Engineering 1000 Chapter 8: Ethics

Engineering 1000Chapter 8: Ethics

Outline • What are ethics and why are they important? • Professional engineering codes of ethics • Duties of the engineer • Common ethical issues • conflict of interest • confidentiality • whistleblowing • moonlighting • Product liability • defects in products • negligence • risk • warranties R. Hornsey

What is/are Ethics? • From Webster: • the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation • a set of moral principles or values • a theory or system of moral values • the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group (professional ethics) • a guiding philosophy R. Hornsey

Why is Ethical Behaviour Important? • Imagine what would happen if there was no ethical behaviour • technical short cuts taken • safety compromised for profit • corruption and bribery • From the textbook: • During the early part of the nineteenth century, steam engineers were redesigned by people such as James Watt, Oliver Evans, and Richard Tevethick to become more portable and powerful. This work allowed such engines to be installed in mines, factories, trains, and steam boats.Unfortunately, an unexpected negative development soon appeared: Steamboat owners were competing with one another for lucrative trade agreements by racing along the riverways. Safety valves were disabled to increase steam pressure, boilers were forced to operate beyond their capacities, and explosions would often occur as a result of these actions. Between 1816 and 1848, 2563 people were killed and 2097 injured in 233 such explosions • Professional engineering references attest that these practices continue today R. Hornsey

Westray Mine Explosion, Nova Scotia • At 5:20am on 9 May 1992 the Westray coal mine exploded, killing 26 miners • It is a story of incompetence, of mismanagement, of bureaucratic bungling, of deceit, of ruthlessness, of cover-up, of apathy, of expediency, and of cynical indifference • Westray management, starting with the chief executive officer, was required by law, by good business practice, and by good conscience to design and operate the Westray mine safely. Westray management failed in this primary responsibility … • The Department of Labour through its mine inspectorate must bear a correlative responsibility for its continued failure in its duty to ensure compliance with the Coal Mines Regulation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act. • With its "hands-off" attitude, its general indifference to the quality of mine planning, and its lassitude about any safety responsibility, the Department of Natural Resources failed to discharge its duties in a creditable manner. From the report of the Official Enquiry http://www.gov.ns.ca/labr/westray/contents.htm R. Hornsey

In professional terms, ethics can be summarised simplistically: Do the right thing! • Simple, right? R. Hornsey

Example Kermit Vandivier had worked at B.F. Gooderich for five years, first in instrumentation and later as a data analyst and technical writer. In 1968 he was assigned to write a report on the performance of the Goodrich wheels and brakes commissioned by the Air Force for its new A7-D light attach aircraft. According to his account, he became aware of the design’s limitations and of serious irregularities in the qualification tests. The brake failed to meet Air Force specifications. Upon pointing out the problems, however, he was given a direct order to stop complaining and to write a report that would show the brake qualified. He was led to believe that several layers of management were behind this demand and would accept whatever distortions might be needed because their engineering judgement assured them that the brake was acceptable. Vandivier then drafted a 200-page report with dozens of falsifications and misrepresentations. But, he refused to sign it. Later he gave as excuses for his complicity the facts that we was 42 years old with a wife and six children. He had recently bought and felt financially unable to change jobs. He felt certain that he would have been fired if he had refused to participate in writing the report. From “Ethics in Engineering”, M. Martin and R. Schinzinger, McGraw Hill, 1996 R. Hornsey

But What is “Right”? • The trouble with ethics is that determining what is really right, and for whom, is difficult • “if I complain, I’ll lose my job and my family will suffer” • “if I say something, Fred will lose his job” • “what about my career?” • “if the company loses money, there will be layoffs” • “just this once – my boss promised me a promotion if this product is on time” • The solutions to other people’s problems are always easy • ethical behaviour is harder when it is personal R. Hornsey

Shades of Grey • Most people can distinguish the extremes of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ • The difficulty comes in the grey areas, when something is only a little naughty • “no-one will ever know” • “it’s OK to pirate this software because Bill has plenty of money already” • “it’s OK to pirate this software because I wouldn’t have bought it anyway” • “he/she only gave me a small gift - it didn’t affect my judgement” • “I know what the data will look like, so why waste time and effort” • “we only use a small amount of chemical, so we just dump it out the back when we’re done” • “the product launch is next week; it’s only unsafe in exceptional circumstances that will never happen …” • Minor ethical breaches have the habit of being a slippery slope, leading to ever greater violations R. Hornsey

