1. NSPE Case No. 92-4:Public Welfare Duty of Government Engineer
Facts:
Engineer A, an environmental engineer employed by the state environmental protection division, is ordered to draw up a construction permit for construction of a power plant at a manufacturing facility. He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and "avoid any hang-ups" with respect to technical issues. Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions are necessary and without them the issuance of the permit would violate certain air pollution standards as mandated under the l990 Clear Air Act. His superior believes that plans which involve limestone mixed with coal in a fluidized boiler process would remove 90% of the sulfur dioxide will meet the regulatory requirements. Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he pre pared a permit that violated environmental regulations. Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior. The department authorized the issuance of the permit. The case had received widespread publicity in the news media and is currently being investigated by state authorities.
Questions:
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?
What sections of the NSPE Code of Ethics would most directly apply in this case?
2. NSPE Case No. 91-5:Engineering Student Serving as Consultant To University
Facts:
Engineer A, a professional engineer on unpaid leave from employer of ZYX Consultants, is a post-graduate student at a small private university and is enrolled in a research class for credit taught by Jones, a mechanical engineering professor at the university. Part of the research being performed by Engineer A involves the use of an innovative geothermal technology. The university is in the process of enlarging its facilities and Jones, a member of the University's building committee, is charged with responsibility for developing a request for proposal (RFP) in order to solicit interested engineering firms. Jones plans to incorporate application of the geothermal technology into the RFP. Jones approaches Engineer A and asks if he would personally serve as a paid consultant to the university's building committee in developing the RFP, reviewing proposals, etc. ZYX Consultants will not be submitting a proposal and is not averse to having Engineer A submit a proposal. Engineer A agrees to serve as a paid consultant.
Questions:
1. Was it ethical for an Engineer A to be enrolled in a class for credit at the university and at the same time agree to serve as a consultant to the university?
2. Was it ethical for Engineer A to participate in the preparation of the RFP?
3. Was it ethical for Engineer A to review the proposals?
What sections of the NSPE Code of Ethics would most directly apply in this case?
3. NSPE Case No. 93-1: Copycat Case
Facts:
Engineer A, a registered professional engineer, has worked on the design and development of improved wastewater treatment processes and equipment, which are subsequently patented. Engineer B, an environmental consultant specializing in the design of waste water treatment facilities, and his client are impressed with the new processes and equipment. However, Engineer B dislikes specifying sole source and, in fact, makes a point of encouraging competition by preparing open specifications with "or equal" clauses or by specifying a performance requirement. The primary, if not the sole, purpose of Engineer B's effort is to minimize cost by promoting competition. On this project, Engineer B prepares a performance specification for open competition but patterned from the performance of the processes and equipment patented by Engineer A.
Questions:
1. Is it ethical for Engineer B to use Engineer A's patented processes and equipment as a guide in preparing open specifications in order to minimize cost and to promote competition?
2. Is it ethical for Engineer Y to induce other manufacturers to produce a process and equipment that will perform equally to patented products by making verbal commitments?
What sections of the NSPE Code of Ethics would most directly apply in this case?
4. Gifts to Foreign Officials - Case No. 76-6
Facts
Richard Roe, P.E., is president and chief executive officer of an engineering firm which has done overseas assignments in various parts of the world. The firm is negotiating for a contract in a foreign country in which it has not worked previously. Roe is advised by a high-ranking government official of that country that it is established practice for those awarded contracts to make personal gifts to the governmental officials who are authorized to award the contracts, and that such practice is legal in that country. Roe is further advised that while the condition is not to be included in the contract, his failure to make the gifts will result in no further work being awarded to the firm and to expect poor cooperation in performing the first contract. He is further told that other firms have adhered to the local practice in regard to such gifts.
Question
Would it be ethical for Roe to accept the contract and make the gifts as described?
What sections of the NSPE Code of Ethics would most directly apply in this case?
5. NSPE Case No. 92-1:Credit for Engineering Work Design Competition
Facts:
Engineer A is retained by a city to design a bridge as part of an elevated highway system. Engineer A then retains the services of Engineer B, a structural engineer with expertise in horizontal geometry, superstructure design and elevations to perform certain aspects of the design services. Engineer B designs the bridge's three curved welded plate girder spans which were critical elements of the bridge design.
Several months following completion of the bridge, Engineer A enters the bridge design into a national organization's bridge design competition. The bridge design wins a prize. However, the entry fails to credit Engineer B for his part of the design.
Question:
Was it ethical for Engineer A to fail to give credit to Engineer B for his part in the design?
What sections of the NSPE Code of Ethics would most directly apply in this case?
6. NSPE Case No. 88-7:Public Criticism of Bridge Safety
Facts:
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. Her 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 her 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.
Question:
Was it ethical for Engineer A to agree to perform an investigation for the newspaper in the manner stated?
What sections of the NSPE Code of Ethics would most directly apply in this case?
Ethics Case Studies