Chapter 6

Honesty, Integrity, and

Reliability

1
Case

John is a co-op student who has a summer job with

Oil Exploration, Inc., a company that does
exploratory contract work for large oil firms. The
company drills, tests, and writes advisory reports to
clients based on the test results. John is placed in
charge of a field team who test-drill at various sites
specified by the customer. John has the
responsibility of transforming rough field data into
succinct reports for the customer. Paul, an old high
school friend of John’s, is the foreperson of John’s
team.

2
Case (cont.)

While reviewing the field data for the last drilling

report, John notices that a crucial step was omitted,
one that would be impossible to correct without
returning to the site as repeating the entire test at
great expense to the company. The omitted step
involved the foreperson’s adding a test chemical to
the lubricant for the drill. The test is important
because it provides the data for deciding whether
the site is worth developing for natural gas
protection. Unfortunately, Paul forgot to add the test
chemical at the last drill site.

3
Case (cont.)

John knows that Paul is likely to lose his job if his

mistake comes to light. Paul cannot afford to lose
his job at a time when the oil business is slow and
his wife is expecting baby. John learns from past
company data files that the chemical additive
indicates the presence of natural gas in
approximately 1 percent of the tests.

Should John withhold the information that the test

for natural gas was not performed from his
superiors? Should the information be withheld from
the customer?

4
Telling the truth is emphasized in all moral codes,
literary and philosophical works throughout the history

 No surprise that engineering codes contain many

references to honesty.
 NCEES (The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying) Model
Rules of Professional Conduct
 “objective and truthful in professional reports, testimony, etc.

 IEEE Code of Ethics Canon 3 and Canon 7.

 “to be honest and realistic in stating claims on available data”
 “to seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work”

 ASME Code of Ethics Fund. Princ.II and Fund. Can.7.

 “being honest and impartial”
 “issue public statements in objective and truthful manner”

5
NSPE Code of Ethics on Honesty

 “to participate in none but honest enterprise”

 “require honesty, impartiality, fairness, and equity”

 Fundamental Canon 3 (I.3):

 avoid deceptive acts in solicitation of professional employment
 Rules of Practice, Item II.1.d.
 “Engineers shall not permit the use of their name or firm name
nor associate in business ventures with any person or firm which
they have reason to believe is engaging in fraudulent or
dishonest business or professional practices.”
 Relevant Items in Rules of Practice II.2.a,b,c, II.3.a,b,c.

6
(other important aspects of professional judgement and communication)
References to Conflicts of Interest
 IEEE 2nd Canon 2:
 avoid conflicts of interest, can distort professional judgment.

 ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) Canon 3:

 Not to issue statements on engineering matters which are
inspired or paid by interested parties, unless they indicate on
whose behalf the statements are made.

 ASCE Canon 4
 forbids engineers using “confidential information coming to
them in the course of their assignments as a means of making
personal profit if such action is adverse to the interests of their
clients, employers or the public”

7
In this Chapter we will concentrate on issues of
responsibility concerning possible harm and benefits
to society
 Ways of Misusing the Truth
 Why is Dishonesty Wrong?
 Honesty on Campus
 Integrity in Engineering Research and Testing
 Integrity in the Use of Intellectual Property
 Integrity and Client-Professional Confidentiality
 Integrity and Expert Testimony
 Integrity and Failure to Inform the Public
 Conflicts of Interest

8
Ways of Misusing the Truth
Engineers can misuse the truth by
(i) failing to communicate truth (1-5),
(ii) communicating truth when they shouldn’t (6),
(iii) allowing their judgment with regard to truth to be corrupted (7).

1. Lying
 Intentionally or knowingly convey false or misleading information.
(i) A lie involves something false or misleading,
(ii) ordinarily stated in words,
(iii) the intention is to deceive.

2. Deliberate Deception
 Leading persons to false conclusions without necessarily telling lies.

3. Withholding Information
 Concealing facts intentionally for personal or other reasons.

9
Ways of Misusing the Truth

4. Failing to Adequately Promote the Dissemination of Information

 Not properly informing the public, superiors, colleagues, etc. about the
facts or the reality (such as possible harms or dangers).

