Engineering Ethics Update
December 1997
| NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR ENGINEERING ETHICS |
Message from the Past President
Robert L. Nichols, P.E.
The Board of Directors met in Dallas on November 15, 1997. Several important issues were addressed. A summary is as follows:
Officers and directors were elected and installed. They are as follows:
Philip E. Ulmer, P.E., President
Northwest Safety Management, Inc.
17710 Nitoanya Circle
Eagle River, AK 99577
Phone: 907/696-5730
FAX: 907/696-5730
e-mail: UlmerPhil@aol.com
E. David Dorchester, P.E., President-Elect
1902 Sparks
Midland, TX 79705
Phone: 915/682-8426
Participating Societies
Ernest B. Gardow, Ph.D., P.E., American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Colonel Thomas A. York, USA, Society of American Military Engineers
Daniel R. Clinton, Jr., P.E., National Society of Professional Engineers
R. Lary Greene, L.S., National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying
Barton B. Wallace, Jr., ASHRAE
William H. Propes, P.E., CSP, American Society of Safety Engineers
Members-at-Large
William A. Cox, Jr., P.E.; E. D. "Dave" Dorchester, P.E.; Walter L. Elden, P.E.; Samual C. Florman, P.E.; Donald L. Hiatte, P.E.; Herbert G. Koogle, P.E.-L.S.; E. Walter LeFevre Ph.D., P.E., Michael C. Loui; Dr. Margaret N. Maxey, Ph.D.; Robert L. Nichols, P.E.; Steve Nichols, Ph.D., P.E.; Arthur E. Schwartz; Jimmy H. Smith, Ph.D., P.E.; Vivian Weil, Ph.D.
It has been my pleasure to serve as the NIEE President for the past two and one half years. While NIEE has not achieved as much as I had hoped, we have had many successes. The turnaround is not complete, but NIEE is on its way to being well established. NIEE is in a position to make many contributions to the education and promotion of engineering ethics. My personal thanks to all those who have worked so hard over the past couple of years.
Long Range Plan
FY 1998-2000
NIEE Mission Statement
The Mission of the Institute is to provide opportunities for education in engineering ethics and to promote the understanding and application of ethical process with the engineering profession and with the public. In implementing this mission, the Institute will:
Provide a recognized forum for technical/professional societies, corporations, firms and individuals to exchange educational and other information on ethics activities.
Serve as a coordinator for ethics conferences, workshops, etc.
Serve as the coordinator of joint and/or special projects in connection with education and understanding of ethical issues in which several of the participating societies and organizations determine to develop together.
Serve as a resource for educational and other materials on ethics and various data bases for those societies and employers of engineers requesting such assistance.
Provide a forum for participation in international ethics issues and activities.
The Long Range Plan (LRP)
The mission statement (above) defines five specific components. Each component is
annotated in the LRP as a separate heading. One or more specific objectives are listed
under each mission component. These objectives are Aplanned activities that must be
assigned to a standing committee, board member, officer or staff to provide oversight.
Each objective is to have a planned or projected budget for each of the three fiscal
years. For this initial draft, budgetary figures (expense and/or revenue generation) are
not included. Typically, professional societies will quantify the budgetary figures after
the approval of the LRP itself.
The NIEE Strategic Plan
A strategic plan will be necessary after the adoption of the LRP. Essentially, a
professional society strategic plan will break each component of the LRP into specific
strategies, or activities, that will be accomplished sequentially and which will
materially bring the LRP objectives into being. The strategic plan typically is not
Afleshed out until the LRP is adopted. In many cases, a professional society will leave
strategic planning to its staff and standing committees. NIEE is currently void of these
resources for the most part and will most likely have to initially utilize volunteer
members on standing committees to develop the strategies.
Mission Component 1
Provide a recognized forum for technical/professional societies, corporations, firms and individuals to exchange educational and other information on ethics activities.
Mission Component 2
Serve as a coordinator for ethics conferences, workshops, etc.
