Ethics in Engineering

Concepts and Cases

The Ohio State University

Dr. Gary Kinzel, Dr. Blaine Lilly, Dr. Tony Luscher
Jim Piper and Rachel Murdell
 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
NSPE, ASME, ASCE, etc.
May conflict with personal ethics
Case studies used to set examples, standards
 NSPE Fundamental Canons

Engineers, in 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.
 NSPE Fundamental Canons,
continued
Engineers, in fulfillment of their professional
duties, shall:
4. Act for each employer or client as faithful
agents or trustees.
5. Avoid deceptive acts.
6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly,
ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the
honor, reputation, and usefulness of the
profession.
 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.
 NSPE Case No. 92-1

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.
 NSPE Case No. 92-1

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?
 NSPE Case No. 92-1

Credit for Engineering Work

NSPE Code of Ethics References -

Section 1.3.:Issue public statements only in an objective and
truthful manner. Section 11.3.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.
Section 111.3.:Engineers shall avoid all conduct or practice which
is likely to discredit the profession or deceive the public.
Section 111.5.a.:Engineers shall not accept financial or other
considerations, including free engineering designs, from material
or equipment suppliers for specifying their product.
Section IlI. l 0.a.:Engineers shall, whenever possible, name the
person or persons who may be individually responsible for designs,
inventions, writings, or other accomplishments.
 NSPE Case No. 92-1

Credit for Engineering Work

NSPE 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.
 NSPE Case No. 92-1

Credit for Engineering Work

NSPE 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.
 NSPE Case No. 92-1

Credit for Engineering Work

NSPE Conclusion

It was unethical for Engineer A to fail to give credit to

Engineer B for his part in the design.
 NSPE Case No. 82-5

An Engineers Right to Protest

Introduction -
Kim works as an engineer for a defense 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
 NSPE Case No. 82-5

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
 NSPE Case No. 82-5

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?
 NSPE Case No. 82-5

An Engineers Right to Protest

NSPE Code of Ethics References
Code of Ethics- Section II.1.a.: "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."
Code of Ethics- Section III.2.b.: "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."
 NSPE Case No. 82-5

An Engineers Right to Protest

NSPE 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.
 NSPE Case No. 82-5

An Engineers Right to Protest

NSPE 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.
 NSPE Case No. 82-5

An Engineers Right to Protest

NSPE 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.
 NSPE Case No. 87-5

Complimentary Seminar Registration

Introduction -
The ABC Pipe Company is interested in becoming
known within the engineering community and, in
particular, to those engineers involved in the
specification of pipe in construction.
ABC sends an invitation to Engineer A
announcing a one-day complimentary educational
seminar to educate engineers on current
technological advances in the selection and use of
pipe in construction.
 NSPE Case No. 87-5

Complimentary Seminar Registration

Introduction, continued
ABC will host all refreshments, buffet
luncheon during the seminar, and a cocktail
reception immediately following. Engineer
A agrees to attend.
 NSPE Case No. 87-5

Complimentary Seminar Registration

Question -
Was it ethical for Engineer A to attend the
one-day complimentary educational
seminar hosted by the ABC Pipe Company?
 NSPE Case No. 87-5

Complimentary Seminar Registration

NSPE Code of Ethics References
Code of Ethics- Section II.4.c.:"Engineers shall not solicit or
accept financial or other valuable consideration, directly or
indirectly, from contractors, their agents, or other parties in
connection with work for employers or clients for which they are
responsible."
Section III.5.b.:"Engineers shall not accept commissions or
allowances, directly or indirectly, from contractors or other parties
dealing with clients or employers of the Engineer in connection
with work for which the Engineer is responsible."
Section III.11.a.:"Engineers shall encourage engineering
employees' efforts to improve their education."
 NSPE Case No. 87-5

Complimentary Seminar Registration

NSPE Discussion
The Code unequivocally states that engineers must not
accept gifts or other valuable consideration from a supplier
in exchange for specifying its products. (See Sections
II.4.c.; III.5.b.) However, in this case we are dealing with a
material supplier who is introducing information about
pipe products to engineers in the community and has
chosen the form of an educational seminar as its vehicle.
 NSPE Case No. 87-5

Complimentary Seminar Registration

NSPE Discussion
We view the buffet luncheon and cocktail reception
immediately following the seminar as falling within the
minimal provisions noted in previous cases, and thus it
would not be improper for Engineer A to participate in
those activities. We note, however, that had Engineer A
agreed to accept items of substantial value (e.g., travel
expenses, multi-day program, resort location, etc.) our
conclusion would have been quite different.
 NSPE Case No. 87-5

Complimentary Seminar Registration

NSPE Conclusion
It was ethical for Engineer A to attend the one-day
complimentary educational seminar hosted by the ABC
Pipe Company.
 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
 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
 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?