Philosophical Roots of Ethics Adapted from “Canadian Professional Engineering Practice and Ethics”, G. Andrews and J. Kemper, Harcourt 1999 R. Hornsey

Codes of Ethics • Professional Engineers Ontario Code of Ethics from Regulation 77 of the Professional Engineers Act. • 1. It is the duty of a practitioner to the public, to the practitioner's employer, to the practitioner's clients, to other members of the practitioner's profession, and to the practitioner to act at all times with, • i.fairness and loyalty to the practitioner's associates, employers, clients, subordinates and employees, • ii.fidelity to public needs, • iii.devotion to high ideals of personal honour and professional integrity, • iv.knowledge of developments in the area of professional engineering relevant to any services that are undertaken, and • v.competence in the performance of any professional engineering services that are undertaken. • The full text is available from • http://www.peo.on.ca/EngPractice/code_of_ethics.html R. Hornsey

Duties of the Engineer • The codes of ethics can be summarised as a series of duties • Duty to society • protect the average person from physical or financial harm • Duty to employers and clients • fairness and loyalty to employer • conflict of interest • Duty to colleagues • courtesy and goodwill • unethical to review the work of a colleague without their knowledge • Duty to employees and subordinates • Duty to the engineering profession • maintain the dignity and prestige of the engineering profession • Duty to oneself • duty to others is balanced by the engineer’s own rights • adequate payment, good work environment, etc. R. Hornsey

The Engineer’s Creed • As a Professional Engineer, I dedicate my professional knowledge and skill to the advancement and betterment of human welfare. • I pledge: • To give the utmost of performance; • To participate in none but honest enterprise; • To live and work according to the laws of man and the highest standards of professional conduct; • To place service before profit, the honor and standing of the profession before personal advantage, and the public welfare above all other considerations. • In humility and with need for Divine Guidance, I make this pledge. • Adopted by National Society of Professional Engineers, June 1954 R. Hornsey

Common Ethical Issues • We will cover a few of the more common ethical issues that may face an ordinary practising engineer • conflict of interest • confidentially • whistleblowing • moonlighting R. Hornsey

Conflict of Interest • Consider this example from US National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) • Izzy A. Candid, P.E. was requested by client, Hope and Trusting (H&T), to prepare specifications for a curtain wall system. • Candid immediately makes H&T aware that he is a minority shareholder in a curtain wall manufacturing company and that if H&T agrees, Candid would be pleased to prepare a set of generic specifications for a curtain wall system. • H&T agrees but is silent on the point of having Candid's firm submit a proposal. • Later, Candid provides H&T with the names of three manufacturers that prepare curtain wall systems for bidding purposes. Candid includes the name of his firm among the three manufacturers, but does not include the full specifications and other supporting material about Candid's curtain wall manufacturing firm with the bidding material provided to the client. • Candid's reasoning is that he could answer any questions that H&T might have about the curtain wall manufacturing system in his company. • After evaluating the proposals solicited through documentation prepared by Candid, and upon Candid's recommendation, H&T selects Candid's company. • Was it ethical for Candid to prepare bidding criteria, bid, evaluate bids, and recommend his company for owner selection? R. Hornsey

Conflict of Interest • Conflict of interest occurs when an engineer has an interest that interferes with his/her ability to make independent judgements • e.g. owns shares in a potential supplier of products to the engineer’s client or employer • “Over the past few weeks, the opposition parties in the House of Commons have held the Prime Minister to account over the conflict of interest between his financial interest in the Grand-Mère Golf Club and his pressuring a Crown corporation for money for the next door Auberge Grand-Mère. We have been urging the Prime Minister to call an independent judicial inquiry to look into this and other related controversies known collectively as "Shawinigate".” www.shawinigate.ca • To resolve a conflict of interest, the engineer must fully inform the client/employer of the conflict as soon as it occurs • the client/employer is then free to make an informed decision • they can choose to ignore the conflict if they so wish R. Hornsey

