ENGR 1181 | Class 3: Ethics Case & Oral Presentation

Ongoing Project: Weeks 2-8

Overview
This assignment is a chance for you to research an ethical topic that interests your team. Your team
will choose a case from a given list of engineering ethics cases, conduct research on the case,
analyze the situations presented in the case, and then present your analysis to the class in an oral
presentation.

Learning Objectives

Upon successfully completing this project, you will be able to:

Define ethics
Identify sources of a persons code of ethics
State why professions like engineering have their own codes of ethics.
Explain how the codes might be used
Implement a structured approach to addressing an ethical dilemma that may occur for a
student or professional engineer
Understand the important steps of preparing an oral presentation
Understand the key elements in clearly delivering messages in oral presentations
More effectively present findings in an engineering related setting

Project Timeline

This project has multiple smaller deliverables (graded items) leading up to your teams oral
presentation. Along the way you will get feedback from your instructional team regarding these
deliverables, so it will be important for your team to incorporate that feedback into your final
project work. This is the general timeline for the project. Consult the course website for specific
due dates that pertain to your course schedule. Team Meeting Minutes will be checked throughout.
Week 2

Teams review sample ethics cases and choose top 3 cases of interest

Teams submit project schedule (see technical communications guide)

Week 3
Week 4
Week 4
Week 5
Week 6

GTA assigns case to teams

Teams submit case analysis to GTA and schedule meeting with GTA

GTA meets with teams to provide feedback on analysis

Teams submit draft of presentation (and revised analysis if necessary)

GTA provides feedback on draft presentation

Teams give oral presentations in Class 10A or 10B

1

ENGR 1181 Class 3: Ethics Case & Oral Presentation

Ongoing Project: Weeks 2-8

Project Deliverables
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Selection of Possible Ethics Cases

Project Schedule
Analysis of Ethics Case (25 points)
Team Meeting Minutes
Draft of PowerPoint and plan for oral presentation (25 points)
Oral Presentation (100 pts.)

Assignment Detail:
The following is a detailed layout of the process leading up to the oral presentation on ethics:
1. Selection of Possible Ethics Cases

Teams are required to choose 3 ethics cases from the 28 that are provided at the end of this
document. The chosen cases should be those that are of most interest to your group;
consider the related engineering field(s). The cases provided are a mix of hypothetical and
real-world situations. Email the # and Title of those 3 choices, in the order of preference, to
your GTA. The GTA will then assign a specific case based on the order in which they are
received, and then your choices.
2. Ethics Case Analysis (25 pts.)
After you have completed the bulk of your research regarding the case, your group is
required to complete an analysis of your ethics case. The information in the completed
analysis (see following page) should provide the base of the content for your presentation.
Make sure to include as much detail as possible, including assumptions you may have made.
You will be evaluated based on your ability to:
a. Address each of the issues and points of ethical conflict presented in the case or
problem. Include any assumptions made about this case. (3 points)
b. Identify what engineering field(s) this ethics case is related to. (3 points)
c. Identify the protagonist. Describe the general duties or obligations of the protagonist,
which are grounded in moral considerations. (3 points)
d. Consider each interested partys legitimate expectations of the protagonist. (3 points)
e. Identify all possible actions and recognize the positive and negative consequences of
each action. (6 points)
f. Provide a selected action and rationale. (4 points)
g. Provide at least a total of two references, not including Wikipedia. (2 points)

You will receive feedback on your analysis approximately one week prior to the draft oral
presentation due date. Feel free to start laying out the draft presentation prior to receiving
feedback on the analysis.

ENGR 1181 Class 3: Ethics Case & Oral Presentation

Ongoing Project: Weeks 2-8

Ethical Dilemma Worksheet

Issues and Points of Ethical Conflict (include any assumptions)

Interested Parties or Stakeholders

Duties or Obligations of the Protagonist to Stakeholders

The protagonist is _____________________
Stakeholder 1
Obligations to Stakeholder
Stakeholder 2

Obligations to Stakeholder

Stakeholder 3

Obligations to Stakeholder

Stakeholder 4

Obligations to Stakeholder

Stakeholder 5

Obligations to Stakeholder

Potential Actions and Their Consequences (Positive and Negative)

Action A
Positive Consequences

Negative Consequences

Action B

Positive Consequences

Negative Consequences

Action C

Positive Consequences

Negative Consequences

Action D

Positive Consequences

Negative Consequences

Selected Action and Rationale (Include all applicable references including the NSPE Code of Ethics
when applicable.)

