Vidic 2:00
R15
ETHICS AND THE ITER PROJECT
Austin Kasmer (ajk131@pitt.edu)
ETHICS IN ENGINEERING
Engineers are tasked with solving many of the world
problems. They do this by creating new methods and
technologies. The ability to create those technologies gives
engineers great power and as uncle ben says, great power
comes with great responsibility. Engineers can make the
technology to advance society, but they also have the ability
to create technology that will destroy it. It is out of this that
engineers must follow a set of ethical standards to insure the
best for humanity.
ETHICS OVERVIEW
The idea of ethics is to define what is right and wrong.
However, what is right and wrong can be defined in many
different ways. The branch of ethics that deals with defining
this is called normative ethics [1]. The Golden Rule is the
most prevalent example of normative ethics; it is the idea that
there is one ultimate correct choice [1]. The Golden Rule is a
good thing to teach children but it does not apply to more
complicated situation where what is ethically correct may be
more in a grey area. For this normative ethics is broken into
multiple different categories. The list includes virtue theories,
duty theories, and consequential theories [1]. Virtue ethics is
based off of character and what is naturally seen as right, duty
ethics is based on obligation, and consequential theories is
based on whether the gains outweigh the consequences [1]. It
breaks down into three more subdivisions including ethical
egoism, ethical altruism, and utilitarianism. Egoism is that the
result is favorable for the person making the choice, altruism
is the result being favorable for everyone but the one making
the choice, and utilitarianism is when the result is beneficial
for everyone [1]. In the end utilitarianism is the backbone for
most codes of ethics [1]. Utilitarianism can inferred in
multiple ways. Act utilitarianism is to determine in a specific
situation what is right and wrong [1]. Hedonistic
utilitarianism is when the only thing taken into account is
pleasurable consequences [1]. Ideal utilitarianism is when
consequences are looked at as good or bad instead of causing
pleasure and pain [1]. And lastly preference utilitarianism
which takes into account consequences that meet our
preferences [1].
In engineering utilitarianism ethics, and more specifically
act utilitarianism should be used when making ethical
decisions. What is good for society as a whole should be in
the forefront of every engineer’s thoughts. Also one single
way of thinking will not provide the best choice in every
situation. This is where the act utilitarianism comes in. Each
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering 1
2015/11/03
situation may have its own guidelines and preceding issues
deciding what may be ethically correct.
ETHICAL DECISION
I am currently working on the team completing the ITER
(International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) project.
The reactor has finished being built and successfully ran. The
reactor was projected to produce 500 megawatts but only
produced 200 megawatts [2]. Our team has identified where
large energy losses came from and believes that it can be fixed
to increase the energy outputs to higher than the original
predicated number. The report of how much energy that was
created will be published shortly with the 200 megawatt
number in it. Because of the delays that have already
happened in getting the reactor running, it is finished 10 years
past the original ignition date, another delay in publishing the
numbers will not be acceptable after news of the first ignition
was already released. To amend for this the leader of the
operation, Dr. Chen, wanted to inflate the amount of energy
that was produced in the report. She was worried that if the
lower number was published that funding for the program
would be less making it more difficult to get the reactor to its
full potential. The rest of the team is unsure about morality of
this and being one of the leaders of the development team my
decision will influence the decisions of the team.
IMPACTS
The consequences of this decision has a possibility to end
badly with both actions. Should the numbers be posted as they
are backers could see the project as a waste of time and
resources and, after the lengthy delays that already infected
the project, shut it down. Should the inflated numbers be
published and it is discovered it could mean the termination
of my team’s contract on the project as well as the possible
termination of the project. In both extremes the scientists and
engineers working on the reactor would lose their jobs. In a
less extreme situation, if the true number is posted funding for
the program may decrease slowing the progress of the reactor.
The reactor will be able to reach the energy production
that the number would be inflated to and my team believes
that it is capable of producing a much higher amount of
energy in the later stages of its development. Nuclear fusion
will eventually be the future of energy production and it all
begins with the ITER program. Cutting funding for the
program would lead to a delay of when fusion power will be
used worldwide as a clean renewable source of power. The
backers are expecting a number around 500 megawatts and if
that is what is reported then funding would not be cut, it may
Austin Kasmer
even increase after a positive ignition. Development would be
able to continue and the project would keep moving towards
fusion being a reliable clean power source.
breaks it. More resources will need to be used to make a
decision in this situation.
