Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University Sl. #1GATEWAY Ethics in Engineering...

Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State UniversitySl. #1

GATEWAYGATEWAY

Ethics in EngineeringConcepts and Cases


GATEWAYGATEWAY

Introduction

What do we mean by Ethics? “a body of moral principles” A set of rules and behaviors Standards, rules and guidelines Socially approved conduct Respect for people and rights Distinguished from matters of legality


GATEWAYGATEWAY

Professional Ethics

Who decides Standards adopted by professional community and

established companies NSPE, ASME, ASCE, etc May conflict with personal ethics

Case studies used to set examples, standards


GATEWAYGATEWAY

NSPE Fundamental Canons

Engineers, in 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.


GATEWAYGATEWAY

NSPE Fundamental Canons, cont’d

Engineers, in fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:

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.


GATEWAYGATEWAY

Social Contract

Service Promoting well being of general public Ensuring competence of professionals

Self-regulation Create and enforce high standards Autonomy


GATEWAYGATEWAY

Responsible Engineering

What we do matters a great deal Public health at stake Environmental impact Accidents are costly

Minimal legal standards Acknowledgement of fault Above and beyond call of duty

justicePublichealth

responsible care

Ethics


GATEWAYGATEWAY

Introduction to Moral Thinking

Reflect expectation of public and professionals

Experience – education, work, relationships

Personal and Common Morality – religion, family


GATEWAYGATEWAY

Tests in Moral Problem Solving

Prudence- Is it justified because it is in our own best interest?

Cost / Benefit Is the most economic decision the most moral?

Rights Just because it is legal, is it right? Freedom, well-being, moral, legal, laws

Golden Rule “do unto others as you would have

done to you”Good

Right

Legal

Illegal

Wrong

Bad

Ref: Murdough Center for engineering Professionalism


GATEWAYGATEWAY

Honesty, Truth, Reliability

Accurate and complete technical knowledge Unreliable judgment worse than none at all

Deliberate deception Lying Failure to seek truth


GATEWAYGATEWAY

Problem Solving in Engineering Ethics

State the Problem

Get the Facts

Defend Viewpoints

Formulate Opinion

Qualify Recommendation

Ref: What Every Engineer Should Know About Ethics, by Kenneth K. Humphreys


GATEWAYGATEWAY

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.


GATEWAYGATEWAY

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.


GATEWAYGATEWAY

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


GATEWAYGATEWAY

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


GATEWAYGATEWAY

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


GATEWAYGATEWAY

Case Studies

Engineering ethics is often times best explained through the use of case studies.

Case studies allow examples of good and bad decision making in a real world context.

*** These case studies have been selected from among the various rulings of the NSPE Board of Ethical Review. Ref: http://onlineethics.org


GATEWAYGATEWAYNSPE Case No. 92-1

Credit for Engineering Work

Introduction Engineer A is designing a bridge as part of an

elevated highway system. Engineer B is asked to help with the design and

helps design critical elements of the bridge. Engineer A enters the bridge design into a

national competition and wins, but fails to credit Engineer B for her part in the design.

Ref: http://onlineethics.org




Question Was it ethical for Engineer A to fail to give

credit to Engineer B for her part in the design?




NSPE Code of Ethics 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 or deceive the public.

Section 111.5.a.:Engineers shall not accept financial or other considerations, including free engineering designs, 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 be individually responsible for designs, inventions, writings, or other accomplishments.




NSPE 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 is fundamental to that responsibility. This is particularly the case where an engineer retains the services of other individuals because the engineer may not possess the education, experience and expertise to perform the required services for a client.”




NSPE Discussion, continued

“While each individual case must be understood based upon the particular facts involved, we believe that Engineer A had an ethical obligation to his client, to Engineer B, as well as to the public to take reasonable steps to identify all parties responsible for the design of the bridge.”




NSPE Conclusion

“It was unethical for Engineer A to fail to give credit to Engineer B for her part in the design.”



An Engineer’s Right to Protest

Introduction

Engineer A works as an engineer for a defense contractor reviewing the work of subcontractors.

Engineer A discovers that certain subcontractors have made submissions with excessive cost, time delays or substandard work.





Introduction, continued

Engineer A advises management to reject these jobs and require subcontractors to correct the problem.

After an extended disagreement about the subcontractor’s work, management places a warning in Engineer A’s file and places him on probation, warning of future termination.




Question

Does Engineer A have an ethical obligation, or an ethical right, to continue his efforts to secure change in the policy of his employer under these circumstances, or to report his concerns to proper authority?




NSPE Code of Ethics References Code of Ethics- Section II.1.a.: "Engineers shall at all times

recognize that their primary obligation is to protect the safety, health, property, and welfare of the public. If their professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety, health, property, or welfare of the public are endangered, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate."

Code of Ethics- Section III.2.b.: "Engineers shall not complete, sign, or seal plans and/or specifications that are not of a design safe to the public health and welfare and in conformity with accepted engineering standards. If the client or employer insists on such unprofessional conduct, they shall notify the proper authorities and withdraw from further service on the project."




NSPE Discussion “Here the issue does not allege a danger to public health

or safety, but is premised upon a claim of unsatisfactory plans and the unjustified expenditure of public funds.”

