1 Engineering Ethics Seminar Richard O. Mines, Jr., Ph.D., P.E. Hodge Jenkins, Ph.D., P.E. February 2005 Mercer University School of Engineering.

1

Engineering Ethics Seminar

Richard O. Mines, Jr., Ph.D., P.E.

Hodge Jenkins, Ph.D., P.E.February 2005

Mercer University

School of Engineering

2

Outline1. Definitions

2. Engineering Decision Making

3. Personal and Professional Ethics

4. Attributes of Professional

5. 4-Criteria for Safe Designs

6. NSPE Canons

7. Examples of Technology Gone Astray

8. Case Studies

9. NSPE Test

3

Definitions

• Ethics: the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation; the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group.

• Morals: principles, teachings, or conduct. Guidelines for determining right or wrong actions.

4

Definitions

• Right: correct in accordance to moral law.

• Wrong: not morally right or just, unfair, improper.

• Legal: Can be morally right or wrong.

5

Engineering Decision Making

1. Economic Analysis

2. Risk Analysis

3. Ethical Analysis

6

Engineering Ethics

• Rules and standards governing the conduct of engineers.

• Applies to situations involving engineers in their professional lives.

7

Personal Ethics?

Professional Ethics?

How we treat others in our day-to-day lives.

Involves choices on an organizational level.Relationships between two corporations, company & government, company & individuals,

society.

8

Attributes of a Professional

1. Membership in profession requires formal education.

2. Work requires sophisticated skills, use of judgment, exercise discretion.

3. Societies or organizations establish standards for admission to profession and standards of conduct.

4. Significant good results from the profession.

9

4-Criteria for Safe Designs

1. Design must comply with applicable laws.

2. An acceptable design must meet the standard of acceptable engineering practice.

3. Alternative designs that are potentially safer must be evaluated.

4. The engineer must foresee potential misuses of the product by the client and must design to avoid these problems.

10

NSPE Fundamental Canons

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. 5. Avoid deceptive acts. Honest.6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically,

and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.

11

NSPE Rules of Practice

 1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.

2. Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their competence.

3. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.

4. Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.

5. Engineers shall avoid deceptive acts.

12

Examples of Ethics in Technology Gone Astray

• Hyatt Regency Walkways Collapse• Challenger Explosion• 3-Mile Island• Pinto Automobile• Ford/Firestone Tire Controversy• Bridges that Collapse• Gas Pipeline Explosion• Personal examples

13

Reconciling Case Studies-1

Engineer A prepares a set of drawings for a client for the design and construction of a building. Owner contracts with Contractor X, not an engineer, for construction, but does not retain Engineer A for construction phase services. Engineer A is paid in full for his work. Engineer A's drawings are filed with town code officials and a building permit is issued. Contractor X builds the building, but does not follow Engineer A's design, relying upon Contractor X's own experience in construction. Following construction, Contractor X, with the assistance of Engineer C, prepares a set of record "as built" drawings based upon the actual construction of the building as reported by Contractor X. Because the design and the construction drawings are not reconciled, the building official refuses to issue an occupancy permit to the Owner. Owner asks Engineer A to "reconcile" the original design and the record drawings. Engineer A, not wanting to perform additional studies, agrees to perform the "reconciliation."

14

Questions-1?

1. Was it ethical for Engineer A to perform the design reconciliation?

2. Was it ethical for Engineer C to prepare a set of record drawings based on the construction without notifying Engineer A?

15

Conclusions-1

1. It was not ethical for Engineer A to reconcile hisoriginal documents without extensive investigationto assure that all original design intent was followed.

2. The Owner is the ultimate client, therefore, it wasnot ethical for Engineer C to prepare a set of recorddrawings based on the construction without notifyingEngineer A. There is the possibility that Engineer Cwas aiding and abetting the unlicensed practice of engineering.

16

Discussion-1b

An engineer’s firm was retained by a fuel company toperform site investigations. The site visits were conductedby engineering technicians under direct supervision ofEngineer A. No professional engineer was present duringthe site visits. All pertinent information was presented toEngineer A who would certify the evaluations. They concludedit was ethical for Engineer A to certify the evaluations wereperformed in accordance to engineering principles.

17

Discussion-1c

A chief engineer in a large consulting firm routinely affixed hisseal to plans prepared by licensed engineers working under hisgeneral direction who did not affix their seals to the plans. At times, the chief engineer affixed his seal to plans prepared byunlicensed graduate engineers even though the plans were notchecked in detail. The BOR concluded that it was not ethicalfor the chief engineer to seal plans that have not been preparedby him or which he had not checked and reviewed in detail.

Today, the BOR would conclude that it was not unethical forthe chief engineer to seal the plans as long as those plans werechecked and reviewed in some detail by the chief engineer.

