The Online Ethics Center for Engineering & Science - Department of ...

Online Ethics Center: NSPE Code of Ethics for EngineersNational Society of ProfessionalEngineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics forEngineersPreambleI. Fundamental CanonsII. Rules of PracticeIII. Professional ObligationsStatement by NSPE Executive CommitteePreambleEngineering is an important and learned profession. As members of this profession, engineers areexpected to exhibit the highest standards of honesty and integrity. Engineering has a direct and vitalimpact on the quality of life for all people. Accordingly, the services provided by engineers requirehonesty, impartiality, fairness and equity, and must be dedicated to the protection of the public health,safety and welfare. Engineers must perform under a standard of professional behavior which requiresadherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct.Back to topI. Fundamental CanonsEngineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall: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.6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically and lawfully so as to enhance the honor,reputation and usefulness of the profession.Back to tophttp://www.onlineethics.org/codes/NSPEcode.html (1 of 7) [10/15/2004 11:17:57 AM]

Online Ethics Center: NSPE Code of Ethics for EngineersII. Rules of Practice1. 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, theyshall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate.b. Engineers shall approve only those engineering documents which are in conformity withapplicable standards.c. Engineers shall not reveal facts, data or information without the prior consent of the client oremployer 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 anyperson or firm which they believe are engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise.e. Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon toappropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities, and cooperate withthe proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required.2. Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their competence.a. Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in thespecific technical fields involved.b. Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents dealing with subject matterin which they lack competence, nor to any plan or document not prepared under their directionand control.c. Engineers may accept assignments and assume responsibility for coordination of an entireproject and sign and seal the engineering documents for the entire project, provided that eachtechnical segment is signed and sealed only by the qualified engineers who prepared the segment.3. 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. Theyshall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements or testimony, whichshould bear the date indicating when it was current.b. Engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge of thefacts and competence in the subject matter.http://www.onlineethics.org/codes/NSPEcode.html (2 of 7) [10/15/2004 11:17:57 AM]

Online Ethics Center: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineersc. Engineers shall issue no statements, criticisms or arguments on technical matters which areinspired or paid for by interested parties, unless they have prefaced their comments by explicitlyidentifying the interested parties on whose behalf they are speaking, and by revealing theexistence of any interest the engineers may have in the matters.4. Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.a. Engineers shall disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest which could influence orappear to influence their judgment or the quality of their services.b. Engineers shall not accept compensation, financial or otherwise, from more than one party forservices on the same project, or for services pertaining to the same project, unless thecircumstances are fully disclosed and agreed to by all interested parties.c. Engineers shall not solicit or accept financial or other valuable consideration, directly orindirectly, from outside agents in connection with the work for which they are responsible.d. Engineers in public service as members, advisors or employees of a governmental or quasigovernmentalbody or department shall not participate in decisions with respect to servicessolicited or provided by them or their organizations in private or public engineering practice.e. Engineers shall not solicit or accept a contract from a governmental body on which a principalor officer of their organization serves as a member.5. Engineers shall avoid deceptive acts.Back to topa. Engineers shall not falsify their qualifications or permit misrepresentation of their, or theirassociates' qualifications. They shall not misrepresent or exaggerate their responsibility in or forthe subject matter of prior assignments. Brochures or other presentations incident to thesolicitation of employment shall not misrepresent pertinent facts concerning employers,employees, associates, joint venturers or past accomplishments.b. Engineers shall not offer, give, solicit or receive, either directly or indirectly, any contributionto influence the award of a contract by public authority, or which may be reasonably construed bythe public as having the effect of intent to influencing the awarding of a contract. They shall notoffer any gift, or other valuable consideration in order to secure work. They shall not pay acommission, percentage or brokerage fee in order to secure work, except to a bona fide employeeor bona fide established commercial or marketing agencies retained by them.III. Professional Obligationshttp://www.onlineethics.org/codes/NSPEcode.html (3 of 7) [10/15/2004 11:17:57 AM]

Online Ethics Center: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers1. Engineers shall be guided in all their relations by the highest standards of honesty and integrity.a. Engineers shall acknowledge their errors and shall not distort or alter the facts.b. Engineers shall advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not besuccessful.c. Engineers shall not accept outside employment to the detriment of their regular work orinterest. Before accepting any outside engineering employment they will notify their employers.d. Engineers shall not attempt to attract an engineer from another employer by false or misleadingpretenses.e. Engineers shall not actively participate in strikes, picket lines, or other collective coerciveaction.f. Engineers shall not promote their own interest at the expense of the dignity and integrity of theprofession.2. Engineers shall at all times strive to serve the public interest.a. Engineers shall seek opportunities to participate in civic affairs; career guidance for youths; andwork for the advancement of the safety, health and well-being of their community.b. Engineers shall not complete, sign or seal plans and/or specifications that are not in conformitywith applicable engineering standards. If the client or employer insists on such unprofessionalconduct, they shall notify the proper authorities and withdraw from further service on the project.c. Engineers shall endeavor to extend public knowledge and appreciation of engineering and itsachievements.3. Engineers shall avoid all conduct or practice which deceives the public.a. Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact oromitting a material fact.b. Consistent with the foregoing, Engineers may advertise for recruitment of personnel.c. Consistent with the foregoing, Engineers may prepare articles for the lay or technical press, butsuch articles shall not imply credit to the author for work performed by others.4. Engineers shall not disclose, without consent, confidential information concerning the businessaffairs or technical processes of any present or former client or employer, or public body on whichthey serve.http://www.onlineethics.org/codes/NSPEcode.html (4 of 7) [10/15/2004 11:17:57 AM]

Online Ethics Center: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineersa. Engineers shall not, without the consent of all interested parties, promote or arrange for newemployment or practice in connection with a specific project for which the Engineer has gainedparticular and specialized knowledge.b. Engineers shall not, without the consent of all interested parties, participate in or represent anadversary interest in connection with a specific project or proceeding in which the Engineer hasgained particular specialized knowledge on behalf of a former client or employer.5. Engineers shall not be influenced in their professional duties by conflicting interests.a. Engineers shall not accept financial or other considerations, including free engineering designs,from material or equipment suppliers for specifying their product.b. Engineers shall not accept commissions or allowances, directly or indirectly, from contractorsor other parties dealing with clients or employers of the Engineer in connection with work forwhich the Engineer is responsible.6. Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagementsby untruthfully criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or questionable methods.a. Engineers shall not request, propose, or accept a commission on a contingent basis undercircumstances in which their judgment may be compromised.b. Engineers in salaried positions shall accept part-time engineering work only to the extentconsistent with policies of the employer and in accordance with ethical considerations.c. Engineers shall not, without consent, use equipment, supplies, laboratory, or office facilities ofan employer to carry on outside private practice.7. Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professionalreputation, prospects, practice or employment of other engineers. Engineers who believe othersare guilty of unethical or illegal practice shall present such information to the proper authority foraction.a. Engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client,except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with thework has been terminated.b. Engineers in governmental, industrial or educational employ are entitled to review and evaluatethe work of other engineers when so required by their employment duties.c. Engineers in sales or industrial employ are entitled to make engineering comparisons ofrepresented products with products of other suppliers.8. 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 thanhttp://www.onlineethics.org/codes/NSPEcode.html (5 of 7) [10/15/2004 11:17:57 AM]

Online Ethics Center: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineersgross negligence, where the Engineer's interests cannot otherwise be protected.a. Engineers shall conform with state registration laws in the practice of engineering.b. Engineers shall not use association with a non engineer, a corporation, or partnership as a"cloak" for unethical acts.9. Engineers shall give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due, and willrecognize the proprietary interests of others.a. Engineers shall, whenever possible, name the person or persons who may be individuallyresponsible for designs, inventions, writings, or other accomplishments.b. Engineers using designs supplied by a client recognize that the designs remain the property ofthe client and may not be duplicated by the Engineer for others without express permission.c. Engineers, before undertaking work for others in connection with which the Engineer maymake improvements, plans, designs, inventions, or other records that may justify copyrights orpatents, should enter into a positive agreement regarding ownership.d. Engineers' designs, data, records, and notes referring exclusively to an employer's work are theemployer's property. Employer should indemnify the Engineer for use of the information for anypurpose other than the original purpose.As Revised July 1996"By order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, former Section 11(c) of theNSPE Code of Ethics prohibiting competitive bidding, and all policy statements, opinions, rulings orother guidelines interpreting its scope, have been rescinded as unlawfully interfering with the legal rightof engineers, protected under the antitrust laws, to provide price information to prospective clients;accordingly, nothing contained in the NSPE Code of Ethics, policy statements, opinions, rulings or otherguidelines prohibits the submission of price quotations or competitive bids for engineering services atany time or in any amount."Back to topStatement by NSPE Executive CommitteeIn order to correct misunderstandings which have been indicated in some instances since the issuance ofthe Supreme Court decision and the entry of the Final Judgment, it is noted that in its decision of April25, 1978, the Supreme Court of the United States declared: "The Sherman Act does not requirecompetitive bidding."http://www.onlineethics.org/codes/NSPEcode.html (6 of 7) [10/15/2004 11:17:57 AM]

Online Ethics Center: NSPE Code of Ethics for EngineersIt is further noted that as made clear in the Supreme Court decision:1. Engineers and firms may individually refuse to bid for engineering services.2. Clients are not required to seek bids for engineering services.3. Federal, state, and local laws governing procedures to procure engineering services are notaffected, and remain in full force and effect.4. State societies and local chapters are free to actively and aggressively seek legislation forprofessional selection and negotiation procedures by public agencies.5. State registration board rules of professional conduct, including rules prohibiting competitivebidding for engineering services, are not affected and remain in full force and effect. Stateregistration boards with authority to adopt rules of professional conduct may adopt rulesgoverning procedures to obtain engineering services.6. As noted by the Supreme Court, "nothing in the judgment prevents NSPE and its members fromattempting to influence governmental action . . ."NOTE: In regard to the question of application of the Code to corporations vis-a-vis real persons,business form or type should not negate nor influence conformance of individuals to the Code. The Codedeals with professional services, which services must be performed by real persons. Real persons in turnestablish and implement policies within business structures. The Code is clearly written to apply to theEngineer and items incumbent on members of NSPE to endeavor to live up to its provisions. This appliesto all pertinent sections of the Code.Go to the NSPE web siteReturn to the Index of Codes of Ethicshttp://www.onlineethics.org/codes/NSPEcode.html (7 of 7) [10/15/2004 11:17:57 AM]

The Online Ethics Center for Engineering & ScienceWelcome to the Online Ethics Center forEngineering and ScienceOur mission is to provide engineers, scientists, and science and engineering students with resources forunderstanding and addressing ethically significant problems that arise in their work, and to serve thosewho are promoting learning and advancing the understanding of responsible research and practice inscience and engineering.We occasionally sponsor conferences located in physical space, such as the International Conference onEthics in Engineering and Computer Science in 1999. In other respects, the Online Ethics Center existsonly in "cyberspace" and provides materials exclusively by posting them on these pages.Upcoming ConferencesConferences and calls for papers related to Science and Engineering Ethics.Contents of the Online Ethics Center (OEC)Annotated list of the main sections of the OECGeneral guide to the materials and structure of the OECAn explaination of the purpose and function of the OEC.ABET Readiness Committee handbookA response to brief guide to help prepare the engineering faculty of Case Western ReserveUniversity to address ethical issues in their teaching.Undergraduate Education in Practical EthicsA teaching plan with sample assignments for engineering students from the OEC.Ethics Help-LineThe Help-Line, which is co-sponsored by the IEEE, provides advice for engineers, scientists, andtrainees encountering ethical problems in their work and to assist scientists and engineers inmaintaining high ethical standards and in acting wisely when confronted with multiple andpotentially conflicting responsibilities, even where this may lead to conflicts with organizationalsuperiors. We do not conduct investigations.http://onlineethics.org/ (1 of 3) [10/13/2004 1:22:03 PM]

The Online Ethics Center for Engineering & ScienceContents of the Online Ethics Center:Engineering PracticeMany cases, discussions, and ethical guidelines that on the professional responsibilities ofengineers, including discussion cases based on those from the NSPE Board of Ethical ReviewResearch EthicsAlong with many reference materials, this section includes materials original to the Online EthicsCenter such as Group Mentoring for the Responsible Research Conduct a modular sequence ofmaterials on the responsible conduct of research that foster group mentoring in responsibleresearch conduct within departments or labs. The method for Group Mentoring is described in"Beyond Adversarial Ethics: Web Resources for Solving Problems About Research Conduct".The collection of cases from the APPE's five volumes, collection of cases for medical schoolsettings, and many relevant reports from the recent National Bioethics Advisory Commission(NBAC) are also available here.DiversityStudies on gender or ethnicity, statistics on women and minorities, mentoring of new faculty,women in the national academy of engineering, and points to other resources on women andminorities including actual casesMoral LeadersDetailed hypermedia cases in which engineers or scientists showed exemplary behavior infulfilling their professional responsibilities or in acting for the public goodComputers and SoftwareCases, discussions, and ethical guidelines bearing on the professional responsibilities of computerscientists, computer engineers, and software designers and engineersNatural SciencesCases, discussions, and ethical guidelines bearing on the professional responsibilities of scientistsand engineers in biology, genetics, chemistry, and other sciences.Subsidiary SectionsCodes of EthicsA sampling of guidelines and codes of ethics from scientific and engineering professionalsocieties from several countries. Some are also available in SpanishBibliographyon Ethics in Engineering and Science.Glossaryof terms used on the Online Ethics Center.OrganizationsGuide to Acronyms and AbbreviationsAbout Ushttp://onlineethics.org/ (2 of 3) [10/13/2004 1:22:03 PM]

The Online Ethics Center for Engineering & ScienceInformation about the team that makes up the Online Ethics Center.Cite OEC, Link to OEC, Submit your link to OECInstructions on citing material from the Online Ethics Center (or other web sources) and onlinking to the OEC pages, as well as how to submit a link to your website for inclusion on theOEC links to other sites.The Center for Professional Ethics at CWRUEstablished in 1980 "to provide opportunities for students, faculty, administrators andprofessionals to explore more fully the foundations of personal and professional ethics."CWRU Center for Biomedical EthicsEstablished in 1987 to improve public and professional understanding of the ethical issuesinvolved in health sciences research, health care delivery, and health policy development.Links to Other Ethics Web SitesOther sites about Engineering and Science Ethics.Topics IndexA list of major topics in science and engineering ethics with links to our pages that address thosetopics, many of which contain a brief guide to the literature on those topics.Spanish IndexA selection of cases, essays and codes of ethics originally in Spanish and/or translated from ourEnglish pages.These pages are best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0 or higher, Netscape Navigator 4.0 orhigher, Mozilla 1.2.1 or higher, and Opera 5.0 or higher.http://onlineethics.org/ (3 of 3) [10/13/2004 1:22:03 PM]

Online Ethics Center: Engineers and Scientists as Moral ExemplarsEngineers and Scientists as MoralExemplarsThis section gives detailed stories of scientists and engineers in difficult circumstances who havedemonstrated wisdom that enabled them to fulfill their responsibilities as scientists and engineers. Theiractions provide guidance for others who want to do the right thing in circumstances that are similarlydifficult. Many of our stories of moral leadership are illustrated with graphics.Roger Boisjoly on the Challenger DisasterRoger Boisjoly discusses in seven sections his attempts to avert the launch of the Space ShuttleChallenger. Boisjoly has spent his entire career making well-informed decisions based on hisunderstanding of and belief in a professional engineer's rights and responsibilities. For his honestyand integrity leading up to and directly following the shuttle disaster, he was awarded the Prizefor Scientific Freedom and Responsibility by the American Association for the Advancement ofScience. Includes a Quicktime Movie of the disaster and other supporting materials.Inez Austin: Protecting the Public Safety at the Hanford Nuclear ReservationThis site presents the case of whistleblower Inez Austin as an example of someone who, even inthe face of overwhelming adversity, followed her ethical convictions and refused to sanction aprocedure she believed to be unsafe. The information in this site is drawn from extensive personalcommunications with Inez Austin.Fred Cuny's Innovations to Lessen the Suffering of RefugeesFred Cuny was a disaster relief specialist who used his training in engineering to do humanitarianwork. He worked in countries such as Biafra, Guatemala, Ethiopia, Iraq, Somalia, and Bosnia. InMarch 1995, he disappeared in Chechnya and was never found. The story of his work is told in 8sections and includes supplementary materials and pictures.Rachel Carson's Campaign to Control the Use of PesticidesDuring the seventeen years she worked in the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Rachel Carsonlearned about the problems of pesticides. Undaunted by the chemical companies' hostility and bythe public's high enthusiasm for pesticides, she wrote a book called Silent Spring, which caused amajor shift in public consciousness about the environment. Told in 7 sections and includessupplementary materials and pictures.William LeMessurier and The Fifty-Nine-Story Crisis: A Lesson in Professional BehaviorWilliam LeMessurier served as design and construction consultant on the innovative Citicorpheadquarters tower, which was completed in 1977 in New York. The next year, after a collegestudent studying the tower design had called him to point out a possible deficiency, LeMessurierdiscovered that the building was indeed structurally deficient. LeMessurier faced a complex anddifficult problem of professional responsibility in which he had to alert a broad group of people tothe structural deficiency and enlist their cooperation in repairing the deficiency before a hurricanebrought the building down.http://onlineethics.org/moral/index.html (1 of 2) [10/13/2004 1:24:05 PM]