5. Failure to Seek Out the Truth

 For example, irresponsible use of inconclusive data without conducting
further tests or collecting sufficient amount of information.

6. Revealing Confidential or Proprietary Information

 Disclosing confidential information without consent.
 Violation of proprietary information.

7. Allowing One’s Judgment to be Corrupted

 Decisions influenced by conflicts of interest, personal gains, egoism,
etc.

10
Why is Dishonesty Wrong?

 Total honesty in social life equivalent to brutal frankness.

 Total honesty in professional life leaves no way to exercise

confidentiality and protect proprietary information.

 However apart from reasonable exceptions dishonesty and misuse of

truth are wrong and unacceptable.

 From the Respect for Persons perspective dishonesty violates the

moral agency of individuals by causing them to make (or influenced
by) decisions without informed consent.

 From the Utilitarian perspective dishonesty can undermine the mutual

trust among the scientific community hence informed decision
making, thus impeding the development of technology.

11
Honesty on Campus
 Three senior year students came up with an intelligent gauge which
continuously measures petrol consumption (before the use of Information
Technology in automobiles). But to prove the workability of the gauge they
needed a flow meter to measure the oil input to the engine.

 Their supervisor impressed by the design ordered the purchase of a flow-meter

and encouraged the students to draft an article.

 Soon the professor received an acceptance letter of the submitted article (co-
authored by himself) from the editor of the journal. But:
 The students did not ask permission from the professor to use his name.
 The flow-meter hadn’t arrived yet, so the paper was not ready for submission.

 The students in their excitement without telling their professor had finished
the article in absence of the flow-meter. They had to invent some simulated
data to be used as their test results and submitted their findings (as if
complete) as a paper to a journal editor.

12
Honesty on Campus (continued)

 They were sure that the results they would obtain after the arrival of the flow-
meter would match with their simulated data so they didn’t see anything
wrong in submitting their paper to the editor.

 After the flow-meter arrived it turned out that the simulated output did not
actually match with what they obtained from the flow-meter.

13
Results?

The students;
 Incorectly assumed the flow,
 Made false assumptions about the response of the
professor to their actions,
 The paper was withdrawn from the journal, and they sent
an apology letter to the journal,
 Copies of the letter were placed in their files,
 Received “F” in the senior design (graduation project)
 Graduation delayed 6 months.

14
Integrity in Engineering Research and Testing
 Varieties of dishonesty in Science and Engineering
 Trimming: smoothing of irregularities of data to make it look like
accurate and precise.
 Cooking: retaining only those results which fit into the theory.
 Forging: inventing some or all research data which are reported
without properly carrying out experimentation.
 Plagiarism: using intellectual property of others without proper
permission or credit.
 Multiple authorship of a research article can become a controversial
issue. Examples of improper co-authoring include:
 Sometimes names are included as co-authors who actually deserve
acknowledgement.
 Senior professors with minimal contribution can be listed as co-authors.
 Other cases in which almost no contribution of the co-author exists.

15
Integrity in the Use of Intellectual Property

 Intellectual Property is the outcome of Mental Labor.

Intellectual Property can be protected by:
 Trade secrets.
 Patents.
 Trademarks.
 Copyrights.

 Line drawing approach can be very helpful to resolve whether

an act constitutes breach of Intellectual Property rights or not.

16
Integrity in the Use of Intellectual Property
(cont.)

 Trade secrets
 Formulas, patterns, devices or compiled information used in
business to gain advantage over the competitors. Trade secrets
aren’t in the public domain because trade secrets aren’t protected
by patents.

 Patents
 Documents issued by the government to allow the owner of the
patent to exclude others making use of that information for 20
years of time. Secrecy not necessary!
 To obtain a patent, the invention must be new, useful and non-
obvious.

17
Integrity in the Use of Intellectual Property
(cont.)
 Trademarks
 Words, phrases, designs, sounds, symbols associated with goods
or services.

 Copyrights
 Rights to creative products such as books, pictures, graphics,
sculpture, music, movies, computer programs.
 The owner retains the copyright for 50 years after his/her death.
Copyrights protect the ownership of the ideas, but not the ideas
themselves. These ideas can be referred with proper citation or
used with permission from the owner.

