1. ME 498/499 Senior Design Project
ENGINEERING ETHICS

2. Ethics as Relating to Engineering
Engineering often is based on Preventative Ethics
which is based on two dimensions:
1. Engineers must be able to think ahead to anticipate possible consequences of their professional actions.
2. Engineers must be able to think effectively about those consequences and decide what is the ‘ethically’ correct manner to handle the situation.

3. Standards of Proper Conduct
Professional Ethics
the set of standards adopted by professionals to govern
their actions and their particular profession, often listed in a ‘code of ethics’ for that profession.
Personal Values (Ethics)
the set of one’s own ethical commitments, usually
acquired and/or developed in early home, religious,
or social training; often modified over time by later reflection or experience.
Common Morality
the set of moral ideals shared by most members of a culture or society.

4. Levels of Technology Development and use of devices and techniques
Software
Products
Gene-transfer vector
Effects that come in the wake of new devices and techniques
Intensive care unit
Living will
Radioactive waste
Way of relating to the world
Enhancement technologies
Objects for human manipulation
Rejection of given
Humanity exerts power
Humanity as creator, or created cocreator

5. Teaching engineering ethics
Teaching engineering ethics can achieve at least four desirable outcomes:
a) increased ethical sensitivity;
b) increased knowledge of relevant standards of conduct;
c) improved ethical judgment; and
d) improved ethical will-power (that is, a greater ability to act ethically when one wants to).

6. Professional Codes of Ethics
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET)
National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE)
Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE)
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Biomedical Engineering Society (BMES)

7. The Fundamental Principles
ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology) Code of Ethics of Engineers
The Fundamental Principles
Engineers uphold and advance the integrity, honor, and dignity of the engineering profession by:
I. using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfare;
II. being honest and impartial, and serving with fidelity the public, their employers, and their clients;
III. striving to increase the competence and prestige of the engineering profession; and,
IV. supporting the professional and technical societies of their disciplines.

8. Groups Who Benefit (ABET)
The human family
Public
Employers
Clients
Profession
Professional and technical societies

9. ABET Code of Ethics of Engineers The Fundamental Canons
1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties.
2. Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their competence.
3. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
4. Engineers shall act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, and shall avoid conflicts of interest.
5. Engineers shall build their professional reputation on the merit of their services and shall not compete unfairly with others.
6. Engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and enhance the honor, integrity, and dignity of the profession.
7. Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout their careers and shall provide opportunities for the professional development of those engineers under their supervision.

10. Ethics in ABET Program Outcomes
Engineering programs must demonstrate that their graduates have
Ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, engineering
Ability to design and conduct expts, analyze and interpret data
Ability to design system, component, or process
Ability to function on multidisciplinary teams
Ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems
An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility
Ability to communicate effectively
Broad education necessary to understand engineering impact in a global and societal context
Recognition of need for and ability to engage in life-long learning
Knowledge of contemporary issues
Ability to use techniques, skills and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice

11. Engineering Ethics Code of Ethics for Engineers (excerpt of NSPE)
I. Fundamental Canons
Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:
Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties.
Perform services only in areas of their competence.
Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
Act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
Avoid deceptive acts in the solicitation of professional employment
(ref. Martin and Schinzinger, pg 352)

12. Engineering Ethics Education Current State
Awareness of need is increasing
Social issues
ABET accreditation standards
70% of accredited programs have no ethics course requirement (Stephan, 1999)
Key concept: "professional responsibility" (moral responsibility based on an individual's special knowledge) (Whitbeck, 1998).
Typical concerns: conflicts of interest, integrity of data, whistle-blowing, loyalty, accountability, giving credit where due, trade secrets, gift giving and bribes (Wujek and Johnson, 1992).
Herkert, The Bridge, 32(3), 2002

13. Engineering Ethical Education Issues to be Considered
Ethical implications of public policy relevant to engineering:
Sustainable development
Health care
Risk and product liability
Information technology
Culturally embedded engineering practice (institutional and political aspects of engineering, such as contracting, regulation, and technology transfer)
Macroethical issues (e.g., overconsumption)
Herkert, The Bridge, 32(3), 2002

14. from The American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASME Code of Ethics
Code of Ethics of Engineers
from The American Society of Mechanical Engineers
THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
Engineers uphold and advance the integrity, honor, and dignity of the Engineering profession by:
using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfare;
being honest and impartial, and serving with fidelity the public, their employers and clients, and
striving to increase the competence and prestige of the engineering profession.