Online Ethics Center: Roger Boisjoly and the Challenger DisasterTexto en EspañolRoger Boisjoly and the ChallengerDisasterRoger Boisjoly had over a quarter-century's experience in the aerospace industry in 1985 when hebecame involved in an improvement effort on the O-rings which connect segments of Morton Thiokol'sSolid Rocket Booster, used to bring the Space Shuttle into orbit. Boisjoly has spent his entire careermaking well-informed decisions based on his understanding of and belief in a professional engineer'srights and responsibilities. For his honesty and integrity leading up to and directly following the shuttledisaster, Roger Boisjoly was awarded the Prize for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility by theAmerican Association for the Advancement of Science. Mr. Boisjoly offers lectures and workshops onchanging workplace ethics, a subject on which he has also spoken at MIT. Video resources are alsoavailable.The Challenger Disasterhttp://onlineethics.org/moral/boisjoly/RB-intro.html (1 of 3) [10/13/2004 1:24:08 PM]

Online Ethics Center: Roger Boisjoly and the Challenger DisasterJanuary 28, 1986. Two video clips of the Challenger Explosion from CNN: 2M QuickTime Movie(320x240) and 1M QuickTime Movie (160x120)In January of 1987, nearly a full year after the Challenger exploded, Roger Boisjoly spoke at MIT abouthis attempts to avert the disaster during the year preceding the Challenger launch. According to theReport of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, "evidence pointed tothe right solid rocket booster as the source of the accident." In 1985 Boisjoly began work to improve theO-ring seals which connect segments of Morton Thiokol's solid rocket booster. Boisjoly was frustratedwith the slow progress and the lack of management attention to the seal task force. He spoke about theevents leading up to the disaster in this address.Boisjoly's discussion of the Challenger Disaster is separated into seven sections. Each section is thenfollowed by some possible responses. To see discussion of any response, click on the link to it.Supporting material is also provided. You may want to consult some of it in deciding what you wouldhave done in Roger Boisjoly's place at each stage of the story.Seven Part Discussion of the Challenger DisasterI. Discovering Leaks in the Primary SealII. Early Evidence of a Temperature EffectIII. Being Asked to Soften the Urgency of the O-ring ProblemIV. Frustration with Lack of Management SupportV. Temperature Forecast for Challenger FlightVI. A Management Decision Overrides a Recommendation not to LaunchVII. The Explosion of the ChallengerSupporting Materialhttp://onlineethics.org/moral/boisjoly/RB-intro.html (2 of 3) [10/13/2004 1:24:08 PM]

Online Ethics Center: Roger Boisjoly and the Challenger DisasterMorton Thiokol and the Space Shuttle Challenger DisasterEssay by Roger Boisjoly. A background summary of important events leading to the Challengerdisaster starting with January, 1985, plus the specifics of the telecon meeting held the night priorto the launch at which an attempt was made to stop the launch by the Morton Thiokol engineers.In the essay he argues that the off-line telecon caucus by Morton Thiokol Management constitutedthe unethical decision-making forum which ultimately produced the management decision tolaunch Challenger without any restrictions.7/31/85 Memo about O-Ring Erosion8/22/85 Memo from A.R. Thompson on the Flight SealWhat Went Wrong With the Solid Rocket BoosterMorton Thiokol Wasatch Division Corporate StructureReport of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger AccidentRepresentation and Misrepresentation: Tufte and the Morton Thiokol Engineers on the ChallengerVideo ResourcesA Major Malfunction:A 3 part video program and instructional module containing a pedagogical documentary aboutorganizational politics, ethics and decision making. To order this video contact Dr. Mark Maier:email: mmaier@chapman.eduA videotape of the talk given at MIT by Boisjoly,edited to show the stages of the problem as he faced it (paralleling the presentation on these Webpages) is available from Roger Boisjoly. You may contact him by email at: boisjoly@sisna.comDistance Learning with Roger BoisjolyMr. Boisjoly offers lectures and workshops on changing workplace ethics, a subject on which hehas also spoken at MIT.This page and supporting pages were originally created by Jagruti S. Patel and Phil Sarin.Citation information for these pages: Roger Boisjoly presented this material first in a talk in January1987 at MIT. The first publication was in the volume of conference papers for the 1987 Annual Meetingsof the American Society of Mechanical Engineers in fall 1987.Boisjoly, Roger M. 1987. Ethical Decisions -- Morton Thiokol and the Space Shuttle ChallengerDisaster. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Annual Meetings.http://onlineethics.org/moral/boisjoly/RB-intro.html (3 of 3) [10/13/2004 1:24:08 PM]

Online Ethics Center: Responsible Research IndexResponsible ResearchThis section of the OEC contains cases, discussions, guidelines, and regulations bearing on theresponsible conduct of research, including both issues of research integrity and issues of the treatment ofthe research subject.Research conditions described in the cases, scenarios, and dramatic readings range over a variety ofdisciplines, from engineering and computer science, the physical and life sciences to medicine.Essays on Research EthicsThree essays concerning research ethics, authorship status, and issues of trustworthiness.ScenariosScenarios, cases, commentary and role plays focusing on problems arising in a variety of researchsetting (natural science, engineering, psychology and social science, medical school). Some aredesigned for audiences of students and other trainees. Others are designed for learning bydepartments or laboratories including research supervisors and technical staff as well as trainees.Educational ResourcesContains materials for courses or educational sequences on the responsible conduct of researchthat support a series of activities for student-faculty learning. Included here are discussion andinterview questions, readings, applicable policies and standards, scenarios that present ethicalproblems common in research, articles on research misconduct and Web Sites on Research Ethics.Addressing Problems in Research EthicsProblems submitted by visitors to the OEC and examined by students for their projects (problemsituations followed by interviews with knowledgeable people on how best to address thoseproblems). Included here are research, academic, industry, and government scenarios.Reference MaterialsA wide range of applicable references including Federal Policy on Research Misconduct,guidelines on responsible publication practices from the American Chemical Society and from theInternational Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the Helsinki Declaration, the NurembergCode, Web Sites on the Protection of Human Subjects, and Web Sites on the Welfare of AnimalsUsed in Research.http://onlineethics.org/reseth/index.html [10/13/2004 1:25:06 PM]

Online Ethics Center: Scenarios about Responsible ResearchResponsible Research ScenariosAPPE Graduate Ethics Research: Cases and CommentariesThese cases and commentaries result from a series of workshops on Graduate Research EthicsEducation, held at Indiana University, Bloomington, from 1996 to 2000. The project broughttogether many graduate and post-doctoral students in the natural sciences for a study of researchethics and reflects the experiences and problems they face. The project was sponsored by theNational Science Foundation (NSF Grant No. SBR 9421897) to the Association for Practicaland Professional Ethics (APPE); The Office of Research, University Graduate School, andPoynter Center for the Study of Ethics and American Institutions all at Indiana University.Scenarios in the Responsible Conduct of Research for Student-Faculty DiscussionThese scenarios are part of a modular sequence of materials on the responsible conduct ofresearch that support group activities for student-faculty learning. Topics include, Data handling,Research with Animals and Vulnerable Human Subjects (children, mentally ill), Editing andReviewing, and Authorship.NSPE Cases on Research EthicsThese scenarios and discussion questions are based upon cases reviewed by the Board of EthicalReview (BER) for the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE). The NSPE BERreviews cases with the specific purpose of making an ethical judgment on the actions of (only) theengineers in the cases, based solely on the NSPE Code of Ethics. The Board's original statementof the case and its judgment on it are linked to each case statement.Classical Psychological StudiesThese are studies that raise issues of research ethics. Three examples from a larger collection raiseethical issues of: the deception of experimental subjects, the limits on risks and suffering to whichpatient subjects should be subjected in studies of treatment efficacy, and the constraints on thetreatment of higher animals in the quest for new information about brain function.Abstracts of Articles About Scientific MisconductA very few of the abstracts of published articles about cases of misconduct from Robert Sprague'scollection of cases. The articles are listed according to the kind of scientific misconduct they areabout.Problems and Standards in Research EthicsThese scenarios and role plays present problems in research ethics common in a medical schoolsetting. The problems range from those of acknowledging help and keeping research records, tothose of conflicting priorities among members of a laboratory and the responsibilities of facultyadvisory committees.Back to Responsible Conduct of Research Indexhttp://onlineethics.org/reseth/scenarios.html [10/13/2004 1:25:10 PM]

Online Ethics Center: Graduate Ethics Research: Cases and CommentariesGraduate Research Ethics: Cases andCommentariesBrian Schrag, EditorAssociation for Practical and Professional EthicsBloomington, Indiana Prepared under NSF Grant No. SBR 941897These cases and commentaries result from a series of workshops on Graduate Research Ethics Education,held at Indiana University, Bloomington, from 1996 to 2000. The project brought together manygraduate and post-doctoral students in the natural sciences for a study of research ethics and reflects theexperiences and problems they face. The project was sponsored by the National Science Foundation(NSF Grant No. SBR 9421897) to the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics (APPE); TheOffice of Research, University Graduate School, and Poynter Center for the Study of Ethics andAmerican Institutions, all at Indiana University.● Volume 1, 1997● Volume 2, 1998● Volume 3, 1999● Volume 4, 2000● Volume 5, 2001● Volume 6, 2002Volume 1:Section 1. Faculty Responsibility to Graduate Students●The Successful Side BusinessSection 2. Faculty Collaboration with Students; Authorshiphttp://onlineethics.org/reseth/appe/index.html (1 of 7) [10/13/2004 1:25:20 PM]

Online Ethics Center: Graduate Ethics Research: Cases and Commentaries●●●Informal Discussions / Formal AuthorityThe Lisa Bach CaseTo Publish AloneSection 3. Calloboration, Intellectual Contribution, Authorship●●●Jack Fry's InterviewThe Temporary Post-DocSo You Wanted to be a Co-AuthorSection 4. Intellectual Property, Collaboration●●●The Statute of LimitationsOwnership of Knowledge and Graduate EducationProtection from Proposal Idea Scooping?Section 5. Research on Human Subjects -- Dead or Alive●●●●●Do the Ends Justify the Means? The Ethics of Deception in Social Science ResearchEthical Issues in Longitudinal Research with At-Risk Children and AdolescentsBlowing the Whistle on a Therapeutic ExperimentInformed Consent for Use of Stored SpecimensWith Bones of Contention: Repatriation of Human RemainsVolume 2:Section 1. Authorship●●●When in Rome: Conventions in Assignment of AuthorshipThe Co-authorship ControversySherry's SecretSection 2. Intellectual Property●●Bad ChemistryTo Review or Not: Reviewing the Competitionhttp://onlineethics.org/reseth/appe/index.html (2 of 7) [10/13/2004 1:25:20 PM]

Online Ethics Center: Graduate Ethics Research: Cases and Commentaries●New Technology -- Who Is the DesignerSection 3. Mentor Relations●●●Questions on the Topic of Whistle BlowingConfidentiality ConcernsToday's SpecialsSection 4. Research on Animals and Humans●●●●Counting Sheep: Ethical Problems in Animal ResearchChanging the SubjectInformed Consent and the Collection of Biological Samples from Indigenous PopulationsScientific Research and the Autonomy of Indigenous Peoples: The Case of the Kennewick ManSection 5. Compromising Research●●●●Beyond Expertise: One Person's Science, Another Person's PolicyCrashing Into LawBarking Up the Wrong Tree? Industry Funding of Academic ResearchThe Incomplete Technical PresentationVolume 3:Section 1. Laboratory Management of Research●●●●Whose Lab Is It?The Communism of ScienceRelated ResearchHazardous MaterialSection 2. Mentor Responsibilites●●Mentor Support?O, What a Tangled Web We Weave!Section 3. Integrity in Researchhttp://onlineethics.org/reseth/appe/index.html (3 of 7) [10/13/2004 1:25:20 PM]

Online Ethics Center: Graduate Ethics Research: Cases and Commentaries●●●●●Reviewer Confidentiality vs. Mentor Responsibilities: A Conflict of ObligationsCollaboration and CreditOwing Your Soul to the Pharmaceutical StoreTruth or ConsequencesThe Chance MeetingSection 4. Human Subjects Research●●●●Complex ConcernsEthical Issues in Research with ChildrenDoes HIV Affect All? Researcher's Duty to WarnPolitical PointsSection 5. Policy Issues●●●Stuff and Things: Paying for PublicationThe Admissions CommitteeFrom Fundamental Physics to the Private SectorVolume 4:Section 1. Research with Human and Animal Subjects●●●Music Therapy: Research on Human Subjects with Mental DisordersForbidden KnowledgeThe Gladiator Sparrow: Ethical Issues in Behavioral Research on Captive Populations of WildAnimalsSection 2. Mentor/Faculty Responsibilities●●●●●●Who Controls Where Information Will Be Published?Who Framed Roger's Data?To Control or Not To Control?The Final ExamA Young Woman's Struggle for PeaceFair Playhttp://onlineethics.org/reseth/appe/index.html (4 of 7) [10/13/2004 1:25:20 PM]

Online Ethics Center: Graduate Ethics Research: Cases and CommentariesSection 3. Mutual Responsibilities in Collaborative Research●In Need of A Helping HandSection 4. Authorship●●Single Author PaperStudent PublishesSection 5. Professional Responsibilities in Consulting●●Vote Early and OftenA Second StorySection 6. Multiple Roles of Public Scientists●The Federal Scientist: Multiple Roles and Moral IssuesVolume 5:Section 1. Research on Humans●●●●●An Impoverished StudentPregnancy ResultsCrossing Cultural Barriers: Informed Consent in Developing CountriesBut For the Fear of What You Might Find OutPI or Private InvestigatorSection 2. The Use of Animals●The Painful ExperienceSection 3. Authorship●●●SeminarPatent Authorship: Whose DNA is it anyway?To Be or Not To Be Includedhttp://onlineethics.org/reseth/appe/index.html (5 of 7) [10/13/2004 1:25:20 PM]

Online Ethics Center: Graduate Ethics Research: Cases and CommentariesSection 4. Relationships in the Lab●●●●●The Hardware LabMuch ObligedPreliminary DataWhat a Site!The Slave Driver vs. the Lazy StudentSection 5. Scientists' Social Responsibilities●A pHish TaleVolume 6:Section 1. Faculty Responsibilities●●●●●●●Responsibilities to Undergraduate and Graduate StudentsFriendship vs. AuthorshipThe Graduate Student LaborerThe Under-Prepared StudentMaking the GradeHow Much Help Is Too Much?Too Much Help Is Not EnoughSection 2. Collegial Relations and Research Collaboration●●●●Post-Doc BluesThe Rat RaceRichard’s Radioactive RiskThe Extended ProjectSection 3. Authorship●●Left in the DarkAuthorshiphttp://onlineethics.org/reseth/appe/index.html (6 of 7) [10/13/2004 1:25:20 PM]

Online Ethics Center: Graduate Ethics Research: Cases and CommentariesSection 4. Managing Grants●●Travel FundsSalary OffsetsSection 5. Research on Animals●What Is Your Drive? Science or Ethics?Section 6. Research in Industry●The Lease of Their ProblemsSection 7. Data and Subject Confidentiality●●●●Paper or Plastic? From Paper Records to Electronic DatabaseA DNA DilemmaShare and Share Alike?The Company That Cared Too MuchReturn to Research Scenarios Indexhttp://onlineethics.org/reseth/appe/index.html (7 of 7) [10/13/2004 1:25:20 PM]

Online Ethics Center: The Lisa Bach CaseThe Lisa Bach CasePart 1Lisa is a post-doc who has been working at a major research university for the past year and a half. Sinceshe arrived, she has gotten along well with her boss, Dr. Richard Bell. The work in his lab relates to thesynthesis and characterization of anti-cancer agents.Lisa's first project was the synthesis of divialan, which has been difficult to synthesize in the lab. It is acompound that was found in a species of plant that only grows in the Swiss Alps. About six months afterher arrival, she developed a few more steps of the synthesis, and things looked very promising. Onemonth later, working on a crucial step in the reaction, she found that a divialan derivative was beingproduced in large quantities and only few impurities in low quantities were found in the product mixture.Lisa told Bell, "Rick, you have to take a look at this result on a reaction I performed. I believe that it is aderivative of divialan." Bell looked at the data, "Lisa, this is great," he said. "I will have to study the datamore closely to know for sure. Let me look at it in more detail and if it looks good I will start writing apaper for submission." Lisa had a lot of work to do on other characterizations, and she agreed.A month and a half later, Lisa was talking with Pete, a post-doc in another lab. Lisa was saying, "I havebeen having a lot of trouble trying to get the final steps in the synthesis of divialan, but I did get asurprising derivative along the way." She went on to describe the procedure to obtain the derivative. Petewas a little surprised. He said, "I was just at a meeting, and Rick presented that same synthesis. The thingis that your name wasnít mentioned in the presentation." Lisa was very surprised.Discussion Questions:1. What can Lisa do to get the credit she deserves?2. Should she confront Bell?Part 2Later that afternoon, Lisa ran into Bell, "Hey, Rick -- I was wondering how the paper is coming along.Do you have any questions about the procedures or the data?" Bell said, "Everything seemed prettystraightforward. Come to my office, and I will give you a copy to look at and revise, if you would like.""That would be great," Lisa answered.http://onlineethics.org/reseth/appe/vol1/lisa.html (1 of 2) [10/13/2004 1:25:32 PM]

