course notes: part 5

6-1 MENG 293 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT & SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

6. Engineering Codes of Ethics

6.01 Engineering Code of Ethics When things go well for a while people tend to develop a feeling of confidence

that slowly develops into arrogance. The shift back to a recognition that

people are only human comes, for engineering people, when there are

occasional tragic accidents or catastrophic failures. As the achievements above

try to illustrate, engineering methods have had a long string of successes. But,

as an earlier section shows, there have been some notable failures too.

If you don’t learn from mistakes, you are a fool.

Failures have a way of making people reflect on what it is they are doing and

why. Over the years there has been a growing idea that the act of engineering

should somehow rise above the, often short sighted vision, of business,

government or the military and instead hold ‘social good’ as a higher standard.

To this end engineering societies and associations have been formed that try to

ensure that their members conform to certain, well thought out, ethical codes

and standards.

Below is a summary of three such groups.

ASTTBC The Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of BC (ASTTBC) has as

members more than 9500 technical professionals. They enable and enhance

the working rights and privileges of its members.

For more information on becoming a member go to: http://www.asttbc.org/.

They have developed a, carefully considered, code of ethics that their members

are obliged to uphold. Below is a quote from the ASTTBC Code of Ethics.

Members of ASTTBC shall:

1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, the

protection of the environment and the promotion of health and safety

within the workplace;

2. Undertake and accept responsibility for professional assignments only

when qualified by training and experience;

3. Provide an opinion on a professional subject only when it is founded

on adequate knowledge and honest conviction;

4. Act with integrity towards clients or employers, maintain

confidentiality and avoid a conflict of interest but, where such conflict

http://www.asttbc.org/


arises, fully disclose the circumstances without delay to the employer

or client;

5. Uphold the principle of appropriate and adequate compensation for

the performance of their work;

6. Keep informed to maintain proficiency and competence, to advance

the body of knowledge within their discipline and further

opportunities for the professional development of their associates;

7. Conduct themselves with fairness, honesty, courtesy and good faith

towards clients, colleagues, and others, give credit where it is due and

accept, as well as give, honest and fair professional comment;

8. Present clearly to employers and clients the possible consequences if

professional decisions or judgments are overruled or disregarded;

9. Report to the appropriate agencies any hazardous, illegal or unethical

professional decisions or practices by other members or others; and

10. Promote public knowledge and appreciation of applied science,

information, and engineering technology and protect the Association

from misrepresentation and misunderstanding.

APEGBC If at some point, you were to graduate from a university with a degree in

applied science you would be part way along the path of becoming a

professional engineer (four years of supervised engineering work are required

on top of your university degree). In British Columbia, being a ‘Professional

Engineer’mean’s membership in APEGBC and taking on a more comprehensive

set of legal responsibilities for the work you do. The Association of Professional

Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia (APEGBC) is the licensing and

regulatory body responsible for BC’s more than 26,000 engineers and

geoscientists.

For more information on APEGBC go to http://www.apeg.bc.ca/.

Like the ASTTBC they have a Code of Ethics. A quote from the APEGBC Code of

Ethics follows.

Members and licensees shall act at all times with fairness, courtesy and good

faith to their associates, employers, employees and clients, and with fidelity to

the public needs. They shall uphold the values of truth, honesty, and

trustworthiness and safeguard human life and welfare and the environment. In

keeping with these basic tenets, members and licensees shall:

1. Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public, the

protection of the environment and promote health and safety within

the workplace;

2. Undertake and accept responsibility for professional assignments only

when qualified by training or experience;

http://www.apeg.bc.ca/


3. Provide an opinion on a professional subject only when it is founded

on adequate knowledge and honest conviction;

4. Act as faithful agents of their clients or employers, maintain

confidentiality and avoid a conflict of interest but, where such conflict

arises, fully disclose the circumstances without delay to the employer

or client;

5. Uphold the principle of appropriate and adequate compensation for

the performance of engineering and geoscience work;

6. Keep themselves informed in order to maintain their competence,

strive to advance the body of knowledge within which they practice

and provide opportunities for the professional development of their

associates;

7. Conduct themselves with fairness, courtesy and good faith towards

clients, colleagues and others, give credit where it is due and accept,

as well as give, honest and fair professional comment;

8. Present clearly to employers and clients the possible consequences if

professional decisions or judgments are overruled or disregarded;

9. Report to their association or other appropriate agencies any

hazardous, illegal or unethical professional decisions or practices by

members, licensees or others; and

10. Extend public knowledge and appreciation of engineering and

geoscience and protect the profession from misrepresentation and

misunderstanding.

