Developed and

Presented by the National

Institute for Engineering

Ethics

Developed and

Presented by the National

Institute for Engineering

Ethics

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgementsThis Project was made possible in part

by a Grant from the

National Science Foundation

Grant NSF SES-0138309

NSF Program Directors:

Dr. Rachelle Hollander - 2003

Dr. Joan Sieber - 2002

And Financial Support fromAnd Financial Support from

HHarry E. Bovay, Jr., P.E., Past President, NSPEVVictor O. Schinnerer and Company, Inc.NNational Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE)AAmerican Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)WWilliam J. Lhota, P.E., American Electric PowerSSteven P. Nichols, Ph.D., P.E., Clint W. Murchison

Chair of Free Enterprise, University of Texas at AustinRRobert L. Nichols, P.E., Past President, NIEE & NSPEDDonald L. Hiatte, P.E., Past President, NSPEJJimmy H. Smith, Ph.D., P.E., Past President, NIEE &

TSPE

Presented by

<Name of Presenter><Name of Presenter>

Developed by the

National Institute for Engineering EthicsNational Institute for Engineering EthicsMurdough Center for Engineering Professionalism, Texas Tech UniversityMurdough Center for Engineering Professionalism, Texas Tech University

Producer & Writer/DirectorProducer & Writer/Director

Great Projects Film Co., Inc.New York City

Kenneth Mandel, ProducerPaul Martin, Writer & Director

Executive Producers - Video TeamExecutive Producers - Video TeamJJimmy H. Smith, Ph.D., P.E., Texas Tech University, PI & PD

SSteven P. Nichols, Ph.D. J.D., P.E., Univ. of Texas at Austin

MMichael C. Loui, Ph.D., Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

VVivian Weil, Ph.D., Illinois Institute of Technology

PPhilip E. Ulmer, P.E., Eagle River, Alaska

FFredrick Suppe, Ph.D., Texas Tech University

CCarl M. Skooglund, Texas Instruments, Dallas (Retired)

EE. Walter LeFevre, Jr., Ph.D., P.E., University of Arkansas

and Patricia Harper, Assistant to Team of Executive Producers

Incident at MoralesIncident at Morales

How the Video Project Evolved

&Consideration of Basic Concepts

NIEE NIEE Video TeamVideo Team

NSF NSF FundingFunding

Private Private FundingFundingINCIDENTINCIDENT

AT MORALESAT MORALESINCIDENTINCIDENT

AT MORALESAT MORALES

Idea for graphic based on Professional Responsibility: The Role of the Engineer, Journal of Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1997

by Drs. Steve Nichols and Bill Weldon, UT/Austin

Needs in Engineering EducationNeeds in Engineering Education

Basic Concept

The NIEE Video TeamThe NIEE Video TeamOur Video Team communicated on a frequent basis and

met as a group twice during 2002 for 2 days each. We started with basic ideas of:basic ideas of:

• SensitivitySensitivity - To raise awareness of ethical aspects of professional work

• KnowledgeKnowledge - To learn about professional standards such as codes of ethics

• JudgmentJudgment - To develop skills in moral reasoning

• CommitmentCommitment - To strengthen personal dedication to exemplary conduct

The NIEE Video TeamThe NIEE Video Team• IdentifiedIdentified a variety of ethical issues they wished to

convey in the video.• Developed Developed situations where these issues may be

encountered.• SpecifiedSpecified critical ethical elements of the video.• ProposedProposed a story line to the producer & writer.• CritiquedCritiqued two draft scripts.• Reviewed and approvedReviewed and approved the final script and the

“fine cut” of the video.

The NIEE Video Team Wanted The NIEE Video Team Wanted Viewers To be Able To:Viewers To be Able To:

• IdentifyIdentify ethical, technical, and economic issues and problems

• IdentifyIdentify affected parties (stakeholders) and their rights and responsibilities

• IdentifyIdentify social and political constraints on possible solutions

And to:And to:• DetermineDetermine whether additional information

is needed to make a good decision

• SuggestSuggest alternative courses of action for the principal characters

• ImagineImagine possible consequences of those alternative actions

• EvaluateEvaluate those alternatives according to basic ethical values

Tests That Were ConsideredTests That Were Considered(Davis, 1997)(Davis, 1997)

• Harm testHarm test - Do the benefits outweigh the harms, short term and long term?

• Reversibility testReversibility test - Would I think this choice were good if I traded places?

