Spring 2015
Ethics Report
SENIOR DESIGN
GROUP 16: BIOMETRICS
WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY
A LI K OWALSKI
B LAKE W OOD RUFF
D REW F ORBES
E DDIE F I NLAW
J AKE R OSE
As engineers, we can expect to be put in tough situations every day. We will be asked to solve
many programs and overcome obstacles. The greatest of these obstacles will likely involve ethics. Ethics
is moral principles that govern behavior. Ethical dilemmas can occur between your co-workers,
managers, or other companies. Some situations are small and can be easily resolved by checking your
employee handbook or asking your supervisor. Others are not so easy and will require you to make
tough choices. Your choices, no matter how large or small your role, will greatly represent you and your
company’s integrity, honesty, and trust. Two examples of how a company’s reputation can be damaged
by a few unethical choices are seen in the Apollo 1 mission and the Ford Pinto.
Apollo 1
NASA and the United States government wanted to have an American on the moon by the end
of the 1970’s. The Apollo 1 mission was scheduled to launch on February 21, 1967. Less than a month
before this date a preflight test was conducted with the three astronauts on board. During the test there
was a fire in the command module and all three men were killed. There were many warning signs during
the test that should have been given more attention. For example, one spacesuit had a “sour smell” and
the high oxygen flow alarm sounded, but both were ignored. Communication was also faulty between
the spacecraft and control room. Small adjustments were made, but the issue was not fully resolved.
Four seconds after the full test began a fire was noticed in the cockpit. To exit the command module
where all three astronauts were, a complicated hatch needed to be released. Due to the heat and thick
smoke this was nearly impossible. By the time the hatch finally opened, all three men were pronounced
dead.
The main contributing factors for this incident were electrical components, the spacecraft
atmosphere, combustible materials, the hatch design, and NASA’s mismanagement. The electrical wiring
was covered by a specific type of Teflon that was easily damaged if penetrated by the spacecraft
components. It created a short at the point of conductor contact which created sparks and ignited
combustible materials. Due to their low cost, there were a lot of combustible materials in the spacecraft
during testing. The crew did not expect a fire during testing so they used these materials before the real
flight to save money. The fire spread so quickly due to the high pressure and concentration of oxygen
within the craft. Obviously if the hatch had been designed to open more efficiently the astronauts would
have been able to escape easier. Lastly, NASA’s management had failed to identify the testing situation
as hazardous, regardless of all the signs given before the fire began. They also disregarded the factors
explained above due to the pressure put on them by the government to minimize costs and time.
Many ethics codes were broken during this mission. ACM codes 1.2 “Avoid harm to others”, 2.1
“Strive to achieve the highest quality, effectiveness and dignity in both the process and products of
professional work”, and 3.1 “Articulate social responsibilities of members of an organizational unit and
encourage full acceptance of those responsibilities” were all broken due to the endangered lives of the
astronauts and crew, the lack of consideration of safely, and miscommunication of management.
Spending more time on pre-flight checks and examination of the spacecraft could have saved
these men’s lives. There also should have been better communication established between different
areas of this mission as well as more safety procedures in place. A more efficiently designed hatch and
less combustible materials would also be key. If we were on staff for this mission we would have worked
hard to ensure safety, not time and money, was the number one concern. This could have been brought
up at initial design meetings, during the pre-flight test, and every step in between.
Ford Pinto
The Ford Pinto was designed to weigh under 2000 pounds and cost less than $2000. Due to
these restrictions safety was compromised resulting in hundreds of deaths and serious injuries. During
design and production, testing proved the gas tank ruptures in collisions over 25 miles per hour. In
collisions over 45 miles per hour the doors jammed shut. It was extremely likely that during these
crashes a spark would occur and a fire would start, spreading wherever the gas had leaked. Changing
the gas tank or adding a rubber bladder to prevent spills would cost $5-$11 per car, making the total car
cost over $2000. When concerns were brought up to Ford’s management, they either ignored you or
fired you. Ford argued it would be cheaper to pay for each death, injury, and burned car ($49.4 million)
than to pay for an upgraded gas tank ($137 million). In the end, Ford paid much more than the
estimated cost due to the large number of lawsuits. One customer received $128 million from her claim;
that’s three times the estimated total cost. Ford became the first American corporation to be
prosecuted on criminal homicide charges.
