Between Good Faith and Bad Faith: Scientific Research, Bridge Damage and the Responsibility to Protect Sudan’s Infrastructure

A Sudanese Citizen and Mechanical Engineer Reflects on the Ethical Responsibilities of Postwar Infrastructure Research

By Eng. Abdelrahman Mohamed Zain (Magdi)

When Science Meets Pain
When I learned that a research paper entitled “Postwar Reconnaissance of Bridge Damage in Khartoum, Sudan” had been published in the ASCE Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, my first reaction was happiness.
As a Sudanese citizen, I welcomed the efforts of fellow Sudanese professionals to document the destruction caused by war. Scientific research can preserve evidence, inform reconstruction and transform painful experiences into knowledge that may protect future generations.
Yet my happiness was accompanied by concern.
I am not a civil engineer, and I do not claim specialist knowledge of reinforced-concrete behaviour, bridge design or structural assessment. My professional background is in mechanical engineering, particularly industrial refrigeration, mechanical systems and equipment operation and maintenance.
This perspective led me to consider a question extending beyond the technical findings: How can we document the damage inflicted on critical infrastructure without overlooking the possibility that published information might be misused?
This is not an accusation against the researchers. Nor is it a claim that the publication has caused, or will cause, harm.
Rather, it is a reflection on the responsibilities that accompany scientific publication, particularly when research concerns essential infrastructure in a country emerging from armed conflict.
My argument has two sides. On one side stands the legitimate scientific need to document destruction and support reconstruction. On the other stands the responsibility to consider foreseeable risks associated with the disclosure of sensitive information.
Between these two positions lies an important question for Sudanese universities, professional societies, scientific journals and public institutions: how can we encourage scientific openness while protecting the public interest?
First: What a Mechanical Engineer Can Recognise
Although bridges and industrial machines belong to different engineering disciplines, they share certain fundamental principles. Both depend on the interaction of components, the transfer of loads, the accommodation of movement and the ability to withstand foreseeable operating conditions.
These similarities provide a useful starting point for reflection, although they do not make mechanical engineering a substitute for specialist bridge assessment.
1. Bearings: Supporting a System While Accommodating Movement
In mechanical equipment, bearings support rotating shafts and help control friction and movement. In bridges, structural bearings transfer forces between the bridge superstructure and its supports while accommodating movement and rotation as required by the design.
Damage to either type of bearing can affect the performance of the wider system.
The ASCE paper identifies bearing impairment among the damage observed in Khartoum’s bridges. This finding is important because bearings are essential components whose condition can influence structural behaviour and serviceability.
However, bearing damage does not automatically mean that an entire bridge has failed. Its significance depends on the type and severity of damage, the bridge’s design and the results of a competent engineering assessment.
The wider lesson is that components that appear secondary may have a decisive influence on the safety and operation of an interconnected system.
2. Expansion Joints: Managing Movement
Mechanical engineers understand why expansion joints are installed in piping systems: materials expand and contract as temperatures change, and the system must accommodate this movement without developing unacceptable stresses.
Bridge expansion joints serve a related purpose. They accommodate movement associated with temperature changes, shrinkage, creep and other design considerations.
The research identifies impairment of expansion joints among the observed bridge damage.
Such impairment can affect serviceability, allow water and debris to enter vulnerable areas, and contribute to deterioration if not properly addressed. Nevertheless, the consequences vary from one bridge to another and must be established through inspection.
The lesson is straightforward: movement must be accommodated by design, and components intended to manage that movement must remain functional.
3. Structural Redundancy and Cascading Failure
In mechanical systems, redundancy can allow equipment to continue operating when one component fails. Where redundancy is limited, a single failure may have more serious consequences.
The same broad principle applies to structures, although structural redundancy must be assessed according to the specific design and load paths.
The ASCE paper documents pier failures associated with the collapse of spans at Shambat Bridge. It also examines the relationship between bridge configuration and the consequences of component failure.
For a mechanical engineer, this illustrates a familiar systems principle: the consequences of failure depend not only on the damaged component but also on how the entire system responds to its loss.
For civil engineers, however, determining the precise failure mechanism requires structural analysis, evidence and specialist judgement.
4. Impact, Explosions and Fire
Industrial machinery is designed to withstand specified operating loads and foreseeable disturbances. Extreme impacts or temperatures may exceed those design conditions and cause permanent deformation or hidden damage.
Bridges are similarly designed for defined combinations of loads and environmental conditions. Explosions, projectiles and fires may introduce conditions outside those assumed in the original design.

The research documents several forms of conflict-related damage. Its broader significance is that visual observations of damaged concrete, steel and structural components can help identify areas requiring further investigation.
Nevertheless, the exact effects of a particular impact or fire cannot always be established from photographs alone.