The Calling of an Engineer (The Iron Ring) Canadian university graduates of engineering and applied science programs

have the opportunity to take part in a unique ceremony, the idea of which was

developed by seven past-presidents of the Engineering

Institute of Canada when they met in Montreal in

1922. There had been a host of recent engineering

failures that had sent shockwaves through the

engineering community and these fellows wanted to

work out some way of impressing upon those that

would practice engineering that they had a great social

responsibility. Namely that the decisions they made,

on a daily basis, influenced

the lives, health, and

wellbeing of everyone in

society and that it was only they that could ensure

the success of the objects they designed. The past-

presidents asked the famous author Rudyard Kipling

to consider the problem and he created what

everyone today calls the “Iron Ring Ceremony”. The

first ceremony was performed in Montreal in 1925

by the placing of iron rings on just 6 new engineers.

Since then, countless engineers have been reminded


of their responsibility, every day of their working lives, as the ring they wear on

the little finger of their working hand literally, touches all work that each

individual does.

As the ceremony is considered somewhat secret no details of its content will be

outlined here but some general information will be discussed in class. For more

information see: http://www.ironring.ca/

6.02 Problems in Ethics: Case Studies As you might guess, the discussion above, many take the issue of engineering

ethics very seriously. Some of the ethical dilemmas faced by those working in

the field of engineering (and most other fields) are difficult, as the direction of’/

travel is not clear. To that end many involved in the field of engineering ethics

have developed numerous “case studies”. These are fictitious quandaries

posed to the reader in the hopes that they will think through the issues and

reason out some sort of solution. These case studies are often accompanied by

a commentary from some who are knowledgeable and practiced.

A very good but not too flashy web site hosts many worthwhile case studies.

Its link is: http://ethics.tamu.edu/pritchar/an-intro.htm.

We will work through several of these in class and I will likely get you to

consider some of these as homework.

To get us started let’s look at a simple one. (Note the format: First the scenario

is described as a kind of story broken into parts; secondly the authors these

ethical situations have asked ethics experts to comment. I have selected only

part of these commentaries to present here. If you want to examine the entire

article please follow the link above.)

Case 1: Golfing http://ethics.tamu.edu/pritchar/golfing.htm

I

Paul Ledbetter is employed at Bluestone Ltd. as a manufacturing engineer. He

regularly meets with vendors who offer to supply Bluestone with needed

services and parts. Paul discovers that one of the vendors, Duncan Mackey, like

Paul, is an avid golfer. They begin comparing notes about their favorite golf

courses. Paul says he's always wanted to play at the Cherry Orchard Country

Club; but since it is a private club, he's never had the opportunity. Duncan says

he's been a member there for several years and that he's sure he can arrange a

guest visit for Paul.

Should Paul accept the invitation? Discuss.

http://www.ironring.ca/

http://ethics.tamu.edu/pritchar/an-intro.htm

http://ethics.tamu.edu/pritchar/golfing.htm


II

Paul accepts the invitation. He, Duncan, and two other members have a very

competitive, but friendly, 18-hole match. Paul is teamed up with one of the

other members, Harvey. Although Paul does not normally bet money in

matches, Duncan and the others persuade him to play for $3.00 a hole ("Just to

keep things interesting"), along with the losers buying drinks for the winners.

Paul and his partner win 5 holes to their opponents 2, thus winning $9.00 each.

While they are having drinks, Duncan says, "I think it's only fair that Bob and I

get a rematch. What do you say, Paul? You can be Harvey's guest on Guest Day

next month."

Should Paul accept the invitation? Discuss.

III

Paul accepts the invitation. The match is closer this time, but Paul and Harvey

win $3.00 each. Soon Duncan and Harvey nominate Paul for membership at

Cherry Orchard. The membership committee approves, and Paul is invited to

join the country club. Paul accepts, thus beginning a long golfing relationship

with Duncan.