Online Ethics Center: The Lisa Bach CaseThe paper did not include a title or author list. She returned the copy with revisions, a proposed title anda list of authors.A month later, Lisa inquired about the article again. "Rick, how is the article?" Bell responded, "Well, itwent great. I was glad to get your comments and I completed it and sent it off a couple of days ago." Shefelt weird about this answer, not having seen the final draft, but since it had already been sent off shedidnít press the issue.Over the next several months, Lisa worked hard on the synthesis and characterization of divialan. Everyonce in a while, she asked Bell about the paper. He told her that the referees were still reviewing it andhe was making minor adjustments to please them.Lisa is now writing up her CV and wants to put together her list of publications. She asks Bell about thepaper. He says, "Oh, I have been meaning to give you some copies of the paper. It was accepted and willbe in the next publication. I will leave some copies in your mailbox." When Lisa got them, she looked itover and noticed that her name did not appear until the acknowledgments. She became infuriated. She isnow wondering what her options are.Discussion Questions1. Could Lisa have avoided this situation?2. What kind of rights does she have concerning the work she performed?COMMENTARIESCommentary on "The Lisa Bach Case", P. Aarne VesilindGraduate Research Ethics: Cases and Commentaries Indexhttp://onlineethics.org/reseth/appe/vol1/lisa.html (2 of 2) [10/13/2004 1:25:32 PM]

Online Ethics Center: Commentary on "The Lisa Bach Case"Commentary on "The Lisa Bach Case"P. Aarne VesilindDuke UniversityI find it difficult to see any extenuating circumstances or excuses for Dr. Richard Bell's actions. Histenure situation, future funding or whatever is simply irrelevant. He stole intellectual property from acolleague. To make it worse, this colleague is in an uneven power situation and cannot respond as anequal. This fact makes Bell's actions even more reprehensible.More importantly, what should Lisa do? Any action she might take could hurt Bell, and, of course, Bellknows that. His reluctance to bring her into the publishing process clearly shows that he knows that he isdoing something underhanded, and that Lisa could prove her case. He and Lisa both know, however, thatBell can easily ruin Lisa's career in retaliation.What should Lisa do? She has several alternatives.1. She could write to the editor of the journal, explaining what happened. Depending on the editor'sintegrity, the paper may be withdrawn or an addendum published in a subsequent issue, causinggreat harm to Bell's standing in the community. Or the editor may consider this matter an issue forthe authors to sort out.2. Lisa could go to the chair of the department or the dean. This person, of course, will try to get tothe bottom of the issue, call Bell in for a chat and even have a three-way conversation. Lisa willhave to prove that the discovery was indeed hers and that she has been wronged. Typically,faculty will support each other, and she will be cast as the infamous "disgruntled employee,"unless she can prove without a doubt that Bell has misrepresented himself and the chair or deanhas the moral fibre to respond appropriately. The chair or dean will look for some easy way to endthe controversy and may, for example, ask Bell to write a letter of apology to Lisa.3. Lisa could seek a new position, even in a different laboratory in the same university, and simplyavoid all future contact with Bell.In a way, the choices boil down to deontological vs. consequentialist options. If Lisa keeps quiet, Bellcould go on mistreating other graduate students and post-docs. His actions are simply unethical. Theprinciple here is what is important, not the outcome, and Lisa should choose Option 1 or Option 2, orboth.If Lisa were my daughter, however, I would strongly recommend the third alternative to her. Theincremental good Bell received from publishing the purloined paper is small compared to the harm Lisahttp://onlineethics.org/reseth/appe/vol1/lisa-c1.html (1 of 2) [10/13/2004 1:31:25 PM]

Online Ethics Center: Commentary on "The Lisa Bach Case"would suffer if she took any action to redress the situation. If she chose to fight, she would still have toleave Bell's laboratory. Whatever the choice or the outcome, the mentor/protegee relationship has foreverbeen damaged. Bell will never be able to write a letter of recommendation without thinking of theincident, and Lisa will never be able to call on him for support in her career. She should take heart in theknowledge that sooner or later, "Time wounds all heels."COMMENTARIESThe Lisa Bach CaseGraduate Research Ethics: Cases and Commentaries Indexhttp://onlineethics.org/reseth/appe/vol1/lisa-c1.html (2 of 2) [10/13/2004 1:31:25 PM]

Online Ethics Center: Credit for Engineering Work Design Competition - Case No. 92-1:Credit for Engineering Work DesignCompetition - Case No. 92-1:Facts:Engineer A is retained by a city to design a bridge as part of an elevated highway system. Engineer Athen 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 Bdesigns the bridge's three curved welded plate girder spans which were critical elements of the bridgedesign.Several months following completion of the bridge, Engineer A enters the bridge design into a nationalorganization's bridge design competition. The bridge design wins a prize. However, the entry fails tocredit 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?References:Section 1.3.:Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.Section 11.3.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.Section 111.3.:Engineers shall avoid all conduct or practice which is likely to discredit the profession ordeceive the public.Section 111.5.a.:Engineers shall not accept financial or other considerations, including free engineeringdesigns, from material or equipment suppliers for specifying their product.Section IlI. l 0.a.:Engineers shall, whenever possible, name the person or persons who may beindividually responsible for designs, inventions, writings, or other accomplishments.http://onlineethics.org/cases/nspe/nspe92-1.html (1 of 3) [10/13/2004 1:27:36 PM]

Online Ethics Center: Credit for Engineering Work Design Competition - Case No. 92-1: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 isfundamental to that responsibility. This is particularly the case where an engineer retains the services ofother individuals because the engineer may not possess the education, experience and expertise toperform the required services for a client. The engineer has an obligation to the client to make thisinformation known (Section II.3.a.). As noted in BER Case 71-l, the principle is not only fair and in thebest interests of the profession, but it also recognizes that the professional engineer must assume personalresponsibility for his decisions and actions.In BER Case 7 l - l, a city department of public works retained Firm A to prepare plans andspecifications for a water extension project. Engineer B, chief engineer of the department havingauthority in such matters, instructed Firm A to submit its plans and specifications without showing thename of the firm on the cover sheets but permitted the firm to show the name of the firm on the workingdrawings. It was also the policy of the department not to show the name of the design firm in theadvertisements for construction bids, in fact, the advertisements stated "plans and specifications asprepared by the city department of public works." The Board noted that the policy of the department is,at best, rather unusual in normal engineering practices and relationships between retained design firmsand clients. The Board surmised on the basis of the submitted facts that the department policy wasintended to reflect the idea that the plans and specifications when put out to construction bid are those ofthe department. In concluding that Engineer B acted unethically in adopting and implementing a policywhich prohibited the identification of the design firm on the cover sheets for plans and specification, theBoard noted that Engineer B, in carrying out the department policy, denied credit to Firm A for its work.The Code of Ethics Section III. l 0.a. states that engineers shall, whenever possible, name the person orpersons who may be individually responsible for designs, inventions, writings, or other accomplishments.The Board concluded that under the circumstances, it was possible for Engineer B to name the personsresponsible for the design.While each individual case must be understood based upon the particular facts involved, we believe thatEngineer A had an ethical obligation to his client, to Engineer B as well as to the public to takereasonable steps to identify all parties responsible for the design of the bridge.Conclusion:*It was unethical for Engineer A to fail to give credit to Engineer B for his part in the design.BOARD OF ETHICAL REVIEW:●●William A. Cox, Jr., P.E.William W. Middleton, P.E.http://onlineethics.org/cases/nspe/nspe92-1.html (2 of 3) [10/13/2004 1:27:36 PM]

Online Ethics Center: William LeMessurier & the Citicorp SkyscraperTexto en EspañolWilliam LeMessurier:The Fifty-Nine-Story Crisis; A Lesson inProfessional BehaviorWilliam LeMessurier, one of the nation'smost distinguished structural engineers,served as design and constructionconsultant on the innovative Citicorpheadquarters tower, which was completedin 1977 in New York. The next year, after acollege student studying the tower designhad called him to point out a possibledeficiency, LeMessurier discovered that thebuilding was indeed structurally deficient.LeMessurier faced a complex and difficultproblem of professional responsibility inwhich he had to alert a broad group ofpeople to the structural deficiency andenlist their cooperation in repairing thedeficiency before a hurricane brought thebuilding down.His story was recounted in detail in "The Fifty-Nine-Story Crisis," which appeared in the May 29, 1995issue of The New Yorker, and on November 17, 1995, LeMessurier himself came to MIT, from which hereceived his doctorate, to speak to prospective engineers about the decisions he had to make and theactions he took.http://onlineethics.org/moral/lemessurier/index.html (1 of 2) [10/13/2004 1:44:32 PM]

Online Ethics Center: William LeMessurier & the Citicorp SkyscraperWilliam LeMessurier, one of the nation's mostdistinguished structural engineers, discusses ethicaldilemmas he faced with structural deficiencies in thedesign of the Citicorp headquarters.See video clip: QuickTime 1.5 Mb MPEG 1.5 Mb Clickhere for download instructionsThe Story of the Citicorp Tower●●●●●●●●Part 1: History of SkyscrapersPart 2: LeMessurier's Innovative Citicorp DesignPart 3: The Discovery of the Change from Welds to BoltsPart 4: Exploring the Effects of Quartering WindsPart 5: Further Evidence of DangerPart 6: Mobilizing SupportPart 7: Accomplishing the Repair Without Causing PanicPart 8: The Final Touch: LeMessurier's Good NameThe Online Ethics Center offers a high-quality videotape of a lecture by William LeMessurier on thistopic, a lecture that discusses many of the technical details and therefore is particularly useful for civiland mechanical engineering students. Inquiries can be sent to theAll images displayed herein, unless otherwise noted, courtesy William LeMessurier.This page and supporting pages were created by Eric Plosky for Caroline Whitbeck atthe Massachusetts Institute of Technology.http://onlineethics.org/moral/lemessurier/index.html (2 of 2) [10/13/2004 1:44:32 PM]

Online Ethics Center: Background -- The History of SkyscrapersTexto en EspañolPart 1 Background & the History of SkyscrapersBy the early 1970s, when Citibank began plans for a huge new headquarters tower in midtown NewYork, the art of designing and building a strong, safe skyscraper seemed nearly perfected.The skyscraper, like any other architectural form, had gone through a long period of evolution. AfterElisha Otis's successful introduction of the first safety-brake-equipped elevator in the 1850s and theintroduction of steel-frame construction, buildings began to grow upward. In 1910, the Metropolitan Lifebuilding broke all records for height until that time: it was 50 stories high.By the 1930s, with the construction of the 102-story Empire StateBuilding, skyscrapers, thanks to their widespread success, had begun tosprout in many cities worldwide. Areas populated with these tallbuildings found themselves growing, literally, ever upward. Theskyscraper, coupled with the introduction of modern, efficient subwaysystems in cities like New York, made it possible for companies toemploy workforces unprecedented in size. Consequently, city populationsincreased immensely.By 1930, daring, creative architects and engineers had even begun todepart from what had been accepted as the "traditional" method of designing and constructingskyscrapers. Innovations in skyscraper design such as lighter materials, increased window area, andcantilevered supports, resulted in taller, lighter, and slimmer buildings. For instance, Chicago's recordbreakingHancock Building, incorporating an innovative system of diagonal bracing (pictured in detailon this page) that allowed the building to be much leaner and lighter than it could be if it had beenconstructed in a traditional manner.Continue on to Part 2Back to LeMessurier Main Pagehttp://onlineethics.org/moral/lemessurier/1.html [10/13/2004 1:44:40 PM]

Online Ethics Center: LeMessurier's Innovative Citicorp DesignTexto en EspañolPart 2 LeMessurier's Innovative Citicorp DesignWilliam LeMessurier was one of the country's most distinguished structural engineers when hisCambridge firm was called upon to act as a consultant to the planned Citibank corporate headquarters.LeMessurier had a vast array of experience with skyscrapers; the first building he designed, Boston'sState Street Bank, incorporate an inventive cantilever girder system, and his famous Boston FederalReserve Bank, was designed so that an airplane could, quite literally, fly directly through what appearedto be a large hole in the building.LeMessurier's experience with innovative designs was fortunate,sincethere was a criterion peculiar to the planned Citibank building.Achurch had partial ownership of the block where Citicorp plannedtobuild. As a resolution, Citicorp agreed to build a new freestandingstructure,located at one corner of the lot, to replace thecurrentantiquated, dilapidated church. In return, the church granted"airrights" above its part of the block to Citicorp.(Pictured: Thebottompart of the first rendering of the Citicorp tower design, clearlyshowingthe nine-story high, mid-wall-mounted stilts that would need tosupport the building.)In order to provide space for the new church, the Citicorp tower would therefore have to be situated onnine-story-high stilts, so the church could be constructed underneath. However, the church was to belocated at a corner of the block, not in the middle of a block. This meant that the Citicorp tower's stiltswould have to be in the middle of each of its walls, and not at the building's corners -- an unprecedentedfeat of engineering if it could be accomplished.The innovative LeMessurier sketched an idea for the Citicorp tower's framework andcolumn support system. (Pictured at left is an eight-story section of his design.) Itcalled for large diagonal girders throughout the building. The girders would transfer thetower's great weight to the four huge columns that would anchor the structure to theground. The new church could then be constructed as planned, underneath one of the tower's corners.Continue on to Part 3Go back to Part 1Back to LeMessurier Main Pagehttp://onlineethics.org/moral/lemessurier/2.html (1 of 2) [10/13/2004 1:44:43 PM]

Online Ethics Center: LeMessurier's Innovative Citicorp Designhttp://onlineethics.org/moral/lemessurier/2.html (2 of 2) [10/13/2004 1:44:43 PM]

Online Ethics Center: The Discovery of the Change from Welds to BoltsTexto en EspañolPart 3 The Discovery of the Change from Welds toBoltsThe Citicorp tower was constructed using LeMessurier's diagonal-bracing design, and work was finishedin 1977. LeMessurier's innovation translated into a great weight savings; the tower was unusually lightfor its size. However, this meant that it would have a fair tendency to sway in the wind, so a tuned-massdamper was installed at the top of the building. The inertia of this 400-ton concrete block, which floatedon pressurized oil bearings, worked to combat the tower's expected slight swaying. The Citicorp towerwas the first structure ever to incorporate mechanical assistance to combat wind sway.In May 1978, LeMessurier, acting as structural consultant to a newbuilding being planned in Pittsburgh, again thought of using a sort ofdiagonal brace as part of his design. As in the Citicorp tower, the braceswere intended to be joined with full-penetration welds, but the process ofwelding, though it resulted in extremely strong joints, was expensive andtime-consuming. A potential contractor for the Pittsburgh constructionjob pointed this out to LeMessurier, who immediately thought tocounteract the contractor's fears with the success story of his Citicorptower and its welded joints.Unknown to LeMessurier, however, was that during the Citicorp tower'sconstruction (the tower under construction is pictured on this page), theCiticorp contractors had decided, based on the cost of welding, to put thebraces together using less expensive bolted joints. Though bolted jointswere weaker than welded joints, the New York contractors had agreed that welds would be unnecessarilystrong and that bolts would be sufficient for the job.When LeMessurier referred the Pittsburgh contractor, concerned over the cost of welding, to thesuccessful Citicorp job, he was told of the substitution of bolts for welds in the Citicorp project.LeMessurier did not consider the change to pose a safety hazard, however, since the substitution wasrather reasonable from an engineering standpoint, and there wasn't any reason for LeMessurier, a distantconsultant, to have been previously informed. This assessment would change over the next month,however, as LeMessurier would soon encounter new data indicating that the switch from welds to boltscompounded another danger with potentially catastrophic consequences.Continue on to Part 4http://onlineethics.org/moral/lemessurier/3.html (1 of 2) [10/13/2004 1:44:45 PM]

Online Ethics Center: The Discovery of the Change from Welds to BoltsGo back to Part 2Back to LeMessurier Main Pagehttp://onlineethics.org/moral/lemessurier/3.html (2 of 2) [10/13/2004 1:44:45 PM]

