Ethics in Engineering

Concepts and Cases

Introduction
What do we mean by Ethics? a body of moral principles Standards, rules and guidelines Socially approved conduct Distinguished from matters of legality A set of rules and behaviors

Professional Ethics
Who Decides? Standards adopted by Professional Community IEM, BOE,ASME, etc. May conflict with personal ethics Case studies used to set examples, standards

IEM Rules of Practice

1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. a) If engineers' judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate. b) Engineers shall approve only those engineering documents that are in conformity with applicable standards. c) Engineers shall not reveal facts, data or information without the prior consent of the client or employer except as authorized or required by law or this Code. d) Engineers shall not permit the use of their name or associate in business ventures with any person or firm that they believe are engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise. e) Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities, and cooperate with the proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required.

IEM Rules of Practice

1. Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their competence. a) Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved. b) Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence, nor to any plan or document not prepared under their direction and control. c) Engineers may accept assignments and assume responsibility for coordination of an entire project and sign and seal the engineering documents for the entire project, provided that each technical segment is signed and sealed only by the qualified engineers who prepared the segment.

IEM Rules of Practice

1. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner. a) Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony, which should bear the date indicating when it was current. b) Engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter. c) Engineers shall issue no statements, criticisms, or arguments on technical matters that are inspired or paid for by interested parties, unless they have prefaced their comments by explicitly identifying the interested parties on whose behalf they are speaking, and by revealing the existence of any interest the engineers may have in the matters.

1.

Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees. Engineers shall disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest that could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of their services. Engineers shall not accept compensation, financial or otherwise, from more than one party for services on the same project, or for services pertaining to the same project, unless the circumstances are fully disclosed and agreed to by all interested parties. Engineers shall not solicit or accept financial or other valuable consideration, directly or indirectly, from outside agents in connection with the work for which they are responsible. Engineers in public service as members, advisors, or employees of a governmental or quasi-governmental body or department shall not participate in decisions with respect to services solicited or provided by them or their organizations in private or public engineering practice. Engineers shall not solicit or accept a contract from a governmental body on which a principal or officer of their organization serves as a member.

IEM Rules of Practice

IEM Rules of Practice

1. Engineers shall avoid deceptive acts. a) Engineers shall not falsify their qualifications or permit misrepresentation of their or their associates' qualifications. They shall not misrepresent or exaggerate their responsibility in or for the subject matter of prior assignments.. b) Engineers shall not offer, give, solicit or receive, either directly or indirectly, any contribution to influence the award of a contract by public authority, or which may be reasonably construed by the public as having the effect of intent to influencing the awarding of a contract. They shall not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work. They shall not pay a commission, percentage, or brokerage fee in order to secure work, except to a bona fide employee or bona fide established commercial or marketing agencies retained by them.

IEM Professional Obligations

1. Engineers shall be guided in all their relations by the highest standards of honesty and integrity. 2. Engineers shall at all times strive to serve the public interest. 3. Engineers shall avoid all conduct or practice that deceives the public. 4. Engineers shall not disclose, without consent, confidential information concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former client or employer, or public body on which they serve. 5. Engineers shall not be influenced in their professional duties by conflicting interests. 6. Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or questionable methods.

IEM Professional Obligations

1. Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers. Engineers who believe others are guilty of unethical or illegal practice shall present such information to the proper authority for action. Engineers shall accept personal responsibility for their professional activities, provided, however, that Engineers may seek indemnification for services arising out of their practice for other than gross negligence, where the Engineer's interests cannot otherwise be protected. Engineers shall give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due, and will recognize the proprietary interests of others.

2.

3.

Social Contract
Service
Promoting well being of general public Ensuring competence of professionals

Self-Regulation
Create and enforce high standards Autonomy

You are the professional

Responsible Engineering
What we do matters a great deal
Accidents are costly Public health at stake Environmental impact

Minimal legal standards

Acknowledgement of fault Above and beyond call of duty

Introduction to Moral Thinking

Experience education, work, relationships Personal and Common Morality religion, family Ethical Sensitivities Questions Problems Analysis

Tests in Moral Problem Solving

Prudence - Is it justified because it is in our own best interest? Cost / Benefit Is the most economic decision the most moral? Golden Rule do unto others Rights Freedom, well-being, moral, legal, laws Just because it is legal, is it right?

Honesty, Truth, Reliability

Accurate and complete technical knowledge
Unreliable judgment worse than none at all

Lying Deliberate deception Failure to seek truth

Problem Solving in Engineering Ethics

State the Problem Get the Facts Defend Viewpoints Formulate Opinion Qualify Recommendation

State the Problem

Clearly define exact nature of ethical problem or dilemma Need to be clear so that we can anticipate the kind of solution that is required Want to provide an answer that is relevant to the interests at stake.

