Engineering Ethics Exam 2

Justice

moral correctness, fairness

Accountability

the expectation that mistakes must come with consequences

Oversight

Changes which impact safety must be reviewed

Confidentiality

[privacy for] keeping one's commitments to clients.

Honesty

the expectation one will be accurate about the issues they have been hired to address

Whistleblowing

an employee or former employee conveys information about a significant moral problem to someone in a position to take action on the problem, and does so outside approved organizational channels (or against strong pressure

The bottom line for an engineer should always be the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

True

Ford rushed the development of the Pinto, leading to a key design flaw being ignored.

True

Engineers must always keep the secrets behind their clients’ design information guarded.

False

William LeMessurier was alerted to a design flaw by an architecture student.

True

Engineers often sign away rights to intellectual property through clauses in contracts or NDAs.

True

NDAs prevent engineers from speaking about certain work-related topics (if they are not illegal).

True

Professionalism and business do not often come into conflict for engineers.

False

Professionalism requires that engineers act as “guns-for-hire” for companies

False

In the corporate context, name two conflicting obligations that engineers often have

1. obligation to serve their employer's interests

2. Their responsibility to uphold the ethical standards of their profession.

Why do engineers only have a varied amount of responsibility for the effects of their work?

They often cannot fully anticipate the long-term consequences and applications of their creations

Describe one problem with viewing engineers as delegates instead of trustees

Viewing engineers as delegates rather than trustees limits their autonomy and undermines their ability to make independent ethical judgment.

Define the word fiduciary

a person entrusted with managing another party's assets responsibly and ethically, prioritizing their interests over personal gain.

What is one of the risks associated with whistleblowing?

• job loss

• blacklisting

• threats to their safety

Explain with an example how engineering is an inherently social activity.

Engineering is inherently social because the technologies engineers create shape societal structures, interactions, and access to resources

What is the “bottom line” for an engineer?

health, safety, and welfare of the public

Considering Johnson’s model of the social responsibility of engineers as accountability, what should be done when something is deemed too “unsafe” to move forward in production or implementation? Describe what an engineer could do following resistance from their company. Name two specific courses of action that an engineer could take.

Prioritize Public Safety and take Action to prevent harm

1. Report the safety concerns to an external regulatory body anonymously

2. Seek guidance from the NSPE about what should be done

Should engineers consider the role of justice in their work? If yes, then: how much social responsibility do engineers have for the consequences of their work? Justify your answer using some principle(s) from either theoretical or professional ethics.

Yes, engineers should consider the role of justice in their work. This responsibility is grounded in the Harm Principle which states that people are morally obligated to prevent harm to others

In the United States, most engineers operate within the confines of the corporate context. Describe what conflicts emerge from this arrangement as well as at least one way in which engineers can leverage corporate interests for their own benefit. How can professionalism play a role in the exchange between engineers and corporations?

• between their professional duty to prioritize public well-being and their employer's pursuit of profit maximization.

• Can leverage by showcasing how their contributions directly enhance the company's performance, which can lead to career advancements

If it is important for engineers to protect the sensitive design information of employers/clients, then how can engineers be expected to serve the financial interests of multiple employers/clients? Draw on at least one principle from professional ethics to substantiate your claim.

• strictly separating information obtained from different clients

• refraining from using confidential data from one client to benefit another

• Principle of confidentiality: emphasizes the engineer's obligation to safeguard sensitive information entrusted to them by their clients

Engineer A works for a government agency involved in the design and construction of facilities. During Engineer A’s tenure with the government agency, Engineer A receives access to confidential and proprietary design information provided by companies seeking approval from the government agency for their facility designs. Company X is among the companies submitting confidential and proprietary design information. Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X.

• Key Actors: Engineer A, Company X, Company Y, and the Government Agency

• Ethical/Professional/Fiduciary Obligations: Confidentiality, Avoiding Conflicts of interests, Public Welfare

• Verdict: It would “not be unethical” for Engineer A to take a job at Company Y… but she should be careful not to disclose any confidential info

A consultant recently determined the existing water main in Shadyvale is generally in good condition but extremely old. Further, the water main is no longer large enough for all the properties served. The cost to replace is an unaffordable $750,000. The State DOT (Department of Transportation) is planning a highway reconstruction project in Shadyvale. Engineer W is the senior DOT engineer responsible for this project. Engineer W delegates the project to Engineer Intern D […]

State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects, and that other utility work is to be considered as a betterment that must be paid for by the local municipality. Engineer Intern D initiates the design layout for the Shadyvale DOT project to avoid conflicts with the existing utilities, including separation of a new closed drainage system from the old water main. During design development review, Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted. In that case, the cost to Shadyvale would be only the difference in price between the existing size of the water main and the proposed larger size, rather than the entire water main replacement cost […] Engineer W tells Engineer Intern D, “I’ll sign off on it.”

• Key Actors: Shadyvale, State DOT, Engineer W, Engineer Intern D'

• Obligations: Public Welfare, Honesty and Transparency, Compliance with Regulations and Policies, fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of their employer

• Unethical behavior: Manipulating Design for Financial Gain, Abuse of Authority, Potential Violation of State DOT Policy

• Verdict: Engineer W's actions are ethically questionable and potentially constitute professional misconduct. Engineer Intern D should opt out

Engineer D is the Engineer of Record (EOR) as part of a design-build team led by Contractor W. Under the terms of an Agency funding grant, the project is required to have an independent peer review of the design, the design approach, compatibility with the site, and a constructability assessment related to the design approach. Engineer D prepares the design and drawings and directly hires Engineer F to perform the peer review.

• Key Actors: Engineer D, Contractor W, Engineer F, Agency

• Obligations: Independence and Objectivity, Transparency and Disclosure, Compliance with Grant Terms

• Unethical Behavior: Compromising Independence of the Peer Review

• Verdict: Engineer D's action of hiring Engineer F directly for the peer review compromises the integrity and independence of the review process.