Gradually Paul overcomes his resistance to betting on the golf course, and the

stakes eventually grow somewhat larger. Although Duncan occasionally bests

Paul, the upper hand is clearly Paul's. In the subsequent years Paul, does not

keep close track of his overall winnings, but he realizes that, all told, he has

won several hundred dollars from Duncan.

Meanwhile, Duncan is still one of the vendors with

whom Paul interacts.

Does this pose any ethical problems? Discuss.

IV

Bluestone's vice-president of manufacturing calls a

special meeting for engineers in her division who

deal with vendors. She announces: "I've been told

by the president that we have to make some

cutbacks in the vending area. We're going to be in

real trouble if we don't get more cost effective. So, I

want each of you to do a review - your targeted

cutback is 20%. If your unit deals with 10 vendors

now, cut it back to 8, and so on. Give me your

recommendations - with a brief rationale by the first

of next week."

Paul next discusses the problem with the 2 other engineers in his unit who deal

with vendors. They have to recommend the elimination of 2 vendors.

Should Paul bring up his golfing relationship with Duncan? Discuss.

V

Golfing on the Moon: Alan Sheppard - Apollo 14, 1971


Paul mentions his golfing relationship with Duncan. He raises the question of

whether this compromises his objectivity. The other engineers reassure him,

pointing out that they, too, have formed friendships with some of the vendors

and that each of them will just have to do the best they can at objectively

assessing the situation. As the discussion continues, it becomes more and more

worrisome to Paul that, if he were to be objective about it, he would have to

recommend Duncan's elimination.

Should he tell the others that this is what he is thinking, or should he let them

take the initiative? [This way, either they would recommend two others for

elimination - thus sparing Duncan - or perhaps both would recommend Duncan

and it would not be necessary for Paul to recommend against his friend.]

Discuss.

VI

Paul lets the other two engineers take the initiative. They both recommend

that Duncan be eliminated. Paul says nothing in opposition to their

recommendation. The group decides to think about it overnight and make its

final recommendation the next day.

Paul and Duncan are scheduled for a golf match later that same afternoon.

Since Paul and Duncan are good friends, Paul decides he should tell Duncan

about the bad news he is likely to receive soon. Duncan is understandably

upset. He points out that he has done his best for Bluestone all these years,

and he has always been pleased with what he thought was a good working

relationship - especially with Paul. Finally, he asks Paul what he said to the

other engineers.

What should Paul say? Discuss.

VII

Paul tells Duncan that he did not oppose the recommendations of the other

two engineers. He reminds Duncan that he had to try to be objective about

this: "We all talked about how hard it is to deal with this since friendships are

involved. But we agreed that our basic obligation has to be to do what is best

for Bluestone. Friendship should not be allowed to overturn good business. So,

hard as it was, when I tried to be objective about it, I couldn't really disagree

with their recommendations."

As Paul painfully explains his position, Duncan's face reddens. Finally, Duncan

furiously explodes, "I don't believe this! What kind of friend are you, anyway?

Didn't I get you into Cherry Orchard? And how good a golfer do you think you

are, anyway? How do you think you've won all that money from me over the

years? You don't really think you're that much better at golf than I am do you?"

Discuss the ethical issues that you now think this case raises. Would you now

like to reconsider any of your earlier answers?


Commentary (One of several provided on the website.)

Reviewer: Neil R. Luebke

The main ethical question in this case is whether Paul should compromise his

best professional judgment out of friendship for Duncan. The unpleasant

situation in which Paul finds himself at the end of the case is the result of a

series of decisions along the way which, when viewed in isolation, may seem

harmless enough. Virtually no one who reads this case will think that Paul

ought to rescue Duncan from the cut list, yet many readers will hold out hope

for a solution that will preserve the friendship, put Paul's mind at ease, and

calm Duncan's feelings of outrage. Unfortunately, given the scenario, there

probably is no such utopian solution. Paul is in a type of conflict of interest

situation, one which he could have avoided but did not. Indeed, he contributed

in significant ways to its developing.