ENGR 1181 Class 3: Ethics Case & Oral Presentation

Ongoing Project: Weeks 2-8
3. Draft PowerPoint Presentation (25 pts.)
Your team will submit a draft of your PowerPoint slides during week 6, in advance of the
presentation day. This draft should be a close approximation to your desired finished
presentation, so it will need to contain complete information on your analysis of your ethics
case and the conclusions your team has reached.

Your presentation should reflect your analysis of the case. Because you have already
completed the analysis, creating the presentation should just require documenting your
existing work and focus on layout of material. Be sure to include background information
on the case so your audience (the class) can understand your analysis.

When building your presentation, make sure your slides clearly convey your information
and that the audience will be able to easily read all information on the screen. You are
encouraged to include visuals in your presentation, but not clipart. There is no required
number of slides for this presentation, however your team will have only 7-8 minutes for
the presentation plus an additional 2 minutes for questions. Refer to the evaluation form
on the following page for details of the expectations for your presentation.

Refer to the Oral Communication Section in the Technical Communication Guide for
tips on how to plan for your presentation. This draft will be evaluated on content,
completeness, and clarity of information. The grading breakdown is as follows:
Presentation Layout: 10 points
Complete Analysis: 10 points
Clarity and Formatting: 5 points

Important Note: Your team will receive feedback from your instructional team regarding this
draft; it is critical that you incorporate this feedback into your final presentation.

4. Oral Presentation (100 pts.)

Your presentation must be 7-8 minutes long and you will be allotted an additional 2
minutes for questions. When giving your presentation, you should dress professional for a
business casual environment. You are welcome to use notecards when presenting, but keep
in mind that you should not read directly from the cards (or the screen!). Each team
member should participate equally in giving the presentation. You are highly encouraged to
practice ahead of time to make sure information flows well and that your group stays within
the 7-8 minute time limit. See the evaluation form on the following page.
Presentations will occur over two class periods, and you are only required to attend on the
day that your team is scheduled to present. This means that you will be presenting to a
smaller audience AND you get a day off!

ENGR 1181 Class 3: Ethics Case & Oral Presentation

Ongoing Project: Weeks 2-8
Oral Presentation Evaluation Form:

ENGR 1181 Class 3: Ethics Case & Oral Presentation

Ongoing Project: Weeks 2-8

Ethic Cases:
This section of the document contains the ethics cases your group can choose to research. Please
choose three cases that interest your group then your professor will assign your case from those
choices. While reading these cases think about what majors each focus on. Your team must find
and reference at least one more source, in addition to the one provided, for your presentation; you
may not use Wikipedia.

1. Gifts from Contractors/Suppliers [Hypothetical]:

prohibited. What should Scott say and do?

Scott Bennett is the engineer assigned to deal with

vendors who supply needed parts to the Upscale
Company. Larry Newman, sales representative
from one of Upscales regular vendors, plays in the
same golf league as Scott. During a game, Scott
mentions he is in the process of planning a vacation
to Florida. Larry has an uncle who owns a condo in
Florida and offers Scott a discounted price on it.
New Company Policy at Scotts engineering firm:
accepting incentives from vendors is strictly

Extracted from Gifts from a Supplier at: http://www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Cases/condo.aspx

2. Data Selection, Legitimate or Illegitimate [Hypothetical]:

Elton, an engineer, is conducting graduate
research at a major university. In order to
complete his graduate studies and produce an
advanced degree, Elton must develop a research
report. The vast majority of data obtained
strongly support not only his report's conclusion,
but also the conclusions of others. However, a
small proportion of the data differs from the data
consistent with Elton's conclusion. Even though
his report is sound containing all of the data Elton
does not include the inconsistent figures in the final report.

