Budny 10:00
R18
Sean Justice (smj48@pitt.edu)
As engineers in a world that is so greatly dependent on, and affected by, technology the professional decisions we make often have very far-reaching consequences. Whether the decision involves how we go about a clinical study, whether we choose to do research based on profit or need, minor changes to a product design, or how we conduct business with others, a seemingly inconsequential decision could have an impact on thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people. That is why we as engineers, are responsible for actively considering the implications of our actions and maintaining a high standard of ethical responsibility. As William Marcy, executive director of the
Murdough Center for Engineering Professionalism/National
Institute for Engineering Ethics puts it “Being ethical isn't always about cut and dry answers but getting yourself to actually consider the possibilities” [1].
In this paper, I will present a potential scenario in which an engineer might find himself/herself having to make an ethical decision, and attempt to determine the best ethical solution based on engineering codes, case studies, and other socially responsible sources of advice. I think it will be rather interesting to explore what potential responses could be made to what may at first seem like a straightforward situation.
More importantly however, I will make an effort to look at what aspects of the situation I must consider in order to make a responsible ethical decision. This will include examining the ways in which a decision could affect different individuals, groups, and the scientific community as a whole.
Background
Mr. Eric Fictional Character Jenkinson is an electrical engineer who works for a research facility that has been doing work developing Brain Computer Interface
Software and implantable neural devices. The progress that has been made is incredible, and everyone is highly optimistic about the possibility of finally producing a pair of microelectronic implants that could bypass damaged neural tissue and provide a viable solution to paralysis in patients.
One implant would be placed in the brain to process signals and then transfer them to a neurostimulator implanted in the spine that would carry out the commands. Much of the recent progress in understanding brain signals had been a result of the development of a wireless power transfer device that
Jenkinson, as the lead electrical designer for the project, integrated into the signal processing technologies.
Up until that point, the biggest challenge for research in the field of BCI was the lack of a noninvasive sensor that could accurately measure brain activity [2]. The integration of the new power supply into the existing sensors created a more versatile sensor that could analyze and replicate brain activity more accurately. The power transfer device was one developed by a group of engineers at Stanford University led by Ada Poon that uses coupled evanescent waves to transfer electromagnetic energy deep into tissue. The use of a patterned metal plate outside the skin allows a series of electromagnetic waves to be focused through layers of tissue in such a way that they create a dense area of high energy [3].
The integration of the new power supply into the existing sensors allowed for a much smaller implant that was safer to use and was an ideal step for furthering the company’s research. While it was an expensive design change, Jenkinson felt the progress made in the research more than justified the cost. He also believed that the decreased size of the overall implant design would be incredibly beneficial when the time came to release a final product. A product that everybody on the project hoped could potentially cure paralysis and help pave the way towards the development of even more sophisticated Brain Computer Interface applications.
It was therefore an understandably exciting day when software interface design had been completed and
Eric’s boss asked him to officially approve the final design for the hardware being used in the clinical study. However,
Eric noticed that someone had made a slight change to the design that had been used throughout the entire development of the implants. The wireless power transfer aspect of the overall design had been changed to an older prototype that used slightly different materials. While the changes did not alter the purpose of the device, it would not be able to transfer nearly as much power, and the density of the magnetic field would be more widespread, resulting in less consistent transfer of power to the receivers in the implant. The only other effect that the change had on the design was that it significantly decreased the manufacturing cost of the implants.
The Dilemma
Eric was puzzled at first by the very specific design change but knew a few things for sure. First off, was that as
Senior Design Manager on the project he should know about any significant impending design changes. He also knew that the previous stages of the project had been over budget and finding funding had become harder and harder for his boss to accomplish. Clinical trials would cost even more money because of the number of implants needed. Jenkinson realized he did not have much to go on besides suspicion, but he had a
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering
2014-10-28
1

Sean Justice decision to make. If the change was merely an accidental mix up of paperwork he could change it quickly and go on with his day, but if the change was asked for by his boss with the intent of Eric not noticing or questioning the change, altering the design could have some negative effects on his career. Of course, so could accusing his boss of underhandedly making a hardware design change in order to cut expenses.
Assuming that Eric’s boss was the one who made the change he must decide if it would be a good idea to question it. The cheaper power unit is less sophisticated than the one they had been using but it still satisfies the power requirements of the micro implants, though not by nearly as much as Eric would be comfortable with. Though the technology itself does not violate any technological standards, it was not put through the same testing and development process as the original system. There is still every chance that the devices would work without any issues. The clinical would be successful and the company would be able to release a revolutionary solution to paralysis to multitudes of people.
