Bursic 2:00
Group L12
BIOENGINEERING AND APPLIED ETHICS
Henry Isaac (hti1@pitt.edu)
INTRODUCTION: CODES OF ETHICS AND WHY
THEY MATTER
Engineering, as a profession, requires codes of ethics in
professional applications. These codes include the National
Society of Professional Engineers Code of Ethics and the
Institution of Engineering and Technology. They ensure that
engineers, “perform under a standard of professional behavior
that requires adherence to the highest principles of ethical
conduct” [1]. When acting as employees or research agents
within an organization or company, ethical guides become
paramount in ensuring that engineers make the correct
choices. Any slips in ethical conduct could result in serious
risk to the public, or the failure of whatever project the
engineer works on. Even so, many situations may come up
wherein individuals must decide between their beliefs and
personal gain through dishonest means. As such, adherence
to these codes should provide clear enough answers, or at least
a proper thought process to reaching those answers in
complex events.
Fish Genetics and Bribery
According to Martin D. Smith, Professor of Environmental
Economics at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the
Environment [2], genetically modified salmon could provide
a low-cost, healthy protein source for poor families, due to
their greater size and lower food requirement compared to
non-modified salmon, with conventional salmon production
at 3kg of feed per 1kg of salmon [3]. As an engineer working
on developing these genetically modified fish for one
company, another company may request that they be given
the genetic sequences which increase the salmon’s size and
lower food intake. This action would break ethical conduct,
as the research and product gained by my company would end
up illicitly in the hands of a company I do not work for. At
the same time, this other institution offers anonymity to me
for providing said information, a substantial sum of money,
and a better-paying job in their own hierarchy. Two options
become readily apparent: either I refuse their offer and
continue working with my current employers, or I take their
offer and betray my company for monetary gain.
Why on earth would a company care for obtaining the
genes of fish? With the proper genetic sequences, a company
with food as their main product would gain the ability to
produce much greater quantities of fish than their competitors,
which would increase their income and stock values.
Additionally, the chance to cut down on the cost of
maintaining and growing said fish would further enhance
monetary gain, giving the company multiple advantages in the
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering
2013-10-29
1
long run. As Mr. Smith commented, the new technology
would open up a greater demand for salmon, as the price
lowers to an affordable level for people who ordinarily do not
purchase it. Between the years 1994 and 2004 salmon
consumption in the US doubled due to technological
improvement in salmon production [3]. With an expanding
market, the company could broaden its consumer base by
attracting multitudes of individuals previously unable to
purchase their salmon products. Therefore, the company’s
attempt to bribe me into giving them these genetic codes
stands as a calculated move on their part, and their ability to
pay me a better wage seems entirely realistic.
Code-Based Decision Making
When it comes to such issues as taking money for other
companies and betraying employers, codes of ethics tend to
have general rules. The NSPE Code of Ethics states in
Section III, Part 1 e, “Engineers shall not promote their own
interest at the expense of the dignity and integrity of the
profession” [1]. Though broad, this statement clearly bans
underhanded behavior. By secretly giving away company
secrets, I would engage in dishonest behavior and act in a way
that clearly undermines the dignity of engineering. Doing all
of this for money makes it very clear that I would serve my
own interests and get personal gain from this action.
Furthermore, the inclusion of anonymity clearly shows that
this behavior could ruin my reputation, should it ever reach
other engineers or the public. Ultimately, I would make
money by acting in an undignified manner and betraying my
company, all the while having this other group cover my back
so that my reputation may remain relatively intact.