We can imagine alternative scenarios in which friendship might serve to

compromise the carrying out of professional obligations. For instance, suppose

Paul and Duncan are neighbors, that their wives meet frequently and their

children play together. Suppose further that Duncan Mackey often loaned Paul

Ledbetter tools and helped him with some of the tasks around the house, and

that Duncan's wife often took Paul's children to school meetings or to the

swimming pool because Paul's wife works part time. Suppose Duncan watches

Paul's pets while Paul is on vacation, and suppose, what is even a more

extreme case, that while Paul was on a vacation, a fire started in Paul's garage

that Duncan quickly put out, saving much of Paul's property. Given events

similar to the "Golfing" scenario, you could imagine the scenario ending with

the friendship in total ruins, with the wives refusing to speak to each other,

with the children forbidden to play with each other, with a high fence going up

between their properties, and with guard dogs stationed on both sides.

But let us return to the original scenario in "Golfing." First, consider Duncan

Mackey. Like any other vendor to Bluestone Ltd., Duncan would

understandably be happy to develop and maintain close relationships with the

people in Bluestone Ltd. We know very little about Duncan's motives, but we

do have some clues. We do know that betting on golf matches was not Paul's

idea but clearly seems to be favored by Duncan. There is nothing in the

scenario that suggests that Duncan is upset by his overall losses to Paul or that

he regrets this relationship. (I have a friend who, when we were younger,

bought me a Coke from a machine and refused to take my money in

reimbursement. He said to me, "No, I want you to be in debt to me for life!" I

later succeeded in paying him back; however, I will always be in his debt for

this story.) Duncan seems to be aware that by losing he is putting Paul in his

debt. In fact, Duncan's explosive words at the end suggest that he has made

efforts, through getting him into Cherry Orchard Country Club and through

losing money in golf, to create obligations on the part of Paul. We all know

stories about playing golf with the boss and making sure we do not win. Given


the details of our story then, it seems as if Duncan was cultivating Paul for

selfish business purposes.

Should we therefore regard Paul Ledbetter as a poor victim who had little

control over his fate? Hardly! First of all, Paul should have made an effort to

establish a reputation among all the vendors for being a fair, impartial judge

who was conscientious about his professional responsibilities and was in no

way open to corruption. Duncan still might have volunteered to arrange a guest

visit for Paul to the country club, but Paul should have made it clear that he is

opposed to accepting much in the way of gifts from vendors. He does not want

anyone inside or outside the company to have the opinion that he is open to

the highest bidder. While it would have been very difficult for Paul, since he

was an invited guest, to refuse to participate in the money pool for the golf

matches, he could have avoided a reappearance. He might have replied to

Duncan's remark that it is only fair that Bob and he get a rematch by saying, in

a half-joking way, "Duncan, it might be even fairer for you and Bob if you'd line

up a real duffer to play with Harvey next time. I appreciate the hospitality all of

you have shown, but I really don't think I should impose upon you again."

Further on down the line, if Paul is interested in joining Cherry Orchard Country

Club and needs a member to support his application, it probably would not be

wise for him to request support from Duncan. He has met Harvey and Bob, and

there are possibly other persons in the country club who could support his

nomination. As time goes on, he could have avoided playing golf for money

against Duncan. He could have played with other members of the club as well.

Another part of the scenario deals with the meeting between Paul and the

other two engineers to decide on the 20 percent cutback in vendors. Here a

number of procedures might be followed. For instance, the engineers might

decide to each rate all of the vendors, and those with the lowest combined

rating would be eliminated. Or the engineers might decide to allow a person to

abstain from rating a close friend. While this latter approach has some merit, it

should not be used as a device for Paul to shift the "blame" to his co-workers

when explaining the situation to Duncan. In fact, there is no reason why any

confidences between the engineers concerning the selection should be broken.

All Duncan is entitled to know is that the decision was made in a responsible

manner by a group of engineers on the basis of a company policy. Duncan is

not entitled to know the individual vote of each of the engineers, and to reveal

it would be a disservice to Paul's colleagues.

