ENGR0011/0711 Section
Group #
ENGINEERING ETHICS
Connor McKain ()
1
Connor McKain
INTRODUCTION
After graduating from the University of Pittsburgh with a degree in mechanical engineering, I was able to obtain my dream job working at a large engineering firm in the mechanical engineering department. After growing up in Pittsburgh, I was familiar with Baker Engineering Incorporated and was honored to work for such a prestigious company. Over a few years I was able to work myway up to the position of project manager. I happily accepted my first assignment in this new position: being placed on a team that produces nanofiltration systems. In particular, the project I am assigned to has just won a contract to redo the entire filtration system for a sports beverage company in their largest U.S. production factory. The company was Gatorade and I was looking forward to working for such a well-known company. After doing a paper on nanofiltration during my freshman year, I became interested in the subject and focused on this cutting-edge technology as a part of my degree. Appropriately, I was assigned to this nanofiltration project and was prepared to use my expertise to create the best product possible.
SITUATION
As a part of my job as project manager in this project I have weekly status meetings in which I am to inform the head of the department on the team’s progress so far. After a few weeks into the project, I am happy with the group’s progress to this point and give positive reports in my weekly meetings. The original schedule for such an extensive project accounting for a huge area and impacting millions of people was projected to take 6 months to complete. However during just my fourth weekly meeting with the head of the department, he informs me of some disturbing news. The leadership in Gatorade, is beginning to doubt the effectiveness of nanofiltration and is strongly considering switching to a more traditional, reverse-osmosis system and hiring a different company to design and install it. The head of the department proceeded to tell me that if my project is not successful, the firm is planning on cutting funding to our department and there is a good chance I will lose my job. In order to save the contract, as well as all of our jobs, the head of the department orders me to push the product to final stages by the end of three months. I insist that we simply can’t do the project in half the originally scheduled time and if we were to put unfinished products in the factory, they won’t be as effective as they should be and could potentially have detrimental effects to the health of the client’s customers. At the very least unfiltered particles could lead to serious illness, and in the worst case scenario, death. Even with this information, the department head maintains that this is a risk we must accept in order to preserve our jobs, the department funding and the reputation of the company. While there is still a high chance that the filters could be installed in the new timeline and work relatively well, they would likely not be as effective as originally anticipated. Although I value my job and the firm’s reputation I am not sure if I am morally comfortable with doing what the head of my department has asked of me.
CODES OF ETHICS
In order to help me in this situation, I thought the most logical place to start was with engineering codes of ethics. The first engineering code of ethics I consulted was that of the National Society of Professional Engineers, as a premier society for engineers today, the National Society of Professional Engineers has one of the most significant ethics codes for engineers. Such a code should be helpful in coming to a decision in my dilemma. After reading through this canon I found a number of points were relevant to my problem. First, in the Fundamental Canons section the first listed rule is to, “Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public” [1]. I immediately recognized the application of this to my situation as the safety and health of any customer who would consume one of the beverages from a not up-to-par filter would be at risk.
Additionally, another fundamental canon about acting for employers contained the statement, “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” [1]. This is directly applicable to my situation due to the fact that my job security as well as funding for my department are both conflicts of interest in this scenario. By not informing the client of these conflicts of interest I would be breaking this canon in the code of ethics.
There was also a section including the idea that engineers should avoid deceptive tasks [1]. By pushing this product through even though it didn’t meet the safety requirements, I wouldn’t necessarily be lying to the client, but it could be considered a deceitful act in which I imply that the product is completely safe, when I know it has not been tested rigorously enough to confirm that.
While these are relevant rules, the most directly applicable rule from this code of ethics was under the professional obligations section in which it is stated, “Engineers shall not complete, sign, or seal plans and/or specifications that are not in conformity with applicable 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” [1]. I think this is a very accurate description of my situation and gives a definite answer of what to do in such a scenario.