Additionally, the Institution of Engineering and
Technology’s Rules of Conduct state, “Members shall inform
their employer in writing of any conflict or potential conflict
that may exist or arise between their personal interests and the
interests of their employer” [4]. This would mean that I would
have to inform my current employer that I have an offer from
a rival company, as it represents a potential conflict of
interest. The act of doing so means that I would include
pertinent information, including the fact that in order to secure
this job I would have to give the genetic sequences I have
developed. After such an act, I could not remain anonymous
and would end up ruining my professional reputation if I
betrayed my company. Also, the company that offered me the
job would probably come under fire, as it had attempted to
acquire another group’s technologies through illicit and
underhanded means. Therefore, given that such a letter would
cause so much trouble, it would remain in my best interest to
Henry Isaac
indicating when it was current” [1]. By claiming that the
product comes complete with traits that it really does not, and
endorsing the seeds, I would end up making false statements
and not acknowledge this error. Should I furthermore write a
report to back up my approval of this incomplete genetically
modified soybean, I would just end up getting myself into
more trouble. Rather than complying with my employer’s
demand to lie, informing him that I cannot in good faith make
a false statement for an incomplete product, and requesting
either that the project go by the original deadline or be
released with the information the resistance traits were not
included, would be prudent.
write the letter to my employer, keep my current job, and not
give anything to the other company.
Crop Engineering
Pests and diseases present threats to farmers and food
production.
However, there exist resistances that
bioengineers confer to plants to reduce agricultural product
losses. The Committee on The Impact of Biotechnology on
Farm-Level Economics and Sustainability, made up of many
members including William J. Cox of Cornell University and
David Zilberman of the University of California, Berkeley,
take careful note of newer insect-resistant plants. They say in
their report, “unlike broad-spectrum insecticides that kill most
insects, even beneficial ones such as honey bees or natural
predators of pests, crops producing Bt toxins target only the
specific pests that feed on the crops” [5]. Therefore, there
exists the possibility of resistance to certain toxins, as they
affect only certain species of animals and insects that feed on
these plants. Regarding diseases and blights, Norwich
Research Park’s Jonathan D.G. Jones of the Sainsury
Laboratory explains, “Late blight caused by Phytophthora
infestans is a very destructive disease of potato and tomato,
resulting in $6.7 billion in annual losses worldwide. Several
resistance genes have been cloned from wild potato relatives
that confer resistance to potato late blight” [6]. This blight
severely damages agricultural production, leading to
extensive losses of material and income.
Together,
genetically altered pest and disease resistance, both
bioengineering technologies, offer effective shields against
serious threats to crops.
On the other hand, if I were to release a false statement to
the public that these traits had been placed in the soybeans, I
could take that pay raise and live more comfortably. Even so,
if a crop were seriously afflicted by either that particular pest
or disease that ended up overlooked, it would all come back
to me. As the engineer who did not include the genetic codes,
and yet claimed they were there, I would lose my reputation
and probably my job as well. The risk of discovery for lying
and releasing defective products outweighs the potential
monetary gain offered by my employer.
Possible Environmental Damage from Engineered Crops
According to Hikmet Budak, from the Biological Sciences
and Bioengineering Program and Faculty of Engineering and
Natural Sciences at Sabanci University in Istanbul, drought
resistance has become more necessary in all food crops. He
states, “Drought is the single largest abiotic stress factor
leading to reduced crop yields, so high-yielding crops even in
environmentally stressful conditions are essential” [7]. His
solution follows as, “improvement for drought tolerance can
be achieved by the introduction of drought-related genes” [7].
By introducing drought-resistance genes into food plants,
produce loss would drop. As an engineer commissioned to
work on these drought-resistant genetic traits, my company
wants to publish ahead of schedule yet again. This time,
however, the issue does not involve omission of the droughtresistance trait. Instead, it involves the use of a species of
wheat that may breed with native species in the area,
producing a strain that might outcompete other species and
create ecological imbalance. My employer wants to begin
test-growing the drought-resistant plants for yield without
doing an environmental impact study.
In another project, I am tasked with producing a new strain
of soybeans that contains genes both for resisting several
diseases and producing toxins to kill pests. The product has
not yet been brought to market, and the development of these
genetically modified seeds remains unfinished. Toxinproducing sequences to kill a particularly irritating species of
louse have not been inserted yet, and neither have the codes
for resisting a particularly virulent blight. Even so, my
employer wants me to release this product immediately, and
does not care that the specified traits will not feature in the
plant. Even worse, he wants me to make false claims saying
that the seeds will give soybean plants resistant to both the
pest and blight, when they still do not. If I endorse the product
as it currently stands, he will give me a large bonus and a pay
raise, which clearly indicates an unethical incentive.