Mission Component 3
Serve as the coordinator of joint and/or special projects in connection with education and understanding of ethical issues in which several of the participating societies and organizations determine to develop together.
Mission Component 4
Serve as a resource for educational and other materials on ethics and various data bases for those societies and employers of engineer requesting such assistance.
Mission component 5
Provide a forum for participation in international ethics issues and activities.
Why a State P.E. Board Should Enter an Amicus Curiae Brief in a Wrongful Discharge Case
by Walter L. Elden, P.E. (Retired), NIEE Board of Directors, IEEE Life Senior Member, IEEE Member Conduct and Ethics Committees e-mail: w.elden@ieee.org
Synopsis
This paper presents a strong argument as to why, in cases where a terminated licensed Professional Engineer alleges wrongful discharge in a suit against a former employer, his/her State or National P.E. Licensed Board should enter an Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) legal brief in the case. The basic premise is the obligation of the P.E. Board to protect the public, and not necessarily the P.E. directly. The author shows, however, that by a P.E. Board taking such Pro Active legal action, the result is the protection of the proper practice of engineering, thus Aprotecting the public, with an indirect benefit to the P.E. Further, an engineer derives the right to practice ethically and should expect his/her professional engineering society to defend that right.
Wrongful Discharge for Upholding Code of Ethics
The IEEE Member Conduct and Ethics Committees are seeing increasing requests from IEEE members for ethical support by having the MCC recommending to the IEEE Executive Committee that IEEE should enter an Amicus Curiae in suits the engineer has brought against a former employer, for alleged wrongful discharge. This termination generally has resulted from the engineer engaging in actions aimed at protecting the public from the improper application of engineering design or technology, by following his/her professional society's Code of Ethics. Some of these members are also licensed Professional Engineers, having been licensed by his/her public Board of P.E. Regulation to protect the public from the improper practice of engineering.
IEEE Ethical Support and Amicus Curiae Policies
The IEEE, under By-Law I-113, has had a policy for over 20 years to offer ethical support in situations as described above. Further, as part of this policy, the IEEE provides for the providing of an Amicus Curiae, restricting it to matters of ethical principal, in ethical support requests. Policy 7.13 provides for the preparation of the Amicus Curiae, when approved by the IEEE.
In January 1975, the IEEE entered its first and only Amicus Curiae, in a Awrongful discharge ethics matter, in the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) case. This involved 3 IEEE engineers, who brought suit against the BART District entity for their Awrongful discharge for actions they took to protect the public in matters of engineering design of the automated train control system. Essentially, the IEEE legal brief made these statements of law to the court, in this case:
In any charge to the jury herein, this court should instruct the jury that if it finds, based upon the evidence, that an engineer has been discharged solely or in substantial part because of his bona fide efforts to conform to recognized ethics of his profession involving his duty to protect the public safety, then such discharge was in breach of an implied term of his contract of employment.
The IEEE brief said that not only should this apply to Public employment bodies, but to private employers too. Recently, in 1997, the IEEE BoD voted to have its legal counsel communicate with a member's legal counsel for the purpose of IEEE entering an Amicus Curia. This involved a P.E. member of IEEE, who alleged to have been discharged for trying to correct a product design defect which could result in the death of infants and filed a wrongful discharge suit against his former employer.
What About National/State P.E. Licensing Boards?
Above, we have seen where the IEEE, as a leading international engineering professional society, has had as its policy for over 20 years, to offer ethical support and an Amicus Curiae to engineers who request it in alleged wrongful discharge court cases. It was shown that in 1975, the IEEE did in fact enter one in the BART case and recently in another wrongful discharge case. Now, what about National/State P.E. Licensing Boards? What is their policy and history in similar cases to offer Amicus Curiae legal briefs in suits brought by their P.E.s to correct wrongful discharge treatment?
The author recently conducted a survey of all State P.E. Boards in the USA which had E-Mail addresses listed for them, asking if they had ever had been requested to or actually did enter an Amicus Curiae in alleged Awrongful discharge cases, involving licensed P.E.s. Many replies were received from these contacted P.E. Boards. Of those who responded, there was not one which had ever entered an Amicus Curiae in such cases. Several contacted their State Attorney General's office to have research done to find out the answer to this question.