5. Hidden Damage and Residual Capacity
A machine may appear functional while containing defects that reduce its reliability. Similarly, a bridge may exhibit visible damage that does not fully reveal the condition of its internal components.
Following an explosion, impact or fire, further investigation may be necessary to determine whether cracking, material degradation, deformation or other defects have compromised structural capacity.
This is especially important when authorities consider reopening a bridge.
Visible appearance is not a substitute for a competent structural safety assessment.
The paper itself makes an important distinction between documenting observed damage and conducting a quantitative structural evaluation. Its findings should therefore inform further inspection and recovery planning rather than be treated as a complete certification of any bridge’s safety.
Second: The Good-Faith Perspective — Research as a Contribution to Recovery
It would be unfair to examine this paper solely through the lens of potential misuse while ignoring its legitimate scientific and humanitarian value.
The authors, Amged O. Abdelatif and Ali H. Bass, investigated damage to ten Nile-crossing bridges, four urban flyovers and two highway bridges.
Their work draws on visual inspections, photographs, video records, aerial imagery and comparative assessment.
According to the published abstract, the study seeks to preserve post-conflict evidence and develop a systematic framework for documenting damage and supporting inspection prioritisation.
These are legitimate objectives.
Preserving evidence before it disappears
Reconstruction can change the physical evidence left by war. Damaged components may be removed, structures repaired and temporary interventions introduced.
Systematic documentation can preserve observations that might otherwise be lost. Such records may support future research, infrastructure planning and the development of safer inspection procedures.
Helping authorities prioritise inspections
Where resources are limited, decision-makers need reliable information to determine which structures require urgent assessment, which can be inspected later and which must remain closed until their safety is established.
A structured damage inventory can contribute to this process.
It cannot replace engineering judgement, but it can help authorities organise the next steps.
Learning from failures
Research into infrastructure damage can reveal lessons about structural performance, inspection practices, maintenance and resilience.
The ASCE journal explicitly identifies the investigation of failures, reconstruction, repair, risk management and failure prevention among its areas of interest.
Publishing such research can get therefore serve an important public purpose.
Recognising the study’s stated limitations
The paper describes itself as a reconnaissance study rather than a quantitative structural evaluation. This distinction is important because it defines what the research claims to establish and what remains to be investigated.
Its data availability statement also indicates that some or all supporting data, models or code may be available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
That statement does not establish that sensitive information was deliberately withheld, or that a security review occurred. It simply describes the stated arrangements for accessing supporting research materials.
Recognising these distinctions is essential to a fair assessment of the work.
Third: The Bad-Faith Perspective — Could Research Information Be Misused?
Legitimate research can sometimes create information that others may use for purposes different from those intended by its authors.
This possibility deserves consideration, particularly when the subject is critical infrastructure in a country affected by armed conflict.
The question is not whether researchers should document destruction. They should be able to investigate it responsibly.
The question is whether the publication process adequately considers the foreseeable consequences of disclosing particular details.
The dual-use problem
The term dual-use describes knowledge, technologies or information that may have beneficial applications but can also be misused.
A bridge-damage survey can support reconstruction, maintenance and public safety. Depending on its contents and context, some information might also help an adversary understand the condition or vulnerability of infrastructure.
That possibility does not mean every infrastructure study is dangerous, or that the Khartoum paper has been shown to present a specific security threat.
It does mean that publication decisions involving critical infrastructure should consider the circumstances in which information may be used.
The significance of detailed information
A paper may identify structures, describe observed damage and provide photographic documentation.
Such information can be essential to engineers and reconstruction authorities. However, publishing detailed information about operational status or particular vulnerabilities may create additional risks in some circumstances.
The appropriate response is not automatically to suppress the research.
Instead, authors, editors and relevant experts should consider whether every detail needs to be made public in its existing form.
Could the same scientific purpose be achieved by using less precise descriptions, withholding particularly sensitive supplementary material or publishing some information after the immediate security risk has diminished?
These are questions for a proportionate risk assessment, not assumptions that the researchers acted improperly.
The importance of context
Infrastructure does not exist in a political or security vacuum.
Information that presents little risk in a stable environment may have different implications during an active conflict or a fragile post-conflict transition.
This is why responsible publication should consider the intended audience, the sensitivity of the information and the foreseeable consequences of disclosure.
At the same time, withholding information can also cause harm if it prevents qualified engineers from assessing damage or delays essential reconstruction.
The objective must be to balance these competing responsibilities.
Good intentions are important, but they are not the whole story
Researchers generally publish to contribute to knowledge. Yet the consequences of publication may extend beyond their original intentions.
This does not establish that the Khartoum paper has been misused. No such conclusion should be drawn without evidence.
