Transcript Engineering Ethics - Pennsylvania State University

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 Engineer’s 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 Engineer’s Right to Protest
Introduction, continued • After an extended disagreement about the
subcontractor’s work, management places a
warning in Kim’s file and places Kim on
probation, warning of future termination
NSPE Case No. 82-5
An Engineer’s 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 Engineer’s 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 Engineer’s 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 Engineer’s 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 Engineer’s 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 Ford’s design?
– Chairman, Engineer, Designer
• Was the decision making unethical?
• Is cost-benefit analysis a reliable ethics
technique?