Extracted from Data Selection, Legitimate or Illegitimate (adapted from NSPE Case No. 85-5) accessed
at: http://www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Cases/ec85-5.aspx

ENGR 1181 Class 3: Ethics Case & Oral Presentation

Ongoing Project: Weeks 2-8

3. The Big Q [Hypothetical]:

Greg and Natalie, both graduating seniors, have
been taking business classes together since
freshman year. Natalie has been invited by Greg
and his friends to join their team on their senior
capstone project. Greg soon learns that Natalie is
not pulling her weight in the team. After their final
presentation, the professor asks all the students to
evaluate their team-mates and this evaluation will
be the basis for their individual grades. Greg gives the rest of his team-mates good evaluations, but
when it comes to Natalie, he is in a dilemma over giving her an honest evaluation, such that she
receives the grade that she deserves or giving her a dishonest evaluation, since they are about to
graduate soon and their team did well, regardless of her performance.
Extracted from The Big Q: Picking Up the Slack accessed at: http://www.scu.edu/r/ethicscenter/ethicsblog/thebigq/15667/Picking-Up-theSlack?utm_source=scu&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1306&

4. Dissent about Quality [Hypothetical]:

Several senior engineers recommend catalyst A for
use by Larom, Inc. Bernie, a new employee,
believes catalyst B may actually be best based on
testing he has been doing. Bernie needs more data
to be sure, but he doesnt have enough time to
conduct the trials. What recommendation should
Bernie offer, if any?
Extracted from Dissent About Quality accessed at:

http://www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Cases/Dissent.aspx

ENGR 1181 Class 3: Ethics Case & Oral Presentation

Ongoing Project: Weeks 2-8

5. Hooked On Electronic Services [Hypothetical]:

The Banking Industry was one of the earliest to
adopt to the use of computers and other
Information Technologies to support their
operations. The pioneers within the Banking
Industry gained a competitive advantage by
providing customers with unique services. Once
these new services became widespread practice,
from a customers perspective, there was no
advantage of doing business with a particular bank. This situation presented managers with the
challenge of how to attract and retain their customer-base. Step One - General Focus: Students may
suggest a wide range of non-specific strategies. Step Two - Information Technologies Focus:
Students may suggest various IT based strategies. Step Three - Specific Focus - Students evaluate
specific IT based strategies, e.g. Automated Teller Machines and Electronic Banking.
Extracted from Hooked On Electronic Services accessed at:
http://www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Cases/hooked.aspx

6. All in the Interpretation [Hypothetical]:

issues surrounding the published report?

Kate is a graduate student in Professor Bigwigs

lab. She started a project examining the effects of
certain video games in children during her first
year of graduate school. She is excited to see a
clear trend in her data that indicates a positive
effect of educational video games, but the effect
washes out after about a year or two, and she is
unsure how to interpret it. Dr. Bigwig did not like
the results and conclusion section of her first
report draft so she eliminated most of the inclusive
data and highlighted the strong trends. Dr. Bigwig
liked this new draft and it was published and was
successful at gaining funding. What are the ethical

Extracted from All in the Interpretation accessed at:

http://www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Cases/Interpretation.aspx

ENGR 1181 Class 3: Ethics Case & Oral Presentation

Ongoing Project: Weeks 2-8

7. Cheating (MIT): Responsibilities for Reporting and Taking Disciplinary Action

[Hypothetical]:
I am a senior at a well-known educational
institution. This term, I am the grader for a course
called Probabilistic Systems. My sorority sisters J
and K are taking this course. One day at the
sorority house library I see J and K obviously
copying answers from past problem sets - in fact,
they don't deny the fact when I confront them. J
says that copying is not a big deal since grades
from problem sets are only counted in the case of
borderline grades. Although I feel what they are
doing is wrong, I also realize that many other students are probably using bibles and problem sets
are not a large part of their grade. What should I do?