Online Ethics Center: Exploring the Effects of Quartering WindsTexto en EspañolPart 4 Exploring the Effects of Quartering WindsIn June 1978, a month after LeMessurier was told of the switch from welds to bolts in the Citicorpbuilding, he received a telephone call from a student. This student's professor had been studyingLeMessurier's Citicorp design and had concluded that LeMessurier had put the building's nine-storysupports in the wrong place. The supports belonged on the tower's corners, according to this professor,not at the tower's midpoints.The professor had not understood the design problem that had been faced, so LeMessurier explained hisentire line of reasoning for putting the tower's supports at the building's midpoints. He added that hisunique design, including the supports and the diagonal-brace system, made the building particularlyresistant to quartering, or diagonal, winds -- that is, winds coming on the diagonal and so hitting twosides of the building simultaneously. Pictured is a diagram of why perpendicular winds cause sway in abuilding.Shortly thereafter, LeMessurier decided that the subject of the Citicorptower and quartering winds would make an interesting topic for thestructural engineering class he taught at Harvard. Since at the time therequirements of the New York building code, like all other buildingcodes, had covered only perpendicular winds, LeMessurier did not knowhow his design would fare in quartering winds.Interested to see if the building's diagonal braces would be as strong inquartering winds as they had been calculated to be in perpendicularwinds, LeMessurier did some computations. He found that for a given quartering wind, stresses in half ofa certain number of structural members increased by 40 percent.Then he became concerned about the substitution of bolts for welds. Had the New York contractors takenquartering winds into account when they replaced the welds with bolts? Had they used the right numberof bolts? The second question was particularly important -- a 40 percent increase in stress on certainstructural members resulted in a 160 percent increase of stress on the building's joints, so it was vital thatthe correct number of bolts be used to ensure that each joint was the proper strength.What he found out was disturbing. The New York firm had disregarded quartering winds when theysubstituted bolted joints for welded ones. Furthermore, the contractors had interpreted the New Yorkbuilding code in such a way as to exempt many of the tower's diagonal braces from loadbearingcalculations, so they had used far too few bolts.http://onlineethics.org/moral/lemessurier/4.html (1 of 2) [10/13/2004 1:44:47 PM]

Online Ethics Center: Exploring the Effects of Quartering WindsShaken, LeMessurier reviewed old wind-tunnel tests of the building's design against his new quarteringwindcalculations (these tests had modeled a large part of midtown Manhattan), and found that underadverse weather conditions, the tower's bracing system would be put under even further stress. Theinnovative tuned-mass damper, designed to reduce the building's normal slight swaying, was notdesigned to keep the building from being blown down in a major storm; this further worriedLeMessurier.Continue on to Part 5Go back to Part 3Continue on to Part 2Back to LeMessurier Main Pagehttp://onlineethics.org/moral/lemessurier/4.html (2 of 2) [10/13/2004 1:44:47 PM]

Online Ethics Center: Further Evidence of the DangerTexto en EspañolPart 5 Further Evidence of the DangerLeMessurier now believed there might be serious danger. He turned to Alan Davenport, a Canadianconsultant during the building's design. Davenport, who had run the original wind tunnel tests, now ranthe tests again, using new calculations to reflect quartering winds and the change from welds to bolts.The results, when compared with the building's original testing, confirmed LeMessurier's suspicionsabout increased stress in some of the building's structural members. His concern grew, since the resultsindicated that a 40 percent theoretical increase in a member's structural stress would be much greaterunder real-world conditions. During a storm, the whole building could shake, causing the structuralmembers to all vibrate synchronously.LeMessurier worked through the revised wind tunnel data, and quickly discovered that the entirebuilding was vulnerable to a total structural failure -- if a storm pulled a joint apart on the 30th floor, thewhole building would collapse. A "sixteen-year storm," that is, a storm occurring once every sixteenyears, would have the strength to cause total structural failure. Though the electric tuned-mass damperhad an enormous steadying effect on the building, and might help to reduce the stress on that joint, astrong storm would knock out the electricity necessary for running the damper.Solving the problem was not difficult from an engineering perspective; heavy steel welded "Band-Aids"over the joints would give the building more strength than it was even originally designed to have. But itwas the last day of July, and in order to complete repairs before the start of hurricane season,LeMessurier would have to announce the building's vulnerability and take responsibility upon himself.Doing so could cost LeMessurier his career and reputation as a structural engineer. He did not know howhis news would be received by Citibank leadership, city officials, or the general public.Continue on to Part 6Go back to Part 4Back to LeMessurier Main Pagehttp://onlineethics.org/moral/lemessurier/5.html [10/13/2004 1:44:53 PM]

Online Ethics Center: Mobilizing SupportTexto en EspañolPart 6 Mobilizing SupportOn July 31, 1978, LeMessurier contacted the lawyer of the architectural firm that had retained him as itsstructural consultant for the Citicorp tower and then the firm's insurance company. As a result, a meetingwas arranged the following day with several lawyers for the insurers, to whom LeMessurier related theentire story. The lawyers soon decided to bring in a special consultant -- Les Robertson, a respectedstructural engineer. Robertson listened to LeMessurier's description of the situation and soon took a morecritical view than even LeMessurier himself. Robertson did not believe, for instance, that the tuned massdamper would serve as a safety device despite LeMessurier's assurances that generators could keep thedampers running during an electrical power loss.Citicorp had to be informed of the danger, so LeMessurier and his partner went about contactingCiticorp's chairman, Walter Wriston. Initially, Wriston was unavailable to them, but LeMessurier'spartner was able to arranging a meeting with Citicorp's executive vice president, John Reed, who hadengineering experience and played a part in the construction of the tower. LeMessurier detailed thesituation once more. When prompted for a cost estimate, LeMessurier guessed that one million dollarswould be sufficient. He also explained that the repairs could be done without inconvenience to thetenants by isolating the bolted joints within plywood 'houses' and doing the necessary work at nightwithin those 'houses.'Reed appreciated the gravity of the situation, and arranged for a meeting with Wriston on August 2, atwhich point LeMessurier once again told his story. Much to his relief, Wriston recognized theimportance of the tower as Citicorp's new corporate emblem, and so readily agreed to the repair proposal.He approved a plan to install emergency generators as a backup power supply for the tuned mass damper,and oversaw much of the relations with the public as well as with the building tenants.The next day, LeMessurier met with two engineers from the construction company that was to performthe repairs. After examining the joints, these engineers approved LeMessurier's plan to reinforce thebolted joints with welded "Band-Aids."Before undertaking the repairs, several steps were necessary. LeMessurier contacted the company thathad constructed the tuned mass damper to help assure the device's continuous operation. Meteorologicalexperts were retained in order to give advance warning of any storm that could cause the building'sdestruction. LeMessurier reluctantly agreed with Robertson that, as a further precaution, an emergencyevacuation plan for the building and the ten-block-diameter surrounding neighbourhood be drafted. In itsfinal form, the plan was to involve up to 2,000 emergency workers provided by the Red Cross.http://onlineethics.org/moral/lemessurier/6.html (1 of 2) [10/13/2004 1:44:54 PM]

Online Ethics Center: Mobilizing SupportLeMessurier had to explain the situation to city officials, both to secure their cooperation with theevacuation plan and to comply with the building code. They responded with approval andencouragement, rather than the cynicism that LeMessurier expected. They too recognized both theseriousness of the problem and the immediate need to solve it. Energy was not wasted on rancor orplacing blame.The final task, the one that LeMessurier most dreaded, was informing the press of what was going to be amajor undertaking on the brand-new Citicorp tower. An initial press release was issued. It indicated thatthe building was being refitted in order to withstand slightly higher winds. This was true to some extent,for the meteorological data suggested that the winds for that year were going to be somewhat higher thannormal. But the New York Times, for one, was sure to express further interest in what could be a veryjuicy story. After an initial phone call from a reporter, though, LeMessurier found an unexpected reprievein a citywide press strike.Continue on to Part 7Go back to Part 5Back to LeMessurier Main Pagehttp://onlineethics.org/moral/lemessurier/6.html (2 of 2) [10/13/2004 1:44:54 PM]

http://onlineethics.org/moral/lemessurier/7.htmlTexto en EspañolPart 7 Accomplishing the Repair Without CausingPanicRepairs to the Citicorp building commenced immediately. The plan of action was to expose each boltedjoint in the building by ripping away the flooring and walls around it, to cover each joint with a plywood'house' in order to minimize any visible signs that things were awry with the building's structure, and tocomplete the repair welding at night when the tenants were not in the building, so as not toinconvenience them.The pace of work was fast. Parts of the interior around the bolted joints were torn up at night and putback together in the morning. LeMessurier occupied himself with repair process calculations. LesRobertson calculated how to repair the joints, and, suspecting that other components of the buildingcould be vulnerable, went about investigating the floors, columns, and braces for weakness.The repair work was in full swing on the first of September, when a hurricane moving toward New Yorkwas detected. The news was met with alarm. The partial repairs -- along with the tuned mass damper --greatly improved the building's strength, but no one wanted to see it tested. There was great relief whenthe hurricane moved out over the ocean.Two weeks later, repairs had progressed to the point that, with no storms predicted, the elaborateevacuation plans could be scrapped. The next month, repairs were complete. Even if the tuned massdamper were to fail, a 700-year storm would not pose a threat to the Citicorp Center.The engineering problem had been solved, and today the repaired building now exceeds even itsoriginally intended safety factor.Continue on to Part 8Go back to Part 6Back to LeMessurier Main Pagehttp://onlineethics.org/moral/lemessurier/7.html [10/13/2004 1:44:58 PM]

Online Ethics Center: The Final Touch: LeMessurier's Good NameTexto en EspañolPart 8 The Final Touch: LeMessurier's Good NameLeMessurier feared for his career but did not allow any worries or self-protective impulses to sidetrackhis attention from carrying out the repairs. In the middle of September, when repairs were almostcomplete, Citicorp notified LeMessurier and his partner that it expected to be reimbursed for the cost ofthe repairs.The estimated total cost for the building's repair ranged between a high of $8 million for the structualwork alone, given by one of the construction companies involved, to $4 million, which, according toLeMessurier, was the Citicorp estimate (Citicorp did not make public its estimate).LeMessurier's liability insurance company had agreed to pay $2 million, and LeMessurier brought thatfigure to the negotiating table. The Citicorp officials eventually agreed to accept the $2 million, to findno fault with LeMessurier's firm, and to close the entire matter.A relieved LeMessurier nevertheless expected his insurance company to raise the premiums on hisliability insurance. He would, he reasoned, appear as an engineer who had bungled an expensive job andbrought about a large cash settlement.At a meeting with officials from the insurance company, LeMessurier's secretary was able to convincethem that LeMessurier had "prevented one of the worst insurance disasters of all time!" Far frombehaving in an incompetent or devious manner, LeMessurier had acted in a commendable way: he haddiscovered an unforeseen problem, acted immediately, appropriately, and efficiently to solve it, andsolved it.LeMessurier's handling of the Citicorp situation increased his reputation as an exceptionally competent,forthright structural engineer. It also prompted his liability insurers to lower his premium.Go back to Part 7Back to LeMessurier Main Pagehttp://onlineethics.org/moral/lemessurier/8.html [10/13/2004 1:45:00 PM]

Online Ethics Center: Inez Austin -- Protecting the Public Safety at the Hanford Nuclear ReservationInez Austin -- Protecting the PublicSafety at the Hanford NuclearReservationThe Inez Austin pages were originally posted in the OEC in October1998. They were revised and updated in October 2005.The information in these pages was drawn from extensive personalcommunications with Inez Austin, along with the sites and materials thatare listed throughout.Last Modified:10/16/05 by tktI. IntroductionII. Blowing the WhistleIII. Austin Sees an Unacceptable RiskIV. Retaliation and Austin's Fight for Her JobV. Whistleblowing Round TwoVI. Final FalloutVII. Inez Austin's Message to the PublicInez Austin TimelineInez Austin and Hanford Site LinksI. Introductionhttp://onlineethics.org/moral/austin/index.html (1 of 7)10/25/2005 9:04:00 AM

Online Ethics Center: Inez Austin -- Protecting the Public Safety at the Hanford Nuclear ReservationIn 1992, Inez Austin received the Scientific Freedom and ResponsibilityAward from the American Association for the Advancement of Science(AAAS) "for her courageous and persistent efforts to prevent potentialsafety hazards involving nuclear waste contamination" as a seniorengineer at the Hanford Site in Washington state, a 586-square-mileformer plutonium production facility. Thee AAAS said, "Ms. Austin'sstand in the face of harassment and intimidation reflects the paramountprofessional duty of engineers -- to protect the public's health and safety-- and has served as an inspiration to her co-workers."The incident that began Inez Austin's reputation as a whistleblower washer refusal, in June of 1990, to approve a plan to pump radioactive wastefrom an aging underground single-shell tank at the Hanford Site to adouble-shell tank. She believed the process to be too dangerous to certify.The events that followed changed her life forever. Although she came tobe regarded highly by environmental and ethics groups, she wassubjected to a career-destroying combination of harassment, bureaucraticmaneuvering, and ostracization. Several years later, a secondwhistleblowing incident would lead to the end of her work at the HanfordSite.This Online Ethics Center presents the case of Inez Austin as an exampleof someone who followed her ethical convictions in the face ofoverwhelming adversity and refused to sanction a procedure she believedto be unsafe.(Note: The history and legacy the Hanford Nuclear Reservation and theproblems with cleanup and other incidents of whistleblowing at theHanford Site have been the subject of many essays and discussions. Thiscase only discusses Hanford and other Hanford whistleblowers asbackground to the Inez Austin story. For more information on theHanford Site see the Inez Austin and Hanford Site links page.)Back to TopII. Blowing the WhistleThe Hanford Nuclear Reservation was originally created as part of theManhattan Project and supplied plutonium for nuclear weapons. It wasoperated in secrecy by the federal government for more than 40 years,until 1989, when all operations ended and clean-up of vast amounts ofhazardous waste and radioactive contamination was begun under thejurisdiction of the Tri-Party Agreement between the Department ofEnergy (DOE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and theWashington State Department of Ecology. Under the Tri-PartyAgreement, the reservation is now known as the Hanford Site andconstitutes the largest radioactive waste site in the United States.As one of the few female engineers at Westinghouse Hanford, the primecontractor for the DOE at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation/Hanford Site,Inez Austin consistently received excellent ratings for her work. In 1989,after ten years with the company, she was transferred from her positionas an engineer in charge of calibration records to a new position as seniorhttp://onlineethics.org/moral/austin/index.html (2 of 7)10/25/2005 9:04:00 AM

Online Ethics Center: Inez Austin -- Protecting the Public Safety at the Hanford Nuclear Reservationprocess engineer. Part of her job was to approve safety proceduresregarding the process for pumping millions of gallons of highlyradioactive wastes out of aging single-shell storage tanks. Austin wasalso a member of the Readiness Review Board, a Hanford task group thatcertified the safety of cleanup procedures.In June 1990, Austin was asked to prepare a document to certify thesafety of pumping dangerous liquid wastes out of five tanks in order tostabilize the tanks. A July 1 Tri-Party Agreement deadline for pumpingthese tanks was fast approaching, and the pumping issue requiredimmediate attention.Austin was concerned about the safety of the pumping operation becauseof the presence of ferrocyanide in the tanks. There were several relevantstudies on the matter that were due to be completed soon, and Austin sawdelaying the pumping until the dangers were clear as a prudentalternative.Nevertheless, she submitted a proposal that adhered to safety principlesregarding pumping procedures and recognized the necessary cautions.Unfortunately, her warnings were cut out of the proposal by her boss,Richard Kimura, before it was returned for her signature of approval onJune 25. Austin realized that some people would be angry if she refusedto sign the proposal, but her integrity and professional responsibilities asan engineer mattered more.Austin refused to sign. On June 27, after feeling additional pressure tosign the document, Austin felt discouraged and resigned from theReadiness Review Board. Austin was harassed and threatened bymanagement and coworkers, rather than being recognized or commendedfor ethical behavior and her concern for health and safety.Back to TopTANK PICTURESIII. Austin Sees an Unacceptable RiskInez Austin's refusal to certify pumping procedures stemmed from thepresence of ferrocyanide (FeCN) in two of the tanks. Ferrocyanide wasused in the 1950s and 1960s as a flocculating agent, to bind dangeroussubstances in the liquid waste and allow them to be selectively removed.It has since been found that ferrocyanide becomes unstable over time. InOctober 1989, the U.S. Senate had assessed that this presence offerrocyanide could be highly explosive under specific conditions and thushad to be pumped dry to prevent a possible explosion that would sendlarge amounts of radioactive waste into the environment.description heredescription hereAustin feared the risks involved in pumping these tanks. She was not ahttp://onlineethics.org/moral/austin/index.html (3 of 7)10/25/2005 9:04:00 AM

Online Ethics Center: Inez Austin -- Protecting the Public Safety at the Hanford Nuclear Reservationchemist -- "it's not my forte," she said -- but she did the necessaryresearch and concluded there was sufficient risk to withhold certificationfor the two tanks in question."I thought there was maybe a one in ten chance of an accident," saidAustin. "Probably wouldn't have happened, but ten percent is anunacceptable risk. It could have been a major disaster and caused severalmillion dollars in damage."She wanted to postpone pumping long enough for the relevant researchon the problem to be finished. That research ultimately consumed aboutthree more years. Austin's warnings were cut out of her report, but herrefusal to sign did halt the risky pumping plan.Back to TopIV. Retaliation and Austin's Fight for Her JobInez Austin did not think that her refusal to approve a risky pumpingprocedure would result harassment and the loss of her job, but after sherefused to sign the document, Kimura, her manager, threatened Austinwith disciplinary action, claiming that Austin's work was causinginefficiency and low productivity. With the July 1 Tri-Party Agreementdeadline looming, there was immediate pressure to begin pumping tanks.The state could take the federal government to court if cleanup deadlineswere not met.Austin's refusal to sign triggered several retaliatory actions. For example,in 1990 she received the lowest employee ratings in all here eleven yearsat Westinghouse Hanford. Remarks were made about the state of hermental health and she was asked to see a psychiatrist. At work, she wasmoved from her office to a dirty trailer and was not given significantwork. She did not receive mail for eight weeks.On July 1, 1991, the Energy Department's inspector general found thatsecurity personnel at Westinghouse Hanford had acquired and usedequipment to wiretap and eavesdrop, in violation of DOE regulations andfederal law (NY Times, 8/1/91). Much of this illegal surveillance wasdirected towards Austin. Austin also experienced other harassment,including a house break-in.On October 11, 1990, Inez Austin filed an official complaint of on-thejobharassment with the DOE. Almost two months later, on December 4,she agreed to drop her complaint in return for a number of concessions: anew job, a month off with pay, removal of a letter of reprimand(concerning the incident in which she did not certify the pumpingprocedures) from her file, removal of other derogatory information fromher file, and compensation for her attorney fees. Seemingly, the troublewould be over there. She was allowed to choose her new position, anddecided to move to West Tank Farms Operations (WTFO). However, shewas unable to receive any assignments there, being told by her new bossthat he had been ordered not to give her any work. Any work she did wason a strictly volunteer basis. This continued for nearly three years; duringhttp://onlineethics.org/moral/austin/index.html (4 of 7)10/25/2005 9:04:00 AM