Example – Confidentiality • An aeronautical research engineer from Company A conducted tests of a new aircraft tail assembly configuration at his company’s wind tunnel and knew that devastating vibrations could occur in the configuration under certain conditions, leading to destruction of the aircraft. • Later, at a professional meeting, Company A’s engineer hears an engineer from Company B, a competitor, describe a tail assembly configuration for one of Company B’s new aircraft that runs the risk of producing the same destructive vibrations that Company A’s engineer found in his tests. • Presumably, there is an obligation, as a matter of both ethics and law, to maintain company confidentiality regarding Company A’s proprietary knowledge. • On the other hand, engineers have a duty to safeguard public safety and welfare. If the engineer from Company A remains silent, Company B might not discover the destructive vibrations until a fatal crash occurs, killing many people. • What should the engineer from Company A do? From “Canadian Professional Engineering Practice and Ethics”, G. Andrews and J. Kemper, Harcourt 1999 R. Hornsey

Confidentiality • The engineer has a clear ethical responsibility (under normal circumstances) to maintain the affairs of an employer or client confidential • Potential issues • consultants working for clients who are competitors • failure of a client to follow environmental regulations (which the engineer is legally obliged to report) • Non-disclosure agreements (NDA) • are frequently required before a company discusses technical details with a consultant • may identify what each party is bringing to the discussion (so-called background intellectual property), to avoid uncertainty later • may specify what information is being disclosed for what purpose, and clauses governing the use of that information • especially important for patenting; an NDA indicates that the IP is not being “publicly disclosed”, which affects a subsequent patent claim R. Hornsey

Whistleblowing • “Whistleblowers are people (usually employees” who believe an organisation is engaged in unsafe, unethical or illegal practices and go public with their charge, having tried with no success to have the situation corrected through internal channels” Quoted in “Canadian Professional Engineering Practice and Ethics”, G. Andrews and J. Kemper, Harcourt 1999 • A recent case: • Nancy Olivieri, at Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children, became convinced that use of the drug deferiprone on children with thalassemia had dangerous side effects. The manufacturer of the drug, Apotex, that funded Olivieri’s study, cancelled her research and threatened her with a breach of contract suit should she inform her patients or publish her negative findings. www.aaas.org • As with all complex issues, the ‘truth’ depends on whom you talk with … R. Hornsey

One View • In the fall of 1995, liver biopsies in some of the Toronto patients showed dangerous levels of iron overload throwing the researchers into a panic. Toxic levels can compromise liver function and lead to scarring and life-threatening cirrhosis. • Dr. Olivieri immediately stopped giving the drug to those patients most at risk but, at the time, was convinced the study should continue in those in whom the drug appeared useful. The researchers thought the drug treatment could be appropriate for some of the patients. The only way to find out for sure was to keep the study on track and carefully monitor the patients. • When Dr. Olivieri approached Apotex with her negative findings and a request to change the patient consent form to include the contraindications, the company disagreed that the patients were at risk. Apotex opposed changing the consent form. • But when Dr. Olivieri went ahead anyway and drafted a new consent form, and forwarded it to Apotex in May, 1996, the company response was to fire her as principal investigator of the Toronto studies and as chair of the international study's steering committee. The study at the Hospital for Sick Children was halted, and Apotex confiscated the drugs from the hospital's pharmacy. • Dr. Olivieri was also repeatedly threatened with legal action if she divulged the findings to her patients. She spoke out anyway, believing that the health care of her patients was paramount. Dr. Olivieri also believed she would be supported by the Hospital. But her request for legal assistance from the institution was denied on the grounds that she had not obtained the administration's approval for her deal with Apotex. • This summer, three years after she first arranged funding from Apotex, and in spite of the manufacturer's claim that her study is seriously flawed, the New England Journal of Medicine has published Dr. Olivieri's results. From Canadian Association of university Teachers www.caut.ca R. Hornsey