15. ASME Code of Ethics Code of Ethics of Engineers From ASME
THE FUNDAMENTAL CANONS
Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties.
Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their competence.
Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout their careers and shall provide opportunities for the professional development of those engineers under their supervision.
Engineers shall act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, and shall avoid conflicts of interest.
Engineers shall build their professional reputations on the merit of their services and shall not compete unfairly with others.
Engineers shall associate only with reputable persons or organizations.
Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.

16. Personal Ethics - everyday examples
Software piracy
Expense account padding
Copying of homework or tests
Income taxes
“Borrowing” nuts and bolts, office supplies from employer
Copying of Videos or CD’s
Plagiarism
Using the copy machine at work

18. List of Typical Engineering Ethics Issues Involving Conflicts of Obligation
1) conflict of interest
2) public safety and welfare
3) integrity of data & representation of it
4) whistle-blowing
5) choice of a job
6) accountability to clients and customers
7) plagiarism
8) trade secrets & industrial espionage
9) gift giving & bribes
10) fair treatment

19. Ethics
A set of moral values and principles which form the standards guiding the code of conduct of individuals, organizations and professions.

20. What is ETHICS ?
Ethics is the moral governing what is right and wrong conduct.
Moral is the principles of good and bad behaviour.
Our understanding
Behaviour is the way in which someone behaves.
Conduct is the manner in which a person behaves.
Concise Oxford English Dictionary (10th Edition)
Ethics is the principles of good and bad behaviour governing what is right and wrong conduct.

21. “personal ethics”
is individual morality usually implies a set of internally held values;
focus on what are held to be intrinsic or universal values - truth, honesty, or other measure of goodness;
may guide our personal beliefs and actions.

22. "professional ethics"
is usually connected to a shared understanding of proper conduct guidelines among a group of people associated by means of their profession;
allows diverse, multidisciplinary, and multicultural teams to work in unison toward common goals.

23. Professional vs. Personal Ethics
Personal and professional ethics are different from, but not exclusive of, each other.
Overlap between professional and personal ethics.
Professional ethics more restrictive than Personal ethics.

24. Basic Ethical Concepts
Ethical considerations are an integral part of making engineering decisions.
The professional obligations of engineers go beyond fulfilling a contract with a client or customer.
Codes of ethics can provide guidance in the decision-making process.

25. Basic Ethical Concepts ...
Ethical obligations do not stop at any country’s border; they are global.
Wherever engineers practice, they should hold paramount the health, safety, and welfare of the public.
How an engineer fulfills those obligations may depend on the social and economic context of engineering practice.

27. Increasing severity of consequences
PROFESSIONAL INTEGRITY “Interaction Rules”
Increasing severity of consequences
Courtesy/Etiquette
Morals/Ethics
Codes of Ethics/Conduct
Acts/Laws
Indicate dedication to professional behavior
Recognition of professional responsibilities
Create ethical environment
Guide in specific circumstances

28. Ethical Issues are Seldom Black and White
Conflicting demands:
Loyalty to company and colleagues
Concern for public welfare
Personal gain, ambition
Ethical standards are usually relative and personal, there is seldom an absolute standard

29. Moral Dilemmas Kickbacks
A County Engineer in Virginia demanded a 25% kickback in secret payments for highway work contracts he issued. In 1967 he made such an offer to Allan Kammerer, a 32 year old civil engineer who was vice president of a young and struggling consulting firm greatly in need of the work. Kammerer discussed the offer with others in the firm, who told him it was his decision to make. Finally Kammerer agreed to the deal, citing as a main reason his concern for getting sufficient work to retain his current employees. (Martin and Schinzinger, pg 14)

