Hello John,
I hope you are doing well! I am just writing to you asking for advice. I work with Solarcentury, a
small solar company based in San Francisco. We develop cutting-edge rectenna solar cells, capable of
converting a wide spectrums of photoelectric light into electricity. I specifically work with the silicon
semiconductor cells that we incorporate in our solar arrays. Our solar cells are not only more efficient
than conventional photovoltaics, but they are also substantially cheaper. For a while we had a steady
demand for our solar cells. Recently however, our business has been undercut by Chinese solar startups
that have been more successful at selling solar panels at even cheaper prices. Over the past weeks, the
company held meetings to determine the best course of action. However yesterday, Solarcentury decided
to dump tons of silicon tetrachloride into neighboring landfills every other Monday to stay competitive.
Silicon tetrachloride is a deadly byproduct of polysilicon, a necessary component of our solar cells. By
doing so, we save millions of dollars which makes us able to price our solar cells more competitively in
the global market. However, a few engineers at SolarCentury, myself included, feel that this is an
ethically wrong decision. If we are discovered we will bring dishonesty to the field of engineering. I am
writing this letter to you asking for advice on what my actions should be. It is ethically and morally right
to bring this matter to attention with officials in the company and to the public. On the other hand, we will
probably lose our jobs over speaking out and disclosing the information to the public. This is a difficult
situation for me because it is easier to remain quiet and accept the increased profit of the company, but
deep down it feels morally wrong. In other words, I know what I should do but am unsure if I can.
I want to know your how you feel on the situation. I feel like polluting the earth is ethically
wrong but I am unsure if I should say anything. By doing so we are able to stay competitive with Chinese
solar cells. Our cheaper prices will give us an edge in the market over solar cells made overseas. With
cheaper solar cells, alternative energy will be a realistic energy source for modern consumers. More
people switching to solar energy will reduce our dependence fossil fuels, making this Earth a healthier
and more sustainable place for our future generations to grow up in. Additionally, lower solar cell prices
will encourage more investors to invest in SolarCentury which would increase our profits. However,
saving millions of dollars by dumping the silicon tetrachloride feels morally and ethically wrong. While
the company makes profits, we are endangering the public. I am not sure how I will feel knowing birth
defects or sensory damage was the result of the company I work for. Dumping the silicon tetrachloride
into landfills would be simple answer but not the right choice to remain competitive with the global
market. After research, I found that multiple engineering codes of conduct explicitly prohibit such
actions.
For example, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code of Ethics states in its first
fundamental principle and in its first principle canon that engineers should “use their knowledge and skill
for the advancement of human welfare” and to “hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the
public”. However, the silicon tetrachloride that we dump has the possibility to form poisonous hydrogen
chloride gas. The short-term effects of exposure to hydrogen chloride gas include eye irritations, skin
burns, severe breathing difficulties, and loss of sight. Long-term effects involve deterioration of teeth and
skin rashes. The silicon tetrachloride that we dump has the potential to be hazardous to neighboring
communities around the landfill. It is clear to me that dumping the silicon tetrachloride in the vicinity of
growing communities is a direct violation of the first fundamental canon. Additionally, the third
fundamental principle is infracted as pollution the earth is not bringing prestige to the engineering
discipline. The eighth fundamental canon regarding the “environmental impact” is also tested. This canon
merely states that engineers must consider the environmental impacts, which they have. The executives in
SolarCentury know the effects of dumping the silicon tetrachloride; however, they choose to ignore it.
The second fundamental principle are irrelevant because the principle applies to being honest with our
clients, which we are. We have not and will not freely tell anyone about our waste management. If
directly asked, I believe management will lie and break the second fundamental principle. The second and
third fundamental canons are irrelevant because they deal with professional reputation and development.
The fourth, fifth and sixth fundamental canons are also irrelevant because they deal with the matters of
conflicts of interest, respectful conduct with proprietary information, and conduct with respectful
organizations.
I also consulted the National Society of Professional Engineers. Our waste management of the
silicon tetrachloride violates the first fundamental canon which states that engineers must “hold
paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public”. Fundamental canon number two is irrelevant
because it deals with engineers only performing in areas of competence. The engineers and I at
Solarcentury are all only working in our fields of competence. Fundamental canon number three is also
irrelevant because it deals with issuing truthful public statements. Solar century does not issue public
statements about its waste removal. The fourth fundamental canon is irrelevant because it pertains to
acting faithfully with clients. Solarcentury has not done anything dishonest to violate this canon. We have
not issued statements to the public about dumping the silicon byproduct. However, if questioned and we
lie about our practices, we will break the fourth fundamental canon. The fifth fundamental canon is
relevant because it states that engineers should “avoid deceptive acts”. A company that claims to be
devoted to building a healthier and more environmentally-friendly future, while dumping tons of
poisonous silicon tetrachloride is a perfect example of deceiving the public. I believe we cannot claim to
be committed to cleaner future while polluting our environment at the same time; it is deceptive to people
who want to buy our solar cells and actually want to make a difference. We also break the last
fundamental canon which states that engineers must conduct themselves ethically. The plans to dump the
silicon tetrachloride with or without public knowledge is ethically wrong.
POLLUTION
After more research I found that similar ethical dilemmas have occurred before. In 2008, the
Washington Post reported that the Luoyang Zhonggui High-Technology Co., located in the central plains
of Henan Province, was dumping similar toxic waste into landfills close to villages. Soil examination
revealed high levels of hydrochloric acid, an unnatural soil substance. Villagers reported crops wilting
and acrid fumes. A quote from a chief engineer summed up the ethical dilemma with, "If this happened in
the United States, you'd probably be arrested" [3]. I’m afraid that a similar situation will arise if we dump
the silicon tetrachloride. Abnormalities in the environment will spike causing officials to investigate. If
discovered we could potentially lose our jobs. I can only speak for myself but I am unwilling to risk my
career for this.