Another View • Deferiprone once held promise for thousands of sick people, an effective treatment for Thalassemia. Now questions are being raised: does the treatment do more harm than good? This is a story about a top Canadian doctor, the company that funded her research and a controversial editorial in a prestigious medical journal. • It's been billed as a classic David and Goliath story: one lonely doctor against a mighty pharmaceutical company. The combatants are Dr. Nancy Olivieri, a prominent Toronto researcher, and Apotex, a Canadian pharmaceutical company. At issue is the effectiveness and safety of the experimental drug. • What made deferiprone so attractive was that it could be given in pill form instead of the daily 12-hour injection of drug, is so cumbersome that many patients stop. • Dr. Nancy Olivieri was an early proponent of deferiprone, but her research led her to suspect the drug was either ineffective or dangerous. She wanted to make her findings known, but there was a problem. She'd signed a contract giving Apotex control over all communications bout the research. Nonetheless, Dr. Olivieri defied Apotex and wrote an article, published on August 13 in the prestigious New England Journal Of Medicine. Five of 14 patients taking deferiprone showed evidence of liver damage. • To Dr. Olivieri, having her study published meant long-sought vindication. But questions are being asked about her research. An editorial in the same issue of the journal raises some mportant concerns and finds her study inconclusive. The editorial pointed out that the study had a "limited number of patients," that some researchers would consider Olivieri's method of sampling the liver as "unacceptable." Their biggest objection was that the patients studied weren't comparable. • The findings, wrote the editors, "weakened their conclusion." Dr. Marshall Kaplan, of Tufts New England Medical Centre, is one of the editorial's authors. "We basically were asking questions and to say how strong are the data, and I think we decided we couldn't come to a conclusion," Kaplan said • For Dr. Jerome Kassirer the editor-in-chief of the "New England Journal Of Medicine," the study is intriguing, but hardly the last word. "It is some evidence -- I wouldn't be willing to describe it as weak, it is some evidence that adds to our current knowledge about the efficacy and perhaps even the toxicity of the drug," Kassirer said Officials at Apotex have called the editorial a vindication of their position that deferiprone is safe. In the end, what looked like a battle between David and Goliath is turning into a scientific debate as to who's research you can trust. http://www.tv.cbc.ca/ R. Hornsey

Moonlighting • Moonlighting is the practice of performing part-time employment in addition to a regular job • While it is not unethical to moonlight, the code of ethics states that the full-time employer must be fully informed and be allowed to judge whether the second job affects the performance of the primary employment • in particular, the moonlighting should not compete with the primary employer • neither should the employer’s facilities be used for the moolighting without prior approval • Some companies require contracts that state that ideas etc related to the primary employer are company property • whether or not they occur on company property or in company time • If the engineer is offering engineering services to the public, he/she also requires the appropriate licenses under the Engineering Act (e.g. a Certificate of Authorisation) R. Hornsey

Product Liability • Product liability deals with what happens when a product fails • It is related to ethics, since product failure can be the result of unethical behaviour • Many products are required by law to conform to certain safety standards • these are the result of cumulative experience with product failures • e.g. the Canadian Standards Association • The CSA describes a standard … • Many standards define safety requirements intended to reduce the risk of personal injury due to electrical shock or fire. Some standards set levels of performance for products, and increasingly standards address social concerns, such as how our environment is managed or how information about us is being used. • Product liability is determined in a lawsuit between a plaintiff who is seeking to recover damages for personal injury or property loss from the seller or manufacturer (the defendant) R. Hornsey

Defects in Products • Manufacturing defects • a serious but localised flaw, occurring in one or a few products out of the many produced • Design defects • a result of poor design or a design that does not meet appropriate standards • design defects are global, and affect the entire product populations • e.g. Bridgestone-Firestone tyre recall in 2000 • “Bridgestone/Firestone Announces Voluntary Recall of 3.85 million RADIAL ATX and RADIAL ATX II Tires, and 2.7 million Wilderness AT Tires” www.bridgestone-firestone.com/ • Warning Defects • absence of adequate warnings on products • e.g. McDonalds 1992 scalding coffee case has led to warnings on many disposable coffee cups R. Hornsey

Product Risk Versus Cost • Risk of failure and primary cost of production are inversely related • it is materially cheaper to produce an inferior product • but this does not include secondary costs, such as litigation, reputation etc. “Ethics in Engineering”, M. Martin and R. Schinzinger, McGraw Hill 1996 R. Hornsey

Limited Liability • The plaintiff must demonstrate that • the manufacturer violated a legal responsibility to the customer • the defect actually caused the failure which led to injury or loss of property • Once exception is the principle of ‘patent danger’, based on legal precedent where manufacturers were found not to be liable for dangers that were inherently obvious from the use of the product • e.g. falling off a ladder is sufficiently obvious not to require a specific warning on the ladder • With the McDonalds coffee case, it could be argued that the risks of opening coffee on your lap in a car were obvious • McDonalds were found liable partly because the temperature of their coffee was at 180-190°F (compared with a typical value of 130-140°F in other restaurants) • which is just above the threshold for causing burns to human skin www.lectlaw.com R. Hornsey