30. More Moral Dilemmas Waste dumping
“On a midnight shift, a botched solution of sodium cyanide, a reactant in an organic synthesis, is temporarily stored in drums for reprocessing. Two weeks later, the day shift foreman cannot find the drums. Roy, the plant manager, finds out that the batch had been illegally dumped into the sanitary sewer. He severely disciplines the night shift foreman. Upon making discrete inquiries, he finds out that no apparent harm has resulted from the dumping.” (Martin and Schinzinger, pg 32)
Should Roy inform government authorities, as is required by law in this kind of situation?

31. More Moral Dilemmas I have a wife and kids...
Older engineers, in particular, find job security in competition with ethical instinct. With considerable sympathy, I recall the dilemma of an older PE, in the shadow of a comfortable retirement, who was confronted by a new general manager of the plant in which he was employed as a facilities engineer. In consideration of plans for a plant expansion, the general manager insisted that the PE reduce footings and structural steel specifications below standards of good practice. The PE was told to choose between his job and his seal on the plans. Did he really have a choice?
(ref Martin and Schinzinger, pg 212)

32. Whistle-Blowing
Always the LAST RESORT, it indicates serious corporate culture problems
Can be internal as well as external
Definition depends on one’s point of view: (Martin and Schinzinger, pg 214)
“Whistle-blowing” - the act of a man or woman who, believing that the public interest overrides the interest of the organization he[sic] serves, publicly “blows the whistle” if the organization is involved in corrupt, illegal, fraudulent, or harmful activity (Nader, Petkas, and Blackwell, 1972)
Some of the enemies of business now encourage an employee to be disloyal to the enterprise. They want to create suspicion and disharmony and pry into the proprietary interests of the business. However this is labeled -industrial espionage, whistle-blowing or professional responsibility - it is another tactic for spreading disunity and creating conflict (Roche-GM chairman, 1971)

33. Examples of problems that might warrant whistle-blowing
Incompetence
Criminal Behavior
Unethical Policies
Threat to Public Safety
Injustices to Workers

34. Moral Guidelines to Whistle-Blowing (ref. Richard T. DeGeorge)
It is morally permissible for engineers to engage in external whistle-blowing concerning safety:
1. If the harm that will be done by the product to the public is serious and considerable
2. If they make their concerns known to their superiors
3. If getting no satisfaction from their immediate superiors, they exhaust the channels available within the corporation, including going to the board of directors.

35. Whistle-Blowing (cont)
In order for whistle-blowing to be morally obligatory however, DeGeorge gives two further conditions:
4. He [or she] must have documented evidence that would convince a reasonable, impartial observer that his [or her] view of the situation is correct and the company policy wrong.
5. There must be strong evidence that making the information public will in fact prevent the threatened serious harm.
(ref. Martin and Schinzinger, pg 217)

36. Whistle Blowing Examples
DC-10 Cargo door
Challenger

37. DC10 Cargo Door
On June 12, A DC-10 left Detroit with 67 passengers, after reaching 12,000 ft, the cargo door blew off, collapsing floor and disrupting all hydraulic controls to tail section. Only the pilot’s skill and the light load prevented a disaster.
June 27, Daniel Applegate, Director of Product Engineering for Convair, the fuselage contractor, wrote a memo to his supervisors detailing potential problems of cargo door. The problem was first recognized in Aug 69. The same thing had also happened in a ground test in 1970.
Recognized design flaws - floor, latch

38. DC10 Cargo Door (cont.)
After the Detroit near-disaster, NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) investigation revealed several problems and recommended immediate design changes. FAA did not follow NTSB recommendations. FAA director John Shaffer and Douglas President Jackson McGowan reached a gentleman’s agreement to voluntarily fix problem, but no further official action was taken.
In July 1972, Three inspectors at Long Beach plant certified that Ship 29 had been modified (but it was not). Two years later, after leaving Paris, its cargo door blew off at 13,000 feet, killing 346 people.