It does, however, support a broader principle: responsible research should consider not only the value of knowledge but also the context in which that knowledge becomes available.
Fourth: Research Safeguards Must Begin at the University
The most important lesson I draw from this discussion concerns the research system as a whole.
Ethical responsibility should not begin only when a manuscript reaches a journal editor. It should be part of research planning, student education, fieldwork, data management, supervision and publication.
This is particularly important for universities in countries affected by conflict, where engineering research may concern bridges, dams, electricity networks, transport facilities, water systems and other essential infrastructure.
1. Before research begins: awareness and risk assessment
Universities should introduce students and researchers to the ethical responsibilities associated with sensitive research.
A project involving critical infrastructure should receive an initial assessment to determine whether it contains information that requires special handling.
This assessment should be proportionate to the project. It should not turn every engineering assignment into a security investigation.
Students should understand that collecting information, taking photographs, recording coordinates and publishing findings may have consequences beyond their immediate academic objectives.
2. During research: responsible data collection and management
Researchers should receive clear guidance on how to collect, store, share and protect information.
Where justified by the risks, measures may include access controls, secure storage, anonymisation of personal information and restrictions on the distribution of sensitive supporting material.
Academic supervisors should ensure that students understand both the scientific objectives and the relevant ethical responsibilities.
Where a project presents significant and credible security concerns, specialist advice may be appropriate.
3. Before publication: a proportionate review
For research involving critical infrastructure in a conflict-affected environment, universities and journals should consider whether a targeted review of potential misuse is warranted.
Such a review should distinguish between information needed to understand the research and details whose public disclosure might create avoidable harm.
Possible measures include:
Removing unnecessary sensitive details.
Generalising particularly precise location information where appropriate.
Restricting access to selected supplementary materials when a clear justification exists.
Delaying publication of specific details if an immediate risk can be demonstrated.
Consulting relevant technical or security specialists when the potential consequences warrant it.
These measures should be proportionate, transparent where possible and consistent with academic freedom and the public interest.
They should not be used as automatic grounds for suppressing research that documents public harm or holds institutions accountable.
4. Special attention to questionnaires and field surveys
Research ethics also applies to questionnaires, interviews and field surveys.
Questionnaires may collect personal information, opinions about sensitive issues or details about infrastructure and locations.
Researchers should collect only the information necessary for the stated purpose, explain how it will be used, obtain appropriate consent and protect participants’ confidentiality.
Where sensitive data are involved, universities should consider how the information will be stored, who will have access to it and whether publication could expose participants or communities to harm.
These responsibilities apply to undergraduate projects as well as advanced research.
5. Institutional responsibilities
Universities should establish clear procedures for identifying and managing research risks.
Research ethics committees should include appropriate expertise and should be able to seek specialist advice when necessary.
Scientific journals should likewise have clear processes for addressing credible concerns about potential misuse.
Where the risks are serious, relevant public authorities may provide advice through lawful and clearly defined procedures.
However, government involvement should not become an unrestricted power to prevent legitimate research or silence criticism.
The goal is responsible openness, not blanket censorship.
Fifth: What Does the Publication Timeline Tell Us?
The ASCE publication record states that the paper was received on 13 April 2026, accepted on 29 July 2026 and published online on 29 September 2026.
The period between submission and acceptance was approximately three and a half months.
These dates are verifiable, but they do not establish whether the paper underwent adequate scientific peer review, whether a separate security assessment was considered or whether any such assessment was necessary under the journal’s procedures.
Peer review, research ethics review and security review are different processes. One should not assume that the absence of a published statement about a security review proves that no review occurred.
Nor should the speed of publication, by itself, be treated as evidence of editorial negligence.
The more constructive question is whether scientific publishers and universities have appropriate procedures for identifying exceptional cases in which publication could create a significant and foreseeable risk.
The answer should be sought through evidence, clear policies and professional dialogue.
Sixth: Responsible Transparency — A Way Forward for Sudan
Sudan needs scientific knowledge to rebuild its infrastructure.
Its engineers, universities, technical institutions and professional associations have an important role in documenting damage, training specialists and restoring essential services.
At the same time, the public has a legitimate interest in ensuring that the knowledge produced in its name contributes to recovery and does not unnecessarily increase its vulnerability.
Several practical steps could help achieve this balance.
First, establish a national framework for post-conflict infrastructure assessment.
Relevant engineering institutions and public authorities should develop consistent procedures for documenting damage, prioritising inspections and assessing the safety of bridges and other critical structures.
The framework should distinguish preliminary observations from formal engineering assessments and reopening decisions.
Second, develop research guidance for sensitive infrastructure.
Sudanese universities should provide clear guidance for students, researchers and supervisors on the responsible handling and publication of information concerning critical infrastructure.