18
Sample Cases on Integrity in the Use of
Intellectual Property

 Case 1: Bill (Eng. Manager) has developed innovative production techniques

at Roadrubber. He receives a senior management position by a competing
company Slippery Tire. Bill had signed an agreement with Roadrubber not to
use any of the ideas he developed or learned there for a duration of two years
after he quits Roadrubber. After a few months of his employment at Slippery
he is asked to reveal some of the secret processes used by Roadrubber.

 This is an attempt to steal information from a rival company. There are

reasons to suspect that Bill was offered this job for the sole purpose of getting
hold of the production secrets of Roadrubber. This is a clear violation of NSPE
‘Professional Obligations’ III.1.d: “Engineers shall not attempt to attract an
engineer from another employer by false or misleading pretenses.”

 Not all cases are as clear as the one above.

19
Sample Cases on Integrity in the Use of
Intellectual Property (cont.)
 Case 2: Betty (an engineer) has developed some useful production at
Roadrubber. She moves to a non-competing company Rubberboat. Betty
comes up with a new process at Rubberboat but she realizes that this new
process is based on her earlier work at Roadrubber. The processes are quite
different and two companies do not manufacture similar products.
 NSPE ‘Rules of Practice’ II.1.c: “Engineers shall not reveal facts, data or
information obtained in a professional capacity w/o the prior consent of the
client or employer except as authorized or required by law or this Code.”
Similar statements by item III.4 of NSPE and item I.1.d of NCEES Model
Rules of Professional Conduct.
 Based on NSPE or NCEES Betty should tell the management at Rubberboat to
enter into licensing negotiations with Roadrubber.
 Some cases can be even less clear: (1) Betty’s ideas were of no use to
Roadrubber, (2) she didn’t even mention her findings to anyone at
Roadrubber, (3) she didn’t use the facilities of Roadrubber, (4) Betty
developed the ideas during the week-ends at home.

20
Resolving Cases on Integrity in the Use of
Intellectual Property by Line-Drawing

 Case 1: Tom designs automobile brakes at Ford and he learns a lot about heat
transfer and materials. Later, Tom moves to GM where he applies his
knowledge of heat transfer and materials to design engines. Is Tom stealing
Ford’s intellectual property?

Feature Positive Test Case Neg.

Generic Info. Yes X-------------------------------------------------- No
Differ. Applic. Yes -----X--------------------------------------------- No
Info protected No X-------------------------------------------------- Yes
as Trade Secret

 This is generic (no brand) scientific knowledge, hence not the property of
Ford. Furthermore application area is different.

21
Resolving Cases on Integrity in the Use of
Intellectual Property by Line-Drawing

 Case 2: Tom designs automobile brakes at Ford and he learns a lot about heat
transfer and materials. Later, Tom moves to GM where he applies his
knowledge of heat transfer and materials to design automobile brakes. Is Tom
stealing Ford’s intellectual property?

Feature Positive Test Case Neg.

Generic Info. Yes X-------------------------------------------------- No
Differ. Applic. Yes --------------------------------------------------X No
Info protected No X-------------------------------------------------- Yes
as Trade Secret

 This is generic scientific knowledge, hence not the property of Ford (although
application area is same).

22
Resolving Cases on Integrity in the Use of
Intellectual Property by Line-Drawing

 Case 3: Tom designs automobile brakes at Ford. While working for Ford Tom
helps develop a brake lining which lasts twice as long as conventional brake
linings. Ford decides to keep the formula for this brake lining as a trade secret.
Later, Tom moves to GM where he tells them the formula for new brake
lining. Is Tom stealing Ford’s intellectual property?

Feature Positive Test Case Neg.

Generic Info. Yes --------------------------------------------------X No
Differ. Applic. Yes --------------------------------------------------X No
Info protected No --------------------------------------------------X Yes
as Trade Secret

 This is a clear violation of the intellectual property rights of Ford.

23
Integrity and Client-Professional
Confidentiality

 Some engineers practice their own business and they

have obligations towards their clients.
 Confidentiality covers both sensitive information given
by the client and information gained by the professional
in work paid for by the client.
 An engineer can abuse client-professional confidentiality
as:
 Breaking confidentiality when it is not warranted.
 Refusing to break confidentiality despite higher obligation to
public or other people.