Extracted from Cheating@MIT: Responsibilities for Reporting and Taking Disciplinary Action accessed
at: http://www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Cases/cheating.aspx

8. Beyond Expertise: One Persons Science, Another Persons Policy [Hypothetical]:

Dr. Debra Reams works in the field of
environmental chemistry and focuses on the
oxidation and reduction reactions of the heavy
metal jekylhydium in water and soil. Jeckylhydium
is used in many industrial processes and is known
to exist in nature primarily in two oxidation states.
The oxidized form is extremely toxic; the reduced
form is harmless. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is concerned about the toxicity and
potential for human exposure to jekylhydium. The
Agency is alarmed by news of the possibility of
transformation from the less toxic to the more
toxic form and asks Reams to help rewrite the regulatory limits for jekylhydium in soils and water
based on her findings. Reams declined to rewrite regulations even though she was person to
clearly demonstrate the danger.

Extracted from Beyond Expertise: One Persons Science, Another Persons Policy accessed at:
http://www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Cases/expertise.aspx

ENGR 1181 Class 3: Ethics Case & Oral Presentation

Ongoing Project: Weeks 2-8

9. Suspected Hazardous Waste [Hypothetical]:

Alex is an engineering student employed for the
summer by Environmental Engineering, a
consulting firm. RJ, the engineer who supervises
Alex, directs Alex to sample the contents of drums
located on the property of a client. Alex believes
the drums contain hazardous material, but RJ
wanted Alex to tell the company that they contain
questionable material. What can and should Alex, a
student and a summer hire, do in this situation?
Extracted from Suspected Hazardous Waste
(adapted from NSPE Case No. 92-6) accessed at:

http://www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Cases/ec92-6.aspx

10. New Technology Who Is the Designer [Hypothetical]:

Edgar Engineer is a licensed civil engineer and
principal investigator on a university project
researching environmental contamination
problems. His work involves the sampling of
groundwater and soil to determine the nature and
extent of contamination at a local commercial site.
Edgar saw the need to improve the sampling
technology and he contacted a vendor, Fabio
Fabricator. They worked together and met often to
make improvements. The improvements were
successful and a year later Edgar discovered that
Fabio applied for a new patent for the equipment.
Edgar was upset because most of the ideas were his
and changes to existing equipment. I told him that I
wanted to be listed on the patent, and he said that
he'd 'keep me informed of the status.' I don't think that's good enough, and I would like some advice
on how to proceed."
Extracted from New Technology Who Is the Designer? accessed at:
http://www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Cases/technology.aspx

10

ENGR 1181 Class 3: Ethics Case & Oral Presentation

Ongoing Project: Weeks 2-8

11

ENGR 1181 Class 3: Ethics Case & Oral Presentation

Ongoing Project: Weeks 2-8

11. Ethics and Pressure [Hypothetical]:

A pharmaceutical company approves funds for a
project to test a new drug that could improve the
reproductive performance of bovines in a tropical
environment; a professor will be supervising a
graduate student. Multiple herds are used to
achieve accurate data and comparisons. When all
the data is gathered at the end of the experimental
period, the results in the commercial unit show no
differences. The data on the commercial herd is
absolutely necessary to achieve the objectives of
the study. The student wants to finish his thesis
and graduate because he has already been offered a job. The pharmaceutical company, on the other
hand, puts pressure on the professor to finish the report so that he can submit it and publish the
results.
Extracted from Ethics and Pressure accessed at:
http://www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Cases/Pressure.aspx

12. Testing by a Co-Op Student [Hypothetical]:

does this scenario raise?

