Mahboobin 4:00
R13
ETHICAL DILEMMA IN GRAPHENE-BASED PROCESSOR PRODUCTION
Ronen Orland (roo18@pitt.edu)
THE SITUATION
As an engineer in the research and development
department of AMD, I am working on creating
commercially viable and manufacturable graphene-based
CPUs, or central processing units, with the newly
implemented graphene transistors. At this point in time, my
lab has created a method to have the capability to synthesize
graphene pure enough for electronics use and is able to do
this at a large enough scale that mass-manufacturing is now
a possibility. After much development and research, my
team has been able to successfully implement the graphene
transistors into the designed processor. With improved
production methods, this processor can be made at a
reasonable enough price that the general public can now
purchase it (at this time, graphene-based processors are too
expensive for the regular person to afford one, and are only
sold to industry). However, after some further testing, one of
my colleagues produces some unforeseen results.
The stress tests show that the processors are prone to
failure much sooner than regular processors already on the
market. With regular use, their performance will
substantially decrease after only a year. At that point, they
are liable to fail and even short-circuit (excessive current
flow through a circuit, causing damage [1]), not only ruining
themselves but potentially other components in the
computer. Yet another danger of the processor shortcircuiting is the possibility of it catching fire. Thus, not only
does this scenario put a financial burden on the consumer,
but also a safety hazard. The tests conclude that about 10%
of all produced processors will fail in this way, and
unfortunately, there is no way to determine which individual
pieces will do so.
The test results are reported to the department manager.
After reviewing them, however, he decides to use the design
to begin production of the graphene processors. The
manager says that the company needs to put out the product
as soon as possible to stay ahead of competitors, as there are
no other graphene-based processors available to the general
public as of yet. Being the first company to release this
product would have immense benefits, such as high profits
and a great amount of publicity. The manager claims that
releasing the product as-is will, overall, do much more good
than any possible harm. I voice my disagreement, and tell
him that once the processors start to fail and cause damages,
people will start to distrust both the technology and the
company, but the manager is adamant on his decision and
wants to move ahead regardless.
CODES OF ETHICS
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering 1
Submission Date 2015-11-03
As an engineer, I have codes of ethics that I must follow
and uphold. All engineers must follow the code of ethics of
the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE), and
as a computer engineer I also follow the code of the Institute
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). To make a
decision on this matter, I must consult these codes and use
them to determine what course of action is most ethical.
NSPE Code of Ethics
After consulting the code of the NSPE, I see that the
very first fundamental principle is to “hold paramount the
safety, health, and welfare of the public” [2]. As I am
concerned for the well-being of the consumers and what
could happen to them as a result of purchasing the processor,
I look for guidance under this section. One of the
subsections states that “Engineers shall not permit the use of
their name or associate in business ventures with any person
or firm that they believe is engaged in fraudulent or
dishonest enterprise” [2]. This is a reasonable suggestion, as
I do not want to be responsible for any harm that comes to
others as a result of my research on the processor. If I do not
condone going forward with the current design, I would not
give my approval and thus not associate myself with the
project any further. However, though this prevents me from
being responsible for any harm that may be done, it does not
prevent the damage from happening. Subsection A states
that “If engineers’ judgement is overruled under
circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall
notify their employer or client and such other authority as
may be appropriate” [2]. This statement applies fully to my
situation, as I informed the manager of potential harm that
may be done to consumers and their computers as a result of
the current product design, but he ignored my warning and
wanted to proceed with putting it into production. Based on
this section of the code, I could go directly to a superior
above the department manager and inform him/her fully of
the situation and give my opinion on the matter. Going
behind my superior’s back is not professional, but in this
situation I must give precedence to the ethical dilemma. If I
can convince a higher-up that this is the wrong course of
action to take, I can uphold my ethical duty to put first the
welfare of the public.
IEEE Code of Ethics
As a member of the IEEE, I also consult their code of
ethics to see if it can assist me in determining what would be
best for me to do.
The very first statement of the code is almost identical to
the aforementioned principle of the NSPE and states that I
Ronen Orland
must “accept responsibility in making decisions consistent
with the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and to
disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or
the environment” [3]. That I see this once again in another
code of ethics reassures me that I must prevent the
production of the processor until it is safe. The code also
mentions acknowledging and correcting errors [3], which is
vitally important in this case. Both the manager and I
acknowledge the problem with the processor, but he does
not wish to correct it. I can either convince him to delay
production or figure out the problem before production even
begins. Both options are difficult; convincing the manager
would be difficult, as he has set his mind on one goal, while
attempting to solve the problem in the product could range
anywhere from several days to several long months.
