Truth and Truthfulness ‘The Bay Area Rapid ‘Transit system (BART) is a suburban rail system, constructed during the late 1960s and early 1970s, that, Tinks San Francisco with the cities across its bay. The opportunity to build a rail system from scratch, unfettered by old technology, was a challenge that excited many engineers and engineering firms. Yet among the engineers who worked on it were some who came to feel that too much “social experimentation” was going on without proper safeguards. Their zealous pursuit of the truth resulted in a classic case of whistle-blowing." Three engineers in particular, Holger Hjortsvang, Robert Bruder, and Max Blankenzee, identified dangers that were to be recognized by management only much later. They saw that the automatic train control was unsafely designed. Moreover, schedules for testing it and providing operator training prior to its public use were inadequate. Computer software problems continued to plague the system. Finally, there was insufficient monitoring of the work of the various contractors hired to design and construct the railroad. These inadequacies were to become the main causes of several early accidents. ‘The three engineers wrote a number of memos and voiced their concerns to their employers and colleagues. Their initial efforts were directed through organizational channels to both their immediate supervisors and the two next higher levels of management, but to no avail. They then took some controver- sial steps, Hjortsvang wrote an anonymous memo summarizing the problems and distributed copies of it to nearly all levels of management, including the project’s general manager. Later, the three engineers contacted several members of BART’s board of directors when their concerns were not taken seriously by lower ‘Robert M, Anderson et al., Divided Loyalties (West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press, 1980). CHAPTER 7 159Engineering Ethics levels of management. These acts constituted whistle-blowing within the organization. One of the directors, Dan Helix, listened sympathetically to the engineers and agreed to contact top management while keeping their names confidential. But to the shock of the three engineers, Helix released copies of their unsigned memos and the consultant's report to the local newspapers. It would be the engi- neers, not Helix, who would be penalized for this act of whistle- blowing outside the organization. Management immediately sought to locate the source of Helix’s information. Fearing reprisals, the engineers at first lied to their supervisors and denied their involvement. At Helix’s request the engineers later agreed to reveal themselves by going before the full board of directors to seek a remedy for the safety problems. On that occasion they were unable to convince the board of those problems. One week later they were given the option of resigning or being fired. The grounds given for the dismissal were insub- ordination, incompetence, lying to their superiors, causing staff disruptions, and failing to follow organizational procedures. The dismissals were very damaging to the engineers. Robert Bruder could not find engineering work for eight months. He had to sell his house, go on welfare, and receive food stamps. Max Blankenzee was unable to find work for nearly five months, lost his house, and was separated from his wife for one and a half months. Holger Hjortsvang could not obtain full-time employ- ment for 14 months, during which time he suffered from extreme nervousness and insomnia. Two years later the engineers sued BART for damages on the grounds of breach of contract, harming their future work prospects, and depriving them of their consti- tutional rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. ‘A few days before the trial began, however, they were advised by their attorney that they could not win the case because they had lied to their employers during the episode. They settled out of court for $75,000 minus 40 percent for lawyers’ fees. In the development of their case the engineers were assisted by an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief filed by the IEEE. This legal brief noted in their defense that it is part of each engineer's professional duty to promote the public welfare, as stated in IEEE’s code of ethics. In 1978 IEEE presented each of them with its Award for Outstanding Service in the Public Interest for “cou- rageously adhering to the letter and spirit of the IEEE code of ethics.” The case illustrates some of the moral complexities surround ing whistle-blowing in pursuing and revealing the truth about safety and other important moral matters. After discussing these complexities, we turn to a second area in which truth and truth-fulness play an especially important role: academic integrity and research. Truth and Truthfulness No topic in engineering ethics is more controversial than whistle- blowing. Is whistle-blowing morally permissible? Is it ever mor- ally obligatory, or is it beyond the call of duty? To what extent, if any, do engineers have a right to whistle-blow, and when is doing so immoral and imprudent? When is whistle-blowing an act of disloyalty to an organization? What procedures ought to be fol- lowed in blowing the whistle? Whistle-Blowing: Definition Whistle-blowing occurs when an employee or former employee conveys information about a significant moral problem to some- one in a position to take action on the problem, and does so outside approved organizational channels (or against strong pressure). The definition has four main parts. 1. Disclosure: Information is intentionally conveyed outside approved organizational (workplace) channels or in situations where the person conveying it is under pressure from supervi- sors or others not to do so. 2. Topic: The information concerns what the person believes is a significant moral problem for the organization (or an organization with which the company does business). Examples of significant problems are serious threats to public or employee safety and well-being, criminal behavior, unethical policies or practices, and injustices to workers within the organization. Agent: The person disclosing the information is an employee or former employee, or someone else closely associated with the organization (as distinct, say, from a journalist reporting what the whistle-blower says). 4, Recipient: The information is conveyed to a person or organiza- tion that is in a position to act on the problem (as distinct, for example, to telling it to a family member or friend who is in no Position to do anything).# The desired response or action might consist in remedying the problem or merely alerting affected parties. 3. Using this definition, we will speak of external whistle- blowing when the information is passed outside the organization. ~~" We adopt the fourth condition from Marcia P. Miceli and Janet P. Near, Blowing the Whistle: The Organizational and Legal Implications for Companies and Employees (New York: Lexington Books, 1992), 15 7.1 Whistle- Blowing 161