Get the Facts

Want to make an informed decision. Must possess and understand the relevant facts Must make clear any interpretations of factual matters or the values than underlie conflicting moral viewpoints.

Identify & Defend Competing Moral Viewpoints

Critically assess the strengths and weaknesses of competing moral viewpoints Begin by identifying what we believe to be the most compelling reason for the course of action We must be able to justify the course of action

Formulate an Opinion
As engineers we do not have the luxury of postponing questions or leaving a question unresolved Decide which of the compelling viewpoints is the most compelling The committee approach (voting) is advantageous because the decision is representative of the general public

Qualify the Opinions or Recommendation

Committees must qualify the recommendations they make by describing the level of consensus that was received Should include the voting distribution and any dissenting opinions

Case Studies
Engineering ethics is often times best explained through the use of case studies. Case studies allow examples of good and bad decision making in a real world context.

Credit for Engineering Work Introduction Engineer A is designing a bridge as part of an elevated highway system Engineer B is asked to help with the design and helps design critical elements of the bridge. Engineer A enters the bridge design into a national competition and wins, but fails to credit Engineer B for her part in the design.

Credit for Engineering Work Question Was it ethical for Engineer A to fail to give credit to Engineer B for her part in the design?

Credit for Engineering Work

Code of Ethics References Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner. Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements or testimony. Engineers shall avoid all conduct or practice which is likely to discredit the profession or deceive the public. Engineers shall not accept financial or other considerations, including free engineering designs, from material or equipment suppliers for specifying their product. Engineers shall, whenever possible, name the person or persons who may be individually responsible for designs, inventions, writings, or other accomplishments.

Credit for Engineering Work

Discussion Basic to engineering ethics is the responsibility to issue statements in an objective and truthful manner (Section 1.3.) The concept of providing credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due is fundamental to that responsibility. This is particularly the case where an engineer retains the services of other individuals because the engineer may not possess the education, experience and expertise to perform the required services for a client.

Credit for Engineering Work

Discussion, continued While each individual case must be understood based upon the particular facts involved, we believe that Engineer A had an ethical obligation to his client, to Engineer B as well as to the public to take reasonable steps to identify all parties responsible for the design of the bridge.

Credit for Engineering Work

Conclusion It was unethical for Engineer A to fail to give credit to Engineer B for his part in the design.

An Engineers Right to Protest

Introduction Kim works as an engineer for a civil engineering contractor reviewing the work of subcontractors. Kim discovers that certain subcontractors have made submissions with excessive cost, time delays or substandard work Kim advises management to reject these jobs and require subcontractors to correct the problem

An Engineers Right to Protest Introduction, continued After an extended disagreement about the subcontractors work, management places a warning in Kims file and places Kim on probation, warning of future termination

An Engineers Right to Protest Question Does Engineer A have an ethical obligation, or an ethical right, to continue his efforts to secure change in the policy of his employer under these circumstances, or to report his concerns to proper authority?

An Engineers Right to Protest

Code of Ethics References "Engineers shall at all times recognize that their primary obligation is to protect the safety, health, property, and welfare of the public. If their professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety, health, property, or welfare of the public are endangered, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate." "Engineers shall not complete, sign, or seal plans and/or specifications that are not of a design safe to the public health and welfare and in conformity with accepted engineering standards. If the client or employer insists on such unprofessional conduct, they shall notify the proper authorities and withdraw from further service on the project."

An Engineers Right to Protest

Discussion Here the issue does not allege a danger to public health or safety, but is premised upon a claim of unsatisfactory plans and the unjustified expenditure of public funds. As we recognized in earlier cases, if an engineer feels strongly that an employer's course of conduct is improper when related to public concerns, and if the engineer feels compelled to blow the whistle to expose the facts as he sees them, he may well have to pay the price of loss of employment.

An Engineers Right to Protest

Discussion, continued We feel that the ethical duty or right of the engineer becomes a matter of personal conscience, but we are not willing to make a blanket statement that there is an ethical duty in these kinds of situations for the engineer to continue his campaign within the company, and make the issue one for public discussion. The Code only requires that the engineer withdraw from a project and report to proper authorities when the circumstances involve endangerment of the public health, safety, and welfare.

An Engineers Right to Protest

Conclusion Engineer A does not have an ethical obligation to continue his effort to secure a change in the policy of his employer under these circumstances, or to report his concerns to proper authority, but has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience.

Withdrawal of Offer
Peter, an unemployed graduate engineer who recently received certification as an Graduate Engineer, is seeking employment with a consulting firm. Peter is contacted by Engineer A, a principal with a large consulting firm. After a long discussion including such matters as working conditions, salary, benefits, etc. Engineer A offers and Peter accepts a position with the firm. Peter cancels several additional job interviews with other individuals.