24
Integrity and Client-Professional
Confidentiality (cont.)

 Example 1: An engineer inspects a residence of a homeowner who is

willing to sell. He finds out that the house is in need of some repair-
work. He sends a copy of his report to the real estate firm.

 NSPE code II.1.c: “Engineers shall not reveal facts, data or

information obtained in a professional capacity w/o the prior consent
of the client or employer except as authorized or required by law or
this Code.”

 Example 2: An engineer inspects an apartment whose owner is willing

to sell. He finds out that the apartment is in need of evacuation
because it poses threat to the safety of its inhabitants.

 Competing obligations towards the client and the public. Obligation to

public surpasses the moral obligation to client.

25
Integrity and Expert Testimony

 Engineers are sometimes hired as expert witness in cases

where competent technical knowledge is required.

 The Expert should follow certain rules to avoid problems

such as withholding information during cross-
examination.
 Not to take a case if there is shortage of time for thorough
analysis.
 Not to take a case unless he/she can finish with clear conscience.
 To consult extensively with a lawyer while getting prepared for
his/her testimony during cross examination.
 To maintain an objective and unbiased demeanor on the witness
stand.
 To be open to new information, even during the course of trial.

26
Integrity and Failure to Inform the Public

 Professional irresponsibility can be described as failure to inform

those whose decisions are impaired by the absence of the information.

 From the standpoint of Respect for Persons engineers should ensure

that technical information is available to those who need it, especially
when disasters can be avoided.
 Convair’s design of cargo hatch door for DC-10 planes.

 Petrol tank of Ford Pinto.

27
Conflicts of Interest

 What is a Conflict of Interest?

 Conflict of interest exists when an engineer is subject to influences,

loyalties, temptations, or other interests that tend to make the
professional’s judgment less likely to benefit the customer or client
than the customer or client expects.

 NSPE Code of Ethics III.5:

 Engineers shall not be influenced in their professional duties by
conflicting interests.
(a) Engineers shall not accept financial or other considerations, including free
engineering designs, from material or equipment suppliers for specifying
their product.

28
Conflicts of Interest (cont.)

(b) Engineers shall not accept commissions or allowances, directly or

indirectly, from contractors or other parties dealing with clients or
employers for the Engineer in connection with work for which the
Engineer is responsible.

 Conflict of Interest can be:

 Actual

 Potential

 Apparent

 Actual C-o-I can corrupt professional judgment. Potential C-o-I may

corrupt professional judgment in future, if not at present. Apparent C-
o-I decrease the confidence of the audience even if professional
judgment is not actually corrupted.

29
Conflicts of Interest and Accepting Gifts:
Resolving Cases by Line-Drawing

 Case 1: ValCo valves are superior to traditional ones. After a large number of
orders from ValCo, Jim (Valco salesman and former classmate of Tom) visits
Tom and gives him a pen worth of $5. Should Tom accept the pen?

Feature Positive Test Case Neg.

Gift Timing After X-------------------------------------------------- Befo.
Prod. Quality High X-------------------------------------------------- Low
Gift Cost Low X-------------------------------------------------- High
Gift giver is No --------------------------------------------------X Yes
a friend

30
Conflicts of Interest and Accepting Gifts:
Resolving Cases by Line-Drawing

 Case 5: ValCo valves are superior to traditional ones. Before Tom decides to
purchase a large number of valves from ValCo, Jim (Valco salesman and
former classmate of Tom) visits Tom and offers to sponsor him for
membership in an exclusive country club. Should Tom accept the offer?

Feature Positive Test Case Neg.

Gift Timing After --------------------------------------------------X Befo.
Prod. Quality High X-------------------------------------------------- Low
Gift Cost Low -----------X--------------------------------------- High
Gift giver is No --------------------------------------------------X Yes
a friend

31
Conflicts of Interest and Accepting Gifts:
Resolving Cases by Line-Drawing

 Case 7: ValCo valves are inferior to traditional ones. Before Tom decides to
purchase a large number of valves from ValCo, Jim (Valco salesman and
former classmate of Tom) visits Tom and offers to sponsor him for an all-
expenses-paid trip to Bahamas. Should Tom accept the offer?

Feature Positive Test Case Neg.