In order to cross reference this code, I also reviewed the more specific American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code of Ethics and found the following relevant information, “Engineers uphold and advance the integrity, honor and dignity of the engineering profession by: I. using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfare; II. being honest and impartial, and serving with fidelity their clients (including their employers) and the public” [2]. These principles may be relevant by first, bringing up the point of improving human welfare and secondly by bringing forth the point of honesty. Even though the filters might be adequate if I let them be placed in the factory, they will definitely not be as effective as we informed the client they would be when we originally pitched the plan to them. In my mind this would not the use of knowledge for the enhancement of human welfare. Likewise, by approving this plan I would not consider myself as being honest and impartial. I would be knowingly approving something I did not believe to be completely safe for use. This seems to agree with the National Society of Professional Engineers code which also states, “Engineers shall be guided in all their relations by the highest standards of honesty and integrity” [2]. Both of the aforementioned codes of ethics seem to imply that going through with my department head’s plan would not be ethical, I still want to consider more sources before making my decision.
ETHICS ARTICLES
Next in my decision making process, I decided to review online articles regarding ethics. In addition to the two codes of ethics, I also wanted a non-engineering point of view on ethics. In the article “What is Ethics?” on Santa Clara University’s website the authors first take the approach of defining what ethics is not. One of the key points the article makes is that being ethical is not always doing what feels right [6]. The article goes on to argue that in many situations personal feelings are not what is most ethical. This means that I must put my personal feelings aside when deciding what approach to take with my situation. This article defines as ethics as two things, “First, ethics refers to well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do…”and “secondly, ethics refers to the study and development of one’s ethical standards” [6]. From this definition I determined when making my decision I must first review my own ethics and decide whether or not my personal ethics agree with what humans ought to do in order to put the well-being of society above all else. This article lead me to believe I must do what I believe is correct for humans, even if it goes against what I am being told to do by society or, in my case, a superior. I cross referenced this first article with an article title “What is Ethics in Research & Why is it Important?” by Dr. David B. Resnik. This article focused on ethics in science and seemed to relate well to my situation. One of the focuses of this article was honesty above all else. In a summary of ethical principles the article states, “Strive for honesty in all scientific communications. Honestly report data, results, methods and procedures and publication status” [7]. This is extremely relevant to my situation. By approving the installation of these filters I would have to falsify the data and report a positive result when I know it is not. This article coincides with the previous article’s principle of doing what is right even if it goes against what one is being told to do. These articles will definitely have a large impact in determining how I deal with this situation.
CASE STUDIES
In addition to the codes of ethics, I also consulted a number of case studies to aid in my decision making process. In my research I was able to find case studies that I found applicable to my situation. First, in Ethics Case 1010: “What’s the Angle?” on Texas Technology University’s database of case studies. In this case study, an engineer named Julie, is privy to dangerous information in a building she is evaluating while it is in the process of being sold. She is informed that a clip that holds the granite facing in place is almost entirely rusted through. This is dangerous and could have serious consequences when it rusts all the way through, however she is not required to include a report of such items in her evaluation [3]. So Julie orally informs her supervisor of the situation. He tells her that it’s too late in the process and not her responsibility anyway. He tells her to approve the building anyway [3]. This situation is relatable to mine because of the fact that her supervisor is telling her to do something she is not sure she is comfortable with. On the website, practicing engineers as well as engineering students from over 100 schools are able to vote on what they would do in the scenario. For this case 23% picked chose the option to, “Write a separate report to Smith describing the condition of the observed clip angles, recommending that the building be closed immediately and the adjacent sidewalks and portions of streets which could be effected by falling granite veneer blocks be cordoned off” [3]. This could be a good starting point when addressing my situation.Similar to my scenario, Julie would have to go against direct order of a supervisor. The voters on this website seem to have reached the consensus that sometimes personal ethics can override the orders of a superior.