CASE STUDIES
CODES OF ETHICS
To help with coming to a decision I studied other cases
that had similar situations. In the first case study testing for
pollutants levels around an industrial site is completed. After
the report is written it is found that the owner of the plant was
adding water to the plants wells to decrease the pollution
levels [5]. This relates to my situation as the plant owner was
modifying the results of the testing to be more favorable for
his company. My ethical view on this situation is that the
tampering of the test is immoral. Falsifying the pollution
levels will only benefit the owners company and potentially
hurt the public.
In a second case study it is discovered that when doing a
survey of an old building, the clip angles holding the stone
cladding on the steel frame of the building are rusted. This
issue could lead to a massive cost in repairing the building.
This information is possibly being hidden from a potential
buyer of the building and also poses a threat as the stone
cladding could fall off of the building and injure civilians
below [6]. In this situation the truth is being hidden as well as
people are being put in danger. Ignorance towards the rusted
angle clips to make personal gains is unethical. Actions
should be taken to protect the public as well as the buyer
should not be deceived.
In the last case study I looked at an inventor is poised with
the option of inflating the story about her product so she can
get funding for it. They are sure that the invention will lead to
improved patient health [7]. In this situation the inventor
believes that their invention will benefit the public and is
contemplating inflating the facts of it to give the invention a
better chance of succeeding. This situation is almost identical
to my situation in dealing the reactor. Inflating facts may
benefit humanity in the long run. My view of the situation
would be that if the invention would be a benefit to the public,
then the facts should not have to be inflated for it to be able to
succeed.
In the case studies, I saw all of the actions taken to deceive
as ethically wrong, regardless of the conclusion. The last case
study offered a situation where the outcome would be a
positive for the public, as in my situation, but I still saw the
deception as immoral.
When making a decision the first thing I referenced are the
codes of ethics for both engineering as a whole and nuclear
engineering. The National Society of Professional Engineers
(NSPE) has a code of ethics that all engineers are required to
follow. The fundamental cannons that have an effect in my
situation are I.I, I.III, I.V, and I.VI. Code I.I states that it is an
engineer’s duty to “Hold paramount the safety, health, and
welfare of the public” [3]. In this situation doing whatever it
takes to keep funding would be what is best for the public.
Nuclear fusion is going to be needed to feed the world’s
energy hunger and the faster it is devolved the better. Code
I.III states that engineers should “issue public statements only
in an objective and truthful manner” [3]. This code has the
most direct connection to my ethical dilemma. This code
attempts to make the statements made by engineers
trustworthy. Inflating the amount of energy produced in the
report would be in direct violation in the code as it would not
be presenting the data in a truthful manner. It would also
corrupt the trust that the public has for the engineering
community and my team. Code I.V is broad as it states that
engineers should “Avoid deceptive acts” [3]. This code is to
keep things straight forward when engineers represent what
they do. Inflating the energy produced by the reactor would
be a deceptive act intent on tricking the backers into thinking
the program is as successful as it was projected to be. Finally
code I.VI states that engineers should “conduct themselves
honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to
enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the
profession” [3]. Engineers need to be able to be trusted by the
public to be able to do succeed. The backers for the ITER
program have to be able to trust our team if they are going to
fund us. Falsifying information will risk breaking that trust.
The Fundamental Principles of Nuclear Engineering
present many of the same ideas as the codes from the NSPE:
The welfare of the public is paramount and all data and claims
are truthful [4]. The additional code that the ANS adds is that
engineers “accept responsibility for [their] actions; are open
to and acknowledge criticism of [their] work; offer honest
criticism of the work of others; properly credit contributions
of others; and do not accept credit of work not [their] own”
[4]. Engineers should claim responsibility for their work
instead of covering the mistakes. Inflating the energy
produced by the reactor would be a cover for the mistakes that
caused the decrease in energy production.
These codes of ethics were created with the intent of
driving engineers toward what will be the best for humanity.
The issues with them occurs when they must by interpreted
for a specific situation. In the way I interpreted them they
conflict. Breaking the code of truthful claims to do what will
be the best for humanity in the end both follows the code and
RISK
When it comes to risk analysis, ethics plays a large role.
Advances cannot be made without some level of risk so the
question needs to be answered: what level of risk is
acceptable? Will the reward outweigh the consequences?
These are all questions that need to be answered. In
Engineering Ethics: Looking Back, Looking Forward,
Michael Pritchard writes that something may be “’safe
2
Austin Kasmer
enough’, an indication that we are willing to assume
substantial risks in order to obtain whatever benefits might be
expected from the product, process, or project” [8]. In act
utilitarianism the benefits and costs, or in this case risk, are
measured to compared to determine whether and action is
ethical or not. In my situation inflating the reactor numbers
would be a risk that my team would be taking. The benefits of
inflating the numbers would have to be compared the
potential risk of the action.
then the inflation of the facts should be pointless. It should
represent itself as a promise of a better future. To decrease the
risk of publishing the low data, my team should also publish
or new perception of the potential of the reactor now that we
have a working one. This could potentially keep the backers
funding and may also increase funding now that there is a
working reactor with promise. This would all around be the
most ethical choice, preserving the trust between my team and
the backers, as well as keeping the future of nuclear fusion
alive.