One reply was found to be of particular interest to the author. This P.E. Board official who responded offered that in their opinion, it was not the purpose of the State P.E. Board to protect the P.E. but rather to protect the public, and therefore, it did not deem it appropriate for them to enter an Amicus Curiae in such cases brought by the P.E. licensed by their Board.
After giving this considerable thought, the author responded with the following argument:
The State P.E. Board licenses an engineer as a P.E. to protect the public. The P.E. is held legally accountable to know the P.E. law, its Code of Professional Conduct, and to practice in accordance with such Code, to protect the public. Further, if the P.E.'s actions happen to result in being in conflict with the P.E. law or its Code of Professional Conduct, the State may bring charges against the P.E. and discipline him/her. This is done for the sole purpose of protecting the public from the improper practice of engineering.
Now, when a circumstance occurs when a P.E. is terminated from employment (alleged Awrongful discharge) for practicing in accordance with his/her State P.E. law or Code of Professional Conduct, and brings suit against the former employer, why shouldn't the State P.E. Board enter an Amicus Curiae legal brief in this case, to advise the court that such actions of the P.E. as alleged, if provable, were done for the purpose of protecting the public and as such, the proper and ethical practice of engineering by a P.E. should be afforded the protection of the law, in order that the proper practice of engineering be enforced, to protect the public. The reasoning here is the view that by protecting the proper practice of engineering by a licensed P.E., this action would result directly in the State P.E. Board and the court acting to Aprotecting the public. It is true, that by taking such protective actions, the court and the P.E. Board's actions may benefit the P.E. in a favorable outcome of his/her suit. But this would not be the primary reason for the P.E. Board or the court to take such action.
After this argument was conveyed to the State P.E. Board official, the author, as yet, has not received a reply to this argument.
Engineer's Rights-Practice Ethically and Defend Ethical Practice of Engineering
The author, in leading an Internet E-Mail discussion group* on an engineer's rights has developed the view that in exchange for the responsibility of an engineer to practice ethically, he/she derives the right to practice ethically, as a consequence. Further, if the engineer is not a licensed P.E., then the engineer has a right for his/her professional engineering society to defend his/her obligation to practice ethically. Additionally, if a licensed P.E., the engineer has a further right to expect his/her State P.E. Board to defend his/her obligation to practice ethically and additionally a right to expect it to protect the ethical practice of engineering by entering an appropriate Amicus Curiae in a court case on the dispute.
Conclusions
While the IEEE has had for nearly 20 years a policy to enter an Amicus Curiae in alleged wrongful discharge cases, the current practice of State P.E. Licensing Boards in the USA appears not to be the same. By entering such legal briefs in this type of case, however, it has been argued by the author that this would in fact result in the P.E. Board and the court acting to uphold the proper practice of engineering, and thus protecting the public. The end result here is that National and State P.E. Licensing Boards ought to rethink their practice in this area and move towards a more pro active position of applying legal protections to the practice of engineering, thus achieving the sole purpose for such regulatory Boards, that being to protect the public. An engineer has a right to practice ethically and to expect one's professional engineering society and State P.E. Board to defend that right.
* Engineer's Rights Discussion Group can be found at http://engine.ieee.org/committee/ethics/eth-righ.html
Texas
A&M University Puts Spark in Ethics Study
by Karen W. Pilant
Engineering ethics is serious study, but a program at Texas A&M University gives students a chance to have fun while learning.
Thirty-one students from the Dwight Look College of Engineering put classroom experience to the test at the Bovay/Chevron College Engineering Ethics Bowl at Texas A&M in April 1997. The event was the first of its kind nationally to focus on engineering ethics in competition debate form.
Eight student teams from six student campus engineering organizations competed for a total of $3,000 in cash prizes awarded to the student organizations represented by the winning teams. Judges included Texas A&M faculty and industry leaders.