Gift Timing After --------------------------------------------------X Befo.
Prod. Quality High --------------------------------------------------X Low
Gift Cost Low ----------------------------------------X---------- High
Gift giver is No --------------------------------------------------X Yes
a friend

32
Chapter 7: Risk, Safety and
Liability in Engineering

IENG 355
ETHICS IN ENGINEERING

1
 Case (Part 1)
 Don Hayward is employed as a chemical engineer at ABC
Manufacturing. Although he does not work with hot metals himself,
he supervises workers who are exposed to hot metals eight hours
a day, five days a week.
 Don becomes concerned when several workers develop
respiratory problems and complain about "those bad smelling
fumes from the hot metals".
 When Don asks his superior, Cal Brundage, about air quality in the
workplace, the reply is that the workplace is in full compliance with
OSHA guidelines.
 However, Don also learns that OSHA guidelines do not apply to
chemicals that have not been tested. A relatively small percentage
of chemicals in the workplace have actually been tested. This is
also the case with the vast majority of chemicals workers are
exposed to at ABC.
 Should Don do anything further, or should he simply drop the 2
matter?
 Case (Part 2)
 Don goes to ABC's science library, talks to the reference librarian
about his concerns, and does a literature search to see if he can
find anything that might be helpful in determining why the workers
have developed respiratory problems. He finds the title of an
article that looks promising and asks the reference librarian to
send for a copy. The librarian tells Don that the formal request
must have the signed approval of Cal Brundage.
 Don fills out the request form and sends it to Cal's office for
approval. One month later the article has still not arrived. Don asks
Cal about the request. Cal replies that he doesn't recall ever
seeing it. He tells Don that it must have gotten "lost in the shuffle."
Don fills out another form and this time personally hands it to Cal.
Cal says he will send it to the reference librarian right away.
 Another month passes by and the article has not arrived. Don
mentions his frustration to the reference librarian. He replies that
he never received a request from Cal.
 What should Don do now? 3
How should engineers deal with issues of
risk and safety?

 Engineering necessarily involves risk.

 New hazards could be found in products,

processes, and chemicals that were once
thought to be safe.

4
Risk

 Risk increases because engineers are

constantly involved in innovation.

 New machines are created and new

compounds synthesized always
without full knowledge of their long-
term effects on humans or the
environment.
5
 In this chapter we will go over
 The codes and engineering practice regarding risk
and safety
 Difficulties in estimating risk
 Normalizing deviance
 Three approaches to acceptable risk:
 experts,
 laypersons, and
 government regulators approach to acceptable risk

 The Engineers liability for risk

 Becoming a responsible engineer regarding risk
6
 The codes and engineering practice
regarding risk and safety
 All engineering codes say that: “Engineers must hold
paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.

NSPE:
 II1b. Engineers shall approve only those engineering
documents that are in conformity with applicable
standards. (are standards in the case applicable???)

 III2b. Engineers shall not complete, sign, or seal plans

and/or specifications that are not in conformity with
applicable 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. (Case Part 1) 7
 The codes and engineering practice
regarding risk and safety

 II1a. 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.
(Case Part 2)

8
 Difficulties Estimating Risk
Detecting Failure Modes:
A failure mode is a way in which a structure,
mechanism or process can malfunction.

 Fault-Tree Analysis: a diagram of the possible

ways in which a malfunction or accident can
occur.
 Event-Tree Analysis (similar with different approach)
9
 Fault-Tree Analysis

 In a Fault-tree analysis one starts with

an undesirable event, and then reasons
backward to determine what might
have led to the event. (p149)

10
 Fault-Tree Analysis used to discover
why a car wont start
Fault Tree

Car Wont Start

Battery Charge Insufficient Starting System defective Fuel System ignition system
Type title here Type title here Defective defective

1. Faulty ground corrections

2. Terminals loose or corroded
3. Batery week

1. Rust 1. lights left on motor off

2. Corrosion 2. Age
3. Dirt 3. Bad weather
4. Loose connections 4. Defective ..........
11
Event Tree-Analysis

 In event-tree analysis one begins with

an initial event and reason forward to
the state of system to which the event
can lead. (p.150)

 These have limitations p.150

12
13
 Are There Normal Accidents?

