Vidic, 2:00
R03
ANALYSIS OF AN ETHICAL DILEMMA WITH REGARDS TO RESEARCH
RESULTS OF MPT
Nathan Turchick (net20@pitt.edu)
INTRODUCTION
As a chemical engineer focusing on MPT (Microwave
Power Transfer) research with applications to space based
solar power, research results are frequently requested from
individuals in positions of power above me from S.P.A.C.E.,
the company that I work for. These results are often used in
presentations which are centered on attempting to gain further
funding from different agencies that fund space based
projects. After one funding meeting I was informed that the
team of engineers which I lead had received money to build
newly designed transmitters and receivers, and to perform two
to three major experiments testing the accuracy, power, and
distance travelled of the new technology.
We were told that if our new technology outperformed
JAXA (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency) then we would
be granted a much more extensive grant for further research.
At this time JAXA was able to transfer 1.8 kilowatts of energy
55 meters to a receiving antenna with pinpoint accuracy [1].
In addition, they managed to send 10 kilowatts of power over
a distance of 500 meters, using larger antennas with more of
an emphasis on power over precision [1]. Information of large
amounts of guaranteed funding if certain standards are met,
can sometimes create ethical dilemmas for engineers. In this
paper the ethical dilemma of omitting research results that do
not support the goals of the party performing the research for
personal and company gain are to be examined. This
examination will be with respect to two different codes of
ethics accepted in the engineering profession, other sources of
ethical information, and a response based on this examination
will be developed and presented.
SPECIFIC ETHICAL DILEMMA
Four months ago, my team and I received the grant money
to build the new transmitters and receivers that had been
discussed during the initial funding meeting with the
company. When we were designing these new components,
the main focus was purely on increasing the range and power
able to be transferred. Our initial calculations did not predict
that the accuracy would be affected positively or negatively.
The first experiment which we performed was identical in
distance to the second JAXA experiment. With great
satisfaction, our results showed that the new technology
worked better because over the same 500 meters, we were
able to transmit almost 20 kilowatts of power. From there we
decided to attempt an experiment where we were going to test
the maximum distance with which 10 kilowatts of power
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering 1
2015-11-4
could be transferred with the new antennas and rectennas (the
two devices which transmit and receive the microwaves).
Again with great success, we were able to transfer those 10
kilowatts 965 meters which is 93% further than JAXA. After
this experiment though, there was only about two weeks left
until the findings/funding meeting.
At this point, because we were somewhat scarce on time
and money, a third large experiment was not reasonable. Due
to this, I decided to test the precise accuracy at the small
distance of 55 meters which JAXA had tested to ensure
accuracy was not affected. This test went much worse than
expected because we were not able to replicate the type of
pinpoint accuracy with which previous technology’s
presented. This was not seen in the larger experiments
because we made the rectennas much larger than we predicted
they would have to be in order to not have to consider
accuracy as a factor, largely because we only wanted to
increase power and distance.
When I reported this data to my boss, he asked if the
problem could be fixed with more time. I believed that with
more time, my team and I could resolve the problem, but
nothing could be done before the meeting. At that point, my
boss not only asked for me to omit that last experiment from
the results which were going to be presented to the funding
board, but also told me that if my team obtains this new grant,
I would recieve a pay increase. If I listened to what my boss
recommended, I knew we would obtain the funding money,
along with my promised pay raise. If I do not listen to him
though and present all of the research data, then I could
potentially not get the funding and not get a pay raise. In the
situation I do not get the funding, the money would go to a
different space project that would show them more “promise”.
Contemplating my decision, I decided to review the
engineering codes of ethics and other sources to determine the
appropriate action to take.
RELEVENT ETHICAL CODES
Engineering, as a profession, follows the NSPE (National
Society of Professional Engineers) Code of Ethics, but in
addition, each discipline has their own code of ethics. As a
chemical engineer, the additional code of ethics with which I
am concerned is the AIChE (American Institute of Chemical
Engineers) Code of Ethics.
NSPE Code of Ethics
Nathan Turchick
my clients and the public” [3]. Along with this I must, “Issue
statements or present information only in an objective and
truthful manner” [3]. Both of these statements influence me
toward the decision against the omission of the data collected
from the third experiment because that research is no longer
then objective. It is subject to altering in order to achieve
personal and company gains. Unlike the NSPE Code, the
AIChE Code is not further broken down into more detailed
statements.
