An amusing piece about design "FAILs" in the "Star Wars" movies by science fiction writer John Scalzi got us chuckling, and then thinking. The article includes insights on minor flaws in design like noting that no one in the Lucas universe wears seatbelts, not even in Luke Skywalker's clearly super-dangerous clunker of a landspeeder-an awfully dangerous design foul-up of the worst magnitude. Not that the bad guy's technology is any better than the heroic jedi-to-be's jalopy. Even the structure of the supposedly super-sophisticated Death Star turned out to be deadly, and not only to its intended targets.

An unshielded exhaust port leading directly to the central reactor? Really? And when you rebuild it, your solution to this problem is four paths into the central core so large that you can literally fly a spaceship through them? Brilliant. Note to the Emperor: Someone on your Death Star design staff is in the pay of Rebel forces. Oh, right, you can't get the memo because someone threw you down a huge exposed shaft in your Death Star throne room.

Funny stuff, but also relevant to the lifesaving aspects of design. Whether it's creating new products or modifying older ones to make them safer, designers have to be able to be able to do what a writer like Scalzi does, and what the Emperor's engineering and design team clearly didn't, if you want to protect your users -- who we assume are not oppressive, planet-destroying bad guys.

Of course, this is nothing new and ideas from Science Fiction writers are commonly referenced in the world of design. Certainly, the late Isaac Asimov's famed "Three Laws of Robotics" are a good example of positing safeguards that, in theory could save countless human lives. If you've read "I, Robot" or any of the author's many robot stories recently, you're well familiar with them, but for those of who've never had the pleasure, or can just barely remember, they are:

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law

Now, Asimov's readers know that, as sensible as these laws might seem, embedding them into the electronic brains of robots as part of the design is no way a flat-out guarantee against all kinds of potentially deadly conflicts, contradictions, and just plain oversights. For example, as the Wikipedians note, what of these laws during a time of war when a robot might well be employed to harm humans if society at large deems that necessary? And how can a robot prevent harm through it's own inaction when a situation might not be entirely within its control? Indeed, Asimov's robot stories are a series of thought experiments about the implications of robotic technology, particularly as it relates to matters of life and death.

Designers, of course, must try to do the same thing as they work through the implications of their work. Human factor studies and studying human interaction via field research can help, but it all starts with having the imagination to think through a situation to as many possible conclusions as the human mind can imagine. Hopefully, most designers will have more foresight in terms of foresight than the no-doubt poorly treated creatives and engineers of the Empire, who clearly never read any decent science fiction.

Or perhaps we're not giving them enough credit when it comes to innovative, lifesaving ideas...