A very important principle that the code discusses is one
to “assist colleagues and co-workers in their professional
development and to support them in follow this code of
ethics” [3]. If I could make the manager rethink his stance
on the situation, I would not only be fulfilling my ethical
duties by preventing harm from coming to the customers,
but also by helping the manager realize that what he wants to
do is wrong.
incident. Whatever profits they made from the selling the
faulty products would have been cut by having to replace
them with new pieces. These exact same outcomes can
happen to AMD if the manager decides to go through with
selling our currently designed processor. The situation could
even be worse, as our product’s defect would not just be an
inconvenience, but a possible safety hazard. Lawsuits would
almost assuredly be filed against the company once word
gets out that we sell a product that may very well set itself
ablaze. Overall, the possible profits to be made from selling
the processor as it stands are simply not worth the
consequences that will stem from the risk we place on the
consumer. This case study assures me I must convince the
manager to not go through with his plan.
The Ford Pinto
The second case study I look at is that of the Ford Pinto.
Typically, the whole process of designing to finalizing a
car’s design took Ford about three and a half years. The
company decided that they didn’t have the time to spare in
their current state and decided to cut the time down to two
years, almost half the original. Before production could
begin, prototypes of the model would have to be crash-tested
and checked if they met the safety standards. The results
showed that each prototype failed the 20-mph test, which
states that an automobile must “withstand a rear-end impact
of 20mph without fuel loss” [5]. In each case, the gas tank
ruptured and caused dangerous leaks. Only prototypes
modified specifically for the test passed.
Ford eventually decided to pass the model for production
after doing a monetary analysis of risk versus profit. In this
analysis, they placed a value on a single person’s life and
multiplied that by the estimated amount of deaths to result
and compared that to the profits they would make. Because
of their decision, customers with the Pinto who were rearended typically ended up dying from the typically non-lethal
accident because the gas tank would rupture and explode.
Not only did Ford knowingly produce a car that could cause
harm, but they did so knowing that there would definitely be
people who died as a result.
This case is similar to my situation, but on a more
extreme scale. There is a chance of my company’s product
catching fire, but circumstances would have to be rather
specific for it to spread and cause damage to beyond the
computer it is housed in. Regardless, there is still the
possibility of greater harm being caused, and in extreme
cases of lives being put in danger. Unlike Ford, I do not
place a monetary value on a person’s life, and I will most
certainly not compare the value of potentially causing harm
to a customer to the profit that can be made by selling them a
deficient product.
CASE STUDIES
To further examine what I could and should do in my
predicament, I look at several case studies.
The Flaw in the Intel Pentium Chip
The first case I read is that of the flawed Intel Pentium
microprocessor in 1994. After release, the media found that
the processor had a flaw. This discovery was significant
since 80% of personal computers worldwide were using the
Intel Pentium [4]. Evidently, flaws in complex components,
such as processors, aren’t very rare. Typically, these flaws
are very minor and go undetected the user and do not affect
the machine. In this case, however, the flaw created
incorrect answers when performing an operation that is
frequently required by the processor. It suddenly became
very clear to users that there was a major flaw in their
Pentium chips.
When confronted, Intel claimed that though “there was
indeed a defect in the chip, the defect was insignificant and
the vast majority of users would never even notice it” [4].
Clearly, this was not the case, and eventually the company
offered to replace any flawed pieces with ones that did not
have the defect. However, Intel had knowingly sold flawed
processors, and continued to do so even after creating a
version that had no such fault. They planned to release the
fixed version only after selling their remaining stock of
flawed chips [4].
I find this case to be very similar to my situation. Intel
knowingly sold flawed pieces, just as my manager wishes to
do. However, Intel had a public relations disaster after the
Cost of Design Improvement
2
Ronen Orland
The third case study I read is a fictional scenario. In it, an
engineer for a small business designs a component for a
company. Though it is designed to a satisfactory degree for
the company, the component is not quite perfect and has a
miniscule problem. The company orders 1000 of these
components and production begin. After the first shipment,
the engineer thinks of a solution to the small problem and
learns that it can be implemented into the rest of the
shipment, but would require slightly changing production
and would add an extra three dollars cost per component [6].
At this point, the study asks the reader to consider the
following possibilities: tell the company about the
improvement and offer to share the expenses, pay for the
expenses, or have them cover the expenses; or not tell the
company about the improvement until after the entire order
is shipped.
I believe that not telling the client company of the
improvement that would not cost much to implement now
would be unethical; it would be withholding useful
information from them for the improvement that they would
almost certainly prefer to have over any defects. I would
instead tell them about the improvement, as then they would
decide whether they wish to implement it all. If they do, I
would offer to either share the expense or cover it myself, as
it would not be fair to suddenly propose a new idea that
demands more money from them after an agreement has
already been reached.
