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.
 IEM Rules of Practice
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
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.
2. 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.
3. Engineers shall give credit for engineering work to those
to whom credit is due, and will recognize the proprietary
interests of others.
 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 Engineer’s 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 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
 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?
 An Engineer’s 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 Engineer’s 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 Engineer’s 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 Engineer’s 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 Ford’s design?
– Chairman, Engineer, Designer
• Was the decision making unethical?
• Is cost-benefit analysis a reliable ethics
technique?