Stress tests were needed for a redesigned

component and many departments are busy. Jack
Jacobs is a Co-Op for the XYZ Company. Jack is
assigned the task of completing the tests and
indicates that the component successfully passes
the stress tests after completing the assignment on
time. Upon completion of the test report, Jack
returned to school but a catastrophic failure of the
component happened raising questions about the
accuracy of the data. What ethical issues, if any,

Extracted from Teaching Engineering Ethics: Testing by a CO-OP Student accessed at:
http://www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Cases/co-op.aspx

12

ENGR 1181 Class 3: Ethics Case & Oral Presentation

Ongoing Project: Weeks 2-8

13. From Fundamental Physics to the Private Sector [Hypothetical]:

Huge University and Ivy University emerged as the
leaders in the new field of applying particle
accelerators, matching each other patent for patent.
Since the group at Ivy spearheaded the
collaboration that wrote the original article in
Popular Cross Disciplinary Research, they claimed
the first patent, which secured the rights to the idea
of using the technique for medical imaging. Groups
at Ivy U. and Huge U. each began building an
apparatus that would produce the specially treated
gas to be used for the new MRI technique. Ivy
finished first and patented its new machine. Huge
finished a few months later, but its machine had the
added capability of being able to produce and
deliver the gas with the same machine. Huge also
received a patent. Both universities are in
positions to violate each others patents.
Extracted from From Fundamental Physics to the
Private Sector accessed at:
http://www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Cases/fundamental.aspx

14. Ford Pinto Car Accidents [Real-World]:

Ford Pintos produced during the 1960s-1970s had
a defect where the automobile would explode from
minor accidents (fender-benders). There were an
estimated 500 burn deaths and countless injuries.
These explosions were due to a defective fuel
system design. Ford justified not resolving the
defect from the use of cost-benefit analysis.
Extracted from THE FORD PINTO CASE: THE VALUATION OF LIFE AS IT APPLIES TO THE
NEGLIGENCE-EFFICIENCY ARGUMENT accessed at:
http://users.wfu.edu/palmitar/Law&Valuation/Papers/1999/Leggett-pinto.html#Text

13

ENGR 1181 Class 3: Ethics Case & Oral Presentation

Ongoing Project: Weeks 2-8

15. DC10 Jumbo Jet [Real-World]:

went by before the Dc- 10 Jumbo Jet incident.

Convair was a subcontractor for McDonnell

Douglas who designed the cargo door for the DC
10 Jumbo Jet. During flight the cargo door burst
open and the jet crashed in Paris, 1974. There were
346 casualties. Convairs senior engineer directing
the project, Dan Applegate warned Convair of the
cargo door design flaws, but the top Management
at Convair neither disputed the technical facts or
the predictions made by Applegate. The liabilities
and the cost of redesign were too high. Two years

Extracted from Special Report: Turkish Airlines Flight 981 accessed at:
http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-thy981.shtml

16. CITICORP Building [Real-World]:

Structural Engineer Bill LeMessurier designed
welded joints for the CITICORP building in Citicorp
Centre, N.Y (fifth highest skyscraper) 1977.
However the contractor, Bethlehem Steel, changed
them to bolted joints. Tests proved that the
diagonal wind loading (with a return period of 16
years) can lead to the failure of the critical bolted
joints and therefore the building. Recalculation was
not done to check what the construction change
would do. The building was strengthened by
welding two-inch thick steel plates over each of the
200 bolted joints.
Extracted from Engineering Ethics 4th Edition
accessed at:

http://www.course.sdu.edu.cn/G2S/eWebEditor/uploadfile/20131017113401956.pdf

14

ENGR 1181 Class 3: Ethics Case & Oral Presentation

Ongoing Project: Weeks 2-8

15

ENGR 1181 Class 3: Ethics Case & Oral Presentation

Ongoing Project: Weeks 2-8

17. Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant Disaster [Real-World]:

partial meltdown.

The meltdown happened on Three Mile Island, PA

on March 28, 1979. General Public Utilities and
Metropolitan Edison were the companies
responsible for the partial nuclear meltdown.
Radioactive gases released to environment and the
plant site was contaminated (14 year clean-up
effort). The nuclear meltdown received a Level 5
on the International Nuclear Event Scale with Level
7 being the worst. A Combination of design and
human error lead loss of coolant, which lead to a

Extracted from Backgrounder on the Three Mile Island Accident accessed at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html