OTHER RESOURCES
ETHICAL STATEMENT TO ENGINEERS
What is right and wrong was taught to me by my parents.
Both of my parents served as engineers in the Air Forse. My
dad was a civil engineer and served two tours in the Middle
East devolving water treatment plants and running military
bases. My mom worked in acquisition on the global hawk
program, C-130 program, and the JSF program. Both have
had extensive experience in an engineering career.
When I asked my dad what he would do in this situation
he said that having trust with the donors would be the most
important thing [9]. In Saudi Arabia “having the trust of the
Saudis was very necessary so we could work with them to
create the water treatment plants” [9]. Keeping the trust
between the backers and my team will be necessary further
down the development of the reactor.
When my mom heard of the situation she brought up her
issues of when reports on plane production came back
incorrect. It slowed the production of the plane [10]. Inflating
the amount of energy produced, if discovered, will break the
trust between the backers and my team further delaying the
development of the program.
In engineering, ethics is paramount to trust and efficiency.
Should they run into an issue where they are not sure what the
correct ethical choice is, they should refer to the Engineering
Codes of Conduct. The Codes of Conduct are good starting
blocks for forming a judgment on what is ethically correct.
Observing similar situations in different fields of engineering
and making an ethical opinion on those decisions may also
help form a conclusion. Looking at those situations will help
remove preconceived notions that may cloud judgment on the
issue. And lastly peers and mentors not attached to the project
may also provide insight on the situation that was not
previously thought of by the engineer. Making a correct
ethical choice may have a large impact on a project as well as
the safety of the public. A Decision involving ethics is one
that engineers have to make carful to insure that they are
making the best choice for the public.
REFERENCES
[1] G. Catalano. (2006). Engineering Ethics: Peace, Justice,
and the Earth. New York: Morgan & Claypool. (online book).
pp. 13-17
[2] O. Motojima. (2013). “Harnessing The 93-Million-Mile
Dream.” Billetin of the Atomic Scientists. (Interview).
DOI:10.1177/0096340213477998
[3] (2007). “Code of Ethics for Engineers.” National Society
of Professional Engineers. (online article).
http://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/resources/pdfs/Ethics/
CodeofEthics/Code-2007-July.pdf
[4] (2014). “Code of Ethics.” American Nuclear Society.
(online article). http://www.ans.org/about/coe/
[5] “To Flush or Not to Flush: That’s the Question” Texas
Tech University. (online article).
[6] “What’s the Angle?” Texas Tech University. (online
article).
[7] “On the Path to Fund Raising.” Biomedical Engineering
Society. (online article).
http://biodesign.stanford.edu/bdn/ethicscases/9pathtofundrai
sing.jsp
[8] M. Pritchard. (2013). Engineering Ethics: Looking Back,
Looking Forward. Springer Science (online book). pp. 13981399
DECISION
When it came to interpreting the codes for the specific
situation that I am I got conflicting results. On one hand my
interpretation of the code lead me to the result that inflating
the numbers would be the most ethical. It would be the best
chance that nuclear fusion becomes a viable energy source
sooner which would be better for the public. However when
looking at the rest of the codes they are clearly against
falsifying any information in any way.
Utilitarianism will be a big guider for my decision. I must
looked at the benefits and consequences of both actions. Both
have the possibility of having the project shut down but one
will be done by a breach of trust. Both of my parents saw trust
as an important part of any type of work between two groups
so it should be maintained at all times.
To further my new forming decision against falsifying the
data, in all the case studies I looked at I was against falsifying
information. I saw it as unethical and could potentially harm
the public. My current situation is not all too different from
those situation. I also posed a interesting point in the last case
study I read that if something is going to benefit humanity,
3
Austin Kasmer
[9] J. Kasmer. (1 November 2015). Interview
[10] J. Kasmer. (1 November 2015). Interview
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First off I would like to thank my teammate Riley Burton.
As an upperclassman engineer he assisted me in how to start
the essay. I would also like to thank Patrick Bohse, Emma
Chen, and Tiffany Smith for the ability to bounce ideas off of
them. And lastly I would like to thank my parents who
instilled the drive to be an engineer and are the reason why I
have been able to achieve all that I have.
4