Paul should remind himself that this is not the first time that company

decisions have adversely affected friends. There may be cases in the past in

which some friends have been laid off. There may be situations in which a

friend has been passed over for a promotion. If Paul examines himself to

determine why he feels such pangs of conscience concerning the rejection of

Duncan, he may come to see that Duncan has been cultivating his feelings of

obligation. If their friendship were purer, we might expect that Duncan, rather


than retaliating with a display of outrage and claiming betrayal, would

understand the unfortunate situation of choice the company placed Paul in,

express his confidence that Paul had done the best he could in that situation,

and reaffirmed his respect for him personally. Unfortunately it sometimes takes

a case like this for one to find out who one's real friends are.

Case 2: THE FORKLIFTER (http://ethics.tamu.edu/pritchar/forklift.htm)

Engineering student Bryan Springer has a high paying summer job as a forklift

operator. This job enables him to attend college without having to take out any

student loans. He was now staring at a 50 gallon drum filled with used machine

coolant, wondering what he should do.

Just moments ago, Bryan's supervisor, Max Morrison, told him to dump half of

the used coolant down the drain. Bryan knew the coolant was toxic, and he

mentioned this to Max. But Max was not swayed.

Max: The toxins settle at the bottom of the drum. If you pour out half and

dilute it with tap water while you're pouring it, there's no problem.

Byran: I don't think that's going to work. Besides, isn't it against the law?

Max: Look, kid, I don't have time for chit-chat about a bunch of silly laws. If I

spent my time worrying about every little regulation that comes along, I'd

never get anything done -- and neither will you. Common sense is my rule. I just

told you --Toxins settle at the bottom, and most of them will stay there. We've

been doing this for years, and nothing's happened.

Byran: You mean no one's said anything about it? That doesn't mean the

environment isn't being harmed.

Max: You aren't one of those

"environmentalists," are you? You

college guys spend too much of your

time in the "ivory tower." It's time to

"get real" -- and get on with the job.

Byran: But....

Max: Butt nothing. Time to get off

yours and do the job. You know, you're

very lucky to have a good paying job

like this, kid. In three months you'll be

back in your cozy college. Meanwhile,

how many other college kids do you

think there are out there wondering if

they'll be able to afford to go back -- kids who'd give their eye teeth to be

where you are right now.

http://ethics.tamu.edu/pritchar/forklift.htm


Max then left, fully expecting Bryan to dump the used coolant. As Bryan stared

at the drum, he pondered his options. What options do you think he has? What

do you think he should do?

Commentaries (Two of several available)

By Michael Rabins (excerpt only)

Bryan Springer has at least four options, and perhaps some middle ground

combinations of the four. Just listing them to start offers a basis of discussion

for leading to a personally acceptable course of action for Bryan to follow. The

options:

i) Do as he is told and nothing else.

ii) Do as he is told, but on his own time develop as convincing a

documented argument as he can to present to Max Morrison and Max'

superiors to convince the company to change its dumping policy.

iii) Similar to (ii), but to take his arguments outside of the company he is

working for; possibilities include appropriate municipal agencies, federal

regulatory agencies or the news media.

iv) Refuse to do as he is told, citing his personal convictions. He can then

hope to be reassigned, or more likely, he can prepare to resign or be fired.

By Ted Lockhart

Bryan might easily convince himself that it is not his responsibility to subject

himself to the possibility of getting fired for disobeying the directive he has

been given. After all, he is only a summer employee who needs the job to pay

his way through college. He is not yet a member of the engineering profession

and therefore has no obligation to "hold paramount the safety, health, and

welfare of the public." The responsibility for whatever environmental damage

or violations of environmental regulations would result from dumping the

coolant down the drain is Max's and possibly Max's superiors. Of course, Max's

arguments for dumping the coolant are very un-compelling, and there is little

doubt about the meaning of Max's thinly veiled threats against Bryan.

Furthermore, Max is probably right that Bryan's going ahead and dumping the

coolant on this one occasion, and perhaps on the few occasions on which he

will be called on to perform similar acts during his temporary employment, will

have no discernible effects on the environment. Why then should he risk

antagonizing Max further by continuing to resist Max's directive and quite

possibly losing his job as a result? More-over, even if he were to refuse to

dump the coolant, there is little reason to doubt that task would simply be

assigned to someone else who has fewer qualms about doing what he/she is

told.