Included in the NSPE Code of Ethics, there are many
canons, but the most relevant ones that pertain to my situation
are “Engineers shall issue public statements only in an
objective and truthful manner.”(Section II.3.), “Engineers
shall avoid all conduct or practice that deceives the
public.”(Section III.3.), and finally “Engineers shall not be
influenced in their professional duties by conflicting interests
(Section III.5) [2].
These canons are then further broken down into much
more detailed statements that guide the rules, practices, and
obligations of professional engineers. When reading the
specifics of section II.3, two of the statements directly pertain
to my situation. First, statement II.3.a. declares, “Engineers
shall be objective and truthful in professional reports,
statements or testimony. They shall include all relevant and
pertinent information in such reports, statements, or
testimony, which should bear the date indicating when it was
current” [2]. Also included in section II.3 is statement II.3.c
which states, “Engineers shall issue no statements, criticisms,
or arguments on technical matters that are inspired or paid for
by interested parties, unless they have prefaced their
comments by explicitly identifying the interested parties on
whose behalf they are speaking, and by revealing the
existence of any interest the engineers may have in the matter”
[2]. These two statements are both pertinent to my current
situation. First, statement II.3.a clearly shows that it is against
engineering ethics to not include the results of the third
experiment in my presentation to the funding committee,
because that would be including “all relevant and pertinent
information” [2]. The second statement only pertains to my
situation with the regard that ethically if I would not include
the third experiment, I would have to state that I am
influenced by my boss and that if I were to get future funding,
I would receive a pay raise.
Section III.3 is again broken down into further specific
statements like section II.3, but the overall canon already
pertains to my situation. The main canon essentially states
that engineers must avoid all conduct that are aimed toward
any sort of deception [2]. It is clear that omitting information
of a third experiment in order to gain further funding would
be an act aimed toward deception [2]. Finally statement III.5.b
states “Engineers shall not accept commissions or allowances,
directly or indirectly from contractors or other parties dealing
with clients or employers of the engineer in connection with
the work for which the engineer is responsible” [2]. This
statement along with the main canon makes it clear that by
allowing my boss to influence the reporting of my findings
while receiving a raise if successful is highly against ethical
standards.
ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF ETHICAL
INFORMATION
In addition to the presented Codes of Ethics, there are
many other sources of information that can be consulted when
faced with an ethical dilemma. These include case studies,
online articles, online engineering ethics blogs, and YouTube
videos. By consulting with these additional sources, I hope
that I am able to better decide how to proceed with my ethical
dilemma, even though the codes of ethics are relatively clear
in my situation.
Case Studies
When faced with an ethical dilemma, some of the best
resources other than the professional codes of ethics are case
studies. This is because these case studies are generally
written by experts in professional ethics based on actual
events that occurred in the workplace in the past. Here I will
present three relevant case studies that can help me in making
my decision.
First, I reviewed a case study from the Online Ethics
Center in which a graduate student, Kate, was performing
research on the effects of educational video games on children
[4]. The initial two years of her data showed a positive trend
with children playing such video games, but after two years
the trend dies out and she is unsure on how to interpret the
data [4]. When she went to consult the professor overseeing
her research, he stated that the paper will be judged on the
strength of her ability to argue a positive correlation or not, so
he suggests barely mentioning the fallout if at all [4]. She
follows the professor’s advice even though she still is weary
about not reporting all of the data [4]. The paper then received
a lot of media attention and was highly publicized in the
professional community [4]. Eventually her data is challenged
by a rival researching group which actually found that over
the long term, even educational video games were harmful to
children [4]. At this point Kate was in her own lab, and did
not want to speak about her old graduate research any longer
[4]. She then decided to adopt a policy to not speak to the
press any longer, as to not have to discuss this situation [4].
Her decision not to defend her research shed’s a slightly
negative light on Kate’s reputation in the professional world
[4]. This case is one in which a researcher allowed an outside
source to influence her decision on how to present her
AIChE Code of Ethics
Similar to the NSPE Code of Ethics, there are canons that
are relevant to my situation in the AIChE Code of Ethics.