• Colleague testColleague test - What would professional colleagues say?

And ...And ...• Legality testLegality test - Would this choice violate a

law or a policy of my employer?

• Publicity testPublicity test - How would this choice look on the front page of a newspaper?

• Common practice testCommon practice test - What if everyone behaved in this way?

• Wise relative testWise relative test - What would my wise old aunt or uncle do?

Evaluation & AssessmentEvaluation & Assessment

• TThe evaluation and assessment phase will be conducted during 2003 – 2005, lead by Dr. Michael Loui, Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Basic Ethical ConceptsBasic Ethical Concepts• EEthical considerations are an integral part of

making engineering decisions.

• TThe professional obligations of engineers go beyond fulfilling a contract with a client or customer.

• CCodes of ethics can provide guidance in the decision-making process.

Basic Ethical Concepts ...Basic Ethical Concepts ...• EthicalEthical obligations do not stop at the United

States border.

• WWherever engineers practice, they should hold paramount the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

• HHow an engineer fulfills those obligations may depend on the social and economic context of engineering practice.

Outline of StoryOutline of Story• PPhaust is the manufacturer of Old Stripper, a

paint remover.

• PPhaust’s learns that competitor Chemitoil plans to introduce a new paint remover.

• TTo remain competitive, Phaust decides to develop a new paint remover.

• TTo save money, Phaust decides to construct a new plant in Mexico.

Outline of Story ...Outline of Story ...• PPhaust hires a chemical engineer, Fred Martinez,

who had been a consultant to Chemitoil.

• CChemistré is Phaust’s parent company in France and they insist that budgets be radically cut.

• CChuck, a Vice President of Phaust, encourages Fred to reduce construction costs.

• FFred confronts several engineering decisions in which ethical considerations play a major role.

The Interactive DVD Version will:The Interactive DVD Version will:

• PProvide the viewer with interactive control of the action in the sense that they will have a variety of options to more effectively benefit from studying the elements of the video.

• IInclude interviews with and comments by NIEE Video Team Members and others.

• RRaise and discuss Issues/Concepts/Questions that should be considered by the viewers.

Supporting MaterialsSupporting MaterialsSupporting Materials that are available on the

Internet :

• SScript

• Synopsis of the Story

• StudyStudy Guide

• PPower Point Slides

• RRecommended Uses

Characters & FormatCharacters & Format

Incident at MoralesIncident at MoralesAn Engineering Ethics StoryAn Engineering Ethics Story

Characters in Incident at MoralesCharacters in Incident at Morales

DominiqueDominique - French corporate liaison to Phaust

FredFred - Chemical engineer hired by Phaust to design a new plant to manufacture a new paintremover

WallyWally - Fred’s supervisor at Phaust

ChuckChuck - Vice president of engineering at Phaust

MariaMaria - Fred’s wife, an EPA compliance litigator

Characters ...Characters ...HalHal - Market analyst at Phaust

JenJen - Research chemist at Phaust

PeterPeter - Project manager of the construction firmthat builds the new plant in Morales

JakeJake - Plant manager for the SwisseChem plant inBig Springs, Texas

ManuelManuel - Plant manager for the new Phaust plant in Morales, Nuevo Leon, Mexico

Suggested AssignmentsSuggested Assignments

• List the ethical issues you observed in Incident at Morales.

• From your personal perspective, prioritize these ethical issues from most critical to least critical

• Discuss the video from the three following perspectives:

Fred’s Perspective: Fred’s Perspective: Assume you are FredAssume you are Fred

• What specific ethical issues do you (Fred) face?

• What are some things that you should consider?

• From whom or where would you seek guidance?

Wally’s Perspective: Wally’s Perspective: Assume you are WallyAssume you are Wally

• What specific ethical issues does Wally face?

• What do you think Wally's motivation was for having “One Rule”?

• What do you think about Wally’s “One Rule”?

• What decisions would you change if you were Wally?

Responsibility Perspective:Responsibility Perspective: If you were in charge and had the authority and the funding to make any changes you wanted to make in company policies: • What specific steps would you take to improve

the company culture?

• Who would you involve in this process?

• How and when would you communicate the company policies to: Your employees? Your clients? The public?

Let’s Watch and DiscussLet’s Watch and Discuss

Incident at MoralesIncident at MoralesAn Engineering Ethics StoryAn Engineering Ethics Story