Potential Mixing Could Lead to Environmental Damage
No Endorsement
In this particular instance, the effects of letting the two
species of wheat mix remain uncertain. In fact, the two may
not even come close enough to interbreed at all. However,
the risk of seriously damaging the local environment through
destruction of ecological systems remains. Without even a
preliminary environmental field test, it would seem rash and
possibly dangerous to perform any other experiments that
Regarding this false endorsement, clear rules dictate what
to versus what not to do. The NSPE Code of Ethics clearly
states, “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
2
Henry Isaac
might cause indirect breeding. According to the NSPE Code
of Ethics, “engineers are encouraged to adhere to the
principles of sustainable development in order to protect the
environment for future generations” [1]. In this case, the
product’s possibility of contaminating the local environment
raises questions about its sustainability. If the wheat does
pose a threat to indigenous flora, then it does not serve the
interest of protecting the environment. Therefore, it would
appear prudent that I request the company run preliminary
tests to determine whether or not the risk of cross-breeding is
significant enough to pose a reasonable threat. Should that
appear to be the case, I could determine different genetic
sequences to implant so that the species could not inter-breed,
or suggest that the wheat species change. This action would
go in accordance with IET Rules of Conduct, which state,
“members shall take all reasonable steps to avoid waste of
natural resources, damage to the environment, and damage or
destruction of man-made products” [4]. Also, the FDA runs
a full environmental impact analysis of all products before
they reach market [8], meaning that any accidental interbreeding with damaging effects could end up traced back to
me and my work. By following the rules in each code, I can
reasonably determine that doing preliminary work to
determine potential risk to the environment overrules a desire
for expediency.
viewpoint. These codes represent a vital framework from
which to examine possible upcoming ideas and technological
developments. Since I intend to work in this field,
understanding the rules of conduct and the limitations brought
about by ethical standards represents an essential border to
various practices that may appear tempting. Though they may
not present themselves as immediately relevant to my current
study, knowledge of them helps safeguard against possible
misconduct in the future. With this in mind, I fully support
the study of ethics, and thinking thoroughly about the
consequences of possible unethical practice.
Conclusion: Codes of Ethics Promote Good Engineering
Practice
A cornerstone of good conduct, and a huge part of
responsible engineering practice, codes of conduct help to
ensure that unethical behavior remains at a minimum. When
engineers meet situations in which they must choose between
ethics and personal gain, or they do not know the
consequences of their actions, looking to a set guide enables
thorough thinking to proper behavior. Offers of money for
dishonest and dishonorable acts may seem tempting,
especially if they remain hard to prove. Even so, ethical
conduct dictates that these actions do not belong in
engineering, and for good reason: the potential loss of
reputation could effectively destroy someone’s career. In
situations wherein the effects remain unknown, any possible
risk to the environment or the public should be safeguarded
against, as failure would only ruin the unprepared. With a
guide, an engineer can find the safest path and keep everyone
in good stead.
Ethical Issues Scenarios and the Classroom
Understanding the consequences of unethical action
remains of vital importance to engineering students.
According to Shengli Fu, Associate Professor and Interim
Chair of the University of North Texas’ Electrical
Engineering department [9], “it is a fundamental prerequisite
for students to learn about ethical implications within the
context of the social, organizational, and even political
environment where engineering is being practiced” [10].
Essentially, knowing the wider consequences of actions and
seeing examples greatly benefits engineering students.
Recognizing the importance of ethical guides, Howard
University has implemented its own ethics course in its
engineering programs. According to Charles Verharen,
Professor of Philosophy and Departmental Chairman of
Graduate Studies [11], “a motive for starting the course was
faculty consensus that no single academic discipline is
competent to judge the ethicality of proposed technologies”
[12]. By having a good set of guidelines for ethical conduct
introduced in the classroom with which to judge new and
coming technologies in the field, future engineers can make
rational choices that benefit all parties.
