chernobyl incident was by creating a welfare system to support people affected by the accident. This created three classes of people in the Ukraine: non-sufferers, sufferers of the Chernobyl event, and the disabled. Non-sufferers received  no compensation, sufferers received some compensation, and the disabled, who were the people seen to be the most severely affected by the Chernobyl disaster, received the most compensation.

Poverty was a severe problem in Ukraine as it transitioned to a capitalist economy. To this extent, it was in the interest of individuals who could not support themselves to establish some "tie" to the Chernobyl incident that would entitle them to state support, either as a sufferer or, better yet, as disabled. According to Petryna, we see here, in post-Chernobyl Ukraine, the operation of a novel category of citizenship: biological citizenship. Biological citizenship encapsulates forms of rights and demands for compensation and support that are articulated on the basis of biological characteristics, in particular those resulting from collective injury to the body. In the Ukraine a form of citizenship organized itself around the Chernobyl nuclear accident and the various forms of injury that this accident brought into being.

In inventing the nuclear reactor, not only did engineers also invent the nuclear meltdown, but they also invented new forms of citizenship: that is to say, one of the unintended consequences of this particular technology is a new way in which people identify themselves, position themselves politically and socially, and make claims upon the state and other systems of social support.

I don’t think that any engineer conceived that their work could result in such social phenomena as the creations of new forms of citizenship. However, even though they did not anticipate such occurrences, this does not mean that they are not morally responsible for anticipating such possibilities. What do you think? What sorts of consequences do people in the engineering profession have a moral responsibility for considering and anticipating?

Knowledge played a crucial role in establishing the tie to the Chernobyl event, and thus acquiring compensation. However it is also difficult to establish with any certainty that the afflictions of an individual are directly caused by Chernobyl. Some scientific experts used their knowledge to cast doubt upon the Chernobyl tie and thus deny people compensation. Some experts used their knowledge to give individuals the documentation that they needed to seek compensation even when it was impossible to prove that their afflictions had any tie to Chernobyl. What do you think is the right thing to do in these circumstances?

Do engineers have any moral responsibility to assist populations that are injured by the consequences of engineering practice? Why or why not? What kinds of assistance?