However, there are good reasons for Bryan not to carry out Max's directive.

Bryan should consider not just the consequences of his actions on the one or


few occasions on which he would be called on to dump toxic substances into

drains but rather the consequences of the practice of similar persons in similar

situations performing similar actions. And the latter consequences are

significant and can be expected to have significant negative effects on the

safety, health, and welfare of the public. If no one refused to participate in such

a practice, then it is difficult to see how the practice itself would ever be

stopped. And if someone should at some point refuse to participate, then why

shouldn't Bryan do so under the present circumstances? Of course, there may

be little hope or expectation that Bryan's sacrificing his summer job and

jeopardizing his career plans would catch on and start a ground swell of

workers' refusing assignments that endanger or harm the environment. But

this is not the point. We would not say that one has no duty to vote in an

election if he/she is reasonably certain that his/her vote would not affect the

outcome of the election. The appropriate question is "What if everyone in your

situation did what you are contemplating doing?" This is

also the question that Bryan should ask himself in

deciding what to do in the situation in which he finds

himself.

Given what is at stake for Bryan, we should not blame

him if he decides not to be a hero, and he deserves

praise if he chooses the heroic course. But questions of

praise and blame are not really the crucial issues for the

decision-maker. Bryan has the best reasons for doing

what would be best to do in the situation. And that

means that he should respectfully but firmly refuse to

carry out Max's directive.

Case 3: THE CO-OP STUDENT (http://ethics.tamu.edu/pritchar/co-op.htm)

I

Project leader Bruce Barton was being sorely pressed to

complete the development of several engineering

prototypes for a field test of a new appliance model for the XYZ company. One

particular plastic component of the new model had given difficulty in

laboratory tests as it failed repeatedly before reaching the stress level

necessary for successful operation. Bruce had directed a redesign of the

component using a tough new engineering plastic recommended by the

Research Laboratory's Material Science Department. Stress tests needed to be

run on the redesigned component, but Bruce was running short of time and

needed to get on with building the prototype.

Bruce sought out the manager of the Material Science Department for help in

running stress tests on samples of the new component. With this assistance, he

1945, Grace Murry Hopper was working on the Harvard University Mark II Aiken Relay Calculator. She affixed the bug in her note book after fixing the machine. (http://www.jamesshuggins.com/h/tek1/first_computer_bug.htm)

http://ethics.tamu.edu/pritchar/co-op.htm

http://www.jamesshuggins.com/h/tek1/first_computer_bug.htm


could go ahead with prototype building and conduct the tests concurrently.

The prototypes, of course, would not be released to field test until the stress

tests on the redesigned component proved its design to be satisfactory.

Tom Mason, manager of the Material Science Department, was willing to assist

because he knew how critical completion of the development was to XYZ's

future appliance plans. However, this was also a busy time for Tom's

department. So, Tom suggested to Bruce that he could assign the test work to

one of the engineering co-op students. Tom was also coordinator of

engineering co-op students, and he liked to use the co-op students in

demanding situations to give them practical experience.

Tom assigned the test work to Jack Jacobs, an engineering co-op student from

the State University who was completing his second work session at XYZ. Jack

was familiar with the test equipment and previously had done similar test

work. Jack was a good student and his co-op work had been usually well done.

Tom commented to Jack that he would need to work diligently to complete the

tests before he had to return to State University.

Jack completed the tests on schedule and turned in a report to Tom indicating

the component had successfully passed the stress tests. Upon completion of

the test report Jack returned to the university for his next school session. Tom

gave Bruce the good news. The prototypes were completed and the field test

of these prototypes got underway on schedule.

A few weeks later, Bruce rushed into Tom's office to tell him that most of the

prototypes were out of operation because of a catastrophic failure of the

component that had been tested in Tom's lab. Bruce wanted to discuss the test

immediately with Jack; but since Jack had already returned to the university, he

and Tom settled for studying Jack's lab notebook in detail.

After review Tom said, "Bruce, I hate to say it but these data look too good. I

know the equipment and there should be more scatter in the measurements

Jack took. I think some, if not all, these measurements are in error or they have

been faked! At best, Jack probably took a few points and 'extrapolated' the

rest!"