In another case study I consulted on nspe.org, a fire protection engineer experienced a similar situation to the first case study. This engineer discovers that a fire alarm in the residential unit he is hired to review can’t be heard in all the residential units in the building [4]. He includes this information in his report, but is informed that the renovation project is delayed so the issue will not be addressed until more funding is obtained. Although the engineer has technically done all that was required of him in the job he was hired to do, the national society of professional engineers concludes that, by citing the code of ethics, the engineer has an ethical obligation to go further and inform the client of the problem in order to prevent further risks associated with it [4]. The case study elaborates saying that, “If Engineer A determines there is an imminent and ongoing risk to the health, and welfare of the building occupants, and if the Client does not address these Engineer A would be obligated to report the violation to code enforcement officials” [4]. In this situation, Engineer A should go beyond his obligations as an employee in order protect the welfare of occupants of the building. The theme of valuing human life over professional obligations could apply to my situation as well due to the fact that welfare and possibly lives could be at risk by allowing these filters to be installed.
Finally, I found a case study in which someone lied in order to further their own self interests. In the case study “Honesty’s Always the Best Policy”, on webguru.neu.edu’s data base of ethics case studies, a student named Raj lies about his test scores and GPA in order be hired at a research institute [5]. This case study was based on the real life actions of MIT director of undergraduate admissions who had misrepresented her own academic history [5]. The case study suggested that the fictional Raj, “should think through the consequences of misrepresenting himself and discuss his situation with a trusted friend or advisor before he makes a terrible mistake” [5]. I believe this case study is applicable to my situation because by approving the plans I would be misrepresenting not only myself, but also the honesty and respectability of my company. In all of these case studies it seems that the individuals had to choose a situation where their personal ethics were at risk even though they might have been able to get away with making the less ethical choice. In my situation, while it is possible that the majority of people would not be impacted by the faulty filters, I would still be making a choice to knowingly put people at risk against my personal judgement.
PERSONAL SOURCES
As a certified public accountant who has spent the majority of his professional career working in government finance, ethics are very important to my father and his profession as a whole. As my father he has also been a source of moral and ethical guidance and I can trust him with anything. When I presented him with my situation he recalled when working in county government, people and companies would urge him to rush contracts through the government approval process. Although he could technically do it and there is a high chance nothing would go wrong, it would still be unethical because there’s still a chance a mistake could be made or an error in the contract could be found [8]. For this reason my father said he would never push these contracts through. Even if he believed it would go through without error, it was not ethical and therefore he wouldn’t do it. In my situation, even if I thought the filters would work fine, there is always a chance someone could be harmed by them so it would not be ethical for me to approve them.
Another personal resource I consulted in this decision is Tom Donatelli. Mr. Donatelli is a family friend and has been in the engineering field for over 45 years. I have always valued his opinion, especially in engineering related issues. As a part of his job at Baker Engineering Incorporated, Mr. Donatelli is required to review and sign the code of ethics every year. He informed me of ethical situations involving conflict of interests. He told me that there is a state ethics law which states that public employees are not permitted to work for the agency that once employed them for a year after they leave or quit [9]. He said this came into play very often when his company would hire interns that once worked for a state agency. These employees would then have very strict rules on how they could interact with that state agency. Although, in my position I was not involved in the hiring process, I still was in situation with a conflict of interests. Just like I could approve the plans and there’s a chance nothing bad would happen, so too could the employees interact with their former employee without consequences, however both decisions would be unethical due to the conflict of interests involved in each case.
DECISION
This was one of the hardest decisions I have ever had to make. Even though all of my resources seemed to point me in the same direction, I still had to consider my own job and livelihood as well as the fate of my department. The codes of ethics I reviewed led me to believe the right thing to do would be to not sign the papers and inform the CEO of the company about the report and the head of the department’s actions. The ethics articles have also convinced me that in this situation I must value what is right for the people involved over the orders of a superior and my job. Finally, my personal experiences encouraged me to do what is right no matter how safe it may appear to take the unethical path.
For these reasons I have come to the conclusion that the right action to take in this scenario would be to not approve the plans with the new timeline. Furthermore, I would inform the CEO of the head of the company’s orders to me and allow him to choose the disciplinary action. Finally, I would meet with the hierarchy of the Gatorade Company and inform them that our department simply can’t do the project without the originally planned timeline and to do it in any less time would be putting the health of their customers at risk. Overall I am comfortable that this is the correct decision and I will use it to influence my future choices when faced with ethical dilemmas.