18. Hyatt-Regency Walkway Collapse [Real-World]:

The Hyatt Regency Hotel had two connected
walkways collapsed and plunged into the lobby
where a dance competition was taking place. The
hotel is located in Kansas City, Missouri and the
collapse occurred on July 17, 1981. There were
114 casualties and 216 injured, which made it at
the time the deadliest structural collapse in U.S.
history (only surpassed by the World Trade
Center). The collapse occurred due to a flawed
design change that doubled the load on the
connection between the fourth floor walkway support beams and the tie rods carrying the weight
of both walkways.
Extracted from Investigation of the Kansas City Hyatt Regency Walkways Collapse accessed at:
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build82/PDF/b82002.pdf

16

ENGR 1181 Class 3: Ethics Case & Oral Presentation

Ongoing Project: Weeks 2-8

19. The Challenger Explosion [Real-World]:

Allan McDonald of Morton Thiokol designed the
solidrocket booster for the Challenger. However,
there was an issue with the field joints on previous
cold weather joints, but the managers (not
engineers) voted the seals could not be proven to
be unsafe. Seal experts Arnold Thompson and
Roger Boisjoly of Morton Thiokol, explained to
NASA representatives how upon launch the
booster rocket walls bulge and the combustion
gases can blow past one or even both of the Orings
that make up the field joints. The rings char and
erode, as had been observed on many previous
flights. At NASA Headquarters on 28th Jan 1986
the crew cabin separated and fell into the ocean,
killing all abroad.

Extracted from Engineering Ethics 4th Edition

accessed at:
http://www.course.sdu.edu.cn/G2S/eWebEditor/uploadfile/20131017113401956.pdf

20. Ford Explorer/Firestone Tires [Real-World]:

keep tire production high.

The Ford Motor Company and Firestone

experienced tire failures on 1999/2000 on Ford
Explorers. This failure led to 250 deaths and 3000
serious injuries. Firestone recalled 6.5 million
tires and Ford also did its own recall of Firestone
tires. The defective tires triggered vehicle
rollovers caused by separation of tread from body
of tire. This occurred due to quality control issues
at Firestone plant in Decatur, Illinois like using
expired adhesives and appearance of bubbles in
the body of the tire. Firestone management did not
recall or stop production because they wanted to

Extracted from Engineering Ethics 4th Edition accessed at:

http://www.course.sdu.edu.cn/G2S/eWebEditor/uploadfile/20131017113401956.pdf

17

ENGR 1181 Class 3: Ethics Case & Oral Presentation

Ongoing Project: Weeks 2-8

21. Air France Concorde Crash Flight 4590 [Real-World]:

An Air France plane crash took place in Paris,
France on July 25, 2000. The crash killed 100
passengers, 9 crew and 4 bystanders. This was the
only fatal Concorde accident leading to it being
grounded 3 years later. There was a tire failure by
metal strip dropped off by another plane on
runway leading to the rubber debris damaging
engines right above landing gear. The metal strip
fell off due to workers disregarding correct repair
protocols and there were structural issues with landing gear being placed right underneath
engines.

Extracted from Accident on 25 July 2000 at La Patte dOie in Gonesse (95) to the Concorde registered
F-BTSC operated by Air France accessed at: http://www.bea-fr.org/docspa/2000/f-sc000725a/pdf/fsc000725a.pdf

22. Hurricane Katrina [Real-World]:

Hurricane Katrina was a tropical storm that
devastated New Orleans, Louisiana on August 2930, 2005. Approximately 700 deaths were
reported and 75% of the city flooded with depths
as high as 25 feet. New Orleans survived the storm
with limited damage, but most of the damage was
caused by flooding. The sustainably flooding was
caused by a failure of levees due to soft soil
foundations. Floodwalls were overwhelmed due to
not accounting for very high hydraulic loading.
Extracted from Engineering Ethics 4th Edition accessed at:
http://www.course.sdu.edu.cn/G2S/eWebEditor/uploadfile/20131017113401956.pdf

18

ENGR 1181 Class 3: Ethics Case & Oral Presentation

Ongoing Project: Weeks 2-8

23. The Case of the Killer Robot [Real-World]:

Randey Samuels was a programmer at the Silicon
Techtronic's Inc. who worked on programing
robots. Bart Matthews was crushed to death when
the robot he was operating malfunctioned and
started to wave its hands violently. The Robot arm
struck Matthews, throwing him against a wall and
crushing his skull. They were both employees of
Cybernetics Inc. in Silicon Heights when the
accident occurred on February 16, 2006.