Ford’s negligence towards safely broke multiple ethics codes. IEEE codes 1, 3, 9, and 10 were all
broken. Safety and public interest were disregarded by Ford, the company was not honest in their selling
of a “safe” product, injury to others was definitely not avoided, and the company did not consider the
damage it would do to their staff’s reputation.
The solution to this disaster is quite simple: Ford should have invested in a better gas tank for
the Pinto. Though it would have made the car’s total cost slightly over $2000, in the long run the
company would have saved millions, saved lives, and saved their reputation. If we were on this project,
we could have further insisted safety be made more of a priority. If they still wouldn’t listen we could
have brought this to the attention of the public or government to start an investigation. Though that
could have caused us to lose our jobs, is would have been a necessary cost for hundreds of lives to be
saved.
Accepting Gifts
Another common situation employee are involved in is the dilemma of accepting gifts. There can
be a fine line between acceptable and inappropriate gifts. For example, if you are doing business with a
company and they suggest a meeting over lunch this is perfectly accepting, so long as your company
does not have specific rules regarding this. However if they offer to take you to a lobster dinner and
professional football game, you might want to think twice about your attendance.
In addition to gifts, you should also think twice about accepting bribes. Bribes corrupt the
capitalist economic system, are a sellout to the rich, shows disrespect, and produces cynicism and
distrust. It is not always easy to determine what is and is not a bribe.
Situations involving bribery or gifts can also be referenced to ACM’s code of ethics. If these
situations do not allow you to be honest, trustworthy, and fair (1.3, 1.4); to maintain dignity for yourself
or your company (2.1); or break contracts or agreements (2.6) then you are not upholding ACM ethical
codes.
There are many different scenarios where gifts can be offered so it is best to use digression and
common sense when deciding whether or not to accept these gifts. Most companies have employee
handbooks which cover their rules about accepting gifts. If we were in one of these situations we would
reference our employee handbook and speak with our manager to clarify the right thing to do.
Biometric Implementation
For our project of biometric implementation across the West Virginia University campus, there
are three main ethical issues we need to address. First, we will ensure correct use of all materials,
licenses, and software. This project will involve the university’s database and server, fingerprint
scanners, and SKD software. These products need to be purchased lawfully with the proper contracts
and documentation kept. Next, we must follow WVU’s guidelines for accessing personal and confidential
information. Since the database holds student information such as biometric data and social security
numbers it is crucial the system remain secure. Lastly, we must adhere to any existing contracts the
university has with biometric companies when purchasing hardware and software. If they have
contracts that restrict who they can purchase these materials from then we must go through those
vendors.
In general, any project revolving technology should adhere to additional ethical issues. The
product should not allow for illegal activities to be performed on it, the project should correctly use
intellectual property and document all outside resources, and there should be no illegal copying of
software. Another ethical dilemma that comes with technology is job displacement. Many
advancements in technology make work easier and reduced the necessary man power to complete a
task. This can result in job loss. Whether it is one person’s job or hundreds of jobs, these losses should
be taken into consideration when implementing technology.
These examples of dilemmas which were mishandled, like in Apollo 1 and the Ford Pinto, should
be a reminder of the importance of ethics. As engineers we will be faced with ethical dilemmas
regularly. How we chose to handle these situations will define our reputation and help shape the
reputation of our employer. Remember to use common sense, consult your employee handbook, and
bring concerns to your manager when you are making important decisions.
References
The Engineer. (2006). Apollo 1. Retrieved April 14, 2015, from
http://www.engineering.com/Library/ArticlesPage/tabid/85/ArticleID/67/categoryId/7/Apollo-1.aspx
The Engineer. (2006). Ford Pinto. Retrieved April 14, 2015, from
http://www.engineering.com/Library/ArticlesPage/tabid/85/ArticleID/166/categoryId/7/FordPinto.aspx
The Engineer. (2006). Accepting Gifts. Retrieved April 14, 2015, from
http://www.engineering.com/Library/ArticlesPage/tabid/85/ArticleID/66/categoryId/7/AcceptingGifts.aspx
IEEE Code of Ethics. (n.d.). Retrieved April 14, 2015, from
http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html
ACM Code of Ethics. (n.d.). Retrieved April 14, 2015, from
http://www.acm.org/about/code-of-ethics