The guidance should define appropriate review procedures without imposing unnecessary restrictions on legitimate scientific investigation.
Third, encourage collaboration among universities and professional societies.
Civil and mechanical engineers, structural specialists, researchers and infrastructure authorities can contribute complementary expertise.
Professional organisations can help develop practical training in post-conflict assessment, structural inspection, maintenance and infrastructure resilience.
Fourth, turn documentation into reconstruction.
The ultimate value of research lies not only in recording what has been damaged but also in helping society decide what must be done next.
Damage records should support inspection programmes, rehabilitation planning, training and the development of long-term maintenance systems.
Reconstruction should be based on competent engineering assessments, transparent priorities and the needs of the communities that depend on these structures.
Fifth, preserve the independence and integrity of science.
Security considerations should be addressed through clear, evidence-based procedures rather than unsupported allegations or indiscriminate restrictions.
Researchers should be encouraged to document the consequences of war, including damage to public infrastructure. Their work should be assessed fairly, and credible concerns should be addressed constructively.
Conclusion: Between Fear and Hope
I return to the point from which I began.
I am not a civil engineer, and I do not claim to provide a technical evaluation of the structural condition of Khartoum’s bridges.
I am a mechanical engineer who has spent decades working with industrial systems, where the performance of the whole depends on the condition of its components and where responsible maintenance begins with understanding what has failed.
This experience has shaped my interest in the ASCE paper and its wider implications.
The study by Amged O. Abdelatif and Ali H. Bass documents damage to important infrastructure and identifies issues relevant to inspection, maintenance and recovery. Its scientific contribution deserves to be assessed on the evidence presented and the limitations acknowledged by its authors.
My concerns about possible misuse are not findings of misconduct. They are questions about the responsibilities of researchers, publishers and institutions when sensitive infrastructure information is made public in a conflict-affected environment.
The distinction matters.
We should not discourage Sudanese researchers from documenting destruction. We should encourage them to do so rigorously, ethically and responsibly.
We should not assume that openness is always harmless. Nor should we assume that withholding information is always safer.
Instead, we must develop a culture in which scientific freedom and public safety reinforce rather than undermine each other.
For Sudanese universities, this means teaching students that research is more than an academic requirement. For professional societies, it means helping engineers understand the ethical dimensions of their work. For journals, it means maintaining scientific standards while considering credible risks of misuse. For public institutions, it means creating fair and transparent procedures that support both security and the public interest.
Above all, it means transforming knowledge into action.
I hope the documentation of Khartoum’s damaged bridges becomes part of a broader national effort to assess, repair and maintain the infrastructure on which millions of people depend.
The objective should not be to preserve the memory of destruction alone, but to use that knowledge to build safer and more resilient communities.
Knowledge must serve reconstruction, public safety and peace. Its greatest value lies not merely in revealing what has been destroyed, but in helping us understand how to rebuild responsibly.
May God protect Sudan and its people, restore what has been destroyed, and guide all those working for peace, recovery and a safer future.
The writer is a Sudanese citizen and mechanical engineer with professional experience in industrial refrigeration and mechanical systems. He writes from a mechanical-engineering perspective and does not present this article as a specialist structural assessment of the bridges discussed.
Sources for publication and verification
The following sources support the revised article’s factual foundation and its discussion of research ethics.
Original research paper — Amged O. Abdelatif and Ali H. Bass. Postwar Reconnaissance of Bridge Damage in Khartoum, Sudan. ASCE, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, published online 29 September 2026. The abstract and publication record confirm the study’s scope, methodology, stated limitations and publication timeline. Original ASCE research paper
ASCE Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities — Aims and Scope. The journal identifies failure investigation, reconstruction, repair, ethics, risk management and failure prevention as areas within its remit. ASCE journal aims and scope
ASCE Policy Statement 187 — Policy on Research in Civil Engineering. This policy discusses the role of research in improving infrastructure, protecting public safety and strengthening the security and resilience of engineered systems. ASCE Policy Statement 187
ASCE Policy Statement 509 — Provision of Engineering Services Across State and International Boundaries. This policy recognises that engineering practice can expose sensitive infrastructure information and emphasises the importance of appropriate security measures. ASCE Policy Statement 509
Research on dual-use research and publication policies. This peer-reviewed study discusses the tension between preventing harmful uses of research and preserving scientific openness. Its examples include life sciences and artificial intelligence, so its general ethical principles should be applied to infrastructure research cautiously rather than treated as direct evidence about the ASCE paper.
PubMed Central (PMC)

About the author:
By Eng. Abdelrahman Mohamed Zain (Magdi)
Industrial Refrigeration and Absorption Chillers Expert
Health, Safety and Environment Editor – The Citizen Newsletter
E mail:
mr.zainrac@gmail.com