Negligence • Liability may be filed based on several legal principles • which may examine the conduct of the manufacturer and/or on the performance of the product • A defendant is considered negligent if their conduct led to an unreasonable exposure of the plaintiff to risk • the defendant need not intend to harm the plaintiff, but may be shown not to care sufficiently about the plaintiff’s welfare • The responsibility of the defendant is higher if • there is a higher probability of harm • the harm is likely to be more serious • These principles are tempered by the concept that no manufacturer can ever ensure that a product is totally safe • it is a question of whether a reasonable person would consider that reasonable precautions had been taken to ensure safety R. Hornsey

Product Warranties • A warranty is a promise made by a manufacturer about a product • it differs from a guarantee, which covers services rather than products • If the product does not meet these promises – the product is misrepresented – the manufacturer may be liable • An express warranty is a promise – written or verbal – that the product will perform certain functions for a certain time • in some ways analogous to a restricted set of specifications • there may be some flexibility in distinguishing sales ‘hype’ from verbal express warranties • An implied warranty is not explicitly stated but is a reasonable expectation based on the purpose of the product • e.g. one would expect that coffee from a fast food restaurant is hot • The USA also has a concept of strict liability – see textbook • manufacturer is responsible for any damage resulting from the use of the product, regardless of whether they were negligent or not R. Hornsey

Summary • The professional engineer has a duty to behave ethically • following a codes of ethics is a legal requirement of professional engineers in Ontario • these are designed to assist the engineer in determining a course of action in case of a dilemma • The engineer’s duty to public safety and welfare is paramount • Common issues are • conflict of interest • confidentiality • whistleblowing • moonlighting • Companies can be held liable for product failures for a variety of reasons • including negligence and misrepresentation R. Hornsey

Resources • “Canadian Professional Engineering Practice and Ethics”, G. Andrews and J. Kemper, Harcourt 1999 • a recommended text for the PEO Professional Practice Examination • “Ethics in Engineering”, M. Martin and R. Schinzinger, McGraw Hill 1996 • www.nspe.org • case studies and codes of ethics • www.peo.on.ca • Ontario code of ethics • http://ethics.tamu.edu/pritchar/an-intro.htm • lots of case studies from a course at Texas A&M University • For an analysis of whistleblowing since the Challenger explosion • http://www.nspe.org/ethics/eh1%2Dwhi.asp R. Hornsey

What’s Next? • The details of the second part of ENG1000 are dependent on the instructor, but may include the following: • Completion of the design cycle • Hazard and failure analysis • Design analysis • Implementation • Basic engineering tools • AutoCAD • Major design project, potentially including manufacture of prototypes • Engineering Design II (ENG2000) will include other techniques of engineering, materials science, mechanical properties of materials and structures, electronic properties of materials • and more design projects! R. Hornsey

Exercises from PEO Professional Practice Exam • Question 1 • Shortly after signing a consulting contract with the XYZ Company to oversee the construction of a new manufacturing plant, you receive a letter from Mr. Smith, P.Eng. In his letter Mr. Smith points out that he was contracted by the XYZ Company for the work that you are now doing. He goes on to state that, despite having been notified by the XYZ Company that his services are no longer required, he feels that he has been terminated improperly and has taken the position that until the matter is settled he is still engaged on this project. • Do you have any ethical obligation to Mr. Smith? Does the receipt of this letter and the knowledge of Mr. Smith's position with respect to the XYZ Company have any effect on your position vis a vis the XYZ Company? R. Hornsey

Question 2 • After many years of working together as ABC Consultants the partners have come to a parting of the ways. "A" and “B" are carrying on with the old business. “C” has established a competitive business with his son, who is an engineer, and has hired two senior Professional Engineers from the old firm. • It has been brought to "A”’s attention by one of his clients that “C" has sent out a mailing to potential clients, including the clients of the ABC Company, announcing the new practice and soliciting work opportunities for it. “A" has also heard that in some direct personal solicitations "C" has questioned the ability of his old firm to perform on certain types of work because of the fact that senior staff members with specific expertise are no longer there. Engineer "B" in discussion with a potential client has warned of the danger of dealing with engineer “C"'s new firm because of its lack of a track record working as a company. • Discuss all aspects of the ethics of this situation. R. Hornsey

Engineering 1000 Chapter 8: Ethics