Mr. Jenkinson will also keep his job.
Nevertheless, what if something did go wrong?
Malfunction in either of the neural implants could be devastating to the individual. If the power cut from either of the implants in say, someone who requires it for use of their leg and are driving a car, it could result in an accident that might endanger the person’s life and the lives of others.
Malfunction could potentially lead to many other unknown and potentially harmful side effects considering that the implant is integrated into the patient’s neural signaling processes. If the design went through clinical trials but was later found to have an inherent hardware issue, the effort of removing implants in the brain and spine of countless patients would be an absolute nightmare and would serious upset many patients’ lives. Failure of the design would also shed bad light on the entire company and cause more harm than forestalling the clinical until funding could be found ever could. It would also reflect negatively on future research done by the scientific community at large in neural prosthetics and brain computer interfacing, discouraging the development of many potential medical advancements. Not to mention the negative legal and professional repercussions on Eric himself, who is the senior designer on the project and inherently responsible for the design decision.
If I were to find myself confronted in a situation like this one, or most any ethical debacle, the first question I would likely ask myself is, “Is this really my responsibility?” In all honesty, I am not the type of person who likes confrontation, and I certainly do not like having to choose between putting myself in jeopardy to disobey authority, or going along with a decision I am not sure is right. In this particular situation, the lack of information explicitly known by Eric leaves him a tantalizing amount of space to just look over the change and claim plausible deniability should something were to go wrong or if someone realized they were cutting corners. He does not have to dig for information, he does not have to make any hard decisions, and he could try to convince himself that he did nothing wrong. I can see how it might be tempting, but it certainly would not make him innocent whether or not something were to go awry. Besides, he still made a decision.
His decision was simply not to act.
It is irresponsible when in a position of responsibility to make a decision when you do not have enough information.
To make an uninformed decision that will affect others because you are uncomfortable asking questions, or want to justify not making a hard decision is inappropriate. The
National Society for Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code of
Ethics not only states that, “Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence, nor to any plan or document not prepared under their direction and control” but that, “Engineers shall accept personal responsibility for their professional activities” [4]. As a designer, Eric is legally responsible for the product, and is responsible for making an informed decision.
It is for this reason that my father always told me that it is as important to question authority, as it is to respect it [5].
I think most would agree that learning to think for oneself and come to conclusions on your own is an important part of owning your actions. If I as an engineer will be held responsible for my actions, I would like to say that they are my own even if it begs the need to question authority when things do not seem quite right.
Assuming that Eric acts as a responsible engineer should and inquires after why the design change was made, he will still have to decide whether to contest his boss on the matter of the design change. This is where debating ethics can get tricky. As pointed out by a Framework for Ethical
Thinking, which is the product of a debate at the Markula
Center for Applied Ethics, in normal circumstances people can base ethical decisions off various different standards for what is right. A case could be made that the most ethical decision is one that has the highest potential to promote the common good. The decision all of a sudden become more than a simple issue of what is legal or efficient [6]. In that case, approving the less sophisticated design could be justified in that it may be the only way to get a life changing medical design through testing, and the technology is still sound enough to work effectively even if it hasn’t been properly tested. The company could make changes after the device finishes clinical to improve the design after they prove the success of the device. The lapse in testing protocol is justified based on the greater good.
This is the reason that the various codes for engineers exist. They provide the standard for which all engineers are supposed to base their ethical decisions. The
2

Sean Justice
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) starts their Code of Ethics with the following statement,
“We, the members of the IEEE, in recognition of the importance of our technologies in affecting the quality of life throughout the world, and in accepting a personal obligation to our profession, its members and the communities we serve, do hereby commit ourselves to the highest ethical and professional conduct and agree:” [7]
The code then goes on to list a set of standards I find are incredibly useful in reviewing the ethical implications of an action in much the same way we use the law in court cases.
After looking at many case studies as well as the codes themselves, I believe that in most cases they can be used rather effectively to determine an ethical course of action, even if it is not the easiest. In this particular situation, the
NSPE Code of Ethics makes the point multiple times that an engineer should not approve documents that do not fall within applicable engineering standards [4]. While the cheaper system is not sub-standard in design, the not doing the appropriate testing on it or claiming to have done testing on it does violate engineering standards.