Online Ethics Center: Inez Austin -- Protecting the Public Safety at the Hanford Nuclear Reservationthat stretch, she was not invited to meetings and any work she did wasusually duplicated by someone else. Austin was further demoted onOctober 1, 1993.Essentially, she was being paid for doing nothing and her training andexperience as an engineer were being wasted. So Austin took drasticsteps. Six days after her demotion, she called a news conference andinformed the press that in the nearly three years since her settlement withthe DOE, she had received no assignments. From that point on, she wasassigned work. She was sent to Environmental Compliance Officer(ECO) school, but had to fight again to actually get the ECO position.Back to TopV. Whistleblowing Round TwoAustin's job continued to bring her into the fray on controversial issues atthe Hanford Site. In 1995, she was compelled to blow the whistle onquestionable practices at the Hanford Site again. Austin was concernedabout the safety and legality of untrained workers allowed into restrictedareas and delays in pumping excess liquid from one of the tanks.Although Westinghouse issued an official finding about the untrainedworkers that was in agreement with Austin, she did not find that herwarnings were well-received.Finally, on February 28, 1996, after returning from a week's vacation,Austin was informed that her job had been posted during her vacation.She turned in her badge the next day.Up to that point, it seemed that the higher Austin went with hercomplaints, the less of a reaction she got. So she went as high as shepossibly could -- to Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary. They met onApril 17, 1996, and O'Leary promised Austin that her termination wouldbe put on hold and her paychecks would continue, but that neverhappened. Austin then filed a complaint with the Department of Labor(DOL) and won, but the settlement she was offered -- seven months backpay -- was not enough to make up for her lost job and the damage to herreputation and career. Austin sent an angry letter to O'Leary onDecember 9, 1996, documenting the inadequacy of the settlement and herintention to pursue legal action.Back to TopVI. Final FalloutIn the fall of 1997, Inez Austin filed suit against Westinghouse Hanfordin Benton County (Washington) Superior Court, seeking compensationfor the years of harassment and for wrongful termination from her job.After extended legal wrangling, the jury finally issued a verdict inNovember 2000, finding in favor of Westinghouse. The jury had decidedthat Austin was not fired in 1996, but instead had failed to reapply for herjob when the tank farm operations were restructured. Austin appealed theruling, then eventually settled amicably with Westinghouse out of court.http://onlineethics.org/moral/austin/index.html (5 of 7)10/25/2005 9:04:00 AM

Online Ethics Center: Inez Austin -- Protecting the Public Safety at the Hanford Nuclear ReservationProfessionally, it also took a long time for Austin's struggle to reach aconclusion. After leaving Hanford, she sent out hundreds of resumes, butreceived few responses."They [Westinghouse Hanford] told me that they'd 'make sure I neverwork again,'" said Austin in 1998, "and so far, that's been true."It took Austin three years to find another job in the region. Finally, sheworked part-time for the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) in Pendleton, OR, 80 miles from her home. She worked in thefield, traveling great distances to enforce solid waste and water qualitystandards. It was a job she enjoyed, despite the long hours in the car, butAustin eventually decided to leave after other former Hanford workers atthe DEQ made the office politics uncomfortable.In the meantime, the Hanford Site has continued to have its share ofproblems. Contractors have regularly failed to meet cleanup deadlines,prompting several congressional hearings and legal action by theWashington State Attorney General's Office. In September 2005, 11pipefitters represented by the Government Accountability Project, whichassisted Austin in her initial complaints against Westinghouse,successfully sued the current prime contractor, Fluor Hanford, for firingthem after they blew the whistle and refused to install potentiallydangerous valves on single-shall tanks.Back to TopVII. Inez Austin's Message to the PublicLooking back at her experience with Westinghouse Hanford, Inez Austinonly holds one true regret. "I regret being so naive ... I think theAmerican public needs to realize that very few federal protection policiesare actually really followed. It seems if you see no evil, hear no evil, noharm has really been done. But, if you are really ethical, it is hard to havean easy life. I tried to get some protection but there were so manyproblems with Hanford. ... The sad fact is that there are so manyenvironmental crimes that will affect our families ... everyone will sufferin the long run ... in health, and also the expensive health bills will haveto be paid; the environment will be damaged. People will not holdanyone responsible, partly because companies don't have the money toclean up this big mess that could have been prevented."She is also troubled by what could be best described as a culturalphenomenon: "People have to stop seeing whistleblowers as tattletales. ...I don't know what you do, living in a culture that thinks if you havestandards that you're a tattletale."Still, nearly 10 years after leaving Hanford for good, Inez Austin standsby her efforts to protect the health and safety of the public and her fellowclean-up workers. "I can't see how I could have done anything differentlyand believe me I have had time to think about it."http://onlineethics.org/moral/austin/index.html (6 of 7)10/25/2005 9:04:00 AM

Online Ethics Center: Inez Austin -- Protecting the Public Safety at the Hanford Nuclear ReservationBack to TopGo to Inez Austin TimelineGo to Inez Austin and Hanford Site LinksReturn to Moral Exemplars IndexReturn to top.Help us evaluate and improve our site by taking this online survey.Copyright 1995-2004 Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science,Terms of Servicehttp://onlineethics.org/moral/austin/index.html (7 of 7)10/25/2005 9:04:00 AM

Online Ethics Center: Rachel Carson and Silent SpringTexto en EspañolRachel Carson: A Scientist Alerts ThePublic To The Hazards of PesticidesRachel Carson, 1951. Photograph by Shirley Briggs. Used by permissionof the Shirley Briggs Photographs and Papers in the Lear/CarsonCollection at Connecticut College Library.Last Modified:10/20/04 by lmsDuring the seventeen years she worked in the US Fish and WildlifeService, Rachel Carson learned about the problems of pesticides.Undaunted by the chemical companies' hostility and by the public's highenthusiasm for pesticides, she wrote a book called Silent Spring, whichcaused a major shift in public consciousness about the environment.Rachel Carson's Successful Campaign to Bring the PesticideProblem to Public Attention:I. Rachel Carson's BackgroundII. Uses of DDTIII. Taking ActionIV. Decision to Write a BookV. Anticipating Hostile Reaction from the Chemical IndustryVI. Coping with Health Problems and Family CrisesVII. The Appearance of Silent SpringSupporting Material:Chronology of Events Leading to Silent Springhttp://onlineethics.org/moral/carson/index.html (1 of 2)10/25/2005 9:04:52 AM

Online Ethics Center: Rachel Carson and Silent SpringSummary of Silent SpringSilent Spring Revisited: A Discussion of Silent SpringExcerpt from Letter to Reader's Digest from CarsonExcerpt from Letter to Carson from HuckinsExcerpt from Letter That Prevented Reader's Digest fromPublishing Pesticide ArticlePesticidesList of Environmental Legislation and AgenciesBibliographyRachel Carson's Silent Spring: A Brief History of Ecology as aSubversive SubjectThis essay by Gary Kroll discusses Carson's environmentalphilosophy and asks the question, what are the "foundations"of Rachel Carson's environmental ethics? Kroll examines howCarson justified her three main evaluative premises (or her twocontroversial ones, concern for human health presumablyneeding no justification).Rachel Carson's environmental ethicsThis essay by Philip Cafaro discusses several respects in whichRachel Carson's life and work might point the way forward forenvironmental ethics. First, Carson's frequent criticisms ofhuman attempts to dominate nature suggest important parallelswith contemporary ecofeminism. Second, Carson's philosophyof "reverence for life" seems to support the whole spectrum ofenvironmental activism.This page and supporting pages were created by Emily Chen.Return to the Index of Moral LeadersReturn to top.Help us evaluate and improve our site by taking this online survey.Copyright 1995-2004 Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science,Terms of Servicehttp://onlineethics.org/moral/carson/index.html (2 of 2)10/25/2005 9:04:52 AM

Online Ethics Center: Scenarios for Ethics Modules in the Responsible Conduct of ResearchScenarios for Ethics Modules in theResponsible Conduct of ResearchThese scenarios are part of a modular sequence of materials on theresponsible conduct of research that support a series of activities forstudent-faculty learning.Module topic areasLast Modified:08/12/04 by lmsThe Responsible Collection, Retention, Sharing, andInterpretation of DataData from a Graduate Course--Social ScienceMy DataChanging the ProcedureStruggle over DataData Reduction TechniquesRisks to the DataConfidentiality and Data AccessData in a Press ReleaseBecoming an AdvocateData Sharing and Intellectual PropertyA lie or Just "a Way of Speaking"?Outliers in Survey DataData and CollaborationDisclosing Preliminary Results to Research SubjectsFair Credit for InventorsSpecial Issues in Conducting Human Genetic ResearchResponding to a Request for InformationRecruiting Relatives of a Proband with a Stigmatizing ConditionDisclosing Preliminary Results to Research SubjectsNegotiating Research Practices with Local CommunitiesUsing Shared Tissues Samples for Genetic ResearchRecontacting Old Research Subjects with New Clinical FindingsA Question of Host Factors in Side Effects of MedicationEthical Challenges in Research with Human Biologicalhttp://onlineethics.org/reseth/modscen.html (1 of 4)10/25/2005 9:05:46 AM

Online Ethics Center: Scenarios for Ethics Modules in the Responsible Conduct of ResearchMaterialInterpreting Consent for Research on Archived TissueWhen the Proposed Research May Be Objectionable to theSource of the TissueBalancing Scientific Usefulness with PrivacyCommercializationThe Ethics of Research With Subjects Who Have DementiaGene Therapy for Alzheimer's DiseaseA Cognitive Enhancing Drug Requiring Blood DrawsAn Anti-Oxident Compound to Slow ProgressionPost-Menopausal Women at RiskThe Ethics of Research With ChildrenConflicting Obligations: Part IConflicting Obligations: Part IIConflicting Obligations: Part IIIA Child's QuestionAn Asthmatic ChildThe Nurse ResearcherThe Ethics of Research With Human Subjects Who areMentally IllThe Patient Wants to WithdrawThe Dual Role of the Clinical InvestigatorWhen Should We Accept Consent?Conflicts of Interest and Informed Consent?Disagreement About ConsentThe Monitor's ConsentResponsible AuthorshipProfessors Quantitative and QualitativeProfessors Big and SmallTimely PublicationWhat About My Contribution?An Outrage or "Cultural Difference"?Credit and Time PressureHow Should Undergraduates Acknowledge Research Aid?Credit and Collaboration in a Molecular Biology LabCredit in a Grant ProposalSurprise Authorship, Credit and ResponsibilityWho is Where on the Author List--Graduate Students?When May a Student Publish?The Missing StepAuthorship OrderSupervisor's Request for Authorship RecognitionCollegial exchange and exploitationIs This an Honor?http://onlineethics.org/reseth/modscen.html (2 of 4)10/25/2005 9:05:46 AM

Online Ethics Center: Scenarios for Ethics Modules in the Responsible Conduct of ResearchThe Deceased AuthorSurprise Authorship, Credit, and ResponsibilityResponsibilities in the Editing and Reviewing of JournalArticles and Grant ApplicationsThe Problem of Similar ManuscriptsWeighing Contributions to an ArticleEditor's Oversite of Journal Article Reviews and ReviewersBeing the ChiefThe Very Interested ReviewerA Reviewer Learns the Fruitlessness of a New Research ProjectA Claim of Prior Discovery by a ReviewerPlagiarism in a Grant ProposalWas Part of Your Proposal Plagiarized?Credit and Time PressureHow Should Undergraduates Acknowledge Research Aid?Sharing IdeasPlagarism in a LabChoosing ReviewersResponsibility for Bugs and ErrorsIs There an Error?The Disappearing BottlesDoubts about Published ResearchWhen Funding Runs LowBuilding on a Premature ClaimResearch Safety in Local LaboratoriesThe Supervisor-Trainee RelationshipPressure from ConsultingQuestion of Mentoring BiasGender Issues: Should You Find a New Supervisor?The Endless DissertationAn Aborted Ph.D. ProgramSwitching Advisors?Getting a RecommendationSupervisor's Recommendation for a JobOops--Broke Another OneSummer VacationWhose Intellectual Property?Discussion Questions on the Supervising RelationshipThe Family ProblemA Fruitless ThesisCooperation and Competition Between Two Thesis StudentsThe Ethics of Using Animals in ResearchExperiment DiscomfortA Question of Sacrificehttp://onlineethics.org/reseth/modscen.html (3 of 4)10/25/2005 9:05:46 AM

Online Ethics Center: Scenarios for Ethics Modules in the Responsible Conduct of ResearchIntroducing Viruses in the FieldSurvival Skills for Emerging ResearchersThe New HipIf You Were a Committee MemberChange the Protocol to Get Results? (text version)Change the Protocol to Get Results? (dialogue version)Look, I've ChangedUnexpected Adverse EventsThe Ethics of Research on Vulnerable PopulationsA Question of Motives for Funding ResearchExcluding a Population: A Claim of RisksA Vaccine for Isolated PopulationUnwilling Research SubjectsThe Alzheimer's Caregiver StudyThe Nurse Therapist's ProblemReturn to Responsible Research Scenarios IndexReturn to top.Help us evaluate and improve our site by taking this online survey.Copyright 1995-2004 Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science,Terms of Servicehttp://onlineethics.org/reseth/modscen.html (4 of 4)10/25/2005 9:05:46 AM

Undergraduate Education in Practical EthicsUndergraduate Education in PracticalEthicsA general plan plus sample assignments forengineering students using materials from theOnline Ethics CenterCaroline WhitbeckLast Modified:8/19/03 by asA. Ethics Education in Freshmen OrientationB. 100-Level Courses, Especially First-Semester Freshman ClassesC. Topics for First-and Second-Year Students1. Active Learning about professional responsibility forfreshmen and sophomores2. Model active learning assignment on professionalresponsibility for engineeringD. Other Topics Suitable for First and Second Year StudentsE. Topics in Courses for Juniors and SeniorsF. Preparing Students for Their Co-ops and Coaching Them AsEthical Problems AriseG. Ethics Projects for SeniorsThis essay recommends what is called a "hands on," "practice-oriented,""experiential," or "active" learning approach to ethics education. Theactive learning exercises should be chosen so that over the course of theirundergraduate career students engage in developing a full range of ethicalskills. These include not only making judgments about whether someaction is ethical, or which of a set of multiple choices is the best (or leastbad), but skills such as the ability to:●●Find statements of ethical standards by reputable bodies andevaluate the legitimacy of those standardsConduct an ongoing assessment of a problem in a way that doeshttp://onlineethics.org/edu/cwethed.html (1 of 8)10/25/2005 9:06:13 AM

Undergraduate Education in Practical Ethics●●●not cause unnecessary harm (e.g., destroy a person's reputation)Recognize explanations other than the one that appears most likelyFashion responses that will be robust in the sense that they will bewise, even if the situation turns out to be other than the one thatseemed most plausibleRecognize when the moral territory is unfamiliar and locate goodadvice about how to proceed and the likely effects of doing soFor more detailed information on active learning methods that teacha full range of skills for moral problem solving, see "Moral Agents andMoral Problems ". (That this essay was selected for reprinting by theNational Student Pugwash, shows student enthusiasm for these methods.)Active learning materials are featured in the Online Ethics Center( OEC). Active learning methods were featured in pedagogicalpresentations in the March 1999 International Conference on Ethics inEngineering and Computer Science held at Case. The conference papersdescribing these methods are available in the OEC.Other valuable methods are already used in those disciplines in thehumanities and social science that regularly include ethics in their subjectmatter. Ethics has sometimes been well incorporated into capstonecourses in engineering design. The present proposal is not meant todisplace either such existing disciplinary courses that treat ethics indepth, or ethics education that already incorporated into engineeringcourses.A. Freshman Orientation:As of Fall 2000 the first day of Freshman Orientation at Case featuredskits depicting predicaments of college life with President Auston inattendance. These challenge students to think through their actions in arange of situations, from responding to a student who has passed out afterdrinking, to deciding what kinds of help they may use in doing theirassignments. The conversation about the moral responsibilities in anacademic community and academic honesty as a value central to thepractices of acquiring, augmenting, and transmitting knowledge beganhere, as it should, at the beginning of orientation. The uniformity of theexpectation on students and faculty alike to fully acknowledging allsources and aids used in one's work began at this point.B. 100-Level Courses, Especially First-SemesterFreshman ClassesOrientation to the university as a center of learning and research, andintroduction to the practices that define a research university and thecentrality of academic integrity to those practices should continue in 100-level courses. In these courses, upper-class students as well as first-yearstudents are introduced to disciplines. They need to learn not only themethods of creation and discovery used in those disciplines, but also thestandards for evaluating and crediting contributions made in the givenhttp://onlineethics.org/edu/cwethed.html (2 of 8)10/25/2005 9:06:13 AM