Ethical Codes of Conduct and Me
As an engineering student at the University of Pittsburgh,
and not an actual engineer working in industry, I can state
with certainty the personal impact this project has had on me,
and the importance of understanding codes of ethics from my
3
Henry Isaac
[9] S. Fu. (2013, Oct 28). “Shengli Fu | Electrical
Engineering.” University of North Texas. (Online page).
http://engineering.unt.edu/electrical/people/faculty/shenglifu
REFERENCES
[1] (2013). “NSPE Code of Ethics” National Society of
Professional
Engineers.
(Online
article).
http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html
[10] S. Fu, J. Li. (2010, Nov. 23). “A Systematic Approach to
Engineering Ethics and Education.” Springer Science and
Business
Media.
(Online
article).
http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/121/art%253A10.10
07%252Fs11948-010-92498.pdf?auth66=1383170967_9d59f4dfc50d6fe0832c58e09a3
b1469&ext=.pdf
[2] M. Smith. (Date N/A). “Nicholas School Faculty.” Duke
University.
(Online
page).
http://fds.duke.edu/db/Nicholas/esp/faculty/marsmith
[3] F. Asche, A. Guttormsen, M. Smith, J. Wiener. (2010, Nov
19). “Genetically Modified Salmon and Full Impact
Assessment.”
Science.
(Online
article).
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6007/1052.full
[4] (2012, Apr 2). “Rules of Conduct - The IET.” The
Institution of Engineering and Technology. (Online article).
http://www.theiet.org/about/governance/rules-conduct/
[11] C. Verharen. (Date N/A). “Howard University –
Department of Philosophy.” Howard University. (Online
page).
http://www.coas.howard.edu/philosophy/faculty_cverharen.
html
[5] Y. Carriere, W. Cox, D. Ervin, J. Fernandez-Cornejo, R.
Jussaume, K. Laney, M. Marra, M. Owen, P. Raven, L.
Wolfenbarger, D. Zilberman. (2010). “The Impact of
Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the
United States.” The National Academy of Sciences. (Online
report). http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materialsbased-on-reports/reports-inbrief/genetically_engineered_crops_report_brief_final.pdf
[12] M. Castro-Sitiriche, G. Kadoda, G. Middendorf, J.
Tharakan, C. Verharen, (2013, Dec 9). “Introducing Survival
Ethics into Engineering Education and Practice.” Springer
Science and Business
Media. (Online article).
http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/6/art%253A10.1007
%252Fs11948-011-93329.pdf?auth66=1383172995_09466a3c1386d7e80bb8b6494fc
0bea8&ext=.pdf
[6] J.Jones. (2011). “Why genetically modified crops?” Royal
Society
Publishing.
(Online
article).
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1942/1807
.full
[7] H. Budak, M. Kantar, K. Kurtoglu. (2013, May 15).
“Drought Tolerance in Modern and Wild Wheat.” Scientific
World
Journal.
(Online
article).
http://rt4rf9qn2y.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.
88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF8&rfr_id=info:sid/summon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fm
t=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=
Drought+tolerance+in+modern+and+wild+wheat&rft.jtitle=
TheScientificWorldJournal&rft.au=Budak%2C+Hikmet&rft
.au=Kantar%2C+Melda&rft.au=Kurtoglu%2C+Kuaybe+Yu
cebilgili&rft.date=2013&rft.eissn=1537744X&rft.volume=2013&rft.spage=548246&rft_id=info:pm
id/23766697&rft.externalDocID=23766697&paramdict=enUS
[8] (2013, Apr 23). “General Q&A The Technology.” U.S.
Food and Drug Administration. (Online article).
http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprov
alProcess/GeneticEngineering/GeneticallyEngineeredAnima
ls/ucm113605.htm
4
Henry Isaac
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Ms. Faina and Ms. Newborg from the
writing department for their time and effort explaining this
paper. I would also like to thank my friends Micah Arends
and Katie Clemons for their help and support while writing
such a long piece.
5