Withdrawal of Offer
Two days later, in a meeting with other principals of the firm, it was agreed by the firm's management, including Engineer A, that the vacancy should be filled by an engineering technician. Not until a week and a half later did Engineer A contact Peter and rescind the firm's offer. Did the actions of Engineer A in his relations with Smith constitute unethical conduct?

Withdrawal of Offer
Discussion: Engineers should be faithful to employer. Employer should disclose fully all information to employees on working conditions and other conditions of employment. Just as a prospective engineer employee has an obligation to act in good faith with a potential employer, an engineer employer owes a duty to deal honestly, fairly and openly with a prospective engineer employee.

Withdrawal of Offer
Engineer A knowingly made commitments to Peter which were relied and acted upon by Peter. Engineer A, as a principal in the firm, knew or should have known all necessary facts and circumstances involved in filling the vacancy in the firm. Engineer A let a week and a half pass before informing Peter that the offer had been rescinded. The actions of Engineer A, in his relations with Peter, constituted unethical conduct. Furthermore, the involvement of all the principals of the firm, in connection with the withdrawal of the employment offer, constituted unethical conduct.

Engineer's Dispute With Client Over Design

Client hires Engineer A to design a particular project. Engineer A develops what he believes to be the best design and meets with the client to discuss the design. After discussing the design plans and specifications, the client and Engineer A are involved in a dispute concerning the ultimate success of the project. The client believes Engineer A's design is too large and complex and seeks a simpler solution to the project. Engineer A believes a simpler solution will not achieve the result and could endanger the public. The client demands that Engineer A deliver over to him the drawings so that he can present them to Engineer B to assist Engineer B in completing the project to his liking.

Engineer's Dispute With Client Over Design

The client is willing to pay for the drawings, plans, specifications, and preparation but will not pay until Engineer A delivers over the drawings. Engineer A refuses to deliver the drawings. Question: Would it be ethical for Engineer A to deliver over the plans and specifications to the client?

Engineer's Dispute With Client Over Design

Engineer A has an ethical obligation to the public good. This obligation assumes that Engineer A is in possession of verifiable facts or evidence which would substantiate a charge that an actual danger to the public health or safety exists. In this case, Engineer A makes the overly broad assumption that if he were to deliver over to the client the drawings so that the client can present them to Engineer B to assist Engineer B in completing the project to the client's liking, Engineer B would develop a set of plans which would endanger the public health and safety. Such an assumption is ill-founded. In reviewing the conduct of Engineer A , Engineer A went as far as he was ethically required to go in preparing what he believed was the best design for the project and in informing the client of the dangers of proceeding with the client's simplified solution.

Engineer's Dispute With Client Over Design

In the event, however, that Engineer A does deliver over to the client the plans so that the client can present them to Engineer B for completion of the project to the client's liking, and thereafter Engineer A discovers that Engineer B developed plans which constitute a danger to the public, certain actions would then be required by Engineer A. Any verifiable conduct on the part of Engineer B which indicates that Engineer B's plans are a danger to the public, should be brought to the attention of the proper authorities, i.e., the responsible professional societies or the state engineering registration board. Answer: It would be ethical under the above circumstances for Engineer A to deliver over the plans and specifications to the client.

Engineering Disaster
The Ford Pinto Case
not to weigh an ounce over 2000 pounds and not to cost a cent over $2000. Lee Iacocca Crash tests reveal defect in gas tank Rear-end collisions over 25 mph resulted in rupture and explosion

Cost Benefit Analysis The Ford Pinto Scandal Safety problems

Rear end shunt -> rupture of fuel tank -> fire Spotted during design and manufacture

$11 at manufacture stage would have fixed problems Refused on Cost-Benefit analysis

Ford Pinto Design Methodology

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Dangerous Design
According to Ford, the unsafe design would cause:
180 Burn Deaths 180 Serious burn injuries 2100 Burned vehicles per year

Ford assumed it would have to pay

$200,000 per death $67,000 per injury $700 per vehicle

Ford Pinto Design Cost Analysis

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Dangerous Design
An alteration would cost $11.00 per car.

Cost to make safe cars 12.5 million cars x $11 = $137 million Benefits 180 Deaths, 180 Injured, 2100 Burned Cars = $ 49.5 million

Cost Benefit Analysis The Ford Pinto Scandal 1971-1978

Upto 500 deaths caused by Pinto fires Death to serious injury ratio actually much higher (1:10) 95% would have survived with a better design $5 alternative was actually available

Ford Pays
Lawsuits and personal injury cases total over $450 million even as Ford continues to argue the car was safe if driven correctly Over 500 documented deaths related to rear-end collisions in Pintos Company nearly folds after lawsuits and lack of trust in Ford products

Pinto Debate
Who is to blame for Fords design?
Chairman, Engineer, Designer

Was the decision making unethical? Is cost-benefit analysis a reliable ethics technique?