Undergraduate Education in Practical Ethicsdiscipline, and the reasons behind the differing standards of behaviorrequired for maintaining academic integrity in different disciplines.By beginning with an emphasis on crediting sources, faculty can createan atmosphere in which students can safely bring to light the sources theydo in fact use. The appropriateness of that use can then be examined.When students see that the careful reporting of data and full citation ofsources are expectations of mature as well as apprentice scholars andinvestigators, they understand what a research community is, and whattheir full participation requires. This sets academic honesty in a verydifferent light than when students see it as obedience to a set of arbitraryrules set down by faculty to make easier the faculty's evaluation task. (Incontrast, rules such as those against studying exams from previous yearsfoster the negative impression that rules about academic honesty have nomoral justification.) Understanding that academic integrity is continuouswith research integrity works to prevent what Case's recent AcademicIntegrity Survey shows are the most common serious departures fromacademic honesty, namely, fabricating or falsifying data on lab reports,failing to properly credit sources and copying others' lab reports.Students need to understand the criteria for fair use of sources in eachnew discipline they enter, because what is common knowledge ororiginal work is field-dependent. For example, copying another's wordchoice and phrasing has a significance in writing poetry that it does nothave in writing research reports, and copying another's data hassignificance in reporting research that it does not have in writing sciencefiction.C. Topics for First- and Second-Year StudentsPractical problems of being and becoming university students oftenabsorb first- and second-year students, especially those in engineeringand computer science. Only the precocious among them think often aboutlife after graduation. Therefore, most first and second year students aremost easily engaged in moral reflection and problem-solving that isclosely related to matters close to their college experience.Those enrolled in professional programs, such as nursing, engineering,and accounting, can be encouraged to consider what it is to choose aprofession, and the particular responsibilities, temptations and moralpitfalls that attend the one they have chosen. They are faced with presentdecisions, such as what major to choose and whether to join the Casestudent chapter of their professional society with which to connect anelementary consideration of professional ethics.Those in pre-professional programs or those who have plans to go intoother professions, such as teaching, have a similar immediate interest inthe choice they are making in a pre-professional program or major and itsimplications for their lives. The OEC contains a cross-section of codes ofethics in science-based professions.Even those students who pursue a liberal education with no thought ofcareer preparation, face questions of forming realistic expectations andhttp://onlineethics.org/edu/cwethed.html (3 of 8)10/25/2005 9:06:13 AM

Undergraduate Education in Practical Ethicsdeciding when and whom to trust as they become independent adults.They are often most interested, for example, in what they can expect indealings with health care practitioners or teachers. Such discussionsshould deal with the responsibilities of students or patients (e.g., thepatient's responsibility to provide the practitioner with complete andaccurate information) as well as their rights.C.1 Active Learning about ProfessionalResponsibility by First and Second Year StudentsRather than simply studying a code, a more engaging active learningapproach begins with discussion of brief open-ended (what-shall-we-do?)problem situations that might arise in the profession in question. Duringthe class session, have the students discuss how they might address theproblem. For follow-up homework, assign the students to see what theprovisions of the relevant professional society's code of ethics wouldhave to say about the situation or the responses they have proposed. It isoften a good idea to assign students to work in groups on this question, orto respond to one another's responses.Those teaching students in engineering and the applied sciences casesmay want to make use of a collection of open-ended discussion cases(cases that ask what should be done). These open-ended cases are basedon other closed-ended cases (cases that ask only how given actionsshould be judged). . These open-ended cases are based on other closedendedcases (cases that ask only how given actions should be judged).Those closed-ended judgment cases were constructed by the NationalSociety of Professional Engineers (NSPE). The NSPE Board of EthicalReview (BER) applied the then current version of the NSPE Code ofEthics to the case to judge the ethical acceptability of the actions of theengineer(s) in the case. Each discussion case on the OEC Web site has alink to the corresponding NSPE BER case and the BER's judgment on it.Beginning with cases that students must grapple with and teachingprinciples in relation to those cases is an essential feature of active orexperiential learning. Students find this approach more interesting thantrying to read the code or even a code and a judgment that applies itwithout first trying to cope with the kinds of situations that the codeseeks to address. It helps them understand:●●●Why codes of ethics mention only certain ethically significantactions, and not all the moral rules that would apply to theirmember's actions (The codes focus on matters related to theresponsibilities and temptations specific to a their profession.)That the ethical considerations they themselves bring forward arenot always the same as those that the professional societiesconsider, but may nonetheless be valid.That professional societies are concerned not only withresponsibility for the public good, but with promoting cooperationand goodwill among members of their profession.These discoveries help students not only understand codes, but toevaluate whether and when the provisions within a code of ethics havehttp://onlineethics.org/edu/cwethed.html (4 of 8)10/25/2005 9:06:13 AM

Undergraduate Education in Practical Ethicsethical justification.C.2. Model Active learning assignment onprofessional responsibility for engineering andscience students (for whom the need is greatest):In class: Present students with one of the research or safety cases bestsuited to your class topic research ethics or safety cases. (If the class is alarge one, use small groups, in which case schedule time for each groupto briefly report to the whole class). Also, discuss:●●●Commission Payment Under a Marketing AgreementGifts to Foreign OfficialsWriting a Letter of RecommendationFor homework assign students to:1. Read the current code of ethics of the National Society ofProfessional Engineers. Compare it to one of the other codes in theCodes Section of the Online Ethics Center closest to your owndiscipline.2. Write a brief discussion (100-200 words) of the NSPE's Board ofEthical Review (BER) in the case that is linked at the bottom of thesafety case considered in class. State where you agree, where youdisagree with their judgment, and why. Send it by email to theinstructor by 9 am before the next class along with discussions ofthe two NSPE BER cases that correspond to the discussion casesabove.For further reading:●●Web pages and literature on professional responsibilityGlossary: Professional ResponsibilityD. Other Topics Suitable for First and Second YearStudents●●●●●●●The moral standards that apply to university lifeThe responsibilities of citizensWhat is the good life or "the good" for people?How can one respect others with different values without fallinginto ethical subjectivismVoting, driving, responsible drinkingEthical question about personal life and values and conduct withfriends and family, including both the personal and policydimensions of birth and deathLaboratory safety, highway safety, consumer safety, and humaninterdependencehttp://onlineethics.org/edu/cwethed.html (5 of 8)10/25/2005 9:06:13 AM

Undergraduate Education in Practical Ethics●Ethics in the news items: There are, unfortunately, always newsstories officials brought up on ethics charges or cited for conflict ofinterest. See Glossary entry for "Conflict of Interest"Sample discussion problem: Is it a conflict of interest forfaculty members to hire students in their courses for clericaljobs? For baby sitting or yard work in their homes? Forresearch assistance?If any of these do create conflicts of interest, would it beacceptable for students who were already employed in anyjob that was problematic above subsequently to enroll in theemploying faculty member's course? Why or why not?E. Topics in Courses for Juniors and SeniorsFor juniors and seniors, life after graduation takes on more reality,especially when they have internships, summer jobs, and volunteerexperiences with potential future employers and other first handexperiences of that life. The ability to evaluate the moral climate of theorganizations they will enter after graduation becomes more important tothem, especially as they realize how different from their undergraduatelife the work world and graduate school may be. Online resources for thisactivity include:Ethical Guidelines for Employers and Employees on ethical behavior in:1. Recruitment2. Employment3. Professional Development4. Termination and Transfer5. Guidelines for Raising Ethical Concerns6. Issues in the Responsible Conduct of ResearchActive learning assignments on professional responsibility for scienceand engineering students Science and engineering faculty members canfind and freely adopt course-tested assignments from the courseassignment list for PHIL304/404, Science and Engineering Ethics. (Irequest that if you are a member of the Case faculty and you use some ofthese materials, you inform me of which assignments you will be usingby sending me email at cwhitbeck@onlineethics.org with the coursename and estimated enrollment for your class. If a significant number ofstudents are likely to take both courses, I can then replace the assignmentyou use with another one in my course.) The topics and assignments inScience and Engineering Ethics increase in difficulty and sophisticationover the span of the semester. Therefore, faculty members are advisednot to give freshmen and sophomores those assignments that come at theend of the course.F. Preparing Students for Their Co-ops andhttp://onlineethics.org/edu/cwethed.html (6 of 8)10/25/2005 9:06:13 AM

Undergraduate Education in Practical EthicsCoaching them as Ethical Problems AriseA committee composed of interested and experienced faculty and formerco-op students could work Deborah Fatica to provide for on-the-jobethics coaching (on the model of the Ethics Help-Line of the OnlineEthics Center ).Other resources for (and some currently used by) the Co-op Programinclude:1. An ethics game widely used in major corporations that revealsmany expectations of well functioning corporations (but withvarying amounts of explanation and justification of those policies).2. Thoughtful advice on ethical conduct from the Ethics Office of amajor corporation.3. Web pages and essays on conflict of interest and conflictinginterests and commitments in work and research contexts.G. Ethics Projects for SeniorsEthics projects would make a useful capstone experience in ethics forthose students not already assigned to do one. In such projects studentsdevelop brief descriptions of an ethically significant open-ended problemsituation of interest to them. Students may work individually or in smallteams. Each student takes his, her, or the team's problem to people whohave knowledge and experience about how to respond in the student'schosen context (usually an employment or graduate or professionalschool context). Doing the project often builds the student's confidenceabout his or her ability to act on ethical convictions in the work or studysituation that he or she plans to enter after graduation.You may access detailed instructions for conducting such a project in acurrent 300/400 level course. A sampling of student reports from MITand Case undergraduates and graduate students is also available in theOnline Ethics Center.Related resources:1. Using Materials from the Online Ethics Center for Engineering &Science in the Engineering Curriculum , a response to a requestfrom Case's ABET Readiness Committee for a "handbook fordummies" on Engineering Ethics2. Course-tested online assignments from Science and EngineeringEthics The assignments at the beginning of the course may be usedwith students at any level, but those in the second half of thecourse should be used only with juniors, seniors, and graduatestudents.http://onlineethics.org/edu/cwethed.html (7 of 8)10/25/2005 9:06:13 AM

Undergraduate Education in Practical EthicsA General Guide to the OECReturn to top.Help us evaluate and improve our site by taking this online survey.Copyright 1995-2004 Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science,Terms of Servicehttp://onlineethics.org/edu/cwethed.html (8 of 8)10/25/2005 9:06:13 AM

Online Ethics Center: Professional Ethics in Engineering Practice: Discussion CasesTexto en EspañolProfessional Ethics in EngineeringPractice: Discussion CasesThese cases present situations that raise ethical questions common inengineering practice and research. They are based on original casesbrought to the BER (Board of Ethical Review) of the NSPE (NationalSociety of Professional Engineers) for review. The NSPE BER reviewscases with the specific purpose of making an ethical judgment on theactions of (only) the engineers in the cases, based solely on the NSPECode of Ethics. The Online Ethics Center is presenting new versions ofthese cases that are more suitable for group and class discussion. Theserewritten cases are deliberately open ended to encourage exchangeregarding how one should respond to the situation rather than simplyjudgments about what someone already did. The discussion cases vary inthe extent of their resemblance to the corresponding NSPE case. Eachrewritten case has a link to the original NSPE version.Last Modified:10/03/05 by mmPublic Safety and WelfareConflicting Interests and Conflict of InterestEthical Engineering/Fair Trade PracticesInternational Engineering EthicsResearch EthicsPublic Safety and Public WelfareClient Request for SecrecyAn engineer notices a problem with his calculations that couldendanger people. The architect and client agree to make somechanges and ask the engineer to keep this situation secret.Code EnforcementAn engineer is in the position of having to trade one safetyconcern for another.Use of CD-ROM for Highway DesignA chemical engineer thinks about offering services in facilitiesdesign and construction, which he would perform with the helphttp://onlineethics.org/cases/nspe/index.html (1 of 7)10/25/2005 9:06:52 AM

Online Ethics Center: Professional Ethics in Engineering Practice: Discussion Casesof a computer program.Software Design TestingAn engineer, hired by a software company, believes that thecompany's new software design is safe under existing standards.However, the new software may not meet the new standards thathe knows are about to be released--standards that Performingmore tests could cost both the company and the publicsignificantly. Issues of conflicting obligations to the companyand the general public also arise.Suspected Hazardous WasteA supervisor instructs a student engineer to withholdinformation from a client about the suspected nature of waste onthe client's property to protect what the supervisor takes to be theclient's interest.Clean-Air Standards and a Government EngineerAn engineer refuses to draw up a permit for a building shebelieves violates environmental standards. Several days later,she learns that her department issued a permit anyway.Responsibility for Public Safety and the Obligation of ClientConfidentialityTenants sue their building's owner, and the owner employs anengineer who finds structural defects not mentioned in thetenants' lawsuit. Issues of public safety versus clientconfidentiality.Code Violations with Safety ImplicationsAn engineer discovers deficiencies in a building's structuralintegrity, and it would breach client confidentiality to reportthem to a third party.Whistleblowing City EngineerAn engineer privately informs other city officials of anenvironmental threat, a problem her supervisor has ordered hernot to disclose.Safety Considerations and Request for Additional EngineeringPersonnelAn engineer is concerned for worker safety during constructionbut yields to his client's objections to the cost of an on-siterepresentative.Engineer's Dispute with Client over DesignA client believes an engineer's designs are too costly, but theengineer fears that anything less may endanger the public.Do Engineers Have a Right to Protest Shoddy Work and CostOverruns?An engineer who is employed by a government contractorobjects to a subcontractor's poor performance and is ignored andsilenced by management.Changes in Statement of Qualifications for a Public ProjectAn engineering firm takes measures to remedy a deficit in aparticular area of expertise needed to successfully complete forand carry out a public project.http://onlineethics.org/cases/nspe/index.html (2 of 7)10/25/2005 9:06:52 AM

Online Ethics Center: Professional Ethics in Engineering Practice: Discussion CasesA promotion committee is organized to finance a variety ofpublic works projects by issuing bonds to the public. They don'tknow, however, if they should allow engineering firms tocontribute funds to the promotion fund.Knowledge of Damaging InformationAn engineer has a conflict between honoring an agreement witha former employer and reporting a hazard to protect the publicinterest.Back to TopContribution to Public Works Promotion CommitteeConflicting Interests and Conflict of InterestSpecifying Equipment of Company Owned by EngineerLisa is asked to write specifications for a water expansionsystem. While she is competent to do so, Lisa also owns acompany that manufactures and sells such systems. Does thisconstitute a conflict of interest? If so, how should it be handled?Serving Plaintiffs and DefendantsAn expert in her field, an engineer is approached by lawyers formanufacturer XYZ to tesitfy on behalf of XYZ. Later, a plaintiffasks her to testify in an unrelated lawsuit against manufacturerXYZ. Does accepting the second job create a conflict of interestfor her?Engineering Student Serving As Consultant to the UniversityA graduate student holds consulting jobs for the university inwhich he is enrolled. Does this situation create a conflict ofinterest?Furnishing Limited AdviceIs it ethical for an engineer to work for a local governmentagency and for a consulting firm that deals with this agency?Conflict of Interest in a Feasibility StudyAn engineer is in a position to decide the outcome of afeasibility study to her personal advantage.Accepting a Complimentary Seminar RegistrationA pipe company invites engineers to a complimentaryeducational seminar on the use of its products. This could becompared to perks and gifts given to physicians by drugcompanies.Engineer's Disclosure of Potential Conflict of InterestAn engineer discloses a potential conflict between his interestsand those of his client.Related Work Done for a Private Party Following PublicEmploymentThe situation of engineers leaving public employ and thenworking in the same area in the private sector is a delicate issue.The engineer has had access to government knowledge that aprivate client may desire. This case raises questions about theethical permissibility of such employment.http://onlineethics.org/cases/nspe/index.html (3 of 7)10/25/2005 9:06:52 AM