Extracted from Case of the Killer Robot accessed at:

http://www.onlineethics.org/Resources/19049/killerrobot.aspx

24. I-35W Mississippi River Bridge [Real-World]:

The Minnesota Department of Transportation was
overall responsible for the I-35W bridge collapse.
The bridge is located in Minneapolis, Minnesota and
the collapse occurred on August 1, 2007 (opened in
November 1967). There were 13 casualties and 145
injured (involving 100 vehicles) when the structure
and deck collapsed into the river (during rush hour
traffic). The bridge collapsed due to a design flaw so
additional weight on the bridge caused the flaw to
be exposed.
Extracted from Collapse of I-35 Highway Bridge Minneapolis, Minnesota August 1, 2007 accessed at:
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2008/HAR0803.pdf

19

ENGR 1181 Class 3: Ethics Case & Oral Presentation

Ongoing Project: Weeks 2-8

25. BP (Deepwater Horizon) Oil Spill [Real-World]:

The deepwater Horizon drilling rig (well operator
Transocean and contractor Halliburton) exploded
and 4.9 million barrels of oil were spilled. This
occurred at a BP-operated Macondo Prospect (Gulf
of Mexico near Mississippi River Delta, U.S.) on
April 20, 20110 - July 15, 2010. There were 11
casualties & numerous potential human health
problems. Extensive damage to marine and
wildlife habitats reduced fishing and tourism. This
was the largest accidental marine oil spill in the
history of the petroleum industry. There was a failure to contain hydrocarbon pressures in the well
and primary cement failure as well as a failure of industry management (BP, Halliburton and
Transocean) and government.
Extracted from DEEP WATER: The Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling accessed at:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-OILCOMMISSION/pdf/GPO-OILCOMMISSION.pdf

26. Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster [Real-World]:

TEPCO.

The Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) had

equipment failures, nuclear meltdowns and
releases of radioactive materials following an
earthquake and tsunami. This transpired in
kuma, Fukushima, Japan on March 11, 2011.
There were 37 physically injured and 2 with
radiation burns; therefore it was the largest
nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl disaster of
1986 and the second disaster to measure 7 on the
International Nuclear Event Scale. The failures
occurred due to inadequate designs to handle
some tsunamis and improper safety precautions by

Extracted from The Nation Diet of Japan: The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation
Commission accessed at: http://warp.da.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/3856371/naiic.go.jp/en/

20

ENGR 1181 Class 3: Ethics Case & Oral Presentation

Ongoing Project: Weeks 2-8

27. Indiana State Fair Stage Collapse [Real-World]:

Indiana State Fair main stage collapsed by a wind
gust from thunderstorm hit the stages roof. This
occurred in Indianapolis, IN on August 13, 2011.
There were 7 casualties and 58 injured from the
collapse. The Sugarland outdoor concert was
cancelled due to the collapse. The stage collapsed
due to the inadequate capacity of the lateral load
resisting system.
Extracted from Indiana State Fair Commission:
Investigation Reports accessed at:
http://www.in.gov/sfc/2343.htm

28. GM Ignition Switch [Real-World]:

would take too long and cost too much money.

General Motors had to recall 2.6 million Chevy

Cobalt vehicles. The ignition switch contained a
design flaw that was demonstrated when owners
placed weighted items on their key rings. The key
would rotate into accessary mode and shut down
all mechanical and electrical functions in the car
including the air bags and power steering and
brakes. This issue has caused at least 13 deaths.
The problem was bought to the attention of GM in
2005, but engineers decided against a fix because it

Extracted from The Long Road To GMs Ignition Switch Recall accessed at:
http://www.npr.org/2014/03/31/297312252/the-long-road-to-gms-ignition-switch-recall

21