I discovered however that pollution is not news in China. Beijing is infamous for having a
noxious smog that envelops the city. In fact, on January 12, 2013 the US Embassy’s reading of China’s
Air Quality Index (AQI) registered a “off the charts” reading of seven hundred and fifty-five [4]. This
level indicated levels of particulate matter able to travel down into the lungs and into the blood stream. In
perspective, a reading above three hundred and one is an “extremely hazardous situation” [4]. The
potentially catastrophic situation in Beijing as a result of air pollutants is extremely concerning to me.
People who live in the city hardy go outdoors. When they do, they wear surgical masks to filter the air
they breathe. I find the effect pollutants on a populated area is appalling. By dumping the silicon
tetrachloride into the landfill I feel as though we are only polluting the neighboring areas in a similar
fashion. The hydrogen chloride gas formed by silicon tetrachloride has the potential to cause loss of
vision and severe breathing difficulties. This does not sit well with me because as an engineer, I want to
be part of the solution, not contributing to the problem
ETHICS
Civil engineering professor Abbas El-Zein at the University of Sydney summed up ethics
extremely well in his article for The Guardian. In his article he states,
Our ethics have become mostly technical: how to design properly, how to not cut corners, how to
serve our clients well. We work hard to prevent failure of the systems we build, but only in
relation to what these systems are meant to do, rather than the way they might actually be utilised,
or whether they should have been built at all. We are not amoral, far from it; it's just that we have
steered ourselves into a place where our morality has a smaller scope. [5]
I completely agree. Often it seems the field of engineering is cemented and based on numbers and laws,
without consideration of morality. Engineers are becoming so focused on whether there system obeys the
laws of thermodynamics they fail to consider the ethical implications of their design. This point is easily
applied to SolarCentury. Many of the engineers were so focused on spreading our rectenna solar cell
technology that we failed to realize what effects the byproduct of our cells entailed.
The eighth fundamental canon of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers states that
engineers should “consider the environmental impacts and sustainable development” of their duties [1].
Multiple companies in the Silicon Valley function to fulfil this code. The Silicon Valley Toxic Coalition
has already begun to recycle solar waste from local start-ups [6]. They exist to ethically recycle the
photovoltaic cells. These companies that follow the code of ethics is heartening because I realize that
while some companies, like SolarCentury, might be breaking the code of ethics, there are other companies
who follow the code of ethics.
Case studies involving ethics in the workplace have also helped me make a decision. A story
from Texas Tech University about how bonuses were given unfairly was particularly poignant. In this
case, employees were given bonuses that were meant to be used as “loyalty” contributions to particular
council members [7]. Members who refused to contribute their bonuses to the council members’
campaign fund were portrayed as disloyal. It is appalling to me that the bonuses be used as a means to
repay a debt. Bonuses should be given as a means of rewarding productive performance not as a means to
thank council members and to repay a “gift”. I found that many people agrees with my outlook which
helped my decision. Others in this situation kept the bonus money on the basis that it is wrong to have to
contribute to a candidate in order to have grants and business. Not only were they able to keep their
money but they also kept their jobs which was heartening.
Other case studied questioned my beliefs which in turn gave me a better understanding of how I
should deal with my own ethical dilemma. This case study from Stanford Biodesigns involved prioritizing
yourself over patients’ medical needs [8]. A team of researchers were tasked with developing a drug for
various diseases. These diseases ranged from trivial cosmetic improvements to life-saving procedures.
However, the life-saving procedures would be difficult to develop while the trivial cosmetic improvement
would be a quick research opportunity to complete. I chose to research the life-saving procedure. It was a
simple choice to me because I felt as though the people I was helping were more important that my own
selfish desires. It was a choice between easy recognition or a difficult, but impactful, solution that could
help others. After considering this case study I found that I value the effect my engineering designs have
on others. This helped me determine I could not accept working for a company that nonchalantly harms
the lives of the public.
The last case study I read came from the National Society of Professional Engineers. It involved
an engineer caught between two fundamental codes of ethics [9]. The engineer was asked by a client to
evaluate a building for safety. The engineer found the building to be potentially dangerous and requested
the client to renovate the building before selling it. The client did not have the money to renovate the
building so he thanked the engineer for his services, paid the engineer and then proceeded to put the
building for sale. The engineer was conflicted between saying nothing which would have broken the first
fundamental code of ethics, or speaking up which would have broken the fourth fundamental code of
ethics. The first fundamental code states that engineers must hold paramount the safety and welfare of the
public [1]. The fourth fundamental code states that engineers must act faithfully for their clients [1]. The
advised course of action was to overrule the fourth code with first, because and the safety and well-being
of the public always comes before anything else. This conclusion demonstrated to me that regardless of
circumstances pertaining to the dilemma, the safety of the public should always come first. This
conclusion was the final piece of evidence I needed to make up my mind.
After writing this letter I feel I have made up my mind. I have to bring this up to my advisors.
Dumping the silicon tetrachloride is completely unethical. Various codes of ethics explicitly prohibit this
behavior. Multiple case studies support my choice. While it might help us remain competitive with
Chinese solar startup it is not the morally or ethically right decision to make. Instead of secretly dumping
the toxic byproduct, we should be implementing processes that would recycle the silicon tetrachloride. By
doing so, SolarCentury would remain ethically right, committed to its vision of a cleaner future, and save
money in the long run. I recommend to other engineers that face ethical dilemmas to check the
fundamental codes and to not be afraid of doing the ethically right thing. Edmund Burke put it best, “All
that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”