Participants received five scenarios involving engineering ethics to study a month in advance, not knowing which would be presented to their team at the competition or the questions judges would ask. At the end of the six-hour event, two play-off teams considered the consequences of designing a computer program to estimate the probability that a critically ill patient will live or die in order to assign scarce resources in the emergency room.
The Bovay/Chevron bowl is patterned after the Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl founded by Dr. Robert F. Ladenson, head of the Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions, Illinois Institute of Technology. Ladenson also was one of the Bovay/Chevron judges.
AWe felt that what was done at Illinois needed to be done here as well, said Dr. Michael Rabins, professor of mechanical engineering and program coordinator of engineering ethics at Texas A&M. The name "College Ethics Bowl' is patented, but Bob gave us permission to use the term for engineering.
Next year's event will be even bigger--a Big 12 regional engineering ethics competition, Rabins said, involving the same schools Texas A&M faces on the football field.
We've already contacted the other 11 schools and have a tentative commitment from each one to send a team for the 1998 bowl, he said. The next step is to recruit judges from each institution. To avoid conflict of interest, we'll make sure the judges on the panel for two opposing teams aren't from either team's school.
The Bovay/Chevron Big 12 College Engineering Ethics Bowl will be held on the Texas A&M campus April 3-4, 1998.
The ethics bowl is just one part of Texas A&M's engineering ethics program, which includes a distinguished lecture series, student essay contests and other activities that supplement A&M's three-credit course in ethics and engineering. Originally offered on an elective basis for several years, the course now is mandatory for all engineering students in their junior or senior year.
The course fulfills new guidelines from the national Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology that require engineering schools to incorporate ethics in the curriculum.
Enrollment in the course will double now that it is required, Rabins said. Every other student in the class will be there because he or she has to be. Our challenge is to inspire in them the same interest in the course material that made students take it as an elective.
Rabins added that instructors who want to weave ethics topics within existing engineering courses will find help on the World Wide Web at http://ethics.tamu.edu. The site provides electronic access to case studies and essays in engineering ethics, and to other related resources.
These case-study modules are the result of a National Science Foundation-sponsored workshop at Texas A&M in 1995 to develop numerical problems related to existing case studies in engineering ethics and professionalism.
In addition, eleven case studies, including instructors' guides, student handouts and overhead transparencies, also are available in hard copy as well as in floppy disk format for IBM-compatible users or in an ASCII format on either a 5.25" or 3.5" disk. They may be requested by calling Anne Iverson, secretary for the engineering ethics program, at 409/845-1747 Monday through Friday between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. Central Time.
Texas A&M's engineering ethics program is supported by endowments from Sue and Harry E. Bovay Jr. and the Chevron Corp.
For more information on engineering ethics at Texas A&M, contact Dr. Michael Rabins by phone, 409/845-2615; fax, 409/862-2418; or e-mail, m1r6609@acs.tamu.edu.
Karen W. Pilant is an editor in the Communications Division of the Texas Engineering Experiment Station, a member of The Texas A&M University System.
IEEE Ethics
Discussion Mail Lists
Information from Walter L. Elden, P.E., NIEE, IEEE
The IEEE Ethics Committee has created several E-Mail Discussion Mail Lists as follows: Ethics Guidelines; Ethics Discussion; Ethics Rights
Ethics Guidelines is developing a set of guidelines to augment the IEEE Code of Ethics. The Ethics- Discussion is a list for open ethics discussions. The Ethics-Rights list will develop A Declaration of an Engineer's Rights document.
Information about these are now on the INTERNET WEB at this address: http://engine.ieee.org/committee/ethics/#Mail Lists
You are invited to join any or all of these Mail Lists for ethics discussions.
For further information, please go to any of these Mail List WEB pages:
To subscribe to any of these Mail Lists, send an E-Mail addressed to: majordomo@majordomo.ieee.org
Do not create a Subject, instead, place in the body of the message: subscribe (name* of the Mail List inserted here) ethics-guidelines or ethics-discussion or ethics-rights
In the same message, you may do this for one, two or all three Mail Lists.