Two characteristics of high-risk

technologies that make them susceptible to
accidents:
 Tight Coupling and
 Complex Interactions of the parts of
technological systems

**These two factors make accidents likely and

difficult to predict and control 14
 Tight Coupling

 Processes are TIGHTLY COUPLED if

they are connected in such a way that
one process is known to affect another
and will usually do so within a short time.

Ex: A chemical plat is tightly coupled because the

failure in one part of the plant can quickly affect
other parts of the plant.
Ex: A university is loosely coupled, why?
15
 Complex Interactions

 Processes are COMPLEXLY INTERACTIVE if

the parts of the system can interact in
unanticipated ways. Like no one expected that
when part B failed it would affect part C.

Examples of complexly interactive and tightly

coupled technical systems:
chemical plants, nuclear power plants, space
missions, nuclear weapon systems. These can
have unexpected failures, and little time to
correct the problems. (all system affected)16
 The answer is:
 It may not be possible to make a
system both loosely coupled and
noncomplex therefore accidents in
complex, tightly coupled systems are
inevitable and “Normal” (Perrow).
Students should read page 160-161(151-152): an example of an
accident in a system that was complexly interactive and tightly coupled
and that could have been prevented by good engineering.

17
 Normalizing Deviance
 Engineers increase the risk to the public by
allowing increasing numbers of deviances
from proper standards of safety and
acceptable risk.

 This is called normalization of deviance.

Accepting anomalies instead of attempting

to correct a design or operating conditions
that led to the anomalies make accidents
inevitable! 18

(page 162/153 example from the challenger disaster)

Risk

 Technology imposes RISK on the

public

 RISKs are often difficult to detect and

eliminate

19
 Three approaches to acceptable risk

 The Experts Approach

 The Layperson’s Approach

 The Government Regulator’s Approach

20
 Experts Approach to
Acceptable Risk

 Identifying risk
To assess the risk, an engineer must first identify it. To identify a risk,
an engineer fmust fits know what a risk is. Concept of risk involves the
notion of adverse effect or harm.

 Utilitarianism and acceptable risk

The risk expert’s approach to risk is usually utilitarian. Apply cost-
benefit analysis by modifying it to risk-benefit analysis because the
“cost” is measured in terms of the risk of deaths, injuries, or other
harms.

 Risk as maximizing benefit 21

 Identifying risk
 Concept of risk involves adverse effect or
harm. Harm is a limitation of a persons
freedom or well being. (physical well being,
psychological well being, economical well
being)

 Risk can be defined as: “a compound measure

of the probability and magnitude of adverse
effect” (William W. Lowrance)

 We can add : “probability of death or injury”

22
 Utilitarianism and Acceptable Risk

 The experts approach to risk is usually

utilitarian. That the answer to any moral
question is to be found by determining the
course of action that maximizes well being.
 Cost/benefit technique is often called
risk/benefit analysis. Cost is measured in terms
of risk of deaths, injuries, or other harms
associated with a given course of action.
(Case Ex: Is the risk to the workers from the fumes
acceptable? ).
23
 Risk as maximizing benefit
 An acceptable risk is one of where, given
the options available, the risk of harm is
at least equaled by the probability of
producing benefit.

Limitations: (that will yield the cost/benefit approach inconclusive)

 It might not be possible to anticipate all of the costs and benefits
associated with each option
 It is not always possible to translate all of the risks and benefits
into monetary terms. What is the monetary value of human life?
 The method makes no allowances for the distributions of costs and
benefits.
 The method gives no place for informed consent to the risk
imposed by technology. 24
 The Laypersons Approach to
Acceptable Risk
 Expert and Layperson
Public is sometimes mistaken in estimating the
probability of death and injury from various activities
of technology. Experts and lay person understand
risk differently.

 Informed consent and justice: lay person approach

follows more closely the ethics of respect of
persons than utilitarianism.

25
 Free and informed consent and
compensation

Three necessities to give free and informed

consent to the risks imposed by technology:

 A person must not be coerced

 A person must have the relative information
 A person must be rational and competent
enough to evaluate the information.

26
Lay criterion of acceptable risk:

An acceptable risk is one in which risk

is freely assumed by free and informed
consent, or properly compensated,
and which is justly distributed.