According to AIChE, I, as a chemical engineer, must “be
honest and impartial and serving with fidelity my employers,
2
Nathan Turchick
findings, and it only reflected on her later down the road. This
is relevant to my situation because if the accuracy cannot be
fixed with the new technology, it will reflect negatively on
only my team and I later on.
Another relevant case study was posted to the Stanford
Biodesign Lab where someone has spent the last six months
of their time sorting out medical needs and assessing solutions
for the most pressing problems [5]. That person then created
a business plan for an invention to present to a company a
solution to one of the unmet medical needs [5]. When the
presentation was being created, some of his friends told him
that the audience expects an inflated story that paints a “rosy”
picture of the device [5]. He strongly believed that the device
addresses an unmet need, but cannot be completely sure of all
of the points needing to be addressed such as “how long the
device will take to be approved by regulatory agencies” or
“how quickly the market will accept the new technology” so
he is told to just “assume” [5]. The question of whether this
assumption in order to impress the board is very similar to
whether or not the assumption should be made that the
accuracy issue could be fixed easily. If the assumption could
be made that the accuracy would not be an issue, there would
be no reason to include the third experiment in the funding
presentation.
The final case study presented by Texas A&M University,
I examined in my research was one of when bribery is used to
alter a situation in which normally a decision would be
relatively clear. In this case, a man named Tom was put in
charge of designing a large new chemical processing unit [6].
After this occurred, a salesman had approached Tom and
offered him a number of amenities if he would specify the
valve sold by the salesmen’s company [6]. The valve cost
more and wasn’t as safe as other options, but Tom
recommended it anyhow [6]. After the valves were all
purchased, the salesman invited Tom on a fishing trip to South
Africa [6]. In this situation, Tom allowed the salesman to
bribe him with amenities and in doing so put many future
workers, the company, and himself at risk by using an unsafe
component. This can be related to my case, because my
employer is trying to give me extra incentive to disregard any
data that does not support our company’s goal. This is clearly
against the codes of ethics that were stated earlier in the paper.
would be speaking/presenting for grant, which is essentially
the same as grant writing.
In addition to that article, another article that contained
information I found relevant to my current situation was one
written by Sanjay Singh. In the article Prof. Singh discusses
the idea of publishing research in its entirety. He states that to
not publish all your findings is unethical due to the fact that
the researchers are the only ones who truly know all of the
data [8]. Therefore, the public and whomever is the intended
audience only knows what is reported [8]. He continues by
saying that this is not only a deception, but rather a
propaganda also [8]. By only telling people what you want
them to know, they are not informed to the fullest and are not
truly able to make a decision [8]. This spoke to my situation
in the respect that if I do not report my full data, the fund board
cannot truly make an informed decision which is unethical on
my behalf.
Although many of these sources are leading toward the
same decision, I also decided to consult a final two sources.
One was a professional ethics engineering blog that just
discussed many different situations and asks professionals to
respond with their opinions. One of the situations posted on
the website concerned a young researcher who is replicating
the research done by a well-respected engineer whom he
knows personally [9]. When he repeats the research his results
differed slightly in from the straight forward result that the
engineer published to the public [9]. When the researcher
approached the engineer, he admits to having the same
inconsistency’s, but decided that they were not important
enough to publish and just to ignore them [9]. The young
researcher is then put in a situation where he wants to publish
the inconstancies and comment on why he believes they
occur, but that would go against the research done by the wellrespected engineer [9]. Almost all of the responses state that
he should publish the inconsistencies with the data as long as
he has well prepared reasons as to why they occur and is able
to defend his data [9]. Reading this blog gave me the
perception that the ethical thing to do is to publish the third
experiment and be prepared to defend the reasons as to how I
believe it can be easily fixed.
The final source that I consulted was a YouTube video by
Richard A. Burgess who is the Deputy Director of the
National Institute for Engineering Ethics. In the video he
addressed my situation directly where at one point he states
that it is clearly unethical to not include data in a research
report, just because it does not support your goal or general
findings [10].