After analyzing this study, I think that though it initially
sounds applicable to my situation, I am instead working to
avoid the one described in this case. Instead of knowingly
producing faulty processors and then offering to fix them
later, I wish to wait until the design is perfected. Also, the
described scenario would not work for me as my company
would have to completely replace the faulty processors,
which would be much easier than attempting a repair on
such a complex device.
The second group of people I talk to are my family and
friends who put together their own computers. I know that
they are among the people who could be affected by the
faulty processor as they are in the target audience for the
product. I confide in them the state of the processor at the
moment, and they are shocked that it is even being
considered to be produced and sold given the safety risk
regarding the short circuiting, as well as the possible damage
to the rest of their computer. The defect could cause them to
have to replace other components in their computers, which
tend to run at rather high prices. The defect could also
potentially damage their hard drives, which store all the data
of the computer, meaning that they could also lose
everything stored on their machines.
They whole-heartedly agree with me and further
convince me that I must speak again to my manager.
SOLUTIONS AND CONCLUSION
My coworkers and I decide that the first thing we should
do is approach the department manager and talk to him
about the plans for the processor. We would talk about
exactly what the problems consumers could face when
buying the product, namely: a product that works efficiently
for only a fraction of the time that similar products typically
do; a product that could potentially ruin other parts of their
computer; and a possible safety hazard in the form of flames
resulting from a short circuit from the product, as has been
reported by individuals in similar situations [7]. We explain
that it would be ethically wrong to purposefully sell such a
hazardous product to our customers.
We also talk about the repercussions of putting the
current processor design into production. Eventually, users
will find out the cause of what is short-circuiting their
computers, and they will be furious. Not only would it cause
a public-relations disaster, but people could also take legal
action against the company. Lawsuits would only take more
time and money to solve, and in the end the company would
likely have to recall the product and reimburse everyone
who was affected by the flawed product. We would
conclude that all these situations could be avoided by simply
giving more time to creating a better design.
If the manager is still not convinced by our arguments,
my team and I would go to the appropriate superior and
present the same argument. If this also fails, then the least
my team and I could do then is to not sign off or give our
approval for the current design.
A possible alternative is to begin immediately doing
more research and work to create a safe and longer-lasting
design for the processor. If this can be achieved quickly
enough, then we could avoid putting the unsafe design out
for production. However, this would be the least optimal
solution as it would require rushing through the design
process and potentially overlooking a different flaw or
defect from lack of time to properly investigate. There is
also the possibility that my team and I would not manage to
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
To aid me in my decision, I reach out to other, more
personal sources.
Coworkers
The first people I approach are my coworkers. As they
are working on this research and project alongside me, they
will also be affected by any decision made regarding the
processor. After briefing everyone on the results of the tests
we ran on the processor design, they are in agreement that it
is best to hold off on production until a better and safer
design is created. We agree to work together to try and
persuade whoever we must to do so.
Family and Friends
3
Ronen Orland
create a new design quickly enough and that production
would begin anyway.
Overall, the best solution that would be most ethical and
professional would be to confront the manager and discuss
the matter once more. I believe in face of all the facts and
likely consequences, he would be persuaded and the
situation would be avoided.
REFERENCES
[1] S. Wilber. (2015). “What is a short circuit?” PhysLink.
(Website).
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae470.cfm
[2] (2007). “Code of Ethics for Engineers.” National Society
of
Professional
Engineers.
(Online
article).
http://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics
[3] (2015). “IEEE Code of Ethics.” IEEE. (Online article).
http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html
[4] C. Fleddermann. (2007, August). “Engineering Ethics
cases for Electrical and Computer Engineering Students.”
IEEE. (Online PDF.)
http://www.ele.uri.edu/courses/ele400/f15/cases.pdf
[5] M. Matteson, C. Metivier. (2015). “Case: The Ford
Pinto.” Philosophia. (Online article).
http://philosophia.uncg.edu/phi361-matteson/module-1-whydoes-business-need-ethics/case-the-ford-pinto/
[6] D. Zacker. (2006, August 23). “Cost of Design
Improvement.” Online Ethics Center. (Online article).
http://www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Cases/wonder.aspx
[7] M. Dowler. (2009, February 11). “Beginners Guides:
Most Common Ways to Kill a PC.” PCstats. (Online
article).
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1720&pa
ge=7
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge my friends for helping me
think of a situation to fit my topic when I had trouble doing
so.
4
Ronen Orland
5