18

Providing Design Client’s Competitor-2

Engineer A is hired by Developer X to perform design and construction-phase services for a subdivision for Developer X. Per the agreement with Developer X, Engineer A is paid 30% of his fee by Developer X. Engineer A submits the design drawings and plans to the county authorities and permits are issued for the benefit of Developer X. Developer X cannot get financing for the project, and Developer X tells Engineer A that Engineer A should not disclose the contents of the drawings and plans to any unauthorized third party. Developer Y, a client of Engineer A and also a business competitor of Developer X, is interested in the subdivision project. Developer Y has secured financing for the project and approaches Engineer A, requesting that he perform the design on the project and requests that Engineer A provide the design documents for Developer Y’s review. Since Engineer A was not paid his entire fee for his completed project design by Developer X, Engineer A agrees to provide the design drawings and plans to Developer Y and agrees to charge Developer Y only for the changes to the original subdivision design drawings and plans.

19

Questions-2?

1. Was it ethical for Engineer A to provide a copy of the design drawings and plans to Developer Y?

2. Was it ethical for Engineer A to charge Developer Y for the changes to the original subdivision design drawings and plans?

20

Discussion-2

•Conflict between the obligations of an engineer not to disclose information that is considered confidential by the client and the right to be properly compensated.

•Engineer A should not share the plans with another client.

•The Code is silent about the failure of a client to provide agreed compensation and how that would effect their status as clients.

21

Conclusions-2

1. It was not ethical for Engineer A to provide a copy ofthe design drawings and plans to Developer Y.

2. It was not ethical for Engineer A to charge Developer Yfor the changes to the original subdivision drawings andplans. Had Engineer A successfully negotiated an agree-ment with Developer X on the questions of ownershipand possession of the design drawings, it would havebeen ethical for Engineer A to charge Developer Y forchanges to the original subdivision design drawings and plans.

22

Public Criticism of Bridge Safety-3

Engineer A, a renowned structural engineer, is hired for a nominal sum by a large city newspaper to visit the site of a state bridge construction project, which has had a troubled history of construction delays, cost increases, and litigation primarily as a result of several well publicized, on-site accidents. Recently the state highway department has announced the date for the opening of the bridge. State engineers have been proceeding with repairs based upon a specific schedule. Engineer A visits the bridge and performs a one-day visual observation. His report identifies, in very general terms, potential problems and proposes additional testing and other possible engineering solutions. Thereafter, in a series of feature articles based upon information gleaned from Engineer A's report, the newspaper alleges that the bridge has major safety problems that jeopardize its successful completion date. Allegations of misconduct and incompetence are made against the project engineers and the contractors as well as the state highway department. During an investigation by the state, Engineer A states that his report was intended merely to identify what she viewed were potential problems with the safety of the bridge and was not intended to be conclusive as to the safety of the bridge.

23

Question-3?

1. Was it ethical for Engineer A to agree to perform an investigation for the newspaper in the manner stated?

24

Discussion-3

Engineers should render a professional opinion1) based upon adequate knowledge of facts2) the engineer clearly possesses the expertiseto render such an opinion

It was not unethical for an engineer to criticizea town engineer and consultant with respect toa report on a sanitary landfill for their town.

25

Conclusions-3

It was not unethical for Engineer A to agree to performan investigation for the newspaper. Engineer A did havethe obligation to require the newspaper to state in thearticle that he had been retained for a fee by the newspaper to provide his professional opinion concerning the safety of the bridge.

26

Public Welfare Duty of Government Engineer-4

Engineer A, an environmental engineer employed by the stateenvironmental protection division, is ordered to draw up a constructionpermit for construction of a power plant at a manufacturing facility. Heis told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and "avoid anyhang-ups" with respect to technical issues. Engineer A believes theplans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirementsand that outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions arenecessary and without them the issuance of the permit would violatecertain air pollution standards as mandated under the l990 Clear AirAct. His superior believes that plans which involve limestone mixed withcoal in a fluidized boiler process would remove 90% of the sulphurdioxide will meet the regulatory requirements. Engineer A contacts thestate engineering registration board and is informed, based upon thelimited information provided to the board that suspension or revocationof his engineering license was a possibility if he pre pared a permit thatviolated environmental regulations. Engineer A refused to issue thepermit and submitted his findings to his superior. The departmentauthorized the issuance of the permit. The case had received widespreadpublicity in the news media and is currently being investigated by stateauthorities.

27

Question-4?

1. Would it have been ethical for Engineer A to withdraw from further work in this case?

2. Would it have been ethical for Engineer A to issue

the permit?

3. Was it ethical for Engineer A to refuse to issue the

permit?

28

Discussion-4

Engineers have a fundamental obligation tohold paramount the safety, health, and welfareof the public in the performance of theirprofessional duties.

Board believes that it would not be ethical forEngineer A to withdraw from further workon the project because Engineer A has anobligation to stand by his position to protectthe public, health, and safety to refuse the permit.

29

Conclusions-4

1. It would not have been ethical for Engineer A to withdraw from further work on the project.

2. It would not have been ethical for Engineer A to issue the permit.

3. It was ethical for Engineer A to refuse to issue the permit.

30

NSPE TEST