However, the NSPE code also states that, “Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees” [4]. While looking through various case studies I came across one from the NSPE that actually addresses this issue. In it, an engineer was providing a confidential report of a building for a client and found a fire code violation that he then made known to his client. The engineer was then made aware that the client did not intend to address the issue anytime soon. This led to an ethical conflict between the engineer’s responsibility to his employer, and to the public safety [8]. The Board of Ethical Review decided in this case, and several similar ones, that the engineer has the responsibility when overruled in a judgment that could pose a threat to people or property to notify their client or appropriate authorities under section 2.1.a of the NSPE code. They also pointed out the terminology used in the first canon of the code,
“Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public”
[8]. It is inarguably the first and foremost responsibility of an engineer.
I think it is safe to say that it would be unethical for
Mr. Jenkinson to sign off on the new design because of the potential harm it could have on the public and the other negative consequences that could reflect on the scientific community as a whole. An ethical engineer conducts himself/herself honorably and with consideration for the safety of others even if asked to do otherwise by an employer.
In fact, even if the new design did not break any codes, if Eric has doubts about the design he is still obligated to notify his boss. The IEEE Code of Ethics states that engineers are, “to seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work” [7].
There is nothing wrong with constructive criticism.
Especially if it saves lives.
If I have learned anything during this process it would be that there is definitely guidance out there when you find yourself in a tough situation. Making the ethical decision isn’t always the easy one and there will likely be times when a conclusion can’t be reached with a straight answer.
However, first taking a step back to consider how far reaching the consequences of various decisions may be can put an issue into perspective. Then if you decide to take action instead of remaining passive, looking at the engineering codes that were made to promote responsible engineering practices may be a good start.
When all else fails, discuss it with somebody you trust and know will help you think critically. For the longest time I have had a mentor Charles George who is always willing to listen when I need someone to bounce ideas off.
Especially when it comes to important decisions, he insists that it is best for all people if they are willing to ask the hard questions, even if they don’t always find answers [9].
Similarly I believe critically thinking can help us make many good decisions, but in a changing world, the ethics of many situations and the implications of our actions are a moving and often unforeseeable target. Sometimes we make the best out of the answers we have.
[1] E. Butterman. (2014). “Ethics in Engineering.” ASME.
(online article). https://www.asme.org/engineeringtopics/articles/engineering-ethics/ethics-in-engineering
[2] K.L. Kroeker. (2011). “Improving Brain-Computer
Interfaces.” Communications of the ACM . (online article). http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2011/10/131392-improvingbrain-computer-interfaces/fulltext
[3] J.S. Ho, A.J. Yeh, A.S.Y. Poon (2014). “Wireless power transfer to deep-tissue microimplants.” Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America. (online report). http://www.pnas.org/content/111/22/7974.full#fn-3
[4] Anonymous. (2007) “NSPE Code of Ethics for
Engineers”. NSPE . (online resource). http://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics
[5] J. Justice. (2014, October 12). Interview
[6] M. Velasquez, D. Moberg, M.J. Meyer et al. (2009) “A
Framework for Thinking Ethically”.
Santa Clara University,
Markula Center for Applied Ethics. (online article). http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/framework.ht
ml
3

Sean Justice
[7] IEEE Board of Directors. (2014) “IEEE Code of Ethics”.
IEEE.
(online resource). http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html
[8] Anonymous. (2014) “Public Health and Safety- Delay in
Addressing Fire Code Violations” NSPE Board of Ethical
Review.
(online report). http://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/BER%20Case%20No
%2013-11-FINAL.pdf
[9] C. George. (2014, October). interview.
“I’d Rather Be Fishing (Case 1039)”. Ethics Cases, National
Institute for Engineering Ethics. (online case study). http://www.depts.ttu.edu/murdoughcenter/products/cases.ph
p
“To Release, or Not to Release: An Engineer’s Perspective”.
Ethics Case Studies in Biodesign, Stanford . (online case study). http://biodesign.stanford.edu/bdn/ethicscases/21releasequesti on.jsp
First, I would like to thank my parents who raised me with a strong moral base. Making decisions is a more comfortable obligation when you are convicted that the decisions you are making are well grounded. I would also like to thank Colton who reminded me that I did not need to integrate all the case studies directly into my paper. It saved quite a bit of time.
4

Sean Justice
5