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