Other Sources
In addition the case studies that I found, there were other
sources that provide ethical information on what decision I
should make. First is an article written by David B. Resnik
who has a Ph.D. in Bioethics. Included inside of this article is
a list of what he considers the major ethical principles as
pertaining to research. The second major bullet on this list is
objectivity, in which he further states that one should avoid
bias in areas such as grant writing and data analysis [7]. This
pertains to my research because one could say that the only
reason not to include the third experiment would because I
APPLICATION OF FINDINGS TO MY
DILEMMA
After consulting two professional codes of conduct, three
ethical case studies, two articles on research ethics, an
engineering ethics blog, and a YouTube video by a respected
speaker, the ethical decision to include the third experiments
3
Nathan Turchick
[3] “Code of Ethics.” American Institute of Chemical
Engineers.
(2015).
(Online
Publication).
http://www.aiche.org/about/code-ethics
[4] S. Raghavan. (2015). “All in the Interpretation” Online
Ethics Center for Engineering and Science. (Online
Publication).
http://www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Cases/Interpretation.
aspx
[5] “On the Path to Fund Raising” Stanford Biodesign Lab.
(2015).
(Online
Publication).
http://biodesign.stanford.edu/bdn/ethicscases/9pathtofundrai
sing.jsp
[6] “Accepting Gifts and Amenities” Department of
Philosophy and Mechanical Engineering at Texas A&M
University.
(2015).
(Online
Publication).
http://ethics.tamu.edu/Portals/3/Case%20Studies/GiftGiving.
pdf
[7] D. Resnik. (2011). “What is Ethics in Research & Why is
it Important?” National Institute of Environmental Health
Research.
(Online
Article).
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/what
is/
[8]S. Singh. (2012). “Ethics in Research.” IJDVL Institute of
Medical
Sciences.
(Online
Article).
http://www.ijdvl.com/article.asp?issn=03786323;year=2012;volume=78;issue=4;spage=411;epage=413;
aulast=Singh
[9] “Engineering Ethics Blog” Blogspot. (19/10/2015).
(Online Blog). http://engineeringethicsblog.blogspot.com/
[10] R. Burgess. “Engineering Ethics” YouTube. (2012).
(YouTube
Video).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upUN460U56A
findings in my report/presentation to the funding board is
clear. Both codes of ethics commented that research should
remain objective, and to be objective it must include all
relevant data. In addition the three case studies generally
revolved around the fact that outside influences should not be
allowed to alter or persuade the presentation of my research.
Finally the articles, blog, and YouTube article reinforced the
ideas of truly objective research including all data, bias from
outside influences should not be taken into consideration, and
finally personal gain or company gain cannot be allowed to
create a bias to the researcher.
When I presented this decision to my boss, although he
was unpleased and still attempted to persuade me, he
understood the professional situation I was in. Even with the
third experiment included, I was able to convince the funding
board that the accuracy issue could be fixed relatively easily,
so our team was still awarded the money. To my surprise, my
boss followed through with the promise of an increase salary
even though the experiment was included.
RECOMMENDATION TO ENGINEERS
When I was first presented with the situation, it is very
tempting to say, it is not unethical to disregard the third
experiment because once I receive the further funding, it will
be easy to fix the accuracy issue. In addition, a raise is always
going to be tempting, but cannot be allowed to create a bias
or alter decision making. As advice to other engineers put in
a situation in which they do not know completely whether or
not a decision is considered professional ethical, first consult
the codes of ethics that pertain to you. They are extremely
clear and should be able to give you a much better idea of
what decision to make. If after that there is a great magnitude
of case studies, one of which probably reflects the position
you are in. If between codes of ethics and case studies do not
help you make a decision, look into other sources such as the
blogs, online articles, or online videos where other
professional engineers are discussing ethical situations.
Finally, the last recommendation I would make is to
remember whatever decision you make will reflect on you and
your professional career, and that, along with the other
sources, should help you make an ethical decision.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my writing instructor, Prof. Anjali
Sachdeva for assistance in deciding a realistic ethical
dilemma. In addition, I would like to thank my peers, Hunter
Stept and Cole Burden for proofreading and giving feedback
on my earlier drafts of this paper.
REFERENCES
[1]E. Ackerman. (2015). “Japan Demoes Wireless Power
Transmission for Space-Based Solar Farms.” IEEE Spectrum.
(Online Article). http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/greentech/solar/japan-demoes-wireless-power-transmission-forspacebased-solar-farms
[2] “NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers.” National Society of
Professional Engineers. (2015). (Online Publication).
http://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/resources/pdfs/Ethics/
CodeofEthics/Code-2007-July.pdf
4
Nathan Turchick
5