27
The Government Regulator’s
Approach to Risk

 An acceptable risk is one in which

protecting the public from harm has
been weighted more heavily than
benefiting the public.

28
 Three approaches to
acceptable risk

 Risk Expert: wants to balance risk and benefit in a

way that optimizes overall public well-being.

 Layperson: wants to protect himself or herself from

risk.

 The government regulator: wants as much

assurance as possible that the public is not being
exposed to unexpected harm.
29
Becoming a Responsible
Engineer Regarding Risk

Includes to be aware
 that risk is often difficult to estimate

 that there are different approaches to

the determination of acceptable risk
 of the legal liabilities regarding risk.

30
 (A more general) Principle of
Acceptable Risk

 People should be protected from the harmful

effects of technology, especially when the harms
are not consented to or when they are unjustly
distributed, accept that this protection must
sometimes be balanced against
(1) the need to preserve great and irreplaceable
benefits, and
(2) the limitations on our ability to obtain informed
consent.
Page 168 some issues (6) that arise in applying the principle.
31
Chapter 8
Engineers as Employees

IENG 355
ETHICS IN ENGINEERING

1
 In this chapter
We will:
 look at what the codes say about employer
employee relationship.
 consider the changing legal status of
employee rights.
 state some criteria for deciding when
decisions should be made by managers
and when decisions should be made by
engineers.
 talk about organizational loyalty. 2
3
 The Codes of Employer-Employee
relationship

 Its quite clear that engineering codes

usually provide guidelines for this
relationship but also show that there are
many possibilities of conflict and line
drawing issues in this area

 Lets see what the codes of the National

Society for Professional Engineers
(NSPE) say.
4
 From the NSPE code of ethics

 Canon 4: “engineers shall act in professional

matters for each employer or client as faithful
agents or trustees”
(here we see loyalty to employer )
 Canon 1: “hold paramount the safety, health and
welfare of the public in the performance of
professional duties”
(this in some cases can conflict with canon4)
 Furthermore conceptual issues are produced.
5
 I. Fundamental Canons

Engineers, in the fulfillment of their

professional duties, shall:
1. Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare
of the public.
2. Perform services only in areas of their
competence.
3. Issue public statements only in an objective
and truthful manner.
4. Act for each employer or client as faithful
agents or trustees. 6
 Part III. Professional Obligations

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.
(employers sometimes ask engineers to
work on projects when information gained
from previous employment can be used)
7
 Conceptual issues are caused by codes

 Codes say: protect public.. But does not

say who counts as public!
 or what is the definition of “faithful agents
or trustees”
**We can say that the codes do not provide
clear and easy answers to all of the issues
that professional engineers face in relating
to their employers. (they do provide clear
answers to many other questions). 8
 Changing legal status of employee rights

 Public policy exception to employment at will. Employees

refusing to break a law, performing an important public
obligation, acting to protect the public from a clear threat
to health or safety is covered in court by public-policy
exception. (four limitations pp184-185/178)
 No clear distinction b/w public policy violation and “private” interests of employees
(when to go to public/court about the violation of the company),
 Courts usually decline to give the employee protection where there is a little
difference in judgement b/w employer and employee,
 Courts have distinguished b/w codes informed by private organizations
(professional bodies) and administrative and judicial bodies,
 Courts have appealed to the need to “balance” the interests of the public against
those to the employer.
 Statutory protection: changes to protect whistle-blowers.
(dissenting employees) 9
 Manager Engineer Relationship

Areas of conflict between engineers and

managers:
1. Although engineers want to be loyal to employers
they have to insist on high standards of quality
and safety (canon 1)
2. Managers are not engineers and so do not have
engineering expertise this makes communication
difficult.
3. Even if they are engineers superior becomes to
take a managerial rather than engineering
perspective.
10
 Two studies to
Manager Engineer Relationship
 Robert Jackall: finds the engineering-manager
relationship fundamentally adversarial (opposing sides).
 Organizational considerations does not allow the managers to
include moral commitments in decisions
 Loyalty to peers and superiors is the primary virtue for
managers
 Lines of responsibility are deliberately blurred to protect
oneself, his peers, and superiors.
 Hitachi Corporation: come up with different conclusions.
 The distinction b/w engineers and managers is not always clear
in large organizations
 No difference in perspective b/w engineers and managers
 Engineering considerations (of managers and engineers)
should have priority in matters of safety, and quality
Page 188-189, 180-183
Result: separate engineering and management decisions!!11
 Functions of engineers and managers

