course notes: part 5
TRANSCRIPT
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
6-2 MENG 293 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT & SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
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;
6-3 MENG 293 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT & SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
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
6-4 MENG 293 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT & SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
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.
6-5 MENG 293 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT & SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
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
6-6 MENG 293 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT & SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
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?
6-7 MENG 293 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT & SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
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
6-8 MENG 293 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT & SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
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
6-9 MENG 293 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT & SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
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.
6-10 MENG 293 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT & SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
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
6-11 MENG 293 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT & SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
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)
6-12 MENG 293 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT & SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
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
6-13 MENG 293 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT & SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
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
6-14 MENG 293 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT & SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
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!