What ethical issues, if any, does this scenario raise?

II

Bruce and Tom made plans to run all the tests again. Meanwhile, Tom phoned

Dr. Frank Thompson, Co-op Coordinator at State University, to discuss his fear

that Jack had falsified data. In the course of the conversation he asked Dr.

Thompson if any effort was made to discuss professional ethics with co-op

students before their first work session and if the importance and value of


engineering test results were stressed to these students. Dr. Thompson

explained that no specific instruction on professional ethics was given to co-op

students, but all lab courses emphasized the need for accuracy in data taking.

Dr. Thompson added that he found it hard to believe that a co-op student

would "fake" data!

Was it appropriate for Tom to discuss his concerns about Jack with the

university's Co-op Coordinator prior to discussing the matter with Jack?

Should Tom have a conversation with Jack about his concerns? If so, what type

of conversation should Tom have with Jack when he talks

with him? Should he refuse to have Jack return to XYZ as a co-

op student?

III

What comments would you make about the supervision given

co-op students at XYZ?

IV

Should State University incorporate into its instruction

program some emphasis on professional ethics? If so, what

form might this take? If not, why not?

[This case was originally prepared by Dr. Gale Cutler, a management consultant

in St. Joseph, Michigan. It was published in Research Technology Management,

May/June, 1988, p. 50.]

COMMENTARIES (One of several)

By W. Gale Cutler

The aspect of this case that should produce the most concern is the apparent

and immediate conclusion by Tom that Jack "faked" data without any concern

about the results of his action. This is equivalent to a "guilty until proven

innocent" approach to justice. The first action taken by Tom when he learned

that the results of the stress test were suspect should have been to bring Jack

into the discussion, either by telephone or, in view of the seriousness of the

situation, by paying Jack's expenses to return to the laboratory to discuss the

tests. If Jack has a valid explanation for the results he obtained, the failure to

bring this explanation into consideration could place an irreparable blight on

Jack's career because of the hasty accusation. This contact with Jack should

also have occurred before the University co-op coordinator was contacted with

the fear that Jack had falsified data.

However, in terms of proper management of co-op students it is unthinkable

that the important tests such as Jack was running were not closely supervised

and the results checked periodically. Such supervision is the essence of good

laboratory management and in no way displays a lack of trust in Jack (or any

other employee so supervised). At the very least, Jack's test results should have


been carefully reviewed before he departed for college. Certainly, we have

reason here to question the proficiency of laboratory management in the

Material Science Department at XYZ.

To judge Jack's behavior, we also need to know exactly what his instructions

were when assigned to do the tests. Was he told how critical the tests were?

Or was he led to assume the tests were merely routine? Did his supervisor say

quickly, "I need this part qualified by the end of the week?" If that's what Jack

heard, he could have interpreted the directions as "hurry and run some tests

but the part is going into production anyhow."

In research and development situations we must always take the time to

explain all of the "why" of the problem when we delegate a task. Analytical test

work, in which the answer depends particularly on the question asked and how

it is asked, demands an especially careful statement of the problem.

If in subsequent conversation with Jack, he confesses to falsifying data he

should be severely reprimanded and probably XYZ (unless extenuating

circumstances are revealed) should terminate its co-op relationship with Jack.

In the reprimanding (and terminating) procedure, Jack must be reminded of the

responsibility of an engineer. To quote the National Society of Professional

Engineers Code of Ethics:

Engineering is an important and learned profession. The members of the

profession recognize that their work has a direct and vital impact on the

quality of life for all people. Accordingly, the services provided by

engineers require honest, impartiality, fairness and equity, and must be

dedicated to the public health, safety and welfare. In the practice of their

profession, engineers must perform under a standard of professional

behavior which requires adherence to the highest principles of ethical

conduct....

There is a growing and encouraging trend to incorporate the teaching of ethics

into the engineering curriculum. This incorporation is being done best in the

form of case studies in engineering courses so that the student has an

opportunity to combine the study of both the technical and ethical

considerations of engineering problems. Such instruction brings home to the

engineering student the responsibilities of the engineering profession and the

personal obligations of members of the profession. Responsible people accept

moral responsibility for their actions!

Documents

course notes: part 5