39. Why Did This Accident Happen?
McDonnel Douglas was in precarious financial condition - trying to beat Lockheed L1011 to market
Convair did not push too hard, since by contract, they may have been held liable for the costs of all design changes
Engineers pressed the matter through normal channels to the highest levels within both companies, but did not take it any further, Standard operating procedure at McDonnell Douglas and Convair was for engineers to defer to upper management, even though they were aware of serious design flaws
Were the engineers negligent?

40. Ethical Conflict
What happens if one’s personal values conflict with common morality?
Stem cell research
What if one’s personal values conflict with professional ethics?
Contraceptives for unmarried women

41. Case Studies in Engineering Ethics A320 Airbus - Fly by wire
The A320 is perhaps best known as the first airliner to introduce a fly-by-wire flight control system - where control inputs from the pilot are transmitted to the flying surfaces by electronic signals rather than mechanical means. Apart from a small weight saving, the advantage of Airbus' fly-by-wire is that as it is computer controlled, an inbuilt flight envelope protection makes it virtually impossible to exceed certain flight parameters such as G limits and the aircraft's maximum and minimum operating speeds and angle of attack limits.

42. Case Studies in Engineering Ethics
If you Designed a system that required a gasketed connection and you did not have sufficient data to predict performance across a spectrum of conditions?
THE CHALLENGER DISASTER
Pressure from Management leads to:
Poor Engineering Judgment
Entire crew lost
Space program set back years
Lost public confidence
Case 1

43. Case Studies in Engineering Ethics
If you Designed an automobile component that later proved to fail under certain conditions and could be replaced for $11 under a recall?
THE FORD PINTO GAS TANK -corporate decision based on a Benefit/Cost analysis
BENEFIT ANALYSIS
180 deaths, 180 serious injuries, 2,100 burned vehicles
At a cost of $49.15 million
COST ANALYSIS
$11 per vehicle to recall
Total cost of $137 million
*How appropriate is it to use figures like this?
*If not appropriate, what are other options?
Case 2

44. Ford Pays Over 500 documented deaths related
to rear-end collisions in the Pintos
Lawsuits and personal injury cases
totaled over $450 million even
as Ford continues to argue the car
was safe if driven correctly
Company nearly folded after the lawsuits and low sales due to lack of trust in Ford products
Ultimately, there were… (Read Slide)

45. Case Studies in Engineering Ethics
If you were asked to sign off on a set of shop drawings that had come from a reliable vendor with whom you had a very good working relationship?
THE HYATT REGENCY WALKWAY (Kansas City, 1981)
Case 3

46. Case 3…. THE HYATT REGENCY WALKWAY (Kansas City, 1981)
Support system was changed in the shop drawings by the steel fabricator
Engineer failed to review the shop drawings and therefore did not discover the change
The change doubled the load on the supports
32 ton walkways collapsed
114 deaths
200 injuries
Engineers prosecuted
Case 3….

47. Case 4: Hughes Aircraft Factory for military-grade hybrid chips
Some defective chips being approved
Ruth Goodearl reported incidents to upper management
Consequences for Goodearl
Harassed
Fired
Unemployment
Bankruptcy
Divorce
Goodearl sued Hughes Aircraft under False Claims Act and won

48. Case Studies in Engineering Ethics Everyday Occurrences
If you knew that a co-worker was drinking on the job?
If you were given a set of drawings designed by junior engineers and asked to put your seal on them without a thorough review?
If you were asked to submit a design for a new school building and your spouse was on the school board?
If you had to recommend the location for a new sanitary land fill?