Online Ethics Center: Professional Ethics in Engineering Practice: Discussion CasesA city engineer selects an engineering firm for a city projectassignment based on its technical proposals. However, otherfirms view the selection of the firm as biased.Commission Payment Under a Marketing AgreementAn engineer wants to provide international marketing serviceson a commission basis. The case raises questions about whetherworking for a commission where professional judgment isexercised creates a conflict of interest.Binary Service to Same ClientTwo Engineers co-own both an engineering firm and aconsulting firm called Elecricity Services. Their engineeringfirm is awarded an assignment by the board of directors of thewater plant on the basis of reports and recommendationsprovided by their other comany, Electricity Services.Contingency Payment for Industrial DesignPayment for work on a contingency or commission basis isconsidered by some to undermine the professional standing ofengineers, and, in some circumstances, to create a conflict ofinterest. Others view it as creating an incentive for an engineerto deliver the best services of which she is capable.Back to TopServices on Same ProjectEthical Engineering/Fair TradeExpert Witness ServicesAn engineer agrees to provide his services as a witness for freeas a favor to his attorney friend. The client dismisses his friendas counsel and now the engineer wants to charge for his services.Serving as Design Engineer and General ContractorAn engineer is thinking about placing a bid on a contract for ajob for which, in his job at another firm, he prepared the plans.Refusing to Sign/Seal Construction DocumentsAn engineer moves from one firm to a competitor firm andquestions about what obligations the engineer has with respect tounfinished work left behind are raised.Use of Slogans in Political Campaigns and AdvertisingQuestions arise concerning whether certain slogans aredeceptive and misleading or cause dishonor to the engineeringprofession.Misrepresentation of a Business RelationshipAn engineer brings another engineer to a business meetingwithout first discussing business conditions with her.Competence to Certify Arms Storage RoomsAn Engineer with no expertise in arms storage is asked by hissuperior in the army to certify such a room.Comments By One Engineer Concerning AnotherAn engineer is not happy with the recommendation she receiveshttp://onlineethics.org/cases/nspe/index.html (4 of 7)10/25/2005 9:06:52 AM

Online Ethics Center: Professional Ethics in Engineering Practice: Discussion Casesfrom the Secretary of the Professional Engineer's society ofanother state. Questions arise as to who, if anyone, should betold of her dissatisfaction.Copycat?An consultant's attempt to encourage competition conflicts withhis duty to honor the patent of another engineer.Affirmative Action in SubcontractingA disadvantaged firm suddenly charges higher fees to the firmby which it is retained, soon after the parent firm receives muchflattering publicity regarding the parent firm's use of thedisadvantaged firm.Withdrawal of an Employment OfferA firm agrees to hire a recent graduate, then rescinds the offerseveral days after the student has informed other firms that he isno longer available for hire.Public Criticism of SafetyA case in which an engineer agrees to take a job for the localnewspaper, which misrepresents the engineer's professionalopinion.Signing Off on DrawingsAn example of why signing off on one's drawings is essential toresponsible engineering.Intellectual Property of Engineers in Private PracticeAn engineer submits a proposal to a county council, a memberof which makes this proposal available to another engineerdeveloping a proposal for a different county project. The secondengineer uses the first engineer's information and data withoutthe first engineer's consent.Raising an Issue of Participation in a Professional SocietyAn engineer actively participates in professional and technicalsocieties. This participation accords with the policy of theengineer's employer, but the engineer's immediate supervisortries to block or prevent some of these activities.An Engineer's Agreement with Two Competing Firms for theSame ContractAn engineer agrees to a joint venture for the same project withtwo competing firms. He does not inform either firm that he hasdiscussed a joint venture with the other firm.Protesting a Low Fee ProposalThree competing firms submit price proposals with significantprice differences. The lowest price proposal is challenged on thegrounds that competent engineering services could not beprovided within this budget.Advertising: Calendars and PencilsTwo examples of advertising or gifts to potential and currentclients are judged under the Code of Ethics.Changes in Statement of Qualifications for a Public ProjectThis case describes possible methods of making amends for afirm's deficit in a particular area of expertise that a client needshttp://onlineethics.org/cases/nspe/index.html (5 of 7)10/25/2005 9:06:52 AM

Online Ethics Center: Professional Ethics in Engineering Practice: Discussion Casesto complete his project.Employment of Former Convicted EngineerA local company wants to hire a convicted engineer who is inprison for illegally receiving funds from the governmentalprogram.Competition from Former EmployeesA group of engineers leave their employer to start their ownfirm. As the new firm contacts clients from its former employer,each firm casts doubt on the capability of the other firm toprovide competent services.Maintaining Professional Standards: Writing a Letter ofRecommendationThe Board of Ethical Review (BER) discusses the nature of theobligation to write letters of recommendation and the value ofprofessional-society membership in one engineer's respect foranother.The Use of Work from an Unpaid ConsultationThis case covers the pursuit of a contract and use of a studyauthored by a competing firm. It raises questions about the limitsthat are required in order to keep competition for a contract fair.Promotional Letter Emphasizing Negative Attributes of OtherFirmsThis case raises questions about what information is appropriateto include in a promotional letter.Back to TopInternational Engineering EthicsApplication of Code of Ethics to Non-U.S. EngineersAn engineer and member of international NSPE wonderswhether he should engage in a practice which is legallyacceptable in his country but against the code of ethics of NSPE.Commission Payment under Marketing AgreementAn engineer, experienced in providing services to theinternational community, wants to draw on that experience toprovide international marketing services to U.S. engineeringfirms in return for a commission on the services those firms gainas a result of his marketing help.Gifts to Foreign OfficialsThis case provides guidelines on what gift-giving practices areacceptable.Research EthicsJoint Authorship of a PaperThis case addresses issues of fair authorship credit in researchpractice.Data Selection, Legitimate or Illegitimate?http://onlineethics.org/cases/nspe/index.html (6 of 7)10/25/2005 9:06:52 AM

Online Ethics Center: Professional Ethics in Engineering Practice: Discussion CasesA graduate student intentionally omits some of his research data.Credit for Engineering Work in a Design CompetitionAn engineer fails to credit another engineer for design workwhen he enters a competition for bridge design.Improper Credit Given for Research DataThis case raises the question of how best to remedy an honestmistake in crediting the proper source of research information.Back to Top1996 NSPE Code of Ethics This is the version of the code archived in theOEC. An earlier version may have been used in this case.Return to Cases on Engineering Practice Ethics IndexReturn to top.Help us evaluate and improve our site by taking this online survey.Copyright 1995-2004 Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science,Terms of Servicehttp://onlineethics.org/cases/nspe/index.html (7 of 7)10/25/2005 9:06:52 AM

Online Ethics Center: Client Request for SecrecyClient Request for SecrecyAbraham is a structural designer. After constructing a new andinnovative building, he finds a fault in his calculations that could result inits collapse under severe wind conditions. Such a collapse wouldendanger the occupants.Abraham advises the architect and client. The architect and client agreeupon remedial construction and necessary evacuation plan are developed.Both the client and architect strongly agree that the situation should bekept secret.What, if anything, should Abraham do?--adapted from NSPE Cases No. 98-91996 NSPE Code of Ethics This is the version of the code archived in theOEC. An earlier version may have been used in this case.Last Modified:10/03/05 by mmOriginal Case and BER JudgementReturn to the Index of NSPE-based CasesReturn to top.Help us evaluate and improve our site by taking this online survey.Copyright 1995-2004 Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science,Terms of Servicehttp://onlineethics.org/cases/nspe/ec98-9.html10/25/2005 9:07:28 AM

Online Ethics Center: NSPE Case No. 98-9: Duty to Report Unsafe Conditions/Client Request for Secrecy>NSPE Case No. 98-9: Duty to ReportUnsafe Conditions/Client Request forSecrecyFacts:Engineer A, a structural designer of a large commercial building,incorporates new and innovative design concepts. After construction iscomplete and the building is occupied, he finds an omission in hiscalculations that could result in its collapse under severe, but not unusualwind conditions. The collapse would not only jeopardize the occupantsand their immediate surroundings but could possibly cause a "domino"effect threatening a much larger area.Engineer A advises the architect and client of the problem. Afterconsultation with the architect, the client, and the city engineer, all agreeupon remedial construction, which can be accomplished over the nextfew months. A storm monitoring system and contingency evacuationplan for the building and surrounding neighborhood are developed for thetime before construction is complete.Last Modified:10/10/05 by mmBoth the client and architect strongly agree that the situation should bekept secret, with construction accomplished during the evening hourswhen the building is unoccupied. Engineer A is confident that theconstruction will completely rectify any structural concerns and that theevacuation plan has a reasonable chance of success.Engineer B, the city engineer, has concern for the public, especially theoffice workers in the building and their right to know, but the architectand the client maintain that right is superseded by the consequences of apossible public panic resulting from any notification.Questions:●●Is it ethical for Engineer A, the structural engineer, to comply withthe client's and the architect's desire for secrecy?Is it ethical for Engineer B, the city engineer, to maintain thesecrecy?http://onlineethics.org/cases/nspe/nspe98-9.html (1 of 6)10/25/2005 9:07:58 AM

Online Ethics Center: NSPE Case No. 98-9: Duty to Report Unsafe Conditions/Client Request for SecrecyReferences:●●●●●●Section I.1. - Code of Ethics: Engineers, in the fulfillment of theirprofessional duties, shall hold paramount the safety, health andwelfare of the public.Section II.1.a. - Code of Ethics: Engineers shall hold paramountthe safety, health and welfare of the public. If engineers' judgmentis overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property,they shall notify their employer or client and such other authorityas may be appropriate.Section II.1.c. - Code of Ethics: Engineers shall not reveal facts,data or information without the prior consent of the client oremployer except as authorized or required by law or this Code.Section II.1.e. - Code of Ethics: Engineers having knowledge ofany alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon toappropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to publicauthorities, and cooperate with the proper authorities in furnishingsuch information or assistance as may be required.Section II.4. - Code of Ethics: Engineers shall act for eachemployer or client as faithful agents or trustees.Section III.4. - Code of Ethics: Engineers shall not disclose,without consent, confidential information concerning the businessaffairs or technical processes of any present or former client oremployer, or public body on which they serve.Discussion:The Board has interpreted the language contained in Sections II.4. andIII.4. in the context of the obligations of employed engineers to maintainthe confidences of their employer particularly with regard to certainconfidential information that might be made available to the engineerduring the course of employment, as in Case 61-8. However, morerecently, the Board has also interpreted this language in the context of therelationships owed by the engineer in private practice to the client and thepublic.The facts in this case are somewhat similar to those presented in Case 89-7. In that case, Engineer A was retained to investigate the structuralintegrity of a 60-year old occupied apartment building, which his client isplanning to sell. Under the terms of the agreement with the client, thestructural report written by Engineer A was to remain confidential. Inaddition, the client made it clear to Engineer A that the building wasbeing sold "as is" and he was not planning to take any remedial action torepair or renovate any system within the building prior to its sale.Engineer A performed several structural tests on the building anddetermined that the building was structurally sound. However, during thecourse of providing services, the client confided in Engineer A andinformed him that the building contained deficiencies in the electricaland mechanical systems, which violated applicable codes and standards.While Engineer A was not an electrical nor mechanical engineer, he didrealize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of thebuilding and so informed the client. In his report, Engineer A made ahttp://onlineethics.org/cases/nspe/nspe98-9.html (2 of 6)10/25/2005 9:07:58 AM

Online Ethics Center: NSPE Case No. 98-9: Duty to Report Unsafe Conditions/Client Request for Secrecybrief mention of his conversation with the client concerning thedeficiencies; however, in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer Adid not report the safety violations to any third party.In determining that it was unethical for Engineer A not to report thesafety violations to the appropriate public authorities, the Board ofEthical Review first noted that the facts presented raised a conflictbetween two basic ethical obligations of an engineer: The obligation ofthe engineer to be faithful to the client and not to disclose confidentialinformation concerning the business affairs of a client without thatclient's consent, and the obligation of the engineer to hold paramount thepublic health and safety. In its review, the Board noted that Code SectionIII.4 can be clearly understood to mean that an engineer has an ethicalobligation not to disclose confidential information concerning thebusiness affairs of any present client without the consent of that client.That provision makes no specific exception to the language. Forexample, the drafters of the Code could have provided exceptionalcircumstances, where such confidential information could be disclosedby the engineer; however, no such provisions have been included.However, after noting the significance of III.4, the Board stated: "Webelieve under the facts, Section II.1.c. should be read in conjunction withSection II.1.a. The latter section refers to the primary obligation of theengineer to protect the safety, health, property and welfare of the public.The obligation of the engineer to refrain from revealing confidentialinformation, data, facts concerning the business affairs of the clientwithout consent of the client is a significant ethical obligation. Wefurther believe that matters of public health and safety must takeprecedence. The NSPE Code of Ethics is clear on this point. Section I.1.employs the word 'paramount' to describe the obligation of the engineerwith respect to the public health and safety.""We believe Engineer A could have taken other steps to address thesituation, not the least of which was his paramount professionalobligation to notify the appropriate authority if his professional judgmentis overruled under circumstances where the safety of the public isendangered. Instead, Engineer A, like the engineer in BER Case 84-5,'went along' and proceeded with the work on behalf of the client. In thatcase, the engineer recommended to a client that a full-time, on-siteproject representative be hired for the project because of the potentiallydangerous nature of implementing the design during the constructionphase. When the client indicated to the engineer that the project would betoo costly if such a representative were hired, the engineer acceded to theclient's wishes and proceeded with the work. This was not ethical underthe NSPE code."In Case 88-6, Engineer A is employed as the City Engineer/Director ofPublic Works. She finds that the municipal sewage plant lacks thecapacity to handle the waste from several large industrial food processingplants. Engineer A reveals this to her supervisor, the City Administrator,who orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warnsher that her job is in danger if she disobeys. She privately brings theproblem up to other city officials. Engineer A is notified by theAdministrator that she is removed from responsibility for the entirehttp://onlineethics.org/cases/nspe/nspe98-9.html (3 of 6)10/25/2005 9:07:58 AM

Online Ethics Center: NSPE Case No. 98-9: Duty to Report Unsafe Conditions/Client Request for Secrecysanitary system and the chain of command by a letter instructingTechnician B that he is to take responsible charge of the sanitary systemand report directly to City Administrator.Although she had already gone beyond her immediate superior bydiscussing the matter with other city officials and had been relieved ofresponsibility for the operation, the Board maintained that Engineer Ahad a further responsibility to report a matter endangering the publicsafety and health to the proper authorities.While the Board noted earlier that the Code makes no direct exception tothe language contained in Section III.4., as we have stated on numerousoccasions, no section of the Code should be read in a vacuum orindependent of the other provisions of the Code. Section II.1.c. providesadditional guidance in this case making it clear that the Engineer A hasan ethical obligation to refrain from disclosing information which sheacquires during the course of providing professional services to the clientunless first obtaining the client's consent to disclose. Importantly,however, this section also includes a relevant exception that allows theengineer to disclose information acquired during the course of providingprofessional services to the client if such disclosure is authorized orrequired by law or by the Code. In other words, if the engineer has a legalor ethical responsibility to disclose the information in question, theengineer is released from the obligation to maintain confidentiality.Much of the same reasoning applies in the present case. Under thereasoning of BER Case 88-6, the engineer had an obligation to gofurther. As earlier stated, we believe under the facts, Section II.1.c.should be read in conjunction with Section II.1.a. The latter section refersto the primary obligation of the engineer to protect the safety, health,property and welfare of the public. The obligation of the engineer torefrain from revealing confidential information, data, facts concerning thebusiness affairs of the client without consent of the client is a significantethical obligation. We further believe that matters of public health andsafety must take precedence. Again, the Code of Ethics is clear on thispoint -- Section I.1. employs the word "paramount" to describe theobligation of the engineer with respect to the public health and safety.Engineer A's actions in promptly reporting his findings to the client andproviding a corrective design were both ethical and commendable.Nevertheless, the necessary repairs require months before the building'sstability could be ensured. During that time, the building's occupantsalong with a large area of the city, remained in jeopardy, with only anuntested evacuation plan protecting them from possible disaster.The desire to avoid public panic is certainly a legitimate factor indeciding upon a course of action. However, withholding criticalinformation from thousands of individuals whose safety is compromisedover a significant period of time is not a valid alternative for theconditions presented.It would seem that Engineer A should have informed the client and thearchitect that, while he has an obligation of confidentiality to them ashttp://onlineethics.org/cases/nspe/nspe98-9.html (4 of 6)10/25/2005 9:07:58 AM

Online Ethics Center: NSPE Case No. 98-9: Duty to Report Unsafe Conditions/Client Request for Secrecyclients, he has this ultimate, paramount obligation to see that the public isprotected. He should have let them know that he must inform theappropriate authorities unless they immediately develop and carry out aplan to do so. Such a plan, developed in consultation with a publicrelations firm and legal advice, could have avoided panic and sensationalmedia hype, while protecting the public."The argument can be made that the Engineer B, the city engineer, couldbe considered an "appropriate authority." However, given the magnitudeof the situation, it was incumbent for Engineer A, as well as Engineer B,to vigorously advocate actions necessary for public protection andnotification to higher authorities. By not doing so, both engineers failedto hold paramount the obligation for public safety.Engineer A could have taken other steps to address the situation, not theleast of which was his paramount professional obligation to notify theappropriate authority if his professional judgment is overruled undercircumstances where the safety of the public is endangered. Thisresponsibility is outlined in Code Section II.1.e. Instead, Engineer A"went along" and proceeded with the work on behalf of the client. Hisconduct cannot be condoned under the Code.Conclusions:1. It was not ethical for the structural engineer to comply with theclient's and the architect's desire for secrecy.2. It was not ethical for the Engineer B, the city engineer, to maintainthe secrecy.●●●●●●●Board of Ethical ReviewLorry T. Bannes, P.E.James G. Fuller, P.E.Donald L. Hiatte, P.E.Joe Paul Jones, P.E.Paul E. Pritzker, P.E.Richard Simberg, P.E.C. Allen Wortley, P.E., ChairmanNOTE:●●The NSPE Board of Ethical Review (BER) considers ethical casesinvolving either real or hypothetical matters submitted to it fromNSPE members, other engineers, public officials and members ofthe public. The BER reviews each case in the context of the NSPECode of Ethics and earlier BER opinions. The facts contained ineach case do not necessarily represent all of the pertinent factssubmitted to or reviewed by the BER.Each opinion is intended as guidance to individual practicingengineers, students and the public. In regard to the question ofapplication of the NSPE Code of Ethics to engineeringhttp://onlineethics.org/cases/nspe/nspe98-9.html (5 of 6)10/25/2005 9:07:58 AM