Engineers:
The primary function of engineers within
an organization is to use their technical
knowledge and training to create products
and processes that are of value to the
organization and customers.
Engineers have dual loyalty:
1) Loyalty to the organization
2) Loyalty to their profession.
12
 Functions of engineers and managers
Managers:
 Their function is to direct the activities of the
organization, including the activities of engineers.

 Managers are primarily concerned with the

organizations present and future well-being.

 Well-being is mostly measured in economic term.

But includes public image and employee moral.
13
 PED and PMD

 PED-Proper Engineering Decision:

 a decision that should be made by engineers
or from the engineer perspective.

 PMD-Proper Manager Decision:

 a decision that should be made by managers
or from the management perspective.

14
 PED and PMD
 PED: a decision that should be made by
engineers or at least governed by
professional engineering practice because
it either:
1) Involves technical matters that require
engineering expertise or
2) Falls within the ethical standards
embodied in the engineering codes,
especially those requiring engineers to
protect the health and safety of the public
15
 PED and PMD
 PMD: a decision that should be made by
managers or at least governed by management
considerations, because
1) It involves factors related to the well-being of the
organization such as cost, scheduling,
marketing, employee morale or welfare and
2) The decision does not force engineers (or other
professionals) to make acceptable compromises
with their own technical practices or ethical
standards.
16
Read paradigmatic and non
paradigmatic examples at home! Take
a look at each line drawing carefully.

Page 192-193, 185-187

17
 Loyalty: Uncritical and Critical
 Uncritical Loyalty to an employer: placing the
interest of the employer, as the employer
defines those interests, above any other
consideration.
 Critical Loyalty to an employer: giving due
regard to the interests of the employer, insofar
as this is possible within the constraints of the
employee’s personal and professional ethics.
18
 Loyalty: Uncritical and Critical

 Critical loyalty is a creative middle way that

seeks to honor both requirements:

Engineers should be loyal employees, but

only as long as this does not conflict with
fundamental personal or professional
obligations.

19
 Responsible Organizational Disobedience

 Disobedience by Contrary Action: activities

contrary to the interest of the company, as
perceived by management.

 Disobedience by Non-participation: refusing to

carry out an assignment because of moral or
professional objections.

 Disobedience by Protest: protesting a policy or

action of the company. (whistle-blowing)
20
 DeGeorge believes that whistle-blowing
is morally permissible if:

the harm that will be done to the public is

serious and considerable
1) the employees report their concern to their
superiors
2) “getting no satisfaction from their
immediate superiors, they exhaust the
channels available” within the
organization.
21
 DeGeorge believes that whistle-blowing is
morally obligatory if:

4. the employee has “documented evidence

that would convince a responsible, impartial
observer that his view of the situation is
correct and the company policy is wrong”
5. the employee has “strong evidence that
making the information public will in fact
prevent the threatened serious harm”.
(for unsafe products) criticism page 205/198
22
 Implementing Professional Employee Rights

Organizations must take actions to avoid

the need for whistle blowing by:
 methods improving communication between
employer and employees and
 providing avenues within the organization
through which employees can register
concerns.

23
 These methods include:
 “Open Door Policy”
 Managers can make themselves available for hearing the complaints
on a regular basis and without prejudice to the complaints.
 Mechanism to register “differing professional opinions”
 An impartial, competent commission might be used to review
employee’s concise written statement whcih was submitted to his/her
supervisor and had no accomodation.
 “Ombudsman system”
 After registering employee complaints in a confidential and
anonymous way, the ombudsman (advocate) can facilitate a
meditaion between a professional and a a manager.
 “An office for ethical issues with an ethics hotline”
 The office’s concern is ethics and social responsibility. Its duty is
proper disposition of employee complaints.
 Hotline is useful to employees who want to make inquiries about
corporate ethics policirs or to get advice on how to handle
troublesome situations. 24