49. Problem Solving in Engineering Ethics
State the Problem
Get the Facts
Defend Viewpoints
The problem solving method developed here is from the book What Every Engineer Should Know About Ethics, by Kenneth K. Humphreys.
Various types of professionals, including engineers, often express significant differences of opinion when faced with cases requiring an ethical solution. The objective of these next few slides is to provide a framework for reconciling differences of opinion as we address the question, “what is the right thing to do?” in circumstances involving ethical issues in the engineering profession.
***The problem solving method developed here is from the book What Every Engineer Should Know About Ethics, by Kenneth K. Humphreys.
The problem solving model developed here involves five steps. It is a systematic approach to moral deliberation that is designed for groups of individuals, but can be used by individuals with some minor adjustments. As seen from the figure, the steps for problem solving in engineering ethics include: (read slide)
Formulate Opinion
Qualify Recommendation

50. State the Problem
Clearly define exact nature of ethical problem or dilemma.
Need to be clear so that we can anticipate the kind of solution that is required.
Want to provide an answer that is relevant to the interests at stake.
The first step of the problem solving method is to “State the Problem”.
At this stage, one should clearly define the exact nature of the ethical problem or dilemma.
It is extremely important that the problem is clear and understandable to all so we can anticipate the kind of solution that is required.
The goal is to provide an answer that is relevant to the interest at stake.

51. Get the Facts Want to make an informed decision.
Must possess and understand the relevant facts.
Must make clear any interpretations of factual matters or the values that underlie conflicting moral viewpoints.
The second step is to “Get the facts.” In order to make an informed and conscientious decision, we must possess and understand all the relevant facts. Difficulties occur when there are problems with interpretation of factual matters or the values that underlie conflicting moral viewpoints.

52. Identify & Defend Competing Moral Viewpoints
Critically assess the strengths
and weaknesses of competing
moral viewpoints
Begin by identifying what we believe to be the most compelling reason for the course of action
We must be able to justify the course of action
The 3rd step is to “identify and defend competing moral viewpoints”. We must assess the strengths and weaknesses of competing viewpoints as carefully and critically as possible. We begin by identifying what we believe to be the most compelling reason for the various courses of action. It is not enough to just identify and list why we think a course of action is right or wrong. We must also be able to justify them as well.

53. Formulate an Opinion
As engineers we do not have the luxury of postponing questions or leaving a question unresolved
Decide which of the plausible viewpoints is the most compelling
The committee approach (voting) is advantageous because the decision is representative of the general public
The 4th step is to “formulate an opinion”. As engineers we do not have the luxury of postponing questions or leaving a question unresolved. We must decide which of the plausible viewpoints is the most compelling. If a single individual conducts this problem solving process, it would simply be a personal estimation that is clearly very subjective. The committee approach can be very advantageous because we can expect the decision to be representative of the general public.

54. Qualify the Opinions or Recommendations
Committees must qualify the recommendations they make by describing the level of consensus that was received
Should include the voting distribution and any dissenting opinions
Finally, committees must qualify the opinions and recommendations that they make by describing the level of consensus that was received. This should include the voting distribution and any dissenting opinions.

55. A Reasonable Care Model of Professional Responsibility
A person, S, is responsible for the harm he or she causes when his or her conduct fits the following pattern:
(1) as a member of a profession, S has a duty to conform to the standard operating procedures of his or her profession, unless those standards are lower than those that a nonprofessional would adopt in a given situation, in which case S has a duty to conform to the higher standard:
(2) at time t, action X conforms to the standard of reasonable care defined in (1);
(3) S omits to perform X at time t,
(4) Harm is caused to some person, P, as a result of S’s failure to do X.
(ref. Curd and May, pg 15)

56. Summary Where you draw the line is your choice
Corporate ethics begins with each person
You can be held personally and legally responsible for your professional actions
It is important to understand your company’s attitude toward ethics - it should be a factor in your choice of employer

57. References
Ethics in Engineering, Second edition, Mike Martin, Roland Schinzinger, McGraw-Hill, 1989 (good general reference)
Professional Responsibility For Harmful Actions, Martin Curd and Larry May, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company (DC10 case)
Controlling Technology: Ethics and the Responsible Engineer, Stephen Unger, Holt Rinehart and Winston (DC10 case)