Online Ethics Center: NSPE Case No. 98-9: Duty to Report Unsafe Conditions/Client Request for Secrecy●●organizations (e.g., corporations, partnerships, soleproprietorships,government agencies, university engineeringdepartments, etc.), the specific business form or type should notnegate nor detract from the conformance of individuals to theNSPE Code. The NSPE Code deals with professional services --which services must be performed by real persons. Real persons inturn establish and implement policies within business structures.This opinion is for educational purposes only. It may be reprintedwithout further permission, provided that this statement is includedbefore or after the text of the case and that appropriate attributionis provided to the National Society of Professional Engineers'Board of Ethical Review.Visit the "Ethics Button" on NSPE's website (www.nspe.org) andlearn how to obtain complete volumes that include all NSPEOpinions (or call 1-800-417-0348).1996 NSPE Code of Ethics This is the version of the code archived in theOEC. An earlier version may have been used in this case.Return to "Client Request for Secrecy"Return to the Index of NSPE-based CasesReturn to top.Help us evaluate and improve our site by taking this online survey.Copyright 1995-2004 Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science,Terms of Servicehttp://onlineethics.org/cases/nspe/nspe98-9.html (6 of 6)10/25/2005 9:07:58 AM

Online Ethics Center: Maintaining Professional Standards: Writing a Letter of RecommendationMaintaining Professional Standards:Writing a Letter of RecommendationNiemeyer is an engineer working for a medium-size manufacturingcompany and is being considered for a promotion. Niemeyer's employercontacts other engineers who have worked previously with Niemeyer andasks for their comments.How should an employer determine who should be contacted for peerperformance evaluations? Should the person being evaluated have inputinto the selection of peer review? Should the peer review results beshared with the employee? Should this be open or anonymous?One of the people contacted about Niemeyer is Singh, who is currentlyemployed by another company and who no longer has a directprofessional relationship with Niemeyer. Singh is aware that Niemeyerhas dropped his membership in the state professional engineering society.Singh believes that it is incumbent upon all engineers to support theirprofession through membership in the professional society -- preferablyin an active role, or at least by payment of dues. Because of this Singhrefuses to comment on Niemeyer's performance.Last Modified:09/26/05 by mmWhat is Singh's obligation to his collegue concerning perfomancereview? Do members of a profession have an obligation to particpate intheir professional societies? Why or why not?The employer reports Singh's comments to Niemeyer. How, if at all,should Niemeyer respond to his employer? To Singh? Should Niemeyercommunicate with the professional society about this incident?--adapted from NSPE Case No. 77-71996 NSPE Code of Ethics This is the version of the code archived in theOEC. An earlier version may have been used in this case.Original Case and BER JudgmentReturn to the Index of NSPE-based Caseshttp://onlineethics.org/cases/nspe/ec77-7.html (1 of 2)10/25/2005 9:09:33 AM

Online Ethics Center: Maintaining Professional Standards: Writing a Letter of RecommendationReturn to top.Help us evaluate and improve our site by taking this online survey.Copyright 1995-2004 Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science,Terms of Servicehttp://onlineethics.org/cases/nspe/ec77-7.html (2 of 2)10/25/2005 9:09:33 AM

Online Ethics Center: Credit for Engineering Work Design CompetitionTexto en EspañolCredit for Engineering Work DesignCompetitionAmory, an engineer, is retained by the City to design a bridge as part ofan elevated highway system. Amory retains the services of Carroll, astructural engineer, with expertise in horizontal geometry, superstructuredesign and elevations, to design certain parts of the bridge. Carroll draftsplans for the bridge's three curved welded-plate girder spans, a criticalpart of the bridge's design.Months later, Amory enters the bridge design into a nationalorganization's bridge-design competition, and it wins first prize. Theentry, however, fails to credit Carroll for his part in the bridge design.What, if anything, should Carroll do?--adapted from NSPE Case No. 92-1Last Modified:09/29/05 by mm1996 NSPE Code of Ethics This is the version of the code archived in theOEC. An earlier version may have been used in this case.Original Case and BER JudgementReturn to the Index of NSPE-based CasesReturn to top.Help us evaluate and improve our site by taking this online survey.Copyright 1995-2004 Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science,Terms of Servicehttp://onlineethics.org/cases/nspe/ec92-1.html10/25/2005 9:10:14 AM

Online Ethics Center: IEEE Employment GuideGuidelines to Professional Employment forEngineers and Scientists: RecruitmentI. RecruitmentHiring should be based on professional competence and ability to meetthe job requirements. Employee qualifications and employmentopportunities should be represented in a factual and forthright manner.The employer's offer of employment and the employee's acceptanceshould be in writing.Professional Employee1. The professional employee (applicant) should attend interviews andaccept reimbursement only for those job opportunities in which there is asincere interest. The applicant should prorate costs for multipleinterviews during a given trip on a rational basis. The guiding principleshould be that the applicant receives neither more nor less than the costof the total trip.Last Modified:09/19/05 by mm2. The applicant should carefully evaluate past, present, and futureconfidentiality obligations in regard to trade secrets and proprietaryinformation connected with the potential employment. The applicantshould not seek or accept employment on the basis of using or divulgingany trade secrets or proprietary information.3. Having accepted an offer of employment, the applicant is morallyobligated to honor the commitment unless formally released after givingadequate notice of intent.4. The applicant should not use the funds or time of a current employerfor the purpose of seeking new employment unless approved by thecurrent employer.Employer1. The policy of the employer regarding payment of expenses incurred bythe applicant in attending the interview must be made clear prior to thearranged interview.http://onlineethics.org/codes/emprecruit.html (1 of 2)10/25/2005 9:15:22 AM

Online Ethics Center: IEEE Employment Guide2. The applicant should have an interview with the prospective employerand, if possible, with the prospective supervisor, in order to understandclearly the technical and business nature of the job opportunity. Theprospective employer should be ethically responsible for allrepresentations regarding the conditions of employment.3. Applications for positions should be confidential. The expressedconsent of the applicant should be obtained prior to communicating witha current employer.4. Employers should minimize hiring during periods of major curtailmentof personnel.5. Hiring of professional employees should be planned at all times toprovide satisfying careers.6. Agreements among employers or between employer and professionalemployee which limit the opportunity of professional employees to seekother employment or establish independent enterprise are contrary to thespirit of these Guidelines.7. The employer's written offer of employment should state all relevantterms, such as salary, understandings relating to relocation assistance,expected duration of employment (permanent or temporary), and patentobligations. The prospective employee should be informed of any papersrequiring a signature.8. Having accepted an applicant, an employer who finds it necessary torescind offer of employment should make adequate reparation for anyinjury suffered.Go to Next Section of the Employment GuidelinesReturn to Outline for the Employment GuidelinesReturn to top.Help us evaluate and improve our site by taking this online survey.Copyright 1995-2004 Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science,Terms of Servicehttp://onlineethics.org/codes/emprecruit.html (2 of 2)10/25/2005 9:15:22 AM

Online Ethics Center: Guidelines for Engineers Dissenting on Ethical GroundsGuidelines for Engineers Dissenting onEthical GroundsIEEE Ethics Committee 11/11/96Introduction1. Establish a clear technical foundation2. Keep your arguments on a high professional plane3. Try to catch problems early, and work with the lowestmanagerial level possible4. Make sure that the issue is sufficiently important5. Use organizational dispute resolution mechanisms6. Keep records and collect paper7. Resigning8. Anonymity9. Outside ResourcesConclusionsLast Modified:09/19/05 by mmIntroductionThe goal of these guidelines is to provide general advice to engineers,including engineering managers, who find themselves in conflicts withmanagement over matters with ethical implications. Much of this adviceis pertinent to more general conflicts within organizations. For example,it is not unusual in technical organizations for there to be hard foughtbattles regarding purely technical decisions that do not necessarily haveany ethical implications--but do have impacts on the probabilities ofsuccess of products. The assumption here is that the engineer's objectiveis to prevent some serious harm, while minimizing career damage.Many ethics related disputes are caused by attempts to satisfyirreconcilable constraints. For example, suppose it is impossible to test aproduct adequately in time to meet a delivery date. Missing the deliverydate constitutes a highly visible failure, with clearly defined penalties.There may be no obvious indication that an important set of tests hashttp://onlineethics.org/codes/guidelines.html (1 of 5)10/25/2005 9:15:59 AM

Online Ethics Center: Guidelines for Engineers Dissenting on Ethical Groundsbeen omitted, even if this leads to a substantial increase in the probabilityof a life threatening system failure. Under such conditions, there is atemptation to meet the deadline by skipping or shortening the tests. Suchdecisions might or might not be in accordance with company policy. Ifnot, then an engineer or manager objecting on ethical grounds usually hasan easier, but usually not easy, problem. The chances of resolving theproblem within the organization may be quite good. If the decision isconsistent with the views of upper management, then the problem is farmore serious for the dissenter. The following guidelines, based on theexperiences of many people, are designed to maximize the chances of afavorable outcome for the ethically concerned manager or engineer.Back to topOne should check out the alleged facts and technical arguments asthoroughly as possible. If feasible, get the advice of colleagues that yourespect. Carefully consider counter-arguments made by others. A goodway to ensure that you understand someone else's position, is to restate itto the satisfaction of that person. At any stage, if convinced that the otherperson's arguments are valid, do not hesitate to change your positionaccordingly.This does NOT mean that you must be able to validate your position withnear mathematical certainty. This is seldom possible in the real world. Inmost engineering work, we must operate with incomplete informationand make reasonable engineering judgments. For example, the engineersin the Challenger case could not PROVE that a launch would lead to adisaster. But, in such a situation it was sufficient to show that thelikelihood of failure of the O-ring joints was clearly too great withrespect to established safety standards. The burden was on the other sideto justify the launch--a burden that was not met.Back to top1. Establish a clear technical foundation2. Keep your arguments on a high professionalplane, as impersonal and objective as possible,avoiding extraneous issues and emotional outburstsFor example, do not mix personal grievances into an argument aboutwhether further testing is necessary for some critical subsystem. Keepcalm and avoid impugning the motives of an opponent. (Of course, theremight be a situation in which the central issue is that an incompetentperson has been given critical responsibilities. In that case, it may benecessary to attack that person's qualifications. But this should be donewithout malice.) Try to structure the situation so that accepting yourposition will involve as little embarrassment as possible to those beingasked to change a decision. For example, you might be able to allow amanager to take credit for realizing that a course reversal was called for.Avoid overstating your case. Your credibility can be seriouslyundermined by exaggerated, invalid figures--even on matters not centralto the main issue.http://onlineethics.org/codes/guidelines.html (2 of 5)10/25/2005 9:15:59 AM

Online Ethics Center: Guidelines for Engineers Dissenting on Ethical GroundsIf the matter turns into a serious conflict, efforts will be made to portrayyou as some sort of crackpot. Avoid behavior that could be used tosupport such an attack. In both written and oral arguments be cool, clear,concise and accurate. At all times behave as a competent, ethicalprofessional.Back to top3. Try to catch problems early, and keep theargument at the lowest managerial level possibleCalling attention to a problem at an early stage makes a satisfactorysolution much more likely. As time goes on, personal commitments to aparticular course of action become deeper, and making changes becomesincreasingly expensive. It is always less costly to resolve the dispute atthe lowest organizational level possible. Move up the chain of commandonly when it is clear that this is necessary.Back to top4. Before going out on a limb, make sure that theissue is sufficiently importantIf a situation reaches the point where further protest may be costly,consider whether the stakes are sufficiently high. For example, if theissue involves only financial risks for the employer, then, if managers areacting unreasonably, it is probably not worth risking your career.Back to top5. Use organizational dispute resolution mechanismsGood organizations have procedures, not always formal, for resolvingdisputes. After having exhausted informal efforts to persuade yourmanager, then you must consider using these mechanisms. Since this willalmost certainly damage relations with your manager, this step should betaken only after a careful review along the lines discussed in guidelines 1and 2. If you have an ally higher up in the management chain, you mightappeal to that person for advice and possibly to intervene as a mediator.If your organization lacks such a dispute resolution procedure, considerchampioning the creation of one. This could be invaluable in minimizingfuture problems.Back to top6. Keep records and collect paperAs soon as you realize that you are getting into a situation that maybecome serious, you should initiate a log, recording, with times anddates, the various steps that you take (e.g., conversations, emailhttp://onlineethics.org/codes/guidelines.html (3 of 5)10/25/2005 9:15:59 AM

Online Ethics Center: Guidelines for Engineers Dissenting on Ethical Groundsmessages, etc.) Keep copies of pertinent documents or computer files athome, or in the office of a trusted friend--to guard against the possibilityof a sudden discharge and sealing off of your office. But be careful not toviolate any laws!Back to topIf efforts to resolve the conflict within your organization fail, then adecision must be made as to whether to go further. It should be realizedthat there will almost certainly be a significant personal cost involved ifyou proceed. It is very unlikely that you would be able to remain with theorganization, unless your job is governmental in nature, protected bycivil service regulations or the like. One obvious choice is to resign. Theadvantages are: (1) This adds credibility to your position--makes itobvious you are a serious person. (2) Arguments that you are beingdisloyal to your employer are disarmed. (3) Since you are likely to befired, resigning may look better on your record.The drawbacks are: (1) Once you are gone, it may be easier for theorganization to ignore the issues you raised, as others in the organizationmay be unwilling to carry on the fight. (2) The right to dissent fromwithin the organization may be one of the points you wish to make. (3)You might thereby lose pension rights, unemployment compensation,and the right to sue for improper discharge.It would be wise to consult an attorney before making this decision.Back to top7. ResigningIn some situations, engineers may see serious harm being done withintheir organizations, but recognize that publicly calling attention to it maycause personal repercussions beyond what they are willing to accept. Itmight be possible to report the problem anonymously to others who maybe able to take action, e.g. a regulatory agency, a senator, or a reporter.One problem is that an anonymous report may not be taken seriously.Providing enough information to make the report more credible maymake it easy for the organization to identify its source. Being exposed asa purveyor of an anonymous report may be even more damaging to theengineer than the effect of openly making the report would have been. Areporter might distort the facts to make the case more "newsworthy".Nevertheless, this route is sometimes taken in preference to doingnothing at all. In such a case, one should be particularly careful not tomalign any individuals and one should convey in the message means forverifying the claims made.Back to top8. Anonymity9. Outside Resourceshttp://onlineethics.org/codes/guidelines.html (4 of 5)10/25/2005 9:15:59 AM

Online Ethics Center: Guidelines for Engineers Dissenting on Ethical GroundsIf, after the failure of internal conflict resolution measures, you decide totake the matter outside the organization, whether or not you decide toresign, care must be taken in choosing where to go. In many cases, anobvious place is a cognizant regulatory or law enforcement agency. Otherpossibilities include Members of Congress (from one's own district orstate, or the head of a relevant committee), state or local governmentofficials or legislators, or public interest organizations. Of course somecombination of these might be chosen. Although it is usually not a goodidea to take one's case directly to the news media, they generally becomeinvolved eventually, usually in reporting actions taken by whatever entitythe engineer has contacted. One must take special pains to be accurateand clear when dealing with journalists so as to minimize sensationalismand distortion. When given a choice among media organizations, choosethose with reputations for fairness and accuracy.Guidance and support from one's professional society is potentially apowerful aid to engineers in the kinds of situations considered here.Efforts are under way within the IEEE to improve the machinery forproviding such support. Regardless of whether one obtains professionalsociety support, it would be useful to engage an attorney to advise on themany legal aspects of the situation. But in considering their advice, onemust take into account the tendency of attorneys to discourage any actsaccompanied by legal risks.Back to topConclusionsFollowing the above guidelines will often lead to a satisfactory resolutionof the problem at issue. However the situations treated here are inherentlydifficult. No tactics or strategies can guarantee a happy outcome. It takescourage and dedication to risk one's job, or even career, on ethicalgrounds. Many who have done so have suffered severe consequences, atleast in the short run. It is not uncommon for the engineer's position toprevail, while the engineer is fired. Sometimes, the immediate battle islost, but the result of the battle is that fewer such bad decisions are madein the future. Finally, one should also consider the personal consequencesof yielding on a matter of principle when the result may be severe harmto others. This can cause a lifelong loss of self esteem.Online Ethics Center Help-LineReturn to the Index of Codes of EthicsReturn to top.Help us evaluate and improve our site by taking this online survey.Copyright 1995-2004 Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science,Terms of Servicehttp://onlineethics.org/codes/guidelines.html (5 of 5)10/25/2005 9:15:59 AM