To unsubscribe, do the same, except replace Asubscribe with Aunsubscribe.
For additional information contact: w.elden@ieee.org
Ethics
and the Professional Engineer
by John R. Speed, P.E., Executive Director of the Texas Board of Professional
Engineers
Ethics. It's taken on a rather sacred and hallowed persona, hasn't it? Ethics. We say it with such reverence! Everyone talks about ethics today -- in politics, in business, in religion, in the family. Congress investigates the ethics of campaign finance. Society discusses the ethics of euthanasia, genetic cloning, and income tax preparation. Issues of ethics make for great conversation!
But talk is cheap. As engineers, ethics should be considered a part of every action. More specifically, ethics is the way we act. Do we achieve our goals in a manner that is trustworthy? What is the impact of our actions on others? Do we act based on instinct, or do we act upon that which we know? Do we present our actions to others in an honest and complete manner?
I propose that the most fundamental elements of ethical behavior center around three things: objectivity, honesty and trustworthiness. Our board rules reflect these critical facets of ethical behavior and our enforcement cases document the failure of engineers to work within them.
Objectivity
Board Rule 131.152 starts with a positive assertion that we must issue statements in an objective and truthful manner. However, as engineers we understand that an objective statement must be premised upon an objective assessment. True objectivity begins with self-assessment. Do we have the skills needed to perform the assignment? Will our judgment be clouded by factors beyond the technical features of the project?
The board and state courts have issued many sanctions in cases where engineers failed to correctly assess their own abilities. The cases are varied. A geotechnical engineer failed to recognize basic structural engineering algorithms in the evaluation of a foundation and issued an incorrect report. An unlicensed graduate engineer took a consulting assignment to design a power supply, assuming that he could perform the job even though he had no direct experience in the area. Other cases involving the practice of engineering where a financial interest interferes with an engineer's judgment may constitute a conflict of interest. In each case, objectivity is crucial to an ethical approach to the problems.
Honesty
Board Rule 131.152 also speaks to the engineer's responsibility to provide information in an honest manner. The most common violations of this obligation are not situations where an engineer makes an untrue statement; rather, the violation occurs because an engineer makes a true statement or statements in a misleading way.
For example, an engineer may certify a structure to be structurally adequate so that a renovation permit can be issued, but he fails to note that it would only be adequate under use conditions that could easily be exceeded. An engineer performing a forensic analysis of a failed engineering system may attribute the problem to a particular, predominant cause without providing the court with the full explanation of other, interrelated conditions that could have contributed to the malfunction. The message that is conveyed and received does not tell the whole story.
Trustworthiness
Professional engineers must conduct business honorably so that the public trust and the good faith of engineering clients continues to grow instead of deteriorate. Currently, the engineering marketplace is experiencing a decline in client-engineer trust evidenced by a loss of autonomy and professional control over the engineering product. In a recent ASCE paper, Bill Lawson, P.E., succinctly summarizes the situation.
Loss of autonomy is a clear indicator that a fundamental fracture has occurred in the professional-client relationship. It is the ill fruit born of the seed of mistrust. It is the material manifestation of society's perception that today's client can no longer totally trust professionals to put their client's needs above their own.' Compromised trust is the real culprit of professional decline.
Do you put the needs of your clients -- and the public -- above your own? Do you avoid even the appearance of fraud, negligence and shoddy workmanship? Are you intolerant of fraudulent, negligent, unethical or illegal behavior in our fellow engineers? Trust is a nebulous term with a concrete manifestation. We may not be able to define it, but we know it when we see it.
Just like the word ethics, the words trustworthiness, objectivity, and honesty, sound religiously sacred. Assess yourself and decide how the words translate into action in your engineering practice.
NIEE operates on a calendar year and hence it is time to pay the annual dues and renew one's membership. Please pay your dues promptly so NIEE may avoid the cost of mailing reminders. If you haven't received a dues statement, use the form included in this newsletter.
[BackUP/bottom_include.htm]