“As we recognized in earlier cases, if an engineer feels strongly that an employer's course of conduct is improper when related to public concerns, and if the engineer feels compelled to blow the whistle to expose the facts as he sees them, he may well have to pay the price of loss of employment.”




NSPE Discussion, continued

“We feel that the ethical duty or right of the engineer becomes a matter of personal conscience, but we are not willing to make a blanket statement that there is an ethical duty in these kinds of situations for the engineer to continue his campaign within the company, and make the issue one for public discussion. The Code only requires that the engineer withdraw from a project and report to proper authorities when the circumstances involve endangerment of the public health, safety, and welfare.”




NSPE Conclusion

“Engineer A does not have an ethical obligation to continue his effort to secure a change in the policy of his employer under these circumstances, or to report his concerns to proper authority, but has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience.”



Complimentary Seminar Registration

Introduction

The ABC Pipe Company is interested in becoming known within the engineering community and, in particular, to those engineers involved in the specification of pipe in construction.

ABC sends an invitation to Engineer X announcing a one-day complimentary educational seminar to educate engineers on current technological advances in the selection and use of pipe in construction.





Introduction, continued

ABC will host all refreshments, a buffet luncheon during the seminar, and a cocktail reception immediately following. Engineer X agrees to attend.




Question

Was it ethical for Engineer X to attend the one-day complimentary educational seminar hosted by the ABC Pipe Company?




NSPE Code of Ethics References Code of Ethics- Section II.4.c.:"Engineers shall not solicit or

accept financial or other valuable consideration, directly or indirectly, from contractors, their agents, or other parties in connection with work for employers or clients for which they are responsible."

Section III.5.b.:"Engineers shall not accept commissions or allowances, directly or indirectly, from contractors or other parties dealing with clients or employers of the Engineer in connection with work for which the Engineer is responsible."

Section III.11.a.:"Engineers shall encourage engineering employees' efforts to improve their education."




NSPE Discussion

“The Code unequivocally states that engineers must not accept gifts or other valuable consideration from a supplier in exchange for specifying its products. (See Sections II.4.c.; III.5.b.) However, in this case we are dealing with a material supplier who is introducing information about pipe products to engineers in the community and has chosen the form of an educational seminar as its vehicle.”




NSPE Discussion “We view the buffet luncheon and cocktail reception

immediately following the seminar as falling within the minimal provisions noted in previous cases, and thus it would not be improper for Engineer X to participate in those activities. We note, however, that had Engineer X agreed to accept items of substantial value (e.g., travel expenses, multi-day program, resort location, etc.) our conclusion would have been quite different.”




NSPE Conclusion

“It was ethical for Engineer X to attend the one-day complimentary educational seminar hosted by the ABC Pipe Company.”


GATEWAYGATEWAY

Engineering DisasterThe Ford Pinto Case

Crash tests reveal defect in gas

tank rear-end collisions over 25

mph resulted in rupture and

explosion

Cost benefit analysis estimationCost to pay for injuries

180 Deaths, 180 Injured, 2100 Burned Cars = $ 49.5 million

Cost to make safe cars

$12.5 million cars x $11/car = $137 million


GATEWAYGATEWAY

Ford Pays

Over 500 documented deaths related to rear-end collisions in the Pintos

Lawsuits and personal injury casestotaled over $450 million evenas Ford continues to argue the carwas safe if driven correctly

Company nearly folded after the lawsuits and low sales due to lack of trust in Ford products


GATEWAYGATEWAY

Challenger Explosion

O-ring Sealing problems

Engineers argued against launch at low temperature

Management over-ruled the engineers warnings

Shuttle exploded minutes into the flight

7 Lives lost


GATEWAYGATEWAY

Ethical Questions

Were the decisions made unethical?

Who is to blame for these disasters?

What were the ethical obligations for management? For the engineers?


GATEWAYGATEWAY

Ethical Summary

Professional ethics for engineersSet of rules and guidelines for professional

behavior for engineer.

For personal, moral, social, professional and environmental well-being of individuals and the communities that we serve.

Do the right thing!!!


GATEWAYGATEWAY

Credits This module is intended as a supplement to design classes in mechanical

engineering. It was developed at The Ohio State University under the NSF sponsored Gateway Coalition (grant EEC-9109794). Contributing members include:

Gary Kinzel……………………………………..Project supervisors Jim Piper and Rachel Murdell ……………….. Primary authors Phuong Pham and Matt Detrick ……….…….. Module revisions L. Pham …………………………………….….. Audio voice

References: Murdough Center for Engineering Professionalism, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas

National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) and reference the 1995 NSPE Code of Ethics

What Every Engineer Should Know About Ethics, by Kenneth K. Humphreys


GATEWAYGATEWAY

Disclaimer

This information is provided “as is” for general educational purposes; it can change over time and should be interpreted with regards to this particular circumstance. While much effort is made to provide complete information, Ohio State University and Gateway do not guarantee the accuracy and reliability of any information contained or displayed in the presentation. We disclaim any warranty, expressed or implied, including the warranties of fitness for a particular purpose. We do not assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, reliability, timeliness or usefulness of any information, or processes disclosed. Nor will Ohio State University or Gateway be held liable for any improper or incorrect use of the information described and/or contain herein and assumes no responsibility for anyone’s use of the information. Reference to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacture, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement.

Date post:	14-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	angel-sweetland
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